It May Not Be Realized Yet

San Francisco Faith ^ | STEPHEN FRANKINI

[SoliDeoGloria]

He was clothed with our sins - me

Can you elaborate? - Romulus

When describing the imputation of Righteousness in Galatians 3, Paul describes us as being "clothed in Christ" (v 27). I was merely using the same imagery to describe the imputation of our sin onto Christ.

I said "the purpose of the Crucifix," not "the purpose of the Crucifixion." - Romulus

Thanks for pointing that out. Concerning the Crucifix, the fact that Christ is pictured on the cross contains much greater significance than whether he's in the nude. We Prots obviously take umbrage to the underlying meanings, and we thus only use the Cross (symbolizing that Christ is no longer being sacrificed).

As for taglines, if you want to deform sacred scripture... - Romulus

Thanks for the reprimand. It is well received.

[Romulus]

Have a good day. God bless.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Well, you've managed to pull it off, Romie. For all the fine talk about about Roman Catholic "unity" and Protestant "dissension" -- you alone amongst the Roman Catholic Caucus have managed to create a situation in which some of the Calvinist Caucus are fervently disputing your argument as the foulest Blasphemy, and other Calvinists are affirming it as a Valid and important recognization of the Reality of the Incarnation.

Frankly, we Calvinists don't even disagree this much on Baptism ("Okay, y'all there wanna dunk adults while we here want to sprinkle infants... but we're all 100% agreed that, contra Rome, Baptism does Not Regenerate, right? Alright, so we have disagreements as to the Mode and Practice, but we're all theologically agreed on where Rome has it wrong") or Eschatology ("Pre-Mills, A-Mills, and Post-Mills, oh my! Look, we all agree that God is in Control and it will all "pan out" to His Glory in the end, so we're all PAN-Millennialists anyway, right?").... but you, alone among the Free Republic Romans, have managed to create real disagreement amongst the supposedly "schismatic" and "sectarian" Calvinists.

---

Speaking for myself, I tend to agree with Jude24. "Having a naked Christ on a crucifix in no way insults Christ, but reminds us of the degredation his creation heaped upon him. We need to be reminded of what, precisely, a crucifixion entails." We are, I think, compelled to admit that no manner in which Christ chose to display Himself (and as you correctly say, He did so choose) can ever be called "blasphemous"; for Christ, in howsoever He presented Himself, was ipso facto never Blasphemous. And I think that you are right that in His humble presentation of Himself, His "humiliation", He did "image" for us the total and unreserved gift of self which was His Incarnation and particularly His Atonement -- and which is properly reflected in Marriage.

But on first viewing (and this is the first time I've seen the Michelangelo; not from your post, but it's the immediately-third image one sees on a Google image-search of "crucifix"), it is an arresting, disturbing Image -- because you're right, it is a pretty intense Reality to contemplate.

I'm reminded of a Spectator article on Holbein's "Dead Christ in the Tomb", and Dostoevsky's response thereto....

Hans Holbein the Younger’s ‘Dead Christ in the Tomb’

It is a painting of unprecedented — and harrowing — realism. Coffin-sized, it shows Christ’s coffin with one side removed to reveal an emaciated body on a crumpled white shroud. Rigor mortis has set in, the hands and feet still claw in their death agony, the mouth and eyes remain open. Muscle tone has begun to collapse and the flesh has taken on the green hue of putrefaction (forensic examination has put the degree of corruption as being consistent with a three-day-old corpse — Christ’s three days and three nights in the tomb). The man is not handsome, his body is not beautiful: he has a pointed, oriental beard and a corrugated, washboard chest. This is unequivocally not a body at peace but a human corpse in an unquiet grave — it is painting as post mortem. The Easter story started with Jesus declaring to his disciples ‘This is my body’ -- well, here it is.

...What we do know is that it had a powerful effect on later viewers. When Dostoevsky saw the painting in 1867, he stood before it for a full 20 minutes without moving. According to his wife ‘on his agitated face there was a terrified expression’, and in the end she had to drag him away, fearing the onset of an epileptic attack. Dostoevsky reused the episode when he wrote The Idiot — one of the characters, Prince Myshkin, remarking: ‘That picture! Why, some people might lose their faith by looking at that picture.’

