The General Release of Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ” is a day away, as of the writing of this article (February 24, 2004). I will not be seeing the movie. Let me explain why.
Background information
According to media reports, Gibson is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, who found a renewed importance for his faith about 12 years ago, after indulging in many of the vices in which Hollywood stars are wont to participate. The movie was funded solely by Gibson, at a cost of $25 million U.S. Not surprisingly, given its subject matter, Hollywood would not touch it, and almost everyone in Hollywood predicted it would be a financial disaster. However, due to very savvy marketing, using Christian organizations to promote the movie, it appears destined to be one of the blockbusters of the year.
The subject matter is the ‘Passion’ of Christ. ‘Passion’ is a Middle English word meaning ‘suffering’ occurring once in the KJV at Acts 1:3. It is translated from the Greek word pasko which occurs 42 times in the New Testament, with most references concerning Jesus’ death, the remainder concerned with our suffering as disciples.
Roman Catholics in particular use this term to describe the suffering of Christ during the last 12 hours of his life, with special emphasis on the crucifixion.
Gibson’s anti-Semitic faith
One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its purported anti-semitic message. There is divided opinion on this point, with many conservative rabbis and leaders of the Jewish Anti Defamation League expressing outrage and fear that it will incite hatred against Jews, while most Christian audiences and several movie critics downplay this element.
Interestingly, Gibson, the filmmaker, belongs to an extreme conservative sect of Roman Catholicism that does not acknowledge the validity of Vatican II, a document published by pope Paul IV. One of its key features is the renunciation of a long-held Roman Catholic doctrine that blamed exclusively the Jews for the death of Christ (making them to trinitarians, God killers). Here’s an excerpt from Vatican II, published October 1965, renouncing anti-semitism:
While referring the reader back to this document, we may simply restate here that the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church to Judaism condemn (as opposed to the very spirit of Christianity) all forms of antisemitism and discrimination, which in any case the dignity of the human person alone would suffice to condemn.1
The BBC reported:
Gibson’s own religious beliefs are based on a ‘traditionalist Catholic Church,’ which rejects the Pope’s second Vatican Council edict which sought to clear Jews of responsibility for Jesus ‘death and repair relations between Jews and Catholics.
Presumably, the filmmaker’s refusal to acknowledge Vatican II means he still holds the Jews solely responsible for Jesus’ death. Regardless of the variety of opinions on the movie’s slant on anti-Semitism, I find it difficult to view it in light of the filmmaker’s views.
How the Bible apportions blame
From a biblical perspective, it is important we acknowledge that scripture indicts all those present. Interpreting Psalm 2 Peter says:
For truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever your hand and your purpose determined before to be done (Acts 4:25-28 NKJV).
Movie based on extra biblical sources
Contrary to popular impressions, the script for the movie is not based solely on the gospel accounts. It uses two non-inspired, Roman Catholic sources in addition to the gospels. These include the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) as collected in the book, “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” and “The Mystical City of God” by (St.) Mary of Agreda. Both authors are venerated by Catholics as being inspired, their writings being an integral part of that church’s canon. Of the visions of Emmerich, Gibson said, “She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of” (The New Yorker; Sept. 15, 2003).
In the spirit of these writings, the movie reportedly spends most of its two hours focusing on the brutalization of Christ, thus heavily emphasizing the Roman Catholic emphasis on the violent nature of Christ’s death. One scene is 45 minutes long and is a relentless depiction of the Roman guards beating Christ. Seasoned movie critics as well as ordinary audiences have left the theatre feeling shell-shocked at the experience, which is exactly as the filmmaker intended: “I wanted it to be extreme,” he has stated.
This overemphasis on violence to the person of Christ distorts the true Biblical picture which devotes as much attention to Christ’s inner struggle with sin as to the physical and mental abuse he suffered. Suffering is more than subjection to torture. One of the supreme benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to us is that His entire life and death was an example for us to follow. Peter describes subjection to injustice and emotional abuse as being as important as physical torture as an example of the kind of suffering we will experience and must overcome:
For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps: who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth, who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously (I Peter 2:21-25).
This makes the suffering of Christ relevant for any believer, no matter what their circumstances, not just for those subject to state-sponsored torture.
The gospel accounts are word pictures that help us to envision the life of Christ in our imaginations. There is a distinct understatement on the violence done to Christ in these records. Although the physical abuse is a fundamental part of Christ’s experience as the perfect sacrifice, few verses with only minor details are devoted to this aspect: Matthew 27:7, 26-44; Mark 15:15-31; Luke 23 mentions almost nothing regarding physical torture and John 19:1-5, 29. As mentioned in The New Yorker:
Gibson, of course, is free to skip over the incomparable glories of Jesus’ temperament and to devote himself as he does, to Jesus ‘pain and martyrdom
in the last twelve hours of his life. As a viewer, I am equally free to say that the movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony — and I say so without indulging in “anti-Christian sentiment” (Gibson’s term for what his critics are spreading)!
This heavy emphasis on physical punishment is consistent with the Catholic doctrine of Adam’s original sin, racially inherited guilt (moral and legal) and the requirement of a violent death to atone for it. It is also consistent with fundamentalist Christianity’s almost mystical emphasis on the ‘blood of Christ’ as having some magical redemptive power, and their quick fix solution of simply accepting the efficacy of the ‘blood of the lamb’ by acknowledging Christ as your personal savior, with no attendant personal responsibility attached.
Bible doctrine emphasizes Christ’s obedience
The biblical doctrine of the efficacy of Christ’s death focuses more on His life of obedience and trust in His heavenly Father. God loved His Son greatly, and wanted to minimize as much as possible the suffering He experienced, as evidenced by the relatively short amount of time he spent on the cross before expiring. Hebrews 10, citing Psalm 40:6-8, makes it clear that the sacrifice of a body, either by brutal, violent death or otherwise, is of no consequence without the attendant submission of self-will to God:
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come… to do your will, 0 God (Heb. 10:5-7 NKJV).
Notice that God is credited with providing (preparing) the body, while Christ gave His will. Thus the Father and Son worked in harmony to bring about the reconciliation of mankind. Truly “God was in Christ, reconciling himself to the world.”
Animated idolatry
The movie is nothing more than an animated idol,3 with distinctly Roman Catholic influences. Jesus is depicted as having long hair and bears strong resemblance to many Catholic depictions of Christ. Although it is impossible to know what Christ looked like, all archaeological evidence from his time is of men with short hair, and Paul teaches, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?”
You can enter any Roman Catholic church and see idols of a bleeding Christ hanging from a cross. The filmmaker has simply extended this notion by drawing a moving picture designed to represent his vision of Christ. This portrayal is likely to intrude on our conscious and subconscious understanding and deflect our minds from the true word pictures painted by the gospels much more drastically and permanently than a statue or painting.
Positive aspect
The movie has one positive aspect: it has aroused great interest amongst the public in the death of Christ and the texts that describe it. As Christadelphians, it is our responsibility to seize the opportunities presented by this aroused interest and to teach and preach the risen Christ— a triumphant Lord who conquered sin through suffering, whose character was refined because of a lifelong obedience, not simply through subjection to torture; one who is the captain of our salvation.
We truly have a wonderful savior to look up to, one who reconciled us to God by his death, and saved us by his resurrection (Rom. 5:10). He knows our every weakness and need. Let us see him through the eyes of God’s word, not through this movie.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One