The Passion of the Christ

Six years ago the movie The Passion of the Christ was released on Ash Wednesday, February 25, 2004. The film received mixed reviews from critics. Critics praised the performance of Jim Caviezel as Jesus. The June 2006 issue of Entertainment Weekly named The Passion of the Christ the most controversial film of all time. Syndicated Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film four out of four stars. However, reviewer David Edelstein called it "a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie" (a motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation). The New York Daily News’ Jami Bernard called it the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II; and Rotten Tomatoes (and aggregator movie review web site) reported that 50 percent of critics gave the film positive reviews; with the consensus that ‘the graphic details of Jesus' torture make the movie tough to sit through and obscure whatever message it is trying to convey.

Generally the criticism of The Passion has focused on two points: (1) the movie portrays too much violence, and (2) the movie focuses more upon Christ’s death than what his life represented. What intrigues me about the rhetoric and criticisms leveled at this movie is it highlights the lack of historical, scriptural, theological, and spiritual understanding possess by the critics. Furthermore the criticism of too much violence rings hollow as Hollywood and Television regularly pumps out movies and shows filled with gratuitous violence, murder, and mayhem just like “snuff movies” and this is entertainment? One only needs to watch the evening news or read the front page of many newspapers and the leading stories are: murder, death, mayhem, and destruction! Several of the top TV shows are crime shows focusing on murder—often violent murder!

The New York Times’ noted movie critic A. O. Scott exemplifies the secular world view of Mel Gibson’s movie. ''The Passion of the Christ'' is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it. Mr. Gibson has constructed an unnerving and painful spectacle that is also, in the end, a depressing one . . . Mr. Gibson has departed radically from the tone and spirit of earlier American movies about Jesus, which have tended to be palatable . . . Sunday school homilies designed to soothe the audience rather than to terrify or inflame it (published in the New York Times on February 25th, 2004). Notice he wants a movie that is devoid of any suffering and something suitable for showing in Sunday School to sooth the viewer (or to put them to sleep).

Most of us have watched Cecil B. DeMille's movie The Ten Commandments (1956): or The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), or Jesus of Nazareth (1977). I agree with Scott that watching the aforesaid movies won’t overly terrify or leave the viewer depressed. There is some predictable Hollywood fluff in these movies because they were made to appeal to the widest audience as possible. These movies tend to stay away from the extreme; for that reason any of these movies could be shown in Sunday School to children. But Scott isn’t done with his critique of The Passion: By rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death and fixing our eyes on every welt and gash on his body, this film means to make literal an event that the Gospels often treat with circumspection and that tends to be thought about somewhat abstractly. Look, the movie seems to insist, when we say he died for our sins, this is what we mean.

Scott is a movie critic; he is not a historian or a theologian. He brushes aside the historical record of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and subtly suggests it might not have actually happened. Unfortunately many people have a medieval conception of Jesus on the cross. Remember the picture? Christ hanging on the cross; a little blood is trickling from his hands, feet, side, and head. There is an angelic look on his face with a halo around his head. This canvas characterization is far from reality. The prophet Isaiah foretells the suffering of Christ: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. . .and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth . . .for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:5-10). In short the suffering—passion—of Christ during those last 12 hours depicted by Gibson should have been ours. However Jesus became OUR lamb as He was the good Shepherd ready to give his life for His flock (John 10:11-17).

Isaiah even foretells the “passion” and the brutality that Jesus would suffer: As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. (Isaiah 52:14). The beating and scourging was horrible and brutal; and using a colloquial expression they “beat Him to a bloody pulp.” After his scourging Jesus would have been a gruesome, ghastly, and terrifying sight.

Critics like Scott have bought into the “God is Love” movement and have discarded the “He gave His only Son” part of God's Love. They readily accept the feel good Sermon on the Mount Jesus and reject the notion that Jesus died to save them. It was the precious blood of Jesus that purchased salvation; For ye are bought with a price (1Co 6:20); and [Grace] from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5).

This movie has brought conviction to the soul of these “over the top” critics. Their reaction is what the apostle Paul referred to as the…offence of the cross (Ga 5:11). He also says that…For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God (1Co 1:18). Paul, never one to shrink from controversy, goes onto say that…we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness (1Co 1:23). Those who reject the suffering savior do not want to see the ugliness and tragedy of sin. In Christ God showed the world how wicked, evil, violent, and sick it was as he sent his son to declare the “good news” and how was he received? What were the thanks shown him (Mt 21:33-46)?

In Rembrandt’s picture, The Raising of the Cross, (c. 1633), he portrays himself as the one who drove the nails in Christ. Likewise in the movie The Passion Mel Gibson portrayed the Roman soldier driving the nails into Christ. Where do you see yourself on the canvas?

—God’s Peace and Blessing,

Please take a moment to send us feedback about this article.
click here