To home pageHerald
Mennonite Brethren HeraldVolume 43, No. 04March 19, 2004
Feature
The custody of my soul
The Gospel according to Mel
What happened to footwashing?
Total Recall
More articles
 Cover News
 Features People
 Columns Crosscurrents
 Letters Advertising


Back Issues
Future Issues
Search/Index
Contact Us / Subscribe
Discussion

The Gospel according to Mel

David Eagle

Previous | Next

A review of The Passion of the Christ

“This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show.” So says Mel Gibson about The Passion of the Christ, his movie of the final 12 hours of Jesus’ life.

But how does the Gospel according to Mel measure up to what we find in the Bible?


What stands out in Gibson’s film is the graphic and bloody portrayal of the last few hours of Jesus’ life. It begins with Jesus wrestling in prayer on the Mount of Olives and moves in painstaking detail towards Golgotha. Events that appear in passing in the Bible like “Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged” (John 19:1) or “carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull” (John 19:17) occupy long segments of the film.

To fill in details the Bible lacks, Gibson allegedly turned to the visions and writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 17th century Catholic mystic. The flogging scene lasts at least 30 minutes and leaves Jesus a bloody mess. This scene alone could have warranted the film’s R rating.

Gibson has a purpose for portraying all this suffering. He wants to make it clear that no human could have suffered a beating as brutal as Jesus suffered. In the crucifixion scene, the two criminals crucified with Jesus are clean and surprisingly un-bloodied.

Gibson begins the film with Isaiah 53:5, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his wounds we are healed.” He points to our sinfulness and guilt as the reason for Jesus’ torture and death. But he seems to suggest that Jesus’ suffering had to be in measure to the gravity of our human sinfulness. He also suggests that we see, in Jesus’ enduring such cruel suffering, the depth of His love.

“I think that the true horror of The Passion will surprise people,” Gibson told the National Catholic Register. “Understanding what He went through, even on a human level, makes me feel not only compassion, but also a debt: I want to repay him for the enormity of His sacrifice.”

Hollywood’s bloodlust, however, finds no parallel in the gospels. They state simply and concisely that He was flogged and then crucified as any of the thousands of criminals crucified by the might of Rome. It has been sufficient for the church to proclaim for almost 2000 years that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried” (Apostles’ Creed). Against the testimony of the Bible, Gibson feels it necessary to linger long over Jesus’ bloody torture.

Jesus suffers and dies because of sin’s presence in the world, no doubt, but the Bible presents Jesus’ suffering as human, not superhuman. It even says we may have to endure the same thing. Peter remarks, “for to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21). Mel’s Gospel downplays Jesus’ humanity and makes it more difficult for us to identify with His suffering.

In an interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC Primetime, Gibson said, “I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge . . . so that they see the enormity – the enormity of that sacrifice.”

The problem with Mel’s approach is that it isn’t how much Jesus suffers that matters to the biblical writers. What matters to the gospel writers is who – who is suffering, who is crucified. What matters is that the Messiah, God’s Son, Emmanuel, is taken prisoner and sent to death row.

First century Jews expected a triumphant Messiah to come and lead a violent overthrow of their Roman captors. So, when Jesus shows up they anxiously await the call to arms. But the call to arms never comes. Instead Jesus issues a call to love, even enemies. The powers that be cannot handle Jesus’ message. The Messiah, the Saviour of the world, winds up crucified.

The level of the suffering and the mode of execution pale in comparison to the shocking realization that Jesus, the Messiah, God Incarnate is killed by the powers of sin and death. Gibson is right, the sin in our world is bad, the sin in each one of us is bad. It’s so bad that, left to our own devices, we end up murdering God.

The Gospel according to Mel falters at many other levels. Gibson was aiming for authenticity by having the characters speak in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin. But this linguistic innovation cannot mask the fact that huge portions of the film have absolutely no parallel in Scripture.

For example, the film portrays Pilate’s wife, Claudia, as one sympathetic to Jesus’ cause. Mel dreams up multiple scenes where she tries to convince Pilate not to crucify Jesus. In Scripture, all Pilate’s wife says is, “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him” (Matthew 27:19). Unfortunately, by overdoing Claudia’s sympathy, Gibson enhances the film’s anti-Semitic overtones.

Here’s another example. In the film, Satan, played by the androgynous-looking Rosalinda Celentano, figures large, mocking Jesus. In the passion narratives of the four gospels, however, Satan appears only twice: in the story of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus (John 13:2; Luke 22:3) and in reference to Peter (Luke 22:31). Satan’s presence in the movie significantly confuses things. For instance, Satan appears just after Jesus’ death, screaming in pain, obviously defeated. Why? Satan should rejoice at Jesus’ death. It is the resurrection that defeats Satan.

This movie puts the scandal of the cross smack dab in the middle of the public square. This is a good thing. But, I had hoped for more from The Passion of the Christ. I thought Gibson would have given us more substance. I thought this film might mark a maturing for him beyond his love affair with graphic violence à la Braveheart and The Patriot. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

I am not telling you to skip this movie. I am telling you to watch it carefully (if you can stomach the violent torture scene). Don’t allow special effects and extreme portrayals of suffering to pull the wool over your eyes. Reflect deeply – and biblically – on the meaning of the life, death and resurrection of our Lord.

Previous | Next

ID: 69:2184
Last modified: Mar 29, 2004


© 2008 Mennonite Brethren Herald
Masthead and usage information
A publication of The Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches