Living Water of Washington DC. A Christian Outreach Ministry.

A Review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

SYNOPSIS

Through The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson graphically communicates the unspeakable cruelty of the punishment that Jesus Christ endured for the atonement of sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2), not always easily conveyed in ordinary sermons. If you’ll pardon the cliche, a picture is worth a thousand words, or more. Since the movie’s dialogue is in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew, the film presents words from the Bible in English via subtitles.

I imagine most in our Christian audience of readers have seen The Passion of the Christ, but some haven’t and are deciding whether it is worth their while to rent it on DVD, or VHS (for us technophobes). In this article, I assess the film’s fidelity to Scripture and give this writer’s Christian perspective on the movie, as well as review the film’s artistic merits. Mel Gibson is a remarkably talented artist (not a theologian, expositor, or teacher) and this movie is a fascinating expression of his personal faith in the Risen Christ.

"I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor…But I really feel my career was leading me to make [The Passion of the Christ]. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize." –Mel Gibson from TheDenverChannel.com, June 27, 2003

We approve of this movie as a tool for evangelism, but not as a tool for instruction. The Holy Bible is the only authoritative source for instruction.

As for charges that this movie is anti-semitic, these charges are so unfounded that they hardly warrant response. The characters portrayed in this movie as most kind, courageous, humble, faithful, and heroic, are Jewish.

REMARKS ABOUT THE CINEMA

It’s obvious that the cinema today is hostile toward Christians and Christianity. Therefore The Passion of the Christ is a welcome and refreshing change from the rubbish that normally fulminates within the walls of movie theatres. Interestingly, the cultural trend downward for most commercial movies is a dramatic reversal of the policy of early cinema, which frequently gave sympathetic treatment of biblical themes: consider Cecil DeMille’s The Ten Commandments from 1923 (let alone the 1956 version with Charlton Heston) and King of Kings from 1927 (as well as the 1961 version directed by Nicholas Ray). How far and how frighteningly quickly have filmmakers removed the inspiring biblical themes of movies from those more halcyon days of family-friendly fare.

Most of today’s movies are propagators of profane cultural messages, but The Passion of the Christ renders faithfully important parts of the Gospel. In that respect alone, The Passion of the Christ is an extraordinary movie and cannot be lumped with the trash ordinarily spewed from Hollywood, which (not surprisingly) wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with Gibson’s film, unleashing its attack dogs to make mean-spirited attacks on the film and its director. Being no fan of contemporary movies, I went to see The Passion of the Christ with a skeptical attitude, deciding to see it so that I could render an informed opinion when asked about it.

Mel Gibson’s movie is a huge commercial success, which is not necessarily a good indicator of a movie’s artistic merit, historical fidelity, or overall quality. After all, Hollywood tosh such as Kill Bill tends to generate commercial success at the box office. At the time of this writing, The Passion of the Christ has grossed over $300 million in the U.S., placing it into the top ten highest domestically grossing films of all time, and into the company of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Spider Man, and Forrest Gump.

The Christ recently surpassed Gump to break into the top ten. Praise God.

A WORK OF ART

The Passion of the Christ is not the Gospel, but the Gospel clearly inspires it. It is art created by Mel Gibson as a vivid and heartfelt expression of his personal faith and his love for Christ. As such, the film’s fidelity to the Gospel is admirable. It would be a blessing for all art and artists to exhibit such faith, but most "artistes” are gratingly self-absorbed and notoriously pagan. It is little wonder that rock groups are caricatured as always having messy break-ups because of "irreconcilable, artistic differences” .

Although The Passion renders the biblical story faithfully, it is a work of art that is no substitute for the authoritative, inspired Word of God. This might understandably put off some people toward the film because of the biblical prohibition against idolatry. However, the artistic nature and qualities of the film are undisguised, sufficing to say that a person should be quite alright if he doesn’t worship the movie or anybody in it. (Apparently, Jim Caviezel, the actor who plays Jesus in the film, has had some fans bow down to him, but that is a manifestation of depraved pop culture rather than of the movie’s message.)

"The Passion is a movie meant to inspire, not offend... My intention in bringing it to the screen is to create a lasting work of art and engender serious thought among audiences of diverse faith backgrounds (or none) who have varying familiarity with this story.” –Mel Gibson from Daily Variety, June 12, 2003

Gibson makes frequent, overt references to well-known works of art, emphasizing the artistic nature of his film and enhancing the movie’s visual interest. For example, Pilate says dramatically "Ecce Homo!” (John 19:5, Vulgate), meaning "Behold the Man” during a scene not visually inspired as much by the Bible as it might have been by a 19th Century Antonio Ciseri painting.

