"scourging" of the Christ

[Preach]

After watching "The Passion", I am wondering what the theological significance of Jesus' scourging is. This is to say, was it part of the atonement? Was it part of His active or passive obedience? What was the significance of the scourging of the Christ on redemptive history, to the soldiers that did the deed, etc. Any thoughts? I a spend hours each day studying the ways and things of God, and am a preacher by calling, and yet for lo these many years, I have never truly appreciated the scourging of the Christ, and its relationship to history. I don't know what it means. Can anyone help me? Thanks,
Bobby

 

[Fernando]

scourging

I am wondering the same thing. The one passage that comes to mind is: "By his stripes we are healed." This fits the scourging better than the crucifixion itself.

 

[Guest]

Matthew Henry:


[quote:de6f3928ab]
At last he was smitten with the hand, with blow after blow. 3. He had wounds and stripes. He was scourged, not under the merciful restriction of the Jewish law, which allowed not above forty stripes to be given to the worst of male factors, but according to the usage of the Romans. And his scourging, doubtless, was the more severe because Pilate intended it as an equivalent for his crucifixion, and yet it proved a preface to it. He was wounded in his hands, and feet, and side. Though it was so ordered that not a bone of him should be broken, yet he had scarcely in any part a whole skin, but from the crown of his head, which was crowned with thorns, to the soles of his feet, which were nailed to the cross, nothing appeared but wounds and bruises.
[/quote:de6f3928ab]


Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Gill:


[quote:de6f3928ab]
Isa 53:10 - Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him,.... The sufferings of Christ are signified by his being "bruised"; See Gill on Isa_53:5, and as it was foretold he should have his heel bruised by the serpent, Gen_3:15, but here it is ascribed to the Lord: he was bruised in body, when buffeted and scourged, and nailed to the cross; and was bruised and broken in spirit, when the sins of his people were laid on him, and the wrath of God came upon him for them: the Lord had a hand in his sufferings; he not only permitted them, but they were according to the counsel of his will; they were predetermined by him, Act_2:23, yea, they were pleasing to him, he took a kind of delight and pleasure in them; not in them simply considered as sufferings, but as they were an accomplishment of his purposes, a fulfilment of his covenant and promises, and of the prophecies in his word; and, particularly, as hereby the salvation of his people was brought about; see Joh_10:17,

he hath put him to grief; when he awoke the sword of justice against him; when he spared him not, but delivered him up into the hands of wicked men, and unto death: he was put to grief in the garden, when his soul was exceeding sorrowful; and on the cross, when he was nailed to it, had the weight of his people's sins, and his Father's wrath, on him; and when he hid his face from him, which made him cry out, "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" or, "hath put him to pain": suffered him to be put to pain, both in body and mind:
[/quote:de6f3928ab]

My thought is that what He went through from the Garden, to the statement of forsaken desperation on the cross, and nature itself abandoning Him(sky turning dark), was exactly what the creed means when it says "He descended into hell".

He endured the full wrath of God, both through the means of the hands of wicked men, and the abandonment of His father.

 

[Galahad]

Perhaps someone with a background in RCC can help clarify this issue, but it is my understanding that Gibson's focus on this has to do with the necessity of Christ's physical suffering to bring about merit that could be applied to the sinner. To my knowledge, Protestants do not have a highly developed (read theologically complex) doctrine of Christ's passion. I think that stems from our focus on the forensic justification accomplished through Christ's "active obedience" every day of His life.

Any thoughts?
------------
Jeffrey Brannen