PASSION OF THE CHRIST

Dr. Richard J. Henderson March 21, 2004

click for printable version

Isaiah 53: 1- 6
John 19: 1-7, 16b-19

Introduction

Everybody's talking about "The Passion of the Christ." It has now grossed well over $250 million as throngs of people fill movie theatres to see the film we have been hearing about for months now.

Many of the people seeing this film of the last twelve hours of Jesus' life have never been in a church. Adults gathered at the water cooler at work and are talking about the movie, and Christ's meaning. One person said to me, "We never talk about religion at work - never - but everyone is talking about The Passion."

That is one of the good things about this movie: it has sparked interest in Christ's sacrifice for people who may never have thought about it before. The film portrays the last twelve hours of Jesus' life in a way it has never been pictured before. It does so in a controversial way that results in almost as many opinions of it as there are people seeing it.

I know of a teenage boy who saw it and knew virtually nothing of the story behind it. He is now interested in knowing why Jesus was so horribly treated and what the meaning is behind these events. This film has stirred up a great deal of controversy and therefore a lot of discussion about Jesus' death. We can only hope that the people who have seen the movie will read the book.

I

The controversy over the film began with accusations of anti-Semitism. Even before the movie was finished, people who had seen pre-screenings or read early scripts were claiming Gibson's approach was anti-Semitic. Of the four gospels telling the story of the crucifixion, John is the one who most clearly blames Caiaphas and the high priests for urging Jesus' crucifixion. We may wonder why Gibson would choose John as the basis for his film, but that was his choice. Gibson did leave out passages from John that are critical to his telling of the story.

In John 11, right after Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, the Chief Priests and Pharisees huddle together to decide what to do about Jesus.

"If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our temple and our nation." Then Caiaphas says, "It is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed."

Ironically that is Jesus' mission. Including that scene would have shown the fear and concern of the religious leaders and at the same time made Christ's mission more clear. It would have helped defuse anti-Semitism and shown the actions to be by people trying to preserve their power, their nation, and their holy place. Gibson showed the struggle Pilate went through, he could have done the same for the Jewish leaders.

II

The director of the movie had the chance to show that all of us are responsible for Jesus' death. In responding to attacks of anti-Semitism, Gibson has said that it isn't Jews or any other religious or ethnic group who killed Jesus, but that we all did it. Humankind killed Jesus.

It seems to me that if you want to portray that we all killed Jesus, and then during the time of Jesus' beating and crucifixion you present the people doing it as people like you and me. In The Passion those who beat and crucify Jesus are people with whom almost no one will be able to identify. The Roman soldiers come off as nearly caricatures of brutality and evil.

Rather than having us identify with the executioners, Gibson makes them so evil, it is easy for us to blame those kinds of barbaric people.

III

I hope everyone seeing the Passion will be clear that it is a blending of the gospel according to Mel Gibson with the gospels. Those of us who care about the Bible fear that people seeing this movie will think it is an accurate translation of the Bible. Gibson has added to the story, interpreted it, and left out important parts.

Someone who doesn't attend church asked me, "Is that part where the crow plucks out the eyes of the criminal, in the Bible?" I spent a little time going through all the things I could remember that were in the film, but not in the Bible. Gibson's interpretations include an odd, androgynous, Satan who slips through the crowds at various times. At one point, mimicking famous paintings of Mary and the baby Jesus, Satan appears holding a gross, old-looking baby in its arms.

Gibson adds many non-biblical scenes to the film. Several of them he took from the imaginings of a German nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, who wrote two hundred years ago. Most of what Gibson adds makes the film more violent. For example, as Jesus is being transported in chains he is thrown over a bridge, where he hangs above the water until the guards decide to pull him back up. After Jesus has been nailed to the cross, the soldiers drop the cross first face down, then pick it up and drop on its back.

The soldiers don't just nail Jesus hands to the cross; one of them shows the others how to yank the arm from its socket before the nail is hammered in. All this is created, it is not in the gospel, and it all adds to the horrid pain.

My point is that the Gospel story is great story. It doesn't need the additions of Hollywood producers. In some ways it is like someone did a translation of this part of the Bible and just left out what they wanted to, added parts, and changed some scenes.

This film is not an accurate portrayal of what the Bible says.

IV

The controversy surrounding this movie started out being about anti-Semitism; now it is about its unrelenting violence. The film is one hundred twenty six minutes long, and at least one hundred of those minutes are horribly violent. To help you put it in perspective, the movie critic, Roger Ebert - who has seen virtually every movie made in the last few decades - has written, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen."

The violence is gratuitous. Every square inch of Jesus body is cut, torn, whipped, bruised and bleeding. Nothing in the Bible suggests that Jesus was mutilated to that extreme. Gibson takes what is suggested in the Bible and makes it even more violent. For example, Matthew and Mark say, "After twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head." In the film the crown of thorns is placed on his head and then a stick set up against the crown, and the thorns pounded into his head.

Matthew and Mark say, "After flogging Jesus, Pilate handed him over to be crucified." In the film that sentence is played out as twenty minutes of brutal flogging.

We already mentioned the way nailing Jesus hands is portrayed. The point of the gospels is that Jesus died for our sins, not that he was mutilated for our sins.

Mel Gibson said he wanted to shock people, but he went so far beyond that, so that many people have found his film sickening. Many people will not see it because of its violence.

The movie shows the suffering of Jesus, but it doesn't say anything about its meaning. It shows graphically the physical pain of Jesus but doesn't even hint at the spiritual insights behind it. We don't learn anything from this movie; it is all effect.

When we come to the end of the film, Jesus resurrection looks like an afterthought spliced in at the last minute. The feel, tone, context, and look of that brief scene are completely different from the rest of the movie. The resurrected Christ appears on screen for five seconds.

V

One thing you must say for the movie: it takes away forever the sweet, sterile picture of Jesus hanging on the cross. There is an image of Jesus hanging neatly on the cross with almost sterile-looking holes in his hands and feet. In his side is a small slit with maybe a trickle of blood from it. This Jesus barely seems to be in pain. This Jesus suffered a little bit for us.

Maybe Gibson is reacting against that image. At best you can say Gibson is trying to portray for us the extent of the anguish, suffering, and pain involved in Jesus' death.

Conclusion

A couple of final comments...

It seems to me that there is something inherently wrong with going to get a large buttered popcorn and a Coke, and then sitting down to watch the agonizing pain of Jesus' last hours. the Gospel doesn't make good entertainment.

A question: Is it appropriate to make millions of dollars in profit from a portrayal of Jesus' suffering for us?

Finally, a friend had someone say to her, "If you're a Christian, you have to see this film." That is not true. Many Christians - including many of my fellow-clergy - are choosing not to see this movie because of its gratuitous violence and gore. It is not for sensitive people - and absolutely not for children! Roger Ebert commented that if it weren't about Jesus, it would have received an NC-17 rating.

Some churches are promoting this film as an evangelism tool to bring new people into their church. But, as we said, it doesn't answer any questions; it only heightens the effect of one brief part of Jesus' ministry. After all the horrid brutality is portrayed, and without any of the background to help understand its context, thinking people will have lots of questions. Many people will leave wondering what kind of God would allow this brutality to happen to his son, let alone will it to happen.

If you really want to see this movie, you should. If you are sensitive to violence you probably shouldn't. There is good in this film, there are also serious problems. If nothing else it helps center our focus during this Lenten season.

Amen.

©Richard J. Henderson 2004