Later, Gibson inserts an extra-biblical scene that makes conspicuous reference to Michelangelo’s revered sculpture, The Pieta. In the Bible, it is Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus who take the body of Jesus from the cross (John 19:38-40).

SHARING THE GOSPEL

Many of today’s religious leaders say that The Passion is a film that "must be seen” . We believe, however, that there is no movie ever made that "must be seen” . There is no book ever written or ever redacted that "must be read” –except for the Bible. No person "needs” to see The Passion of the Christ, but we heartily recommend it to any adult who is looking to see a great movie. Now if this movie were purported to be Gospel, I would take issue with that. But it is neither the Gospel nor is it purported to be. It is well known to be Mel Gibson’s powerful movie about Christ’s Passion.

We are called to preach the Gospel and to carry God’s Light to the ends of the earth. That is no easy task, since there are billions of people hungry for the Lord between here and "the ends of the earth” . Some of us are called to reach just one or two people to fulfill His task. The one person we reach might be a friend, a brother, a daughter, maybe even a stranger we meet on the subway. Others are called to reach more people, in pulpits and on street corners, by sharing the Gospel with microphone, megaphone, and/or camera.

I don’t know how many Mel Gibson is called to reach. Only God knows. But I do know that Gibson is sincere in his belief that he has a message to share with millions, and that he has been well-prepared to deliver his message in a forum he knows intimately –the cinema. Again, I’m wary of movies and I harbor a particular distaste for Hollywood, but the substance and content of a message is more important than its form or medium of delivery. Charles Spurgeon used the pulpit and C.S. Lewis the pen to share the Gospel. C.S. Lewis also used broadcast radio during World War II. What they wrote and what they spoke are no substitute for the Word, but they attempted to illustrate biblical ideas, and ably so. Mel Gibson, as an actor and director, uses film, which is not surprising since cinema has been his career for well over twenty years. The cinema, more than books, records, stage or pulpit, works for Mel Gibson.

The most important question is about the message, rather than about the medium–what is Gibson’s message? Is it faithful to the Gospel? Is it based on the Bible? Is it true to Scripture or does it contradict Scripture? These are the questions I asked when viewing The Passion.

So let’s talk about the movie. I’ll discuss some of the more remarkable parts, not holding back for fear of giving away the ending (I’m sure most of you have already "read the book” and know how it ends).

The movie is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. That being said, Mel Gibson not surprisingly exercises some artistic license in his work, which is expected from movie directors as well as other "artists” . Although Gibson took some liberties in his role as Director, he inserts nothing that contradicts or undermines the Gospel. It is commanded that we do not add or take away from Scripture, and Mel Gibson does not do this: he simply adds to his own movie. Gibson’s movie is not Scripture, it is merely his movie. The Scripture of the Bible remains intact.

Gibson’s artistic flourishes are by and large harmonious with the Biblical account. Insofar as embellishment goes, even preachers often give their own thoughts about how biblical characters might have felt or acted, which do not come from the Bible directly, but which add to the interest and appeal of their sermons. This is not new. It can be dangerous, however, if the extra details contradict, twist, or diminish the biblical account. It is important that any expositor state clearly what is from the Bible and what is not. Because The Passion is a movie, some artistic latitude is to be expected, but The Passion (thankfully) stays close to the biblical account.

There is however a Catholic’s unique perspective given in this movie, which makes sense because it is Mel’s movie and Mel is Catholic. Although Mel’s movie is in agreement with the biblical Gospel, there are some elements of pious Catholic tradition that appear in the movie, such as the scenes based on the Catholic legend of Veronica: a pious matron named Veronica takes pity on Jesus as He carries His cross through the streets of Jerusalem; she steps forward from the crowd and wipes blood and sweat from His face with her veil. This event is commemorated in Catholicism’s sixth station of the cross on the Via Dolorosa (the Way of the Cross). These elements, however, do not contradict the letter of Scripture.

Some of the extra-biblical scenes have as their basis the book The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nineteenth-century Catholic nun. Emmerich reputedly bore the physical wounds of Jesus Christ, called the mystic stigmata, where His wounds supernaturally appear on the hands, feet and head.

To be sure, I did at least at one point wince at certain extra-biblical additions. As Mary is looking up at the cross, she says to Jesus, "Let me die with you” . Such close association of Mary with Christ’s death, not just in her mourning His death but also in wanting to participate in it, comes close to crossing the line, in this writer’s opinion. The Bible says that Jesus Christ by Himself bore our sins (Heb 1:3). Mary was not involved with Christ's suffering for our sins, except to the extent that she grieved her child’s suffering as any normal mother would.

