Some critics have charged the controversial Mel Gibson film is "a sickening death trip" (David Denby, The New Yorker), "the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade" (David Ansen, Newsweek) and "The Goriest Story Ever Told" (Richard Corliss, Time Magazine).

Many Christian leaders, however, have just the opposite opinion: "an awe-inspiring portrayal" (Robert Schuller), "brilliant, biblical—a masterpiece" (Rick Warren), "no one who views this film's compelling imagery will ever be the same" (Billy Graham), and "it leads the viewer into prayer and reflection, into heartfelt contemplation" (Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos).

I tend to be just a bit schizophrenic toward the film.

Yes, it is a bloody, brutal film. And some of the violence is gratuitous and extra-biblical. The bloody flogging and flaying of Christ goes way beyond the legal limit of 39 lashes.* (I stopped counting at 99!) And none of the Gospels record a crow pecking out the eye of one of the thieves crucified with Christ. I tend to agree with our daughter Faith's bedtime prayer when she was three. That Good Friday evening she prayed, "Thank you, Jesus, for dying on the cross, and thank you we didn't have to watch."

However, Gibson has captured, like no previous film on the passion, the horror of flogging and crucifixion. The tremendous loss of blood from flogging was often fatal. And the pain of crucifixion required the creation of a new word to describe it: excruciating.

Yes, it puts the Jewish leaders in a bad light. (I can empathize just a bit since I was offended at how Gibson portrayed my English ancestors in his bloody Revolutionary War film "The Patriot.")

However, it should be pointed out that the hero of the film is called a rabbi and the "good guys" are all Jewish! The Gentiles are the ones who did the actual dirty work. The film is no more anti-Jewish than the Holocaust Museum and the film "Schindler's List" are anti-German.

Yes, this is an unbalanced portrait of Christ's message and mission, but even the disciple John admitted that providing all the details is impossible: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. . . ." (The 1979 film "Jesus" comes as close to any in presenting a balanced account of Christ, but at points lacks the passion of Gibson's film.)

But what is it about this film that creates such polarizing passions on both sides of the aisle?

Hundreds of films about Christ have been made from the silent "The Passion Play at Oberammergau" (1898) to "The Gospel of John" just last year. This is the first, though, to focus primarily on the crucifixion using the fourteen "Stations of the Cross" as its basis. St. Paul writes "Christ crucified [is] a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

To the Jews the film is an anti-Semitic "stumbling block." For two thousand years the Jewish people have rejected Jesus as the promised "Messiah" or liberator. And for almost as many years, the Jews have been maligned and/or mistreated by so-called Christians.

To non-Jews, who don't believe, it does seem "foolish." Andy Rooney ("Sixty Minutes") called Mel Gibson and Pat Robertson, who endorses the film, "wackos" who are "crazy as bedbugs." And during Diane Sawyer's "20/20" interview with Gibson, she seemed unable to comprehend what he was saying as he attempted to explain his faith and motivation for making the film.

For those who believe that Christ died for their sins to restore their relationship with God, the film is more glorious than gory. It is still painfully difficult to watch and seems to go on for eternity, but the film does provide powerful, unforgettable images of the incredible love God has for humankind.

One of the trailers for the film shows Jesus using his finger to draw a line in the sand. Gibson attempts to do the same saying, "Moviegoers will be forced to make a decision about Christ after they leave the theater." One must either accept the premise that Christ died a brutal, bloody death to save humankind or dismiss it as "foolishness." The Christ is either a Savior or "stumbling block."

And that, perhaps, is the reason that one film is producing such passion and polarity.

© 2004 James N. Watkins

Note

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia she exhibited "strange powers" such as seeing "the fall of Napoleon twelve years in advance," claiming "to converse familiarly with the Child Jesus," and exhibiting the physical wounds of Christ (stigmata) which bled profusely on Fridays. According to tradition, her dead body did not decompose.

Tim Challies has carefully documented scenes from "The Passion of the Christ" drawn directly from Emmerich's visions: Satan torments Jesus in the garden (Chapter I, Page 45), Mary awakens sensing Jesus' arrest (I, 58), soldiers throw Jesus off bridge (III, 71), Mary kneels on courtyard floor directly above Jesus' cell (XI, 101), demons torment Judas (V, 82), Herod portrayed as effeminate (XX, 124), Pilate's wife gives Mary linen, which she and Mary Magdalene use to wipe up Jesus blood (XXIII, 137-138), Veronica wipes the face of Jesus (XXXIV, 162), Mary begs, "Flesh of my flesh, heart of my heart, my son, let me die with you" (XLIII, 181-182), and soldier showered by Jesus' blood after piercing His side (XLVIII, 197-198).