But Dostoevsky was right, the ‘Dead Christ’, although it seems atheistic, is indeed a picture about faith.... The ‘Dead Christ’ is one man’s proof that art is capable not only of stimulating reflection but indeed can offer an encounter with the divine: it is as if he were saying, ‘This is what painting can do.’

Holbein understood and demonstrated a very simple truth: for a man so utterly dead to come back to life really will require nothing less than a miracle. ~~ Michael Prodger, "The Word Made Flesh"; Spectator, 4-19-03

[RochesterFan]

Gee, Mack, doesn't your Bible have Phil 1:18 ?

What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, [NAS95]

I have seen the movie and it is correct in intent and the big picture. People who have never been interested in the Scriptures' testimony concerning Christ are now asking questions and are reading the Scriptures. I have had more opportunity to discuss the person and work of my Lord at the lunch table at work in recent weeks than I have had in a long time. I, for one, am happy for the opportunity. I echo the sentiments of the apostle paul in Phil 1:18. No one here has suggested The Passion replace the Scriptures, but rather point sinners who need the Gospel to them.

[jude24]

That might be one of the most awful paintings I have ever seen.

But it was awful in a good way; it made me consider what it meant for Deity to die. (Although I thought that Christ didn't see corruption. The spices would have kept his body okay for three days).

[CARepubGal]

Amazing once again. The picture is humbling as much as the Passion was for me.

[jude24]

I break down every time I watch The Passion. (Seen it 3 times now.)

I don't usually break down. Big guys just don't do that.

[CARepubGal]

You are not the only one to cry. My very RC coworker cried through the whole movie (she wants to go back and see the parts she missed through the tears). I actually did not cry too hard (the person next to me did cry and had to leave: too emotional) but I did avert my eyes during a couple scenes: too much! I walked out of the movie thoroughly thankful and somewhat humbled. I want to see the movie again this weekend. A big box of Kleenex will accompany me this time. :) That being said, despite the fears of some, the movie DOES NOT become my primary view of Jesus. The Passion DOES however bring the suffering of Our Lord into perspective: a totally sinless God taking on our sins. :( may God use the film to work miracles.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That might be one of the most awful paintings I have ever seen. But it was awful in a good way; it made me consider what it meant for Deity to die.

Yes.

(Although I thought that Christ didn't see corruption. The spices would have kept his body okay for three days).

Well, unless we presume that His body entered some kind of inter-dimensional stasis whilst in the Tomb, I think we have to suppose that Natural Law did apply and there was some cellular degeneration during the three days prior to Resurrection, but I'm sure that the Body of Christ didn't "see corruption" in the sense of actual flesh-rot or anything like that. Beyond that, though, I'm not too worried about just how precisely we have to take the Psalm 16:9-10 -- "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"; I don't have any expertise as to what extent Hebrew burial spices actually retarded cellular degeneration -- but considering that within three days His Glorified Body could be touched, felt, could consume food and yet walk through walls if He felt so inclined, the matter doesn't bother me overmuch anyway.

best, OP

[Romulus]

you alone amongst the Roman Catholic Caucus have managed to create a situation...

Then all my work will not have been in vain. ;-)

OK, no more kidding. It's the last days of Lent, and I'm really glad we're all contemplating this stuff. Blessings to you too.

[Askel5]

=== Maybe people in general are simply incapable of bearing that much truth all at once.


Worked for Schindler's List, didn't it?

(Not the sex scenes ... weren't there naked prisoners abused as well?)

[annalex]

I once saw a similar image in Mexico, of a saintly woman offering her generous breast to a dying old man.

Why, that's the Carita Romana episode also in Caravaggio:

The Seven Acts of Mercy

Caravaggio

1607
Oil on canvas, 390 x 260 cm
Church of Pio Monte della Misericordia, Naples

The seven acts of mercy represented on the painting are the following. On the right appear the (1) burial of the dead and the episode of the so-called Carita Romana (Cimon's daughter giving her father suck in prison), which contains at once the two charitable acts of (2) visiting prisoners and (3) feeding the hungry. (4) Dressing the naked appears in the foreground, symbolized by St. Martin and the beggar. Next to this scene, the host and St. James of Compostela allude to the (5) offering of hospitality to pilgrims. (6) Relieving the thirsty is represented by Samson drinking from the ox jaw. The youth on the ground behind the beggar of St. Martin may also represent the merciful gesture of (7) caring for the sick.

Source

Go and vex no more.

[annalex]

You’re back?