« If only they could move back to New Orleans before April... | Main | SB Halftime show fallout »
The 'Passion' and the Atonement
Unless you've been living in a cave recently, you've heard Mel Gibson just released his self-financed 'tribute' (if you will) to the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ in 'The Passion of the Christ'. Already much discussed (and debated), 'The Passion' depicts in graphic detail the arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion of the Lord.
[Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie, but have read enough about it to know what it contains]
Many people, including film critic Roger Ebert, have described 'The Passion' as moving and 'faith-promoting', deepening one's testimony of the suffering Christ underwent in order to atone for our sins. Only one problem...the film (and its many reviewers) appear to misunderstand the key event of the Atonement.
Quick quiz: Where and when did Christ actually suffer for the sins of mankind. (Hint: it's the 'bleeding from every pore' part...)
Answer: From Luke 22:41-44 (KJV), immediately before Jesus was arrested--
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but
thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground.
Now, normally people don't bleed when they are praying...a sure sign something significant was happening. Christ, in fact, suffered for the sins of mankind right there in the garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross. LDS doctrine emphasizes this fact, but it's not a unique doctrine to the LDS Church (at least, it shouldn't be) as it comes directly from the New Testament text.
This makes the intense, graphic violence in 'The Passion' pointless in a sense, not because showing Christ's suffering isn't meaningful, but because it shows the WRONG suffering. Christ's pain during the scourging and crucifixition was real (and tragic), but in and of itself didn't accomplish any great purpose. The cross is only significant from an eternal perspective because it caused Christ's DEATH, not any amount of SUFFERING. Christ's death allowed Him to be resurrected, one of the main reasons for Christ coming to Earth. If, however, Christ had been beheaded (like John the Baptist) after Gethsemane it would have accomplished the same purpose. The fact that the method used was more torturous and painful is tragic (given Christ's innocence) but essentially beside the point.
(Note however that Christ knew early on he would be crucified and not beheaded yet was still willing to go through it to complete His mission)
Why the disconnect between the real and popular understanding of the Atonement? The Atonement, out of all Gospel topics, is inherently difficult to understand. How exactly does One suffer for the sins of the world? How and why Christ suffered in Gethsemane is beyond our comprehension, whereas it's much easier to understand why scourging and crucifixition leads to suffering. After seeing Christ scourged and crucified, and knowing that Christ 'suffered for the sins of the world' one thinks 'Ahh...that must have been it'.
I haven't seen 'The Passion' nor plan to. I wonder, though: is the extreme level of violence really justified? Sure, it's 'realistic' and historically accurate; but would you be more 'enlightened' watching 'The Passion' versus, say, the LDS Church produced 'Lamb of God'? What does the violence add to the experience? Most people inherently understand what being crucified entails, is it necessary to show it in detail? Will the violence serve as an enhancement of, or a distraction from, the spiritual lessons contained in the life and death of Jesus Christ?
Links: Roger Ebert's review and analysis of 'The Passion'
Eric D Snider's feelings
February 28, 2004 in Movie Analysis, Religion | Permalink
Comments
"The Passion of the Christ".....I did see the movie and therefore feel justified in commenting on it. I have never seen the Lord of the Rings, not that I don't plan to, I just haven't had the interest yet, but I would never attempt to comment on or critique a movie I haven't seen.
I know so many people who have not seen it and make comments based on things they've heard or read, but unless you see if for yourself...you just don't know. There was a guy in sacrament meeting last week that bore his testimony that he wouldn't go see the movie because he already knows what Christ did for him and he didn't need to see it on the screen....well, then why did the church produce the Lamb of God if they didn't think it was important to see a visual. It really bothers me when people make comments or condemn the movie without seeing it.
The movie was great. I love the way it portrayed the Savior not only as the son of God but also as the son of Mary. There is one scene where he is building a table and the way He and His mother interact is beautifully done. He was a man. Yes, he is also God's son but he is also a man and that is portrayed by his playfulness and realness in a flashback.
I really love the way Christ was represented in the movie. In a lot of ways it reminded me of the Lamb of God. Yes, it was brutal and violent and I had to close my eyes quite a bit but it didn't take away from how much I enjoyed the movie.
As for the suffering in the Garden, the movie DID portray Christ suffering in the Garden and you know it was really terrible suffering. It was definately NOT glanced over as a insignificant occurance. That was what was portrayed. I think the scenes in the garden were also really well done.
I really wish that if someone wanted to express an opinion on the movie that they would go see it for themselves before they commented. I know that for myself, that the two hours I sat in the theatre my thoughts were entirely focused on Christ, the atonement and his crucifixion. Afterwards when I prayed and thought more about the Savior my feelings were stronger than they would have been if I hadn't watched the movie. It renewed my commitment and faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ as a member of his church. Did I have to see it to renew my commitment? No, of course not. I do that every Sunday when I take the sacrament, but for me, for that moment and for the things I saw and the things that were portrayed, yes, I felt closer to my Savior. As a member of his gospel I seek out things that will bring me closer to Him and that movie definately did.