THE MOST CELEBRATED STORY EVER

"For those concerned about the content of this film, know that it conforms to the narratives of Christ's passion and death found in the four Gospels of the New Testament.” –Mel Gibson from Daily Variety, June 12, 2003

The film begins in Gethsemane with Jesus, looking remarkably like the face impressed on the shroud of Turin, praying to His Father. The highly effective extra-biblical flourish to the scene is the devil’s temptation of Jesus. Gibson’s artistic license is defensible here, as well as in other cases. To begin the drama that follows, in which evil is pitted directly against good, Satan appears in the garden seeking to fill Jesus with doubt and ambivalence by asking the question:

"Do you really believe that one man can bear the full burden of all sin? No one man can carry this burden I tell you–it is far too heavy. No one. Never.”

Jesus prays, "If it is possible, let this chalice pass from me” (Matt 26:39, "chalice” from the Latin Vulgate’s "calix” is used rather than "cup” from most English translations). The devil capitalizes on Jesus’ dread of the events to follow since Jesus, anticipating His own bloody murder, is in profoundly distressing circumstances now, as He was while fasting in the wilderness (Matt 4). Surely, if Jesus faces temptation, it occurs when He asks if the cup of His imminent torture and death could possibly pass from Him. But Jesus is obedient to the will of His Father, and He prays, "but Your will be done, not Mine.”

Because the movie begins in Gethsemane and not in Bethlehem, the script in this scene sets the stage by reminding us what the Passion is about, and prepares us for the extreme brutality that Jesus will endure by defining why it is necessary (as described all throughout the Bible prior to the account of His Passion and Crucifixion). The devil’s questions here are extra-biblical insertions, but they are the questions which the Bible answers with verses such as in 1 John 2:2,

"He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Although agonizing with full realization of the torture in store for Him, Jesus is resolute to do exactly what the devil tries to tempt Him out of doing –to bear the burden of the sins of the whole world in accord with the will of His Father! His firm resolve is shown symbolically onscreen by His literal "fulfillment” of the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, telegraphing to the devil His firm commitment to accomplish once for all the will of God (Heb 10:10) made known in Eden to the very first humans.

There are some scenes where Mel Gibson’s care and close attention to detail in rendering the Gospel is extraordinary, where Gibson stays meticulously close to Scripture on points that might be easily missed by Bible readers. In these scenes, Gibson gives vitality and vision to what the Scriptures say. For example, in the scene where the high priest asks Jesus "tell us, are you the Messiah, the Son of the living God?” to which Jesus replies "I AM, and you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” , the high priest shrieks in shock and disgust and tears his clothes, consistent with the Hebrew practice of rending clothes when one feels great pain or distress. I initially thought the clothes-tearing might be a brilliant embellishment, but it is the biblical account indeed (Matt 26:65, Mark 14:63).

In another scene, Christ is beat hard on the head with what looks like a heavy staff or club while wearing the crown of thorns. "And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head” (Matt 27:30).

As Christ is being nailed to the cross, a particularly aggressive Roman soldier dislocates His shoulder –"all my bones are out of joint” (Ps 22:14). Oddly, the actor Jim Caviezel’s shoulder was dislocated (not to mention that Caviezel was struck by lightning) during the making of this film.

The precise moment of Christ’s death is evinced only by the motion of His dilating pupils. His passing is immediately followed by torrent and earthquake (Matt 27:51) in what is one of the most spectacular visual sequences of the movie.

There is a scene in the movie where the guilt-ridden Judas Iscariot "awakes” after being tormented by what appear to be demons in the form of violent, pestering children, and finds himself lying next to a dead animal. He is horrified, not just because there is a corpse next to him (or part of a corpse of an equine animal, ` la a famous scene from The Godfather), but because it is clear to him that he is unclean, to say the least, not just having been near an unclean corpse, but for having the blood of the Lamb on his hands.

Speaking of The Godfather, an ironic aspect of the movie is that the Romans, speaking in Latin, speak with thick Italian accents. Many of the actors are indeed Italian. As the Romans gloat about their cruel treatment of Jesus Christ in their Italian-sounding "street Latin” , one feels as though he were watching gangsters as they revel in the brutal execution of a hapless victim.

