SHOULD CHRISTIANS WATCH "THE PASSION
OF THE CHRIST"?
by Dr Calvin L. Smith
© 2004 Calvin L. Smith 

 
There is always controversy  when Hollywood makes a Jesus movie. After  all, Christians argue, how on earth can Tinsel Town's immoral film  stars, greedy producers, proud directors, and screenwriters who  change scripts for convenience' sake, possibly recreate faithfully  and accurately the greatest story ever told? The Passion of the Christ,  directed by Mel Gibson, has caused a similar furore.  Charges of anti-Semitism and historical inaccuracy abound. More  surprising, though, is the polarisation of Christian opinion. Some  wholeheartedly endorse the film, while others dismiss it as overtly  Catholic, theologically-suspect and evangelistically-inept.

Originally, I had no intention  of commenting on the film (though I had every intention of watching  it). However, having seen it, I feel some observations are in order,  both to satisfy my own students who have sought my opinion, and  also to challenge several ill-founded views about the film. I have  arranged my comments around several popular objections to the movie.

"It is anti-Semitic."

I firmly believe the Jews continue  to be God's chosen people. In fact, the College is on record standing  up for Israel many times (only a few weeks  ago we lobbied hard for a UK political party to sack a  spokesperson for making anti-Semitic comments). Sometimes, my theology  concerning the Jews has led to problems with my Reformed brethren.  Therefore, I was disturbed to learn the film was allegedly anti-Semitic  (it didn't help that Mel Gibson's father denies much of the Holocaust  ever took place).

Yet finally having seen the  film, I cannot accept this argument. It certainly blames the Jewish  religious authorities (not the Jewish people) in part for Jesus'  death. But so do the gospels. In fact, it could be argued the gospels  point a firmer finger of blame at the Jewish authorities (for example,  Gibson eventually watered down a reference to Matthew 27:25). I  understand fully Jewish offence at the gospels' reference to Jewish  complicity in Jesus' death. After all, at a time when Israel is fighting for her life,  as Muslim fundamentalism denies even her right to exist, it is easy  to forget that, historically, it is Christianity (rather than Islam)  that has been the greatest persecutor of the Jews for being "Christ  killers". Jewish sensitivities, then, are understandable. Yet neither  should Christians be forced to engage in a revisionist denial of  the content of the gospels, which highlight the Sanhedrin's role  in Jesus' death. (As a colleague pointed out, if we revise Matthew  27:25, then we must surely also revise the blessings promised in  Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 11:25f). Moreover, I also feel the film  lays a far greater burden of blame for Jesus' actual suffering on  the drunken, violent and sadistic Roman soldiers who tortured him.  Of course, those who are already anti-Semitic may try and make political  capital out of the film; just this weekend a Kuwaiti Muslim cleric  sought to use the film in order to demonise the Jews. But I do not  consider the movie anti-Semitic. Nor am I convinced that Mel Gibson  is; on a Channel 4 documentary tonight he emphatically condemned  anti-Semitism, and as one Jewish Rabbi on the programme stated,  we should judge Gibson by his movie, rather than his father's undoubted  anti-Semitism.

"It is historically inaccurate."

As an Englishman who has seen  his country slated twice by a director known for his liberal approach  to historical accuracy, I expected a complete rewriting of the Gospels.  Indeed, there are several inaccuracies, including Jesus being thrown  off a bridge, and the piercing of His hands rather than His wrists.  This was inevitable - though Gibson based the script on the gospels,  he also draws on the writings of two Catholic mystics, interspersing  the narrative with extra-gospel material. But on the whole, the  film is more accurate than I had been led to believe. Especially  interesting was the dialogue in Aramaic, Jesus' native tongue, as  well as Latin (there are subtitles throughout). The beating of Jesus,  though numbing and violent beyond belief, also fits in well with  our understanding of Rome's brutal treatment of its  criminals (after, all, the pax romana owed much to Rome's penal barbarism, designed  with a deterrent effect in mind). The use and effect of the flagellum,  while particularly shocking, is accurate, though whether any man  could have withstood the beating depicted in the film is open to  debate. If you know the gospels, you will identify several inaccuracies  as you watch the film. However, these are incidental, rather than  a tendency, and I was not frustrated (as with many other Jesus films)  by constant historical inaccuracy.

"It is too Catholic."