Posted by: J Thorum | Mar 10, 2004 11:02:13 AM
Ahh...but did you have a spiritual experience BECAUSE of the violence, or IN SPITE OF the violence? That is the key question in my mind (you yourself admit you closed your eyes).
There's no doubt in my mind the movie will be a spiritual experience for those who see it, but the question is how NECESSARY was the violence? In other words, if Gibson had toned down the movie to say a PG-13, "Lamb of God" level of violence, would that have made the movie more spiritual, less spiritual, or the same?
Anyone else care to comment?
Posted by: The Baron | Mar 10, 2004 5:26:18 PM
Having seen The Passion, I feel that just as with anthing else, the attitude that you take with you will affect the overall outcome of the movie. When someone choses only to dwell on the violence and ignores the symbology of the movie then of course they are not going to like it. I did not go to the movie to see gratuitous violence, I went to see a movie about the life of Christ. I can honestly say that seeing it has caused me to look at my life and wonder if there isn't more that I could be doing to please the Lord. Of course the ideal would be that we could all just read our scriptures and pray and know the truth and be perfect people, but the sad truth is that some people are not perfect, and for some of us a visual helps.
What someone like the Baron has to realize, is that when I left the theater, I wasn't thinking about blood, and I wasn't thinking about pain. I was thinking about the look on Christ's face after he had been denied three times by his closest friend.
Another thing to remember is that this movie was not made just for Mormons. A great deal of the people who are watching this movie are getting their first taste of Christianity. I was hometeaching yesterday, and one of the people that I home teach is a woman whose husband is borderline atheist. She said that she took him to see the movie, and I am not going to say that he is going to join the church and become a general authority, but she said that he has been more open and respectful of her religion after seeing the movie.
This movie is reaching people in a way that missionaries just can't. Who is to say that there isn't someone who will be curious to learn more about the Christ after seeing that movie. It is a seed being planted in the hearts of many and what they choose to do with that seed is up to them. Violent of not, I refuse to condem a movie that turns peoples thoughts to Christ.
Now then. I couldn't ignore the comment about the Passion portraying a false view of the atonement. I will be the first in line to say that the scene in the garden of Gethsemene is done more justice in the Passing than in the Lamb of God. In the Lamb of God, we see Christ praying while a thunderstorm rages. It is very ambiguous and in no way depicts how much pressure Christ was under to just throw in the towel and give up. In the Passion however, not only do we see sweat falling as blood, but we also see and hear Lucifer tempting christ and telling him that this burden is too great. It was also very clear to me that in the garden is where the final triumph occured, and to depict this Gibson uses symbology straight from the Bible. As lucifer is tempting Christ a serpent slithers out from beneath him. Christ rises and stomps on the serpent crushing it's head and therefore brusing his heel, showing that his business in the garden is finished and that satan's head is crushed.
We all have our opinions about things and we all are entitled to believe what we would like but just remember that we have 60,000 missionaries out right now telling people that they shouldn't pass judgment on the Book of Mormon without reading it first. It would be hypocritical to pass judgment on Mel Gibson or his movie without seeing it first.
Posted by: W Hopkins | Mar 11, 2004 8:40:57 AM
My thanks to Sis Thorum and Bro Hopkins for their comments. Of course, it's difficult (and presumptuous) to judge a movie without having seen it...
I had no idea how much significance (if any) Gibson placed on the events in Gethsemane in terms of the Atonement, however according to Bro.Hopkins' description it sounds like he gave it its just emphasis, and I'll withdraw that criticism.
Still, reading other people's reactions to the movie, there's a lot of people out there who say something along the lines of "the violence was gruesome, but important because it showed Jesus suffering for our sins" when, in fact, Jesus's suffering outside of the Garden had nothing to do with 'overcoming the sins of the world'. That shows that either the movie misrepresented the basic facts of the Atonement (which from the above comments, doesn't appear to be true) or (more likely) there's a lot of people who had a slightly flawed understanding of how Jesus overcame sin to begin with.
Posted by: The Baron | Mar 11, 2004 2:06:46 PM
Where in Mormon Scripture does it explain the Atonement of blood in Gethsemene?
Posted by: Rick | Apr 24, 2004 1:48:22 PM
Where in LDS doctrine does it state the crucifixion was not a necessary and vital part of the Atonement?
I'd hate to break it to you, and I don't mean to be harsh, but have you ever studied the Atonement in the scriptures?
I, like Paul, know that we preach Christ crucified; for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved, it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1)
And like Moroni, I wish that "his sufferings and death...may rest in [our] minds forever" (along with a few other things that should rest in our minds forever that are listed). (Moroni 9)
And I do not think Nephi made a mistake when he said that he saw Christ "lifted up upon the cross for the sins of the world" (1 Nephi 11:33).
Isaiah knew that Christ would be wounded for our transgressions, and that with his wounds we are healed, in perhaps his most famous passage (Isaiah 53). This is reiterated in Mosiah.
Most of all, the Savior Himself knew what he was saying when He said in the famous LDS passage to come, feel the prints in His hands and in His feet, that we may know He is the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, *and has been slain for the sins of the world*.