A scene especially poignant for believers occurs in a flashback of Mary Magdalene’s. Those who do not know the story do not piece together the dramatic lead-in to the scene. But for those who know the biblical account, the event portrayed becomes gradually clearer, leading to the tender and moving cadence: Jesus scrolls in the sand, his finger striking the ground lifts billows of dust into the air; men in an angry mob reluctantly drop the stones in their hands to the ground, one by one; Jesus looks at them sternly and reprovingly; and finally, a broken Mary Magdalene crawls pathetically toward the feet of the Redeemer (screen right) from the left side of the screen. The Lord then extends His hand toward the disgraced woman, and she, surprised by the Stranger’s kindness, mercy, and compassion, looks up toward her Savior.

Not insignificantly, the identification of Mary Magdelene as the unnamed woman caught in adultery (John 8) is an inference from the biblical account. This identification originated in 591 AD by Pope Gregory the Great. Mary Magdalene is depicted as the woman from John 8, but this not explicitly indicated in the Bible.

THE VIOLENCE

The violence in the The Passion of the Christ is unrelenting. There is blood everywhere. Every brutal act is followed by another.

But the fact is: Jesus Christ indeed suffered a violent and excruciating death.

I was numb before the film’s first hour was up. Who can fathom how much punishment and pain can be inflicted on any one person if such pain is the fair and just retribution deserved by the totality of the crimes of every person in the entire human race? It is unimaginable. Christ’s necessary sacrifice was for all–that’s a lot of wounds! But the film’s bloody imagery became so horrific that I could only imagine at some points that Caviezel was wearing a flesh-tone body suit with built-in wounds. I don’t know if I was thinking that because the wounds were so gory and so numerous as to cause disbelief (relatively early on, manifold flesh wounds are depicted so thoroughly that the actor Caviezel is unrecognizable, see Isaiah 52:14) or as a defense to protect my sanity. But it surprises me that somehow the intense and excruciating suffering of Christ surprises so many people. I applaud Mr. Gibson for doing a remarkable job in his rendition of violence that quite possibly approaches the amount of violence and pain that our Lord Jesus actually endured. Thank you Mel Gibson for faithfully portraying in the artform of cinema, history’s most important events ever!

On the downside, there are a couple of scenes that contain violence which I do consider to be "over the top” , although unsurprising, coming from the director and star of Braveheart and The Patriot (both movies which I happen to like). The scenes are not biblical, but are included in the movie for shock effect.

CONCLUSION

Although it is cause for concern when believers jump onto the bandwagon touting the latest book, tape, or movie endorsed by church leaders as though it were as authoritative as the Bible, The Passion of the Christ does not fall into this pop-for-profit category. Yes, we are concerned that attempts to portray images of Jesus can be idolatrous. We are concerned about the inevitable commercial enterprises that the movie has spawned, but they do not detract from the merits of the movie itself; they only reflect man’s greedy response to it. Although the praise that is being heaped on the movie gives us pause lest it take praise away from Christ Jesus and His Word the Bible, The Passion deserves praise for its artistic worth and, most importantly, for its fidelity to the Gospel. I do not believe that money motivated Mel Gibson to make this film. Mel Gibson risked some $25 million of his own money to share his views on Christ and Christianity, and the odds were that the project would fail, but Mel Gibson courageously proceeded. The Passion is Gibson’s message, his "sermon” , which he delivers in a way to reach many, crafted in a form that his unique talents and experience befit. He made the movie to get his message out, not to make a profit, and his message is well worth hearing (and watching). Most importantly, the movie is faithful to Scripture. It has embellishments yes, but nothing which casts doubt on the Word of God. It strengthens the faith of believers and sparks interest among unbelievers.

It’s time that Hollywood comes to grips with the reality that we worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Let’s send a message to the purveyors of entertainment that we demand content that is consistent with our biblical beliefs, and not content that attacks our beliefs, our Bible, and our God. So I would say see The Passion of the Christ if you haven’t already.

The Passion is not the Gospel. It is not the Bible. But it is a great movie. We need more Scripture-based movies such as The Passion of the Christ to come to our theatres, and less of the ordinary Hollywood filthiness that we Americans have become accustomed to. Let’s take a stand in the culture war. It is well worth your time and the ticket price to see The Passion of the Christ if you haven’t already. If you missed the movie in theatres, then rent it and let your endorsement of The Passion fly in the face of Hollywood, whose studios shut their doors to Mel Gibson and with outrageous arrogance tried to have the movie aborted while it was still being fashioned by Gibson and his crew.

For many years, Christians have endured movies coming out of Hollywood that have been infuriating to us. Now the tables are turned. If a movie is infuriating to Hollywood, how bad can it be?