Naked
Crucifix attributed to Michelangelo.
When Corrie and Betsy Ten Boom were hustled naked into the showers at the concentration camp Ravensbruck, Corrie told Betsy, “Jesus was naked too when they crucified Him.” They were ashamed of their nakedness in front of the prison guards, and only then realized in a graphic manner that Jesus was also naked upon the cross. As Dutch Protestants, they may not have been so aware of this fact since images such as crucifixes were not part of their devotional life. In fact, focus upon the passion of Christ was less explicit in Protestant spirituality since emphasis was more often centered upon the Resurrection of Christ and His triumph. (Not unlike the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has been.)
We don’t like to think of Jesus as naked, and many do not even like art depicting Jesus as a naked infant. Because of our concupiscence, nakedness is shameful in irregular circumstances, that’s why we wear clothing. For the Romans to strip Jesus naked was another means to further humiliate and shame him before Jew and Gentile alike. It is believed someone gave a veil to cover the loins of Our Lord, perhaps it was the Magdalen, since we see her unveiled at the foot of the cross in art. (Although such depictions were employed to remind and identify her as the woman who had anointed the feet of Jesus with her hair as well.)
Mystics have noted there were well over five thousand wounds and lacerations upon the body of Christ. As Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” demonstrates, his body appeared to be almost as raw meat, totally bloodied, nearly unrecognizable - and people would have turned away from the sight of Him. I would think that even the most depraved and debauched individual would not be able to take sensual delight before such a brutalized and naked figure.
It seems to me the nakedness of the Cross condemns the vanity, immodesty and sensuality of our times.
April 1st, 2007 at 4:46 am
Hear Hear! People that can’t appreciate a naked Jesus are most oftenly dealing with some sort of self denial trip.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I take it as a ‘botched’ joke(I’m in Kerry country here) and as an insult to me personally.
Have you noticed the timing of this
exhibit? Just in time for HOLY week, of course!
The title of the sculpture?…
“My Sweet Lord”. Did y’all miss that?
To me that is a ‘take-off’ on the chocolate easter bunny.
I have been to retreat in monasteries and there are paintings of Jesus with a very light cloth..even though the transparency of the cloth is obviuus in the artwork, there is no embarrassment..it is done with respect.
However, I do prefer a crucifix
which uses a cloth. The art in the churches is not of the Gibson sort, but clean and polished.However, as a woman I prefer gazing on one of these beautiful statues with respect and awe, undistracted if you please.
April 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Hi everyone. This crucifix was posted before I even heard of the chocolate image in NYC. The post has nothing to do with that. BTW, the showing or exhibit has now been canceled.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:12 am
I think we do the Bible an injustice when artist portrey Jesus with a loin cloth in the name of modesty. There wasn’t one thing about what Christ went through pretty or modest. What is wrong with painting Jesus naked when that is how the Bible says he was crucified. We aren’t afraid to let our children watch worse things on t.v. Nakedness is only vulger in the eye of the beholder.