|
A meditation on the film
The Passion of the Christ
And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle,
when they saw what had taken place,
returned home beating their breasts.
Luke 23:48
Often we use words superficially, especially theological words, without having a real grasp of
their meaning. I was using "awesome" when it was fashionable in the 80's, long before I
understood fear & reverence for God. A sign that we are growing in knowing God is that, by his
grace, the words we use about God or the Christian life become filled with meaning and content.
Paul prays that the Ephesians, "may have strength to comprehend what is the breadth and length
and height and depth and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge"(3:18-19)
This is perhaps the reason The Passion of the Christ has been so highly praised by pastors
who do not agree with the Catholic themes it clearly teaches.
In the first century, public crucifixions were an important deterrent. Caesar wanted all his
kingdom to know the criminal's fate. For good reason, that knowledge faded with the Roman
empire.
For this reason, no painting or movie previously made comes close to a realistic portrayal of
scourging and crucifixion. In fact, the art of the Middle Ages more often reflected the
theological beauty of Christ's death or its personal power (Rembrandt puts himself in one painting).
The same is true of modern representations (see for instance Salvadore Dali's Crucifixion
'Corpus Hypercubus'). Still, one of the reasons the church sanctions representations of the
Son of God is their ability to demonstrate the historicity of the incarnation. Jesus was not a
ghost, disembodied spirit, or beautiful idea. He was a real man. And, though He is the Son of
God, paintings such as The Lamentation over the Dead Christ try to show that his death was real
(read the quote below from the 2nd Council of Nicea for more on why Catholic and Orthodox
churches commend images in worship).
**For further medititation, consider how the movie represents 12 hours of suffering.
Gibson artistically (and graciously) edits the scourgings and beatings to include flashbacks
which give the viewer a brief mental reprieve.
**Also consider how the movie presents the physical sufferings of Christ but not his spiritual
sufferings. Scripture says "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him
we might become the righteousness of God."
(2 Corinthians 5:21)
**Popular culture is so rarely captured by biblical themes that we must not miss this important opportunity to tell our friends and neighbors that Christ's life merited our salvation. Christ's death purchased our salvation. And Christ's resurrection empowered our salvation. We may trust in His righteousness alone for a right relationship with God.
Finally, what about the Second Commandment's prohibition of images of God? It seems the second commandment does not forbid viewing the movie, but it does limit the manner in which we use it in worship.
We must guard against every form of idolatry, especially when using images of Christ to reach those who do not have a biblical world view. God forbids idols in worship because they never accurately represent His infinite, eternal, unchangeable character. But worshipping the image of Christ in the movie is different from viewing it.
The second commandment reads:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above . . .
you shall not bow down to them or serve them,
for I am a jealous God. (Exodus 20:4-5)
The heart of the command is "you shall not bow down to them." I take this to mean that we should not reverence images. We should not pray to them as though they were the real thing or treat them superstitiously. God later commands the Ark of the Covenant to be decorated with angels (Exodus 24:19). Therefore we cannot interpret the second commandment as a blanket condemnation of representations of "anything in heaven or on earth."
It seems then that the second commandment does not forbid viewing the movie, but it does limit the way we internalize artistic representations of Christ.
A major difference between Catholics/Orthodox and protestants
is how they use images in worship. I was discussing this with a friend (a baptist pastor) and
he expressed the traditional Catholic position:
“I believe that the incarnation changed the second commandment.
God made Himself into an image, therefore we are now free
to use images in worship.” Yet Jesus said that he fulfilled the law. He did not change it.
Following is a quote from the Second Council at Nicea, authoritative for the Catholic & Orthodox Churches. It attempts to justify revering
images of Christ, Mary and the saints, yet clearly violates the spirit of the second commandment. Especially note the underlined portion.
. . . that so the incarnation of the Word of God is
shewn forth as real and not merely phantastic ...
We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the
divinely inspired authority of the Holy Fathers and
the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all
know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all
certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the
precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable
and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of
other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy
churches of God . . . to wit, the figure of our Lord
God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady,
the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all
Saints and of all pious people.
For by so much more frequently as they are seen in
artistic representation, by so much more readily are
men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and
to a longing after them; and to these should be given
due salutation and honourable reverence, not indeed
that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the
divine nature; but. . . .
the honour which is paid to the image passes on to
that which the image represents, and he who reveres
the image reveres in it the subject represented.
(quoted by Mark Noll in TURNING POINTS p. 137)
|