Normally we would have no interest in reviewing a motion picture, but the recent release of this film has caused quite a stir and may deserve comment. It deals with the last hours in the life of Jesus — from Gethsemane to the cross with just a brief resurrection scene at the close. Anyone deciding to see the film should be aware that it is extremely graphic and is R-rated for violence.
There have been other films of the life of Jesus, so we might wonder why this one should be so controversial. There are basically two reasons — the intense realism of the depiction of the suffering of the Savior, and the charge against the film of anti-Semitism. Without making a recommendation in regard to viewing the film, we will deal with these two aspects and compare the New Testament account with the Roman Catholic viewpoint, which is the basis of this picture.
Comparison to scripture
The film opens with a quotation from Isaiah 53: “He was wounded for our transgressions…” which seems to deflect from anti-Semitic bias. For historical realism, the dialog is in Aramiac, Latin and Hebrew, with subtitles in English.
A prime consideration must be — is it an accurate portrayal of the gospel accounts? It is to quite a degree, but there are discrepancies. In the opening scene in Gethsemane, the presence of a satanic figure is, of course, fictional. One might take this adversary to be symbolic, since she (why a female figure — why anyone?) is whispering negative thoughts about the trial facing the Savior. Other signs of Catholic demonology are also present in the film.
The arrest quickly takes place, and Jesus is taken before Caiaphas and some members of the Sanhedrin. The gospels say nothing of any physical abuse until Christ is actually before Caiaphas, but in the film the beating begins with the arrest and is almost unrelenting for the duration of the picture.
The charge of Antisemitism would apply to the gospel accounts almost as much as to what is depicted on the screen. Seeing Caiaphas portrayed in a bad light should surprise no one. Jewish historians themselves recognize that he was not even a legitimate claimant to the position of high priest. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of the old high priest, Annas, and had been appointed to that position by the previous Roman governor and retained by Pontius Pilate. Caiaphas is seen as a rabble-rouser, which he undoubtedly was.
The character of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is presented as Roman Catholics see her — she appears in the film as a kind of ‘mother superior.’ Quite against New Testament reality, she is present at the trials of her son before the Sanhedrin and Pilate, even witnessing the scourging close at hand. It is quite enough that she had to follow Jesus to the cross and endure the scene of the crucifixion.
Then there is the purely fictional scene in which Pilate’s wife comes to Mary and Mary Magdalene, presenting them towels with which to wipe up the blood of Jesus from the stones where he was beaten by Roman soldiers.
One objection to the film stated by Jewish critics is the depiction of Pontius Pilate as an almost sympathetic and reasonable man — instead of the hated persecutor that he really was. Pilate was not a good man — he slaughtered many Jews and was even finally recalled because of his cruel excesses. But in this instance he is seen somewhat as the gospels depict him. He is just not particularly anxious to crucify the man whom he sees as quite harmless and guilty of no crime against Rome. And his wife happened to inform him of a dream she had which she saw as a bad omen.
Impact of the suffering
There is a long sequence depicting the carrying of the cross to the site of crucifixion — and the depiction of suffering is almost mind numbing. Then the crucifixion itself is seen in the starkest realism. During the progress of all this we were saying, this is really too much! But afterward, I felt I understood as never before just how much suffering our Savior endured for us. And I knew as if I had seen it firsthand, just what a Roman scourging, and a Roman crucifixion really were.
We were relieved to find no trinitarian references or other obvious discrepancies in the words of the Jesus figure. We also remarked at how like our own “breaking of bread” service the last supper appeared (in flashback) — in contrast with the Roman Catholic mass.
Anti-Semitism charge not justified
The positive reaction to this film by Catholic and Protestant groups — especially in areas where the evangelical movement is strong – has been unprecedented, exceeding the best hopes of the filmmakers. Jewish reaction has been mixed, claims of anti-Semitism strongly made in some cases, denied by the more rational. Much of the criticism has come from those who had not actually seen the film. Some of the old passion plays going back to medieval times, such as the famous one in Germany, were indeed anti-Jewish.
Stations of the cross
Something should be said about the Roman Catholic perception of the passion of Christ, for it is the basis on which this moving picture stands. It is very much a part of church liturgy and ritual. In every Catholic church, there are the “Stations of the Cross.” They are also posted in Jerusalem, and pilgrims, many of them priests and nuns, can be seen following these stations through the streets of the city. In contemplation of the passion of Christ, Catholics are expected to do the stations in the churches, either as a form of worship or as an act of penance. There are 14 of these depicted on the walls, each representing an incident on the way to the crucifixion site. At one station Jesus carries the cross, at another he falls under its weight, at another Simon the Cyrenian bears the cross, at still another “St. Veronica” is supposed to have wiped the face of Jesus with a cloth — which then miraculously bore his image — and so on, to the cross. In The Passion of the Christ the viewer in effect follows the “Stations of the Cross.”
In the Catholic Church the suffering and death of the Christ figure are very prominently depicted in pictures and the crucifix, an image of Christ perpetually dying on the cross. It is good to remember what our Lord did for us in his death, but Catholic religious expression in our view becomes morbid and superstitious. It also becomes a travesty in the expression of so many false concepts. No, it was not God who died on the cross, it was the Son of God, the perfect man. He died for us — he died for our sins and for our salvation. He will return as our King, ruler of the world, the true Jewish Messiah.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One