Comments

* I would like to bring something to your attention that maybe you had not noticed. You stated that the flogging given in the movie went way beyond the Romans 39 lashes. The law of 39 lashes was a Jewish law that stated that a prisoner could not be whipped more that 40 times. So what they would do in order not to violate their law because of a miscount. They would always stop at 39. The Romans on the other hand had no such law. They were masters of torture and execution. You were correct in stating the many would die from the beating but that was from a Roman beating not a Jewish beating. This a common misconception that many make when thinking of the crucifixion. I had thought the same thing for many years until I did extensive research for a paper I wrote in Bible College on the crucifixion. It was while I was doing the research on this paper that I really began to understand truly what Christ endured during those final hours. It was very humbling and mind boggling. I just thought you would be interested in these facts. jimfarr@tampabay.rr.com (March 2004)

You said in your recent essay on "The Passion of the Christ" that "some of the violence is gratuitous and extrabiblical". I assert that this understates how far the film strays from the biblical account of the last day of Jesus and estimate that at least 80% of the plot is extrabiblical. As you have noted, Gibson claims to have been inspired by The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich. Gibson was more than merely inspired by Emmerich's "Passion". He copied Emmerich's "Passion" extensively, such much so that any careful reader of the Gospels would wonder if the Word of God was the real source for the movie.

You say that the film "puts the Jewish leaders in a bad light", and just as I agree with you that Gibson's portrayal of the English was offensive in the "Patriot", I would add that you understate the degree of Gibson's slanderous portrayal of both the Sanhedrin and the British army. The latter did not commit gross terrorist atrocities like the immolation of an entire congregation of American colonials in a church. The Gospels make no mention of Annas ordering Jesus beaten. Emmerich provided the scene in her "Passion", and Gibson copied it. If Gibson is not anti-Semitic as he claims to be, why did he not exclude this slanderous scene from the film?

In conclusion, I do not share your views on why the film has generated so much controversy. From my personal perspective as a Christian, Gibson's film is disturbing because in straying so far from the Word of God, it fails to adequately tell the story that the Gospels tell so well. The message of God's saving Grace manifest in the atonement, suffering, and death of Jesus is drowned in a pool of simulated blood. Christians already understand the reason for all the sadism and bloodshed, but because there is so much graphic violence and so little time invested in the resurrection scene that unbelievers are left feeling revolted, depressed, and lost.

Sincerely, jehafi@comcast.net (March 2004)

Good points, Jeff. The more I study Gibson's inspiration for the film, the less "passionate" I am about it. As a historical document it gets an F in my grade book. (You're correct that the majority of the scenes are straight from the visions of a controversial mystic.) As for theology, I'd give it a C.

However, strictly as a film, I'd give it an A-. And that is what the film is—a film. It is not history. It is not theology. It's one man's interpretation and speculation of the last twelve hours of Christ's life. We dare not make it any more than that.

That said, God does seem to be using it to inspire passionate discussions and changed lives, so to that I say a hearty "Amen!" Jim

I still can’t guess the unintended consequences of it all: peace with Roman Catholics? Renewed unity with the Roman Catholics? Return to the stations of the cross among Protestants? The elevation of Mary to her place as the “mother of God—or at least halfway there? Is this the end to the “Jesus is my boyfriend” relationship some women have with Christ so that he now becomes the bloody redeemer? A change among some Christians outright rejection of all “R’ movies to a new policy of discretion (historical violence is OK but not historical Sex?). A significant increase in males relating to the gospel—men who prefer the bloodier side of things than the caring tender side of the story? Renewal of the meaning of Holy Communion? A new sensitivity to anti-Semitism? Acceptance of oral tradition as a source for what happened to Jesus—something outside the gospel but part of tradition or sourced in visions and dreams? Keith Drury (March 2004).

I've noticed a few troubling things among Church people. Many have become almost evangelistic about the film itself. When I commented that because of the graphic nature of the film I would probably not be attending, I was roundly criticized and even accused of not being a strong Christian. Another person on the list said something to the effect that not attending the film was the same as not reading the Word of God. When I suggested that no matter how good the film was, it contained extrabiblical material and was not just the Bible on screen, they became actually angry with me and hinted that the canon be reopened to include movies that this one was as inspired as the gospels. A woman on another list is leaving her church because the pastor said he didn't like the film and suggested people not attend. Another woman, a pregnant woman was concerned about the graphically violent scenes and how they would affect the baby when she "had to se see the film." She felt as though it was her obligation to go see the film even if she had concerns about her health and the health of the baby whether founded or not. For many, the film has become a litmus test of Christianity. webservant2003@yahoo.com (March 2004).

and now a word from our sponsor . . . I trust these articles, book excerpts, and music will truly help you to live, love, and laugh. Email me at jim@jameswatkins.com and let me know what you thought of this site. And, if you enjoyed your visit, please save it as