The Passion of Christ revisited

No Way Dude....

There isn't much of anything that would make me see the Bridges of Madison County again, period...

 

FOR NOSBORNE...

Hey Nosborne, I'll take a crack at this one...

Over the last few years of my studies, I did a lot of research on the Mosaic Law and covenants, and came to a different perspective of Jesus' death that you might be able to appreciate:

Going back to when God made His covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15) He instructed Abraham to gather a few specified animals, and then cut them up and lay them out on the ground. (This follows God's promise to Abraham of land, and Abraham's request for proof of this promise)

Now in that day, covenants were routinely made in this fashion...two parties would cut up some animals, and then walk between the pieces saying "let this happen to me if I fail to maintain the covenant". This was so common that you were said to "cut" a covenant, even when no animals were present. So as Abraham is instructed to gather and cut the animals...he knows that they are about to make a covenant.

Yet then, God puts Abraham to sleep, and walks between the pieces alone...in so doing, all of the responsibility of maintaining the covenant was placed upon God alone, and as such God was obligating Himself only, to be torn apart to maintain the covenant.

We Christians believe that Jesus, was God, and I believe that on the cross He was fulfilling this oath to mankind through Abraham. That He literally allowed Himself to be torn apart to maintain His covenant with man.

Perhaps this ties in to the law that even Jewish thought says God is subject to....

Anyway, that's my perspective...and that's why the Passion meant so much to me, as I was able to visualize the fullfillment of God's promise to Abraham, as never before...

blessings,
brad

 

I agree that this movie was well done and does seem to be biblically(but I am not a scholar in that area) accurate, but one thing stands out: IT's A MOVIE!! It is meant for entertainment, and to tell a story as most movies are, not to cause people of different religions to squabble about it. If you liked it good, if you didn't good, like the other member stated before, go and see "Return of the King" which in my opinion, is the best movie I have seen in years, and doesn't cause any bias becuase it's based on a fantasy book.

 

Anytime a movie tells a religious story it will be argued over. Once the arguement goes religious, you are going no where but in circles.

Off to see "Hidalgo."

 

It is true that the Biblical verb used to create a contract is "to cut". Oddly enough, the verb is still used in English to mean precisely the same thing.

Still, I don't understand. If the entire burden is on God alone, where do I come in? My immediate, Jewish response is to say, "Yeah, okay, whatever" and walk away shaking my head.

A Jewish contract requires at least two parties. A Jewish contract, like an American contract, requires something like what we lawyers now call "consideration". I just don't see it here.

The agreement with Abraham, if it really existed, which I doubt as an historical matter, required Abraham to obey the laws and statutes God would ordain. But this consideration finds no place in the Christian world, IF I understand it correctly; Christians maintain that the Law has been fulfilled, whatever that may mean, and that Christians have been set free of it, whatever THAT may mean.

Now that I think of it, that's pretty much what Jews throughout Christian history have thought, too.

I think that there must be some sort of mystical explanation or experience that causes the Christian to simply accept the teaching instead of trying to get there by any biblical or legal process.

 

Two covenants...

Nosborne, I was just responding to the concept of why God might be obligated to His own death...so I wasn't taking the time to present Abraham's obligation (or a modern Christian's)...but if you don't accept the Torah as historically accurate in areas where God reveals Himself to man, then I doubt that anything that I present to you will carry much merit.

But since you asked about the legalities...I believe there are two types of covenants in the Bible.
1) unconditional covenants of promise - that are binding upon God alone in His responsiblities to creation and mankind.
2) conditional covenants of administration - that deal with how mankind is supposed to relate to God in light of His unconditional promises. (note - many Christians on this board will probably disagree with my presentation of these ideas)

The first type of covenant usually involves land (ie. adam/earth, Noah/earth, Abraham/promised land, Moses/promised land, meek/inherit the earth, mankind/new heaven/new earth/new jerusalem.

Now biblically after each of these covenants you have covenants of administration set up: (adam/don't eat tree, Noah/ don't eat flesh, Abraham/obedience, Moses/10 commandments....)

Today though many Christians speak of the Law being fullfilled (meaning the mosaic Law) we are really simply under a different covenant of administration, where our actions are to be led by the Spirit - plus I'm pretty sure that most of the 10 commandments can be found in some form in the New Testament.

