(These comments continue the conversation from The suffering of the Christ.)
There is little in the Gospel narratives to suggest that the pain Jesus endured had redemptive significance; the reader is not expressly invited to meditate upon or even be moved by his sufferings. Psalm 22, from which Jesus quotes (‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’), looks forward to the salvation of the one who is afflicted by his enemies, and perhaps implicitly of the people, but we are not led to think that the suffering is redemptive or sacrificial: God saves because he is faithful towards Israel.
I’m sorry to be quite so blunt in my disagreement, but I cannot reconcile myself to this paragraph. Surely, Isaiah 53v5 states that the pain and suffering Jesus endured had serious significance:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Even if Christ’s suffering is not precisely redemptive, it is intimately to do with healing and healing is tied up with redemption.
Matthew 9 v 5
“Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins….” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 And the man got up and went home.
This man was redeemed and the healing came after it. Again in Hosea, God will not heal Ephraim (Israel) because of the sin Ephraim bears. In order for healing, Ephraim must first be redeemed.
Hosea 7 v 1:
“Whenever I would restore the fortunes of my people, whenever I would heal Israel, the sins of Ephraim are exposed.”
The same principle is made in Matthew 13. Jesus did NOT just die for us. If it were as simple as that he would have been stabbed through the heart and dead within seconds. It was necessary that he should suffer (and he said so: Luke 24v26), and I don’t believe that this was solely for the purpose of us being able to take comfort in knowing that Christ suffered when we end up suffering. It goes way deeper than that. Indeed, when Brother Yun (Christian in China - wrote Heavenly Man) was in a van being carried off to prison where he knew he would be tortured, he was freezing and the handcuffs he wore and cut down to the bone, he asked God why this was happening to him. The answer the Holy Spirit gave him was that by suffering, Yun was able to share in the suffering of Christ. The answer seemed very strange to me when I read it. And I don’t entirely understand it still. But the answer was NOT “Hey, don’t worry about it, I’ve been there.” There *were* moments of torture when Yun felt Jesus saying “I know! I know!” as a means of comfort. But there was also *purpose* in Yun’s suffering, just as there is purpose in all the suffering endured by the “saints” (though I don’t understand it) and there is deep purpose in the suffering of Christ: his wounds are the means by which we are healed. (NB Yun states repeatedly in his book that his suffering will never compare to that of Christ’s and I strongly hesitate before I agree that Paul expected to suffer as much as Jesus did.)
The gospels themselves may not explicitly invite the reader to meditate upon Jesus’ sufferings, but I do believe there is worth in doing so. Now let me put this comment in perspective: when I was young I hated churches and cathedrals, especially the Roman Catholic kind, because as soon as I walked in I was bludgeoned by grotesque imagery of the one person I cared most about in agony. I didn’t like looking at that. I have problems meditating on that. I virtually swore blind that I wouldn’t see Mel’s Passion, but, very strangely, I just got this feeling to go anyway. And the fear and dread of what I might see also subsided. What I’m about to say is not for everyone, for there are sensitive people out there who will just flat be disturbed by watching Mel’s film or investigating the ins and outs of the agony of crucifixion, but we, as a generation of people who haven’t had to face everyday brutal physical persecution, should get an appreciation of the suffering Jesus went through — for us. It’s practically an insult to God’s love to just leave it at “Christ died for our sins.” Because he did way more than that. He LIVED for us. He SUFFERED for us. He DIED for us. He ROSE AGAIN for us. If any one of these acts were missing, the gospel would be incomplete.
When Mel puts out the gore in front of us, he is making testimony to the love Christ has for us. Of course, it is of HUGE significance that this is the Son of God suffering, and moreover that he is suffering for us. Without those two facts, the film would be pretty meaningless; but there is also significance in the extent of Christ’s suffering — it reflects the extent of God’s love. And I dare say that the extent of Christ’s suffering went way further on the emotional and spiritual planes compared to the physical.
There is also the suggestion in the film that Jesus suffered more than the other criminals — that his was an extra-gory execution. Being one who likes to imagine the gore for myself and minimise it at the same time (I never let my imagination run wild) this is not a nice thought at all because it means what I’ve pictured isn’t bloody enough. But, alas, I think we should consider it for a little longer before we dismiss it. There are many arguments for and against etc. but there is one verse I just can’t get out of my head:
Isaiah 52v14
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness
As far as I know (and I admit I could be wrong here) that doesn’t usually happen when you get a standard crucifixion. Given that Isaiah says this (we assume about Jesus) I have trouble imagining that Jesus had a standard execution — despite the fact that I’d be more comfortable with that idea.
