"Christ is punished instead of us"

[MariaRegina]

I found an interesting discussion on this: (from Touchstone)

UNPASSIONATE GREEKS:

An Orthodox friend sent round a story on the condemnation of The Passion by the Greek Orthodox Diocese of Chicago, which sent a letter to its parishes warning them about the movie.


"It distorts the gospel message," said the Very Rev. Demetri Kantzavelos, chancellor of the Chicago diocese, which includes 59 parishes in Illinois and five other Midwestern states. "The errors that deviate from the gospel are profound."

"My fear is that this might be the only 'gospel' that people see or read," he said.

. . . A critique of the film also released by Kantzavelos for the diocese said Gibson's interpretation of the death of Jesus "distorted the ultimate meaning of Christ's passion" and was "beyond the embrace of Orthodox Christianity."

"The Orthodox Christian tradition has never focused attention on nor explicitly promulgated an 'atonement theology' as central to church teachings," Kantzavelos wrote in the critique. "The point of Christ's death was to triumph over death and make a way for each of us who come after him to join with him.

"The film misses this point," he wrote. "In Orthodox Christianity, we are asked to identify with his victory, not with his suffering alone."
My friend sent round this note:


This morning the Greek Archdiocese of Chicago condemned Mel Gibson's movie, thus adding its own voice that of the Jews. For a biblical perspective on this most recent development, I refer you to First Corinthians 1:23.
Which reads (I am using the Orthodox Study Bible, which seems appropriate):


. . . but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.

—David Mills

Dear Brewmama:

I read your snipets from Touchstone with confusion because I don't see any quotation marks --- therefore, I don't know what the Orthodox Priest is saying and what David Mills is saying. Who is David Mills?

There are a lot of generalizations in these snipets from Touchstone about the Orthodox being anti-Catholic. I haven't seen an anti-Catholic spirit in the Greek Orthodox Priests here in California. In fact we have a Byzantine-Latino Quarters here in Los Angeles where the Orthodox work with the Catholics to help the Latinos. However, I have observed a few recent Orthodox converts (not of the Greek Church) who are somewhat anti-Catholic, but I know for a fact that the Greek Orthodox Priests here will not chrismate anyone who is anti-Catholic because that shows a lack of repentance and a judgmental attitude.

I have some reservations about the film The Passion of the Christ only because I think it should be part of a series. For example, if the people were to watch Jesus of Nazareth first, then they would have a better idea of the Holy Gospel preached by Christ. The Greek Archdiocese did an excellent series on the Ancient Church based on the book of Acts and historical documents which would be a good sequel.

If people are prepared for this film, then it could do wonders, and help them realize the gravity of sin. If they are not, it could do harm, perhaps due to a serious misunderstanding of who God is. Could a misinformed person watch this film and come away with the wrong opinion that God is a God of wrath? Could this film foster the Calvinistic belief on atonement?

Furthermore, does this film show the necessity of the Church as the dispenser of God's grace through the Holy Mysteries, especially the Holy Eucharist? Will this film draw people to the Church were they can be instructed? Or will people walk in silence to their cars after the film and return home and forget what they have watched (much like 9-11)?

Because of my university studies (which include two medical classes) I cannot view this film until Spring Break 2004 - which will be on the Friday before Lazarus Saturday or Lazarus Saturday -- that's a little more than one month away. This is a matter I will have to discuss with my spiritual father before I consider buying tickets or the DVD.

I'm praying that people and our world will be changed for the better.

Yours truly in Christ our God,

Elizabeth

 

[Benedicta00]

How can God forsake God? I've always believed that at that moment Christ took on the sins of the world, but not that God literally forsook Him.

I went around with this person last year over this. I have no idea why he thinks this really. He takes the words Christ spoke from the cross literally and he thinks if Christ was not sent to hell in our place that we could not be given his righteous record in exchange for our sins.

Catholics don't believe an exchange is made at re birth that way but I know some Prots do believe that.

 

[countrymousenc]

How can God forsake God? I've always believed that at that moment Christ took on the sins of the world, but not that God literally forsook Him.

If this doesn't help, ignore it, and Oblio, Philip or brewmama, if it is not appropriate to TAW, please remove it. I won't be offended.