There is question among some as to whether or not Gethsemane was suffering or just preparation...I am glad we have modern revelation to help us know Gethsemane was a part of this incredible sacrifice. But it is quite clear, from scriptures and revelation, that the sufferings and death by crucifixion were also vital parts of the sacrifice for sin. Please, don't take my word for it; study it out and ask God for yourself.
Sam
Posted by: butsam | Jan 16, 2005 5:19:21 AM
If you re-read the post carefully, you'll see I said Christ's DEATH is an integral part of the atonement, but his being CRUCIFIED is not. His death was all that was necessary. The fact that many Bible and BOM scriptures prophesized that Christ would be crucified only shows that was what WOULD happen, not that was what NEEDED to happen.
I still maintain that Christ could have been beheaded (with the appropriate change in the scriptural prophecies ahead of time) and the Atonement still would have been completed...
Posted by: The Baron | Jan 16, 2005 1:23:58 PM
OK, no offense meant at all again, sorry if you took any from the last that is not what I meant...I simply want you to learn more, or at least be able to clarify like you did, because I got that impression from your posts.
Christ being crucified was necessary...and His sufferings and death are to rest in our minds forever. This includes Gethsemane, the scourging, and the crucifixion, in addition to His death. Of course His resurrection should also rest in our minds forever, and so forth. But the crucifixion was also a part of the sacrifice for sin, as the scriptures I posted make very clear...they were not limited to His death either.
For example, you state:
"Quick quiz: Where and when did Christ actually suffer for the sins of mankind. (Hint: it's the 'bleeding from every pore' part...)"
Only partially correct. The suffering continued from Gethsemane to His death.
"Christ, in fact, suffered for the sins of mankind right there in the garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross."
That contradicts scripture, prophecy, and official doctrine. In fact, Bruce R. McConkie stated Christ suffered for everything on the cross in addition to in Gethsemane. I don't have a reference off the top of my head, but I will get you one if you would like.
"The cross is only significant from an eternal perspective because it caused Christ's DEATH, not any amount of SUFFERING."
He was wounded for our transgressions; with His wounds we are healed.
Christ was crucified (ie, lifted up upon the cross) for the sins of the world, as 1 Nephi 11:33 makes clear.
The crucifixion was also necessary.
The reason I don't buy the "others were crucified" argument that some throw up against this notion is because it is a comparison between apples and oranges. There was nobody else who was innocent of sin who was crucified. It is Christ's innocence that is prerequisite to repaying the effects of sin, not the uniqueness of the suffering.
Of course, taken all together, Gethsemane, the scourging, abandonment by all (including Peter, and even Heavenly Father for a time), and the crucifixion was more than anyone else had suffered. But the lack of uniqueness for the cross (or scourging for that matter) is not necessary. In fact, Christ suffered for *our* sins, so wouldn't the suffering at least in part NOT be unique, since it was for something that someone else did/would do? Behold the condescention of God!
Again, please, no offense, I only wish to contribute to what can be an incredible learning experience and testimony-builder; I encourage a thorough study of the matter and much prayer; then, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".
Sam
Posted by: butsam | Jan 16, 2005 6:35:44 PM
I must express how deeply moved I was when I saw the movie "The passion of the Christ" For 2+ hours I sat in that theater in reverence, not eating pop corn or drinking my drink. The audience was mainly older people, and some severely handicapped people, and 99% of them looked like they just finished working a shift at the temple.
This was one of the most moving experiences I have ever had. Except for a few scenes, I could easily have imagined it being produced by the Church, so many parts of the movie were sweet and loving, and showed such courage and strength. If the Church had done it they would have built up the resurrection at the end.
Christ's death was violent. Absolutely he suffered for our sins in the Garden, but although we as a Church do not dwell on the crucifixtion, but rather celebrate the wonderful gift of the atonement, we can't sugar coat the suffering the savior endured. He gave a spiritual atonement in Gethsemane, but he gave the blood atonement on the cross. He had to die to satisfy the requirements. Watching the suffering in the movie, changed something in me. When they would strike him, my heart would tremble. Most of the movie was quiet, and the spirit taught me during these times. This was not entertainment, it was education. When the movie was over, people didn't jump up to leave. They were speechless, and moved to tears. My 65 year old mother sat next to me...we couldn't speak. Even now, 2 years later it is hard to hold back the tears. The biggest thing I learned from watching the suffering, is that it became more real to me. It made me want to be a better person, to let go of old hurts, or grudges. After all Christ forgave...How can I hold back forgiveness to anyone, ever? If I do, then I reject all that he endured for me, and it is I who inflicts Him pain.
Mel Gibson was amazing, and did the best he could with the information he had...the text from the Bible. I could speak for hours about this, but let me just say, this experience threw me into the scriptures, Jesus the Christ, mighty prayer and fasting and to the temple. It strengthened my personal testimony of Christ's amazing work on this earth, and how much he loves me, and how much I love him. I cherish the experience I had. It was hard to watch in some parts, I was grateful for the constant movement of scenes and how they mixed the past and the present. It had to be rated R. What could possibly be worst than killing the Savior of the world? But it was personal to me, and I needed to be there.
Posted by: Lora | Apr 9, 2006 4:11:00 AM