So back to your obligations...My belief is that as God is unconditionally committed to us, our response to that is to love Him in return, and love our neighbor as well. I believe that though God is committed to me, there remain consequences for not living accordingly...

brad

 

The last paragraph of your post could probably be reworked into very effective poetry.

I have not the least difficulty with the concepts you express or the beauty of your expression. However, the contrast between that expression and the bloody reality of demanding torture and death could not be greater.

I rarely expose myself in these posts; I will probably regret exposing myself now, but I do not believe that any god that would demand so hideous a thing to gratify his sense of justice can possibly be the same God as He of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob., who brougt forth heaven and earth.

 

To a large extent, I agree with you Nosborne...

perhaps because the cross was foundational to my upbringing, I am simply more "relieved" in a sense to believe that God was through all of this demonstrating His love...(by first stating the lengths that He would go to for us and living up to that statement), rather than simply falling on the grenade that humanity had dropped within its own midst....

But as to your comment about not believing that God would demand the hideous to satisfy His justice...let me simply say that I think much of Christianity, and a great many Christians would be well served to understand your revelation of God in that statement....

brad

 

I thank you all for your patience and kind comments.

 

Nosborne~

Let me just say, you are incredible for bringing this up. I appreciate it, and I want to know what you think about what I have to say. Can you take another evangelical Christian answer/questioning here? You may be right about the mystical experience "thing" being the crux of the matter, but I wanted to tease something out first here.

It looks to me like the "law" of the OT is your standard for critiquing the idea of the cross of Christ. Indeed, the Christian's relationship with the law is complex and multifaceted, with many different positions, as you would probably guess. Your appeal to the akedah is also interesting. I will have to think about that one. For starters, though, it doesn't say that Yahweh detests the idea of Isaac's use for a substitionary sacrifice there, specifically. The text says that it was a "test" of the faith of Abraham, never intended in the first place.

Regardless, to the law. In the Pentateuch, the first 69 chapters of the narrative use the verb "to believe" in a positive way (he'emin be). See Gen. 15:6, for example. For some reason or another, the phrase is always positive before the giving of the 10 commandments, and then always negative afterwards. This reminds me of Ezekiel 20:25, when Yahweh says that "I gave them laws that were not good" or probably better "not beneficial." I think the compositional shape of the Pentateuch casts a negative light on the law of the covenant under Moses. I think this because the use of this phrase (among other details) shows how the law, given in a narrative context, complicated the belief of the people in a story format. Hans Christopher Schmidtt, a German biblical theologian, calls this the "faith theme." It is the theme that casts significant doubt that the text itself is actually, wholeheartedly, endorsing the Mosaic Law. Perhaps Moses learned more in the wilderness than we think he did. The prophets would certainly agree with Moses if that is the case.

The law is also a very selectively presented document. Dtr. 25 gives instruction about remarriage, but only in a very specific instance. However, the more rudimentary scenarios for divorce are not considered in the Pentateuch. There are also laws in the Torah about how to marry off your daughter in law, but not, to my knowledge, on how to marry off your daughter. So I think the Torah is a highly selective document that tells a story about law, rather than a kind of "constitutional contract" like you mention that is intended for people to follow directly.

I am open to correction on this.

So, I think exactly what Paul says: that Christ had to die to pay the debt between us and God; and the different "atonement theories" conceptualize it many different ways.

My question for you is: How can God be "one" and thus "alone" (and not Triune) when it is "not good for man to be alone" who is in "His image?" The hebrew text there seems to be indicating that the participial form of "being alone" itself is inherently "not good." That's a stretch for a God who is totally alone. The NT teaches that Christ died as an act that took place between the members of the Triune God, as an expression of self-giving love for the reconciliation of the lost. In Christian theology, God could be, in some ways, conceptualized as a circle of love within Himself that continually extends outward to new and undeserving parties. I find this a lot more compelling, especially given the societal alienation we face in the modern world, than a God who desires just to be "left alone."

Ditto Brad's "covenant" stuff...

Repectfully yours,
Chris

 

Chris,

But doesn't your argument require either 1) that God regrets doing something, meaning He made a mistake or
2) the text itself is a human document that does not express the literal word of God?

 

No, because:

1.) the text, which is the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16), does not endorse the Old Covenant. You point at precisely what I say, that the Old Covenant is not the word of God, the text is. The Old Covenant is an event that the text describes, like the flood. Just because God told Noah to build an ark, does that mean it's God's word to me to go and build an ark?
2.) God does not regret something that was a necessary measure that limited the effects of human disobedience until the time of Christ, Gal. 3:19.