I have often wondered, too, about Jesus' words when on the cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" What has helped me somewhat is to learn to think within the framework of covenant. The Word of God became a Jew under the Law of Moses. To keep it short, the kind of death He died, under the accusation of blasphemy, cut Him off from God in terms of the Covenant. For a Jew, there was no meaningful or desirable relationship with God except through the Covenant.

Hope that helps,
Dianne

 

[isshinwhat]

I have often wondered, too, about Jesus' words when on the cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Please read Psalm 22 and notice that the Psalm Christ was reciting was actually a Psalm which tells of God's never abandoning His Son, despite how bad things look.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[MariaRegina]

Psalm 22:4

For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for thou art with me. Thy rod and thy staff, they have comforted me.

 

[MariaRegina]

Psalms 22:1
(To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?

Psalms 22:2
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

Psalms 22:3
But thou [art] holy, [O thou] that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Psalms 22:4
Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

Psalms 22:5
They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

Psalms 22:6
But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

Psalms 22:7
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, [saying],

Psalms 22:8
He trusted on the LORD [that] he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Psalms 22:9
But thou [art] he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope [when I was] upon my mother's breasts.

Psalms 22:10
I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.

Psalms 22:11
Be not far from me; for trouble [is] near; for [there is] none to help.

Psalms 22:12
Many bulls have compassed me: strong [bulls] of Bashan have beset me round.

Psalms 22:13
They gaped upon me [with] their mouths, [as] a ravening and a roaring lion.

Psalms 22:14
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

Psalms 22:15
My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

Psalms 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Psalms 22:17
I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me.

Psalms 22:18
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Psalms 22:19
But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.

Psalms 22:20
Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.

Psalms 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalms 22:22
I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Psalms 22:23
Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

Psalms 22:24
For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

Psalms 22:25
My praise [shall be] of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

Psalms 22:26
The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

Psalms 22:27
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

Psalms 22:28
For the kingdom [is] the LORD'S: and he [is] the governor among the nations.

Psalms 22:29
All [they that be] fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

Psalms 22:30
A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

Psalms 22:31
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done [this].

Unbound Home - King James Version

 

[Benedicta00]

If this doesn't help, ignore it, and Oblio, Philip or brewmama, if it is not appropriate to TAW, please remove it. I won't be offended.

I have often wondered, too, about Jesus' words when on the cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" What has helped me somewhat is to learn to think within the framework of covenant. The Word of God became a Jew under the Law of Moses. To keep it short, the kind of death He died, under the accusation of blasphemy, cut Him off from God in terms of the Covenant. For a Jew, there was no meaningful or desirable relationship with God except through the Covenant.

Hope that helps,
Dianne

He was praying a psalm. In those days there wasn’t any books and numbers so when you opened with the prayer you open with the line from the prayer.

 

[countrymousenc]

He was praying a psalm. In those days there wasn’t any books and numbers so when you opened with the prayer you open with the line from the prayer.

Yes, I am quite familiar with that psalm, in fact. But, He was a Jew. And He was praying that Psalm for a reason, in my opinion. Just my opinion, though.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I would say that the Psalm was fulfilled, now even while hanging one is not forsaken at all because Our Lord hung. How can there be talk of forsaken by God, when Our Lord said that if He did not will it, it would not have happened? He gave His life. Our Lord could have quoted the most downer of Psalms, Psalm 88 (87 LXX) but did not.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Benedicta00]

Yes, I am quite familiar with that psalm, in fact. But, He was a Jew. And He was praying that Psalm for a reason, in my opinion. Just my opinion, though.

Yes, because it fulfilled the prophecy. There is nothing in that prayer to say that God forsook Him. He was human, and divine, He was feeling the scorn of the people in His humanity but that does not mean God forsook Him. It is absolutely illogical to think he did. He is God; God can not separate from Himself. The nature of God is ONE, the persons are three and distinct.

 

[countrymousenc]

Yes, because it fulfilled the prophecy. There is nothing in that prayer to say that God forsook Him. He was human, and divine, He was feeling the scorn of the people in His humanity but that does not mean God forsook Him. It is absolutely illogical to think he did. He is God; God can not separate from Himself. The nature of God is ONE, the persons are three and distinct.

I agree with both you and Jeff, and my point was not that God literally forsook His Son, but that the Covenant (Law of Moses, which Jesus kept perfectly) relationship was broken.

