The Bible indicates Gibson actually went easy on the injuries to Jesus' face!

Monday, March 1, 2004 | tame

[tame]

There has been a lot spoken and written about the "undue violence" in Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ".

But if w review the Biblical record, Gibson actually may have gone easy on the physical damage done to Jesus' face. Consider the following:

Isaiah 52:13-15 (prophecy about the Messiah): "Behold, my servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, my people, so his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. Thus he will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand."

Matthew 26:67-68, "Then they spat in his face and beat him with their fists; and others slapped him, and said, 'Prophecy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit you?'"

Matthew 27:27-30, "The the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around him. And they stripped him, and put a scarlet robe on him. And after weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they spat on him, and took the reed and began to beat him on the head.

Mark 15:16-19, "And the soldiers took him away into the palace (that is, the praetorium), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. And they dressed him up in purple, and after weaving a crown of thorns, they out it on him; and they began to proclaim him, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they kept beating his head with a reed [staff made of reed], and spitting at him, and kneeling and bowing before him."

Luke 22:63, "And the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him, an beating him. And they blindfolded him and were asking him, saying, 'Prophecy, Who is the one who hit you?'"

John 18:22, "And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, 'Is that the way you answer the high priest?'"

John 19:1-3, "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; and they began to come up to him, and say, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and to give him blows in the face.

Now, to put this in perspective, when is the last time you received a direct blow to the face (accidental or otherwise). Now, imagine someone hitting you in the face two or three times. Assuming the blows are full force, your face would probably swell up.

Now, consider that a Jesus was hit in the face on more than one occassion during that horrific day. Also consider that on one of the occassions "a whole Roman cohort" REPEATEDLY hit Jesus in the face.

No wonder Isaiah 52:14 says that "his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men"!

To be blunt, it appears from the accounts cited that Jesus' face was beaten to a swollen pulp. This may account for the fact that, after Jesus resurrection, the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him even as they spoke to him! (Luke, chapter 24)

True, Luke 24:16 seems to stress the eyes of those disciples being "vailed" or "kept from recognizing him" (depending on the translation). Still, the condition of Jesus' disfigured face may have been a factor used by God the father to prevent his immediate recognition.

And, in case somebody is wondering if Jesus continued to bare these wounds after his resurrection, the answer seems to be YES! In addition to Luke 24:16, John 20:24-28 depicts Jesus as showing Thomas his wounds. Also, Revelation 5:6 depicts the Messiah as "a lamb standing, as if slain..."

But let us not forget why this terrible murder of Jesus took place (If you're reading this, Mr. Gibson, place direct a prequal and a sequal!):

Romans 4:25, "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

BTW, This is not an optional belief for those who seeking truth, or salvation from the coming wrath. It is a necessary belief. In fact, Paul says Jesus death, burial and resurrection IS the gospel! Therefore a denial of this death, burial and resurrection is a denial of the gospel itself:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures."

Romans 10:9, 10, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

[Eaker]

Thanks for the ping!

You must post a review of your own.

[xp38]

Sorry no I haven't. As to Jesus not making it to Calvary alive I have read the exact opposite that Jesus actually died very quickly on the cross in comparison to the usual time a crucified person took to die. I believe Jesus was 6-9 hours or so on the cross until he gave up the ghost as the gospel writer puts it. I have read it usually took 2 or 3 days until a crucified person died and that is why the Romans were surprised he died so quickly. They were about to break his bones when they found out Jesus had died and instead his body was then taken down off the cross to be taken to the tomb. They were surprised as was Pilate when he heard the news. Perhaps however his pre crucifixion ordeal contributed to his speeded up death.

[Salvation]

More corroboration --

Wounds of Christ -- 5,480

[tame]

Hmmm, Interesting sources.

[tame]

My relative's point is that Jesus could have died several times over if Gibson's portrayel is accurate.

[tame]

ping

[NotchJohnson]

My question is at the end of the movie, the temple was torn down - by God. Does it say that in the Bible?

[tame]

My question is at the end of the movie, the temple was torn down - by God. Does it say that in the Bible?

Matthew 27:50-53, "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy peoplewho had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

[AFPhys]

Perhaps that bishop will also be surprised when he discovers that Gibson incorporated non-Biblical contemporary historical works in his research of the political environment and the Romans' torture methods. We'll see.