I am disinclined to think the film on its own will be very effective for evangelising - you miss so much of the teaching and background to it, that someone who does not know the gospel will not understand it. But having said that, lets not kid ourselves, the film was not called “The Gospel” or “Jesus” or “The Life of Christ” — it was called “The Passion of the Christ” and that’s what it depicts. If you want to tell the gospel to someone, tell it to them. And if someone is curious to know what “passion” really might mean in the context of the gospel, tell them to go see the film. It’s not the kind of film that fails to have an impact in some way.
My response to Alario’s question, ‘How does the Church live out its faith and communicate to the post-modern precisely the magnitude of the price paid by Jesus and demonstrated in His crucifixion?’ is simply this: we can’t. Even the Christians don’t get it. The only way we understand that we can’t understand it is for God to touch us very deeply indeed.
Esther, thank you for your co
Esther, thank you for your contribution to the discussion. This is a difficult topic to get right and I hope I can respond in a way that brings clarity rather than confusion – but in any case I believe that the conversation is more important than the rights or wrongs of any particular viewpoint. The emerging church must not lose its capacity to listen to and appreciate different voices, different points of view, different experiences. A big part of the value of Gibson’s film lies in the fact that it does not fit comfortably into traditional evangelical readings of the crucifixion.
I should make it clear, first, that I do not wish to diminish Jesus’ sufferings, nor do I wish to deny that his death, as the culmination of his sufferings, had redemptive significance. But I would still wish to reiterate three basic points in response to the film’s protracted depiction of Jesus’ suffering.
1. My starting point was the observation that the Gospel writers apparently did not share Gibson’s inordinate interest in the details and extent of the pain inflicted upon Jesus by the Romans, so that it seems to me at least questionable whether he actually suffered more (ie. greater physical pain) than the two insurrectionists crucified beside him – or the thousands of other Jews who met a similar fate. The difference was not that he suffered more but that he had ‘done nothing wrong’ (Luke 23:41). I would repeat the point that the manner of his suffering and death at the hands of Rome prefigured the manner of God’s judgment on the nation. For this reason a quick, efficient stabbing through the heart would have been less fitting: crucifixion was an appropriate punishment for one who not only offered himself in the place of a sinful nation but also challenged the kingship of Caesar.
My concern here is twofold. On the one hand, I am wary of making the texts say things – under pressure from our piety and theology – that they are not really saying. On the other, I think that the emerging church needs to grasp as best it can an authentic historical narrative at the heart of the gospel. I know this may seem an impossible task, both theoretically and practically, but in many ways it is simply an extension of the postmodern concern for personal and relational integrity. I feel that we are struggling to strip away the layers of interpretation and myth from the human story, cut back the tangled foliage, so much of which is dead, in order to allow a new theology to grow.
2. I’m still not sure it’s right to attribute a unique redemptive value to the pain, as such, that Christ suffered. There is nothing in the OT sacrificial system to suggest that the suffering of the victim was a factor in the atoning value of its death. It is the shedding of blood, the death of the animal, that averts the anger of God. Isaiah 53 admittedly offers a more elaborate reflection on the suffering of the servant of the Lord, but somewhat surprisingly the NT makes very little detailed use of this passage. Even 1 Peter 2:24-25 provides only a very spare allusion.
Moreover, if we make the degree or quantity of Christ’s suffering significant for redemption, we create a number of problems for ourselves. What would be the implications of him having suffered slightly more or slightly less? What are we to make of the Maccabean martyrs who, on the face of it, suffered greater brutality and cruelty than Jesus (eg. 4 Macc.10)? In many ways Gibson’s portrayal of the scourging of Jesus is closer to these appalling stories than it is to the Gospel narratives, which may go some way towards explaining why he is interested in producing a film of the Maccabean revolt.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your point about the connection between suffering, redemption and healing in Matthew 9:5 and Hosea 7:1. These texts show that suffering needs redemption. Do they also show that redemption needs suffering?