Chris

 

I am not a Christian, but my wife and I attended the movie. I was touch and amazed. It was a very well-acted and directed movie. Although I don't agree with Mel's religious dogma, I applaud his courage to make this film. The violence was overdone (especially the torture, frankly I have never felt this queezy in any movie - it looked too real).

I think we have to take a movie like this in its context. It was something that Mel put out there not only to tell the story of the death of Jesus Christ, but to show his faith. With all of the shallowness of the Brittany Spears and Jay Lo types, this is a good thing.

I would like to see more movies like this - perhaps something on the Koran or the Torah. I think we would all learn a little more about someone else's beliefs.

Just my two --- what are your thoughts.

 

If we compare the violence portrayed in the movie with the description found in Bibilical scripture, the movie is about as close to what actually happened as it gets. In actuality, the scripture states that Christ was beaten so badly that he didn't even appear human afterward. Taking this into account, the movie portrayal of Christ after the beating was actually underdone.

 

Nosborne~

Also, I'd like to know your response to my little quib about how God is "not alone" in the Torah. Of course, he is "one," the same term used for man and woman becoming "one flesh." This "oneness" in Dtr. 6 does not demand any more than a unity between persons. That is the doctrine of the Trinity, basically.

I just dont' want to keep it to "my" issues in trying to establish a Christian reading of the OT. My reading questions yours, the Jewish one, and that it is actually right. I think the Pentateuch is a "Christian" book in that it is written in anticipation of the New Covenant, one better than the one under Moses.

Chris

 

Hi, Mr.E.

I'm curious about this movie's effect on audience members who aren't already Christian. What aspects of it touched and amazed you?

Do you think that you, as a non-Christian, had enough context going in to understand the movie's message? Particularly the extended scenes of violence: did you perceive special religious significance in that, or was what touched you a matter of empathy and compassion for another's suffering?

I also respect what Mel Gibson did on that level. I think that his film was a work of Art with a capital A, at least in the post-romantic sense: an expression of the artist's own unique vision. Brittany Spears seems to represent more of a small-a art: art as casual entertainment. That's fine too, but it's not quite the same thing.

The problem with Art, with artists presenting their own unique visions, is that those visions might not communicate very well. We all know that galleries are full of personal visions that seem rather self-indulgent to outsiders who don't share them.

I suppose that the subject matter here kind of elevates this film above that. But I wonder what, and to whom, it communicates. It didn't seem to communicate anything to Dennis. It communicated something to you, but I'm not sure if it was the intended message. And some of our evangelicals proclaim it the greatest film ever made.

I certainly would too, if the films are able to speak, to communicate their message, to individuals who don't already possess it.

 

Well, speaking historically and into the present, Jews do not feel any need for a "better" covenant.

Indeed, the truth is, most Christians are surprised to learn that the Jesus story is simply irrelevant to Jewish thought. Not condemned, not synthesized, not anything. Basically ignored.

Well, this is where I came in. I thank all posters for helping me try to understand Christianity and bid you all a happy Easter.

 

I do not know enough about Jewish thought to understand why this is, but Jesus said He came for the Jew first but also for the gentile.

It seems to me that a Jew is not converted to Christ, but completed by Him (assuming He is the Messiah).

 

Nosborne states:

Nosborne:

I don't want to drag this one on forever, and it looks like you are decidedly "done" with us "forum Christian scholars" for the moment...

I would appreciate it if you would follow up on asking for specific statements from Christan scholars about atonement and the OT, and so forth... if you would interact with them instead of say, "well-no one Jewish has ever bought into it in the past." Obviously, no one who has stayed Jewish, which makes your argument go like this, "no one who has ever stayed Jewish has recognized the need to leave Judaism." That doesn't really appeal to me as an argument.

Jeremiah was a Jew, wasn't he? Jer. 31:31-34

I would add Moses to the list, given the previous argument about the use of the term "believe" in the Pentateuch stated above.

Nosborne, personally, I know several Jews in who feel a need for a better covenant. In fact, Paul and Jesus' disciples were Jews. Those Jews, who have had a great influence on western history have felt that need...

You still haven't responed to my question about God's singularity in the Torah. I have never heard anyone address the problem before and was hoping you could. I have searched some of the best rabbinical commentaries at my disposal, but they seem to have a great deal of difficulty with it.

Chris