[tame]

Matthew 27:54: "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed 'Surely he was the Son of God!'"

[AFPhys]

The Romans were expert in torture techniques.

They knew what they were doing, and calibrated their cruelty in such a way that the person enduring it felt it all the way.

Your relative's belief is understandable, but in fact, she is wrong here. Scourging tore skin off down to the bones.

[AFPhys]

I should also have added that I understand that scourging and crucifixion were also not often used together, but I would appreciate some more expert advisement on this.

[theFIRMbss]

>If it were any other man, he may not have made it. But because it was Jesus, and because he was taking on the sins of the whole world...

This business (old stuff)
of turning Christ's suffering
into an idol

flat out contradicts
Christ's specific instructions
to us of His death!

In another thread,
I made this simple point and
gave the Scripture quote:

And for the people
who want to wallow in the
grief and blood and pain,

remember "Gospel"
means good news and Jesus said
we should be happy:

"Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I. "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe."

[John 14:27-29]

[tame]

This business (old stuff) of turning Christ's suffering into an idol

Straw man argument. This movie is not an idol any more than the cross was an idol for the apostle Paul (even though Paul specifically stated that "glories in the cross). Rather this movie a teaching tool.

And for the people who want to wallow in the grief and blood and pain...

That is a bizarre micharacterization. We don't wallow in the pain, we rejoice because of the beautiful love he demonstrated by suffering for us. This movie beautifully depicts that.

remember "Gospel" means good news and Jesus said we should be happy:

1) The good news is exactly what is depicted in the movie. See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. How are you defining "good news".

2) Jesus never said he "wants us to be happy". IN fact he specifically said we would be persecuted, and suffer for him.

Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. You have heard Me say to you, "I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, "I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I. "And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe."

You don't seem to understand the context of his comment, specifically, that he will come back and receive us to himself. BTW, this movie encourages love, joy and peace in the viewer by demonstrating that our sins have been covered once and for all on the cross.

I suggest you spend more time studying before making such negative comments, and bizarre mischaracterizations..

Have you seen the film?

[tame]

I should also have added that I understand that scourging and crucifixion were also not often used together, but I would appreciate some more expert advisement on this.

Here's to more research :o)

[Proud_texan]

One of my favorite quotes:

"We want a God without wrath who took man without sin into a kingdom without justice through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." - The Kingdom of God in America, H. Richard Niebuhr

Niebuhr wrote that over 60 years ago.

Re: the private transactions I was fuzzy on the "why have you forsaken me" scripture and I've been working on it. For the first time in His Life God withdrew from Jesus when he asummed all our sins as God wasn't capable of experiencing sin. That's what I imagine hell to be like, the end of our relationship to God, even for those that don't realize that there is such a thing, even if it's only one sided.

You're right, that would have been even worse than the physical.

[nightdriver]

"For the first time in His Life God withdrew from Jesus when he asummed all our sins as God wasn't capable of experiencing sin."

Based on my own inadequate understanding of the scriptures, from Genesis to the Revelation, that is the same conclusion I have come to.

[Proud_texan]

It is an interesting one, it seemed to me to be more painful than the physical.

Another kind soul passed along this sermon from Spurgeon. I'm on my third reading, very interesting:

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/2133.htm

[madison10]

To be blunt, it appears from the accounts cited that Jesus' face was beaten to a swollen pulp. This may account for the fact that, after Jesus resurrection, the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him even as they spoke to him! (Luke, chapter 24)

I don't believe the beaten face & body would have remained...only the pierced scars. I would think the scars would have made Jesus MORE recognizable as there probably weren't too many people walking around with battered bodies. Think of a boxer. His beating around the face doesn't last.

Thought the Holy Spirit prevented those on the road to Emmaus from knowing who Jesus was & later assisted in the recognition.

[tame]

I don't believe the beaten face & body would have remained...only the pierced scars.

I don't see any evidence in scripture to warrant the view that Jesus' face and body marks would not be present.

Think of a boxer. His beating around the face doesn't last.

Actually, if a boxer's been through a severe fight his scars are usually lasting. In Jesus' case, it was only days between his brutal beating and his appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus.