“The Passion of the Christ”

 

A. Reid Jones

 

I have been watching, with interest, the ideological howl the "secularists" have raised about Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ, waving their banners of anti-Semitism and unnecessary violence.  I watched Newt Gingrich say on FOX that this movie could prove to be one of the significant societal turning points of this decade, and I was fascinated.  I watched O'Reilly's interview with Mel Gibson when  Bill said that he had reread the Gospels over the weekend in preparation for the movie and the only two problems he had were (1) that the level of violence was sense-numbing and (2) literary license was taken with Simon of Cyrene.  Mel Gibson spoke of his careful handling of the text of the Gospels, and both he and Bill verified that the Pope had indeed seen the movie and remarked "That's the way it was".  Mel Gibson knows how to make a movie that captures your attention and moves the plot.  So informed, I had high hopes for this movie.

 

These are my reactions after seeing the movie last night:

 

1. Violence - I found it to be instructive, particularly the scourging.  My vision of the suffering of Jesus is forever changed.  For me, It was one thing to read the words through the filters of my experience and imagination, and another thing entirely to see this interpretation.  Even so, the scene where Jesus was dangled over the wall by his chains like a puppet was unrealistic and more than a little over the top.

 

2. Anti-Semitic - Jews understandably should protest this movie, but not because of blame for their role in the violent crucifixion of Jesus. Their fear of race-oriented attribution is surely absurd.  They should, however, protest being depicted as ignorant louts, just one gene short of being the hunchback of Notre Dame.  In general, there was no normal range of emotion portrayed by the Jewish leaders, or the mob; light switch acting - either mindless rage or frog-in-a-hailstorm passivity.  Their dialogue in Aramaic was  guttural and mono-toned to the point of Neanderthalism.  I don't care what the language is, people put observable emotion in their speech.  When Caiaphas, the High Priest, confronts Jesus' "blasphemy", the sin of all sins, he shows about as much real outrage in the "spitting" scene as he probably had at dinner when the mint jelly ran out before he finished his lamb chop.  These quasi-zombies truly are not , in my opinion, the Jews of the New Testament.  Jews should protest the bad acting and directing, not the message!

 

3.  Flawed Characters - Mary, repeatedly addressed by various persons as "Mother", was clothed in  black attire strikingly similar to a modern nun.  She was in more than half of the scenes with a very visible and prominent role and in one scene she encouraged Jesus to do what he must.  After the scourging scene, Mary and the "woman taken in adultery" used cloths received from the wife of Pontius Pilate to wipe the floor of the precious blood spilled by Jesus (perhaps advancing the notion of religious relics?).  Interestingly, the only mention of Mary in the Gospels, during this time, was the scene with John at the foot of the cross.

 

 - Judas, following his return of the silver, is attacked by Satan in the form of a group of boys chasing and attacking him much like a pack of wild dogs.  Apparently driven crazy, he hangs himself.  This is inaccurate and demeaning to the Judas of scripture, who hung himself in remorse after repenting of his betrayal of Jesus.

 

 - Simon of Cyrene is recruited, unwillingly, to carry Jesus' cross.  Then, on the Via Dolorosa, the movie has Simon taking a courageous stand when he refuses to carry the cross any further unless the Roman soldiers quit beating Jesus.  There is nothing whatsoever in scripture from which to create this illogical extrapolation.

 

4.Nitpicking:

 

 -- The scourging of Jesus took place after  Pilate released Barabbas, not before as in the movie.

 

 -- Pilate's wife sent word to Pilate about Jesus while Pilate was sitting in judgment, not in a private conversation well before the judgment began as in the movie.

 

 -- Scripture tells of Jesus being offered sour wine from hyssop to drink whereas the movie has him being offered water from a sponge.

 

 -- The Gospels say the veil  of the temple was split but not the temple itself being split down the middle as in the movie.

 

 -- Darkness covered the land for three hours immediately before Jesus died, according to scripture. A passing thunderstorm does not properly depict this miracle of God.

 

 --"Truly this was the Son of God" says the centurion of scripture.  The movie centurion remains silent.

 

 --The movie has a crow attacking the "bad" thief on the cross, pecking out his eyes.

 

 -- Scripture tells of the crowds at the crucifixion beating their breasts in anguish over His death

 

 -- The Gospels tell us that Jesus wore a seamless tunic woven in one piece.  The soldiers cast lots for this garment rather than tear it (which fulfills prophecy on this detail).  The movie shows it being torn and ripped off Jesus as he is being mounted on the cross,

 

 -- Theological historians and Greek scholars tell us that the crucifixion nails were driven into the wrists instead of the palms so the bones of the wrist could hold the weight of the body rather than rip through the soft tissue of the palm; and that the wrists would be included in the Greek word for "hand".  The movie drives the nails through the palm.

 

5.Critiquing the Critics:

 

 -- Assuming the pope has, in fact, read the Gospels, one can only assume that his reported statement, "That's the way it was", is a result of advanced age and memory loss, or that he has had an infallible subsequent revelation from God as to the events depicted in the movie.  In large measure, scripture does not substantiate his view.  It does, however, advocate the Catholic view of Mary, and that the physical suffering of Jesus is the focal point rather than the anguished separation of Father and Son so that the Son could die for our sins.

 

 -- Newt Gingrich may be correct about the impact of the film.  The audience I observed, after this movie had already been out a week or so, was clearly moved by what they saw and was almost reverently silent throughout the movie.

 

 -- Bill O'Reilly needs to re-read the Gospels again this weekend, with his glasses on.

 

6.  Mel Gibson should be praised for taking the financial risk and the flak from his peers and the media to bring us this movie.  On balance, it helps more than it hurts, primarily because it opens a national dialogue on this critical subject.  Predictably, Gibson was true to his Catholic roots and view of scripture; however, it is regrettable that he did not find the Bible's portrayal of a riveting story in the details, because it is certainly there.

 

 

To comment on the article, e-mail the author at Christian-Family:

dan@christian-family.net

---

Click here to go back to the top of the page.

---