 

[Dismas]

Yes, I am quite familiar with that psalm, in fact. But, He was a Jew. And He was praying that Psalm for a reason, in my opinion. Just my opinion, though.

6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was His.


6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, 'Is given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and if Paul says, 'Wherefore He highly exalted Him,' and 'He set Him at the right hand(1),' and the like, we must say that our Lord, being Word and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son of Man, that, having become Mediator between God, and men, He might minister the things of God to us, and ours to God. When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He receives them from us and offers to the Father(2), interceding for us, that in Him they may be annulled(3). And when it is said, 'All power is given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and 'Wherefore God highly exalted Him,' these are gifts given from God to us through Him, For the Word was never in want(4), nor has come into beings; nor again were men sufficient to minister these things for themselves, but through the Word they are given to us; therefore, as if given to Him, they are imparted to us. For this was the reason of His becoming man, that, as being given to Him, they might pass on to us(6). For of such gifts mere man had not become worthy; and again the mere Word had not needed them 7 the Word then was united to us, and then imparted to us power, and highly exalted us(8). For the Word being in man, highly exalted man himself; and, when the Word was in man, man himself received. Since then, the Word being in flesh, man himself was exalted, and received power, therefore these things are referred to the Word, since they were given on His account; for on account of the Word in man were these gifts given. And as 'the Word became flesh(9),' so also man himself received the gifts which came through the Word. For all that man himself has received, the Word is said to have received(10); that it might be shewn, that man himself, being unworthy to receive, as far as his own nature is concerned, yet has received because of the Word become flesh. Wherefore if anything be said to be given to the Lord, or the like, we must consider that it is given, not to Him as needing it, but to man himself through the Word. For every one interceding for another, receives the gift in his own person, not as needing, but on his account for whom he intercedes.


7. For as He takes our infirmities, not being infirm(1), and hungers not hungering, but sends up what is ours that it may be abolished, so the gifts which come from God instead of our infirmities, doth He too Himself receive, that man, being united to Him, may be able to partake them. Hence it is that the Lord says, All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, have given them,' and again, 'I pray for them(2).' For He prayed for us, taking on Him what is ours, and He was giving what He received. Since then, the Word being united to man himself, the Father, regarding Him, vouchsafed to man to be exalted, to have all power and the like; therefore are referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, all things which through Him we receive. For as He for our sake became man, so we for His sake are exalted. It is no absurdity then, if, as for our sake He humbled Himself, so also for our sake He is said to be highly exalted. So 'He gave to Him,' that is, 'to us for His sake;' 'and He highly exalted Him(3),' that is, 'us in Him.' And the Word Himself, when we are exalted, and receive, and are succoured, as if He Himself were exalted and received and were succoured, gives thanks to the Father, referring what is ours to Himself, and saying, 'All things, whatsoever Thou hast given Me, I have given unto them(4).'

St. Athenatius 3. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS (WRITTEN BETWEEN 356 AND 360), DISCOURSE IV


Peace,
Dismas

 

[countrymousenc]

And Peace to you, also, Dismas; thank you for your response.

6, 7. When the Word and Son hungered, wept, and was wearied, He acted as our Mediator, taking on Him what was ours, that He might impart to us what was His.


6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, 'Is given unto Me,' and 'I received,' and if Paul says, 'Wherefore He highly exalted Him,' and 'He set Him at the right hand(1),' and the like, we must say that our Lord, being Word and Son of God, bore a body, and became Son of Man, that, having become Mediator between God, and men, He might minister the things of God to us, and ours to God. When then He is said to hunger and weep and weary, and to cry Eloi, Eloi, which are our human affections, He receives them from us and offers to the Father(2), interceding for us, that in Him they may be annulled

In saying these things, did St. Athanasius mean that Jesus did not actually experience hunger or sadness?

 

[Benedicta00]

I agree with both you and Jeff, and my point was not that God literally forsook His Son, but that the Covenant (Law of Moses, which Jesus kept perfectly) relationship was broken.

I guess that is just another way of looking at it in the long lists of ways to look at it.

The person that I conversed with specifically beliefs God condemned Him to hell in order to judge Him righteous.

 

[Dismas]

I guess that is just another way of looking at it in the long lists of ways to look at it.