Mel Gibson belongs to a breakaway  Catholic movement that believes Catholicism was betrayed by Rome during the Second Vatican  Council (1962-5). Thus, Gibson (and especially his father) is a  particularly extreme Catholic. Therefore, I expected a strong Catholic  emphasis throughout the movie. There was some (mention has already  been made of the writings of two Catholic mystics), yet it was far  less than I had been led to believe. Even the role of Mary, who  is a key character in the film, is not excessively `catholicised'.  Instead, we are confronted with the human reality of how she must  have felt seeing her own son killed. Historically, many Protestants  have treated Mary less than fairly. Good doctrine has traditionally  come out of a reaction to heresy, and the Reformation's rejection  of Mariolatry is a good example. However, doctrinal reaction often  leads to the pendulum swinging far to the other extreme, and in  the case of Mary many of us Protestants have almost dismissed her  from history. Of course, we reject as completely unbiblical the  worship of Mary, however, we ought not to forget that God chose  and blessed this chaste young woman for a special task, who would  be remembered by all generations (Lk. 1:28-30, 48-49). Is this a  very Catholic film? Not really. You will be aware of several Catholic  influences. But as with the historical inaccuracies, these are incidental  rather than a pattern. Clearly, Gibson (probably for economic reasons)  has sought as wide an audience as possible, and has thus tended  to emphasise the points of commonality between Protestantism and  Catholicism, rather than highlighting the differences.

"It concentrates on Christ's  suffering, which is theologically unsound."

A major criticism of many Evangelicals  has been to reject the film's emphasis on the suffering of Christ  (the film is incredibly violent - expect  to be shocked beyond belief). Some say there is too much emphasis  on an excessive shedding of blood, that the amount of blood Jesus shed doesn't  matter. This is a foolish statement; taken to its logical extreme,  one could argue He need only have cut His finger and shed a few  drops to save Mankind. But theologically it is a non-starter. Given  that the Paschal Lamb's throat was slit so that the lifeblood was  drained away, it is clear the Lamb of God also shed much blood for  Mankind. Other Christians object to the film's excessive emphasis  on Christ's suffering, arguing instead we should concentrate on  the Risen Lord. Again, we see how an extreme reaction to the Catholic  over-emphasis on Jesus' human suffering has led many Protestants  to go too far in de-emphasising it. Yet the suffering and death  of Christ lie at the heart of the New Testament. Not  only does Christ's Passion represent the climax of all four gospels,  but each lends it a highly disproportionate amount of space. The  gospels also detail the nature of Jesus' suffering, and given how  Roman cruelty was widespread and well known for its deterrent effect,  readers would have been left in no doubt about what Jesus suffered.  In light of this emphasis on Christ's suffering in the gospels and  the kerygma (proclamation) of the Apostles, it seems strange that  we are not to dwell on it. If this is the case, why do we remember  what Christ did for us every time we take communion?

"It is shallow - there  is no theological content whatsoever".

Many non-theologians see the  movie as a brutal portrayal of pain and suffering, a visual rather  than cerebral experience completely devoid of theological content.  Yet this is far from true for the Bible student. Expect your mind  to work overtime as you watch the film and begin to ask all sorts  of questions. Among many of my own thoughts and questions, I was  struck by how Peter must have felt a few days later, when Jesus  not only forgave him for betraying Him but also entrusted him with  such a key task within the Church. I also wondered how those events  must have had a lasting impact on the rest of Peter's life. I wondered  how Malchus reacted to his ear being healed by the very man his  party had been sent to arrest. How did Satan react to the whole  Passion? What of Jesus' own thoughts as He suffered for our sins?  I marvelled at His love when, in the midst of pain beyond belief,  He asked God to forgive His tormentors. As one is faced with a graphic  (though imperfect) image of those events, one cannot help but dwell  on a series of theological questions that might not previously have  been considered.

Do I endorse the film?

No film could ever depict the  Passion perfectly, and The Passion of the Christ is no exception. There are  historical inaccuracies, several Catholic influences, and I am not  convinced of its evangelistic value. Rather, the film is more significant  to those who are already Christians. I would say, though, that I  was struck by the film's emphasis on why Christ died. For example,  the film opens with Isaiah 53:5 ("He was wounded for our transgressions,  He was bruised for our iniquities"), and at one stage, as Jesus  is on the cross, we are taken back to the Last Supper, when He said,  "Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down His life for  His friends".

I am not endorsing Mel Gibson.  I know little of him or his faith. Neither do I endorse the film  as the most accurate depiction of Christ's Passion. It is not for  me to recommend that you go and see the film (that is a matter for  your own conscience). But I do not think people should be discouraged  from watching it by those who denounce and dismiss it as having  no significant value whatsoever, either by people who have not seen  it themselves, or by others who express a contrary view for the  sake of it (I accept some Christians may have genuine reservations  about the film, but I am referring to those whose very ministries  depend on expressing contrary opinions and courting controversy).  Of course, it is the Bible and not a film that represents the very  Word of God. Yet just as a sermon quoting from the Bible, or a tract  littered with various Bible verses, or even a children's version  of the Bible, contains the Word of God, so too this  film contains something of God's Word. That is, it details something  of God's message to Man through His Son, namely, that He sent Jesus  to die for our sins. At a time when many young people do not even  know who Jesus was, this film at the very least provides a means  for us to share about Jesus to unsaved family and friends who, but  for the film's controversy, might never have wanted even to talk  about why Jesus died.