3. It makes sense to me that the cross demonstrates for us the real character of God’s love. I can also understand why Brother Yun should sense, as indeed Paul did, that he was sharing in the sufferings of Christ, because the analogy is the basis for his hope in resurrection and vindication. I also appreciate your point about our generation’s complacency about suffering and persecution: the film is a powerful reminder that Christ’s kingship was demonstrated supremely through his willing submission to the enemy of the people of God. But without any good NT precedent for the practice, I find it difficult to know what it means to meditate upon the sufferings of Christ. The only way I think I could really justify it to myself would as a means of rediscovering for oneself, through the Spirit of Christ, the confidence in a God who does not abandon those who are faithful to him. Paul wants to know the participation in Christ’s sufferings so that he may also experience the resurrection from the dead (Phil.3:10-11). But Gibson’s film does not provide this context. This is not particularly intended as a criticism of the film, merely a recognition of its theological boundaries and limitations.
giving up your life for your friends
hi andrew and the people before,
i have been reflecting some more, and something popped up :-
john 15:13 “greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
john 18:14 “caiaphas was the one who had advised the jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.”
i think that we are missing quite a significant political element in the narrative, if we focus on the old hebrew sacrifice model to explain jesus letting the top honchos kill him. yes, jesus went to death like a lamb to the slaughter (another echo from isaiah 53:7). he gave birth to a movement by training his disciples, and going on mission around the country. the result of this was that the big men were disturbed. there is constant talk of conspiracy on behalf of the jewish authorities in the gospels. he knew that his own death, as the leader of the gang, was a definite predictable result of what he was doing. he gave up his life so that his friends could carry on the movement (church). the high priest agreed that if he was killed that would satisfy the need for punishment for the un-orthodox behaviour of jesus’ disciples.
the other half of the story is the resurrection. throughout his life, jesus, who is the source of life, was healing people and making things better. in his own body, the life would have healed him. his family would have known about it. maybe some of the things talked about in the gospels, the miracle healings, actually happened to jesus himself ? conjecture. but in order for jesus to die, the roman soldiers had to “overkill” him. in fact, he gave up his own spirit, they didn’t kill him. surely he could have survived ? he said he had the right to lay down his life and to take it up again (john 10:17).
so why did he have to die, and in such awful circumstances ? why all the pain and torture ?
what about baptism ? jesus was baptised by john, and yet he didn’t sin. jesus died, and yet he didn’t need to die. and he didn’t deserve to die, because death is a punishment for sin, and jesus did not sin. as the hebrews writer says, jesus fully identifies with us (hebrews 4:15). he was baptised in order to show he has rejected sin. he died in order for the holy spirit to come : see john 16:7 : so that the spiritual kingdom could start.
jesus had to “pass over to the other side”, and for that to happen, he had to die. and then this life bubbles up inside him again, and he lives again, and walks and talks and eats, but in a different, more complete way than before. he is finally connected back to his father (conversation in the garden with mary), and the sky is no longer the limit…
but why all the pain and the torture ? is it to do with redemption ? does the pain of jesus’ death actually free us from the slavery to sin ? as far as i understand it, it is the work of the holy spirit (the spirit of jesus), to draw us out into the light, to get us to live the new life without sin. it is jesus himself, and not his death, that redeems us, pays for us.
i love isaiah 43 : in paraphrase “do not be afraid, for i have paid for you. i have called your name and you are mine. when you fight through deep water, i will be with you. when you walk through fire, you’ll not be burned. for i am god, and i love you : you are mine.”
and it is interesting that in isaiah 43:4, there is the reference : “since you are precious and honoured in my sight, and because i love you, i will give men in exchange for you, and people in exchange for your life.” but this is not “substitutionary sacrifice” in the evangelical sense…
i think, as has been said before, that god saves, god rescues, because of his promise, because of his love for israel, which is extended to me as well, because i love god’s son. he loved me first, and i love him back (1 john 4:19).
but why all the pain and the torture ? it was not so that we could reflect on the comparison : to see how wonderful resurrection is by comparison to the pain and suffering.
i’m coming down to the same answer : that the pain and the torture and the suffering were a natural consequence of jesus’ mission to israel, his teaching, his miracles, his healing, his love. he read about it in the prophets, and he believed it, so when it started to come about, he accepted it bravely, crazily, faithfully. because he was absolutely sure that he would see the light of life at the end (psalm 22 and isaiah 53). he believed as abraham believed, that god could give him back his son alive, even if he killed him.
so, jesus: radical preacher, seems to rock the boat, gets knocked about and knocked off, gets murdered. all because he loves us, and wanted us to have a better knowledge of god and learn how to live in true community. the last command is “love one another”. yes, in a way, his death was a substitution. it allowed the church to be born. for the people outside israel to become god’s children.
hmmm. how did jesus feel, knowing what was going to happen to him, and going through with it, all the time accepting the outrage ? no theology now, just human sympathy. who could not love someone who was ready to go through that for me ?
this is where he “draws all people to himself” : because he puts himself up there with mad declarations of love, wild actions. stabbing himself in the heart in order to get our full attention. a total valentine. good catholics will know what i mean.
jo.