The person that I conversed with specifically beliefs God condemned Him to hell in order to judge Him righteous.

...and many protestants believe that somehow the trinity was broken apart...impossible.

Peace,
Dismas

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

This prot certainly does not, although you may well be right that some do it is possibly not nearly as many as you think. A lot of disagreements like this are actually due to missunderstanding the language others are using - like some protestants thinking Catholics and Orthodox idolise the Virgin Mary and the Saints by 'praying' to them.

-----------------------------------------------

Dear YN:

Just received this email and thought you might find it interesting. Personally I don't agree with everything Father Panagiotes says here, but he does point to a few historical abuses. Does the movie really deny Christ's divinity?

Elizabeth

---

From: Fr. Panagiotes Carras
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:51:17 -0500
Subject: Gibson's Passion


Mel Gibson’s movie which revolves around the final hours of our Saviour, is a total deviation from the Faith of the Church which holds the Holy Cross as the symbol of our Lord’s victory over death. The Cross is the banner of triumph. This is how it was revealed to Saint Constantine and this is the belief of true Christians throughout history. From East to West and North to South the Holy Cross was seen as the “Cross of Glory”. Caedmon’s “The Dream of the Rood” and the “Ruthwell Cross” in Scotland are vivid examples of this Faith.
http://www.flsouthern.edu/eng/abruce/rood/ROODTEXT/MODERN~1.HTM

Gibson’s film details the last 12 hours of the Lord’s life in excruciatingly violent images. The Passion of our Lord is separated from the Birth, Life, Resurrection and Glorification of our Saviour. The inspiration for this movie was revealed in an interview that appears on the "Inside the Vatican" web site. Gibson said that the script was based on the writings of two mystics, Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). He was in his library praying about making a movie about the Passion and Emmerich’s book "fell off the shelf" into his hand. He saw this as a sign and used these visions as the basis for his film. Cf. http://www.passion-movie.com/promote/book.html . These visions are based on the blasphemous theology of the Middle Ages which put the violent death of the Lord at the center of faith. The death on the Cross of our Saviour was the price paid to God for the sin of Adam and Eve which all people inherited. The enormity of the sin required this horrific punishment. This introduced self-flagellation, stigmata and other "mortifications" into piety. The Glory of the Cross was replaced by the Theology of punishment, satisfaction, merits and indulgences. Gibson’s movie presents the blasphemous portrayal of the Lord not as the Victor but as the victim. The depiction of our Saviour as a man abandoned by God denies the Divinity of the Son of God and the true meaning of the Holy Cross.

We do not need Gibson’s movie or any other theatrical presentation to teach us our Faith. The Gospels, the writings of the Saints, the Hymns of the Church and the Holy Ikons give us the correct instruction on the Holy Cross, the Passion and Resurrection of our Lord. No actor, who one day portrays Christ and the next day portrays a criminal or some other immoral person, can teach us our Faith. Theatrical portrayals of sacred subjects cannot depict the Divine nature of these subjects. This is why we have ikons and not photographs and portraits of our Saviour. Images leave a mark on the soul. Holy Ikons bring Grace and peace. Gibson’s film can only pollute the soul with its violence and denial of the Divinity of our Saviour.

I certainly do not think it denys Christ's divinity. It may focus upon a part of the gospel story from which one might nievly make that assumption if one did not know its context, but that is a very different thing. I think that the movie is basically a good thing (from what I have heard - it is not out in the UK yet so I have not seen it), although it perhaps could have widened its focus a little to aid the understanding of those without a Christian background.

God bless,
YN.

 

[Lotar]

...and many protestants believe that somehow the trinity was broken apart...impossible.

Peace,
Dismas

Many Protestants don't have a basic theological understanding...

There are probably more Protestants that could recite whole chapters of the bible from memory, than could give you a basic heresy-free definition of the Trinity.

 

[countrymousenc]

...and many protestants believe that somehow the trinity was broken apart...impossible.

Peace,
Dismas

This one doesn't - it is impossible that the Trinity was broken apart. In general (but not in every case) the farther you get from the original Protestant churches, the more you'll find some very strange ideas.

 

[Lotar]

pssst... it's always the anabaptists who teach these strange things

 

[Photini]

That's a pretty neat-looking "faith icon" Lotar.