The Confessing Seventh-day Adventist

Roger Ebert, Film Critic
The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

Peter Rainer
Mel Gibson’s imagining of Jesus’ last hours is a gory bloodbath worthy of a Jacobean revenge tragedy. To say that it’s the bloodiest story ever told is an understatement; rarely has so much red stuff flowed in any movie.

Before the Crucifixion, we are treated, in fetishistic detail, to nearly two hours of scourging and flaying. By the time Jesus is nailed to the Cross, you may be too numb to care.

A. O. Scott
There is a prophetic episode of "The Simpsons" in which the celebrity guest star Mel Gibson, directing and starring in a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," enlists the help of Homer Simpson, who represents the public taste (or lack of it). Homer persuades Mr. Gibson to change the picture's ending, replacing James Stewart's populist tirade with an action sequence, a barrage of righteous gunfire that leaves the halls of Congress strewn with corpses. The audience flees the theater in disgust. I thought of Homer more than once, with an involuntary irreverence conditioned by many years of devotion to "The Simpsons," as Mr. Gibson presented his new movie, "The Passion of the Christ."

Mel Gibson's film is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that it succeeds 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. It is disheartening to see a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time so utterly lacking in grace.

Mr. Gibson has departed radically from the tone and spirit of earlier American movies about Jesus, which have tended to be palatable (if often extremely long) Sunday school homilies designed to soothe the audience rather than to terrify or inflame it.

His version of the Gospels is harrowingly violent; the final hour of "The Passion of the Christ" essentially consists of a man being beaten, tortured and killed in graphic and lingering detail. Once he is taken into custody, Jesus (Jim Caviezel) is cuffed and kicked and then, much more systematically, flogged, first with stiff canes and then with leather whips tipped with sharp stones and glass shards. By the time the crown of thorns is pounded onto his head and the cross loaded onto his shoulders, he is all but unrecognizable, a mass of flayed and bloody flesh, barely able to stand, moaning and howling in pain.

Disgust and awe are not, when you think about it, so far apart, and in Mr. Gibson's vision one is a route to the other.

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.

Tony Capoccia
I saw Diane Sawyer's interview with Mel Gibson last night (ABC-10:00 pm EST). My heart aches at the whole approach of the movie, in that it focuses for two hours on the violent physical sufferings of Christ. As Gibson said last night, (not an exact quote), "The movie focuses on the 12 hours of Christ's suffering and gives 12 seconds on the resurrection."

The actual physical suffering that Gibson focuses on is what, I would guess, the Jews and many in the crowd that day rejoiced to see, along with the demons and Satan, believing they were finally destroying Jesus Christ. I wonder if the demons and Satan again are rejoicing that their greatest moment has finally made it to the big screen?

Andrew J. Webb
Currently, The Passion of the Christ is riding a groundswell of nationwide support from both Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, with many well-known Evangelical congregations, such as best selling author and Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church which purchased 18,000 tickets at seven theatres, doing everything they can to ensure that The Passion of the Christ will be a smash hit amongst Christians and "seekers". Expressing a widely held view amongst the film's supporters, Lisa Wheeler, associate editor of Catholic Exchange, a Web portal dedicated to Catholic evangelism, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution "It's the best evangelization opportunity we've had since the actual death of Jesus."

The Passion of the Christ is a Roman Catholic movie, made by a Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic theological advisers, and which gained the endorsement of Pope John Paul II who said after viewing it "It is as it was." This is in marked contrast to the Jesus film, which is unabashedly Protestant and Evangelical in its production and message and which has been widely used in evangelizing Roman Catholics. It is largely for this reason that the Jesus film has not been utilized or endorsed by Roman Catholics. By contrast, The Passion of the Christ has already proven its effectiveness as an evangelism tool in producing Catholic conversions and encouraging Catholic devotion.

The script for The Passion of the Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich) entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Gibson stated on EWTN that reading Emmerich's book was his primary inspiration for making the movie. By introducing extrabiblical elements, not only does The Passion of the Christ change some of the theological emphases of the Biblical account of Christ's crucifixion, but it will also create a false impression amongst the very "seekers" that Evangelicals are trying to reach, that things were said and done at the crucifixion that did not actually happen. For Evangelicals, who would feel very uncomfortable with a version of the Bible that put words into the mouth of Christ that he never spoke, to endorse a movie that does the very same thing seems hopelessly inconsistent. Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocrypha precisely because these books were fabricated and contained inauthentic material, despite the fact that these books might have been useful for evangelism. For modern evangelicals to embrace a vehicle that is inauthentic in order to achieve evangelistic ends indicates a serious decline in faithfulness.

The fact that Evangelicals have uncritically endorsed it speaks volumes about how far the Evangelical Protestant understanding of Christ's death and the related subject of Justification have slipped since the Reformation. In Roman Catholic theology the intense physical suffering of Christ's Crucifixion is the focus along with the emphasis on physical sacrifice. This is one of the reasons why in Roman Catholic iconography we have so much imagery related to Christ's physical pain and that crucifixes show him still suffering on the cross.

This emphasis on Christ's physical agony is repeated in Roman Catholic devotional material, prayers, and of course The Passion of the Christ. The theology of the bible however points out to us that the grand importance of Christ's crucifixion lay not in his physical suffering, but in his once for all propitiation of God's wrath (1 John 4:10). Lest we forget, the greatest torment that Christ experienced on the cross was not caused by the nails driven into his flesh, but in his being made "sin for us" and vicariously suffering the righteous punishment of the Father in our place. Even the worst physical torments inflicted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans upon Jesus were nothing by comparison to the anguish of having the sins of all the elect imputed to Him and making full satisfaction for them. Satisfying the justice of the Romans on a cross was comparatively easy, thousands of condemned men and women including Spartacus and several of the Apostles did that, but only Christ could satisfy the justice of God.

Tony Capoccia
Mel Gibson intentionally has made the movie as violent as he can:

"He [Gibson] added that ‘the film is very violent, and if you don't like it, don't go, you know? That's it. If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead. You know, there's nothing that says you have to stay there. I wanted it to be shocking. And I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge...’ " [CNN interview Sunday, February 15, 2004 Posted: 8:52 AM EST (1352 GMT].

It was not so much the outward physical violence, but rather the inner anguish of paying the price for sins and being separated from the sweet fellowship of The Father. The true suffering of Jesus was in the three hours of darkness on the cross when God would not let the world see the anguish of Jesus.

Maureen Dowd
You should come out of the theater suffused with charity toward your fellow man. But this is a Mel Gibson film, so you come out wanting to kick someone's teeth in. (Feb. 26, 2004)

Tony Capoccia
Charles Spurgeon once said, "If you have to give a carnival to get people to come to church, then you will have to keep giving carnivals to keep them coming back." If we have to produce an action thriller with two hours of gore and "R" rated violence to get the unsaved to seek Christ, then what will be the encore so we can keep them seeking?

Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You
Mel Gibson's sources included the dreams and visions of a couple of Roman Catholic mystics who claimed God revealed more details about the crucifixion than we find in Scripture. Given the fact Gibson himself is a committed Latin-rite Catholic, I feel sure he'll include the "stations of the cross" and other extrabiblical Catholic superstitions. Those things will severely mar the account of the crucifixion featured in the movie, I expect.

Jeannette Walls with Ashley Pearson, MSNBC, Updated: 12:35 p.m. ET Feb. 10, 2004
"Mel Gibson has come under fire for being hard on Jews in his film “The Passion of the Christ” — but apparently, he feels that Protestants are also doomed to damnation. In fact, it looks like Gibson, a conservative Catholic, believes that his Episcopalian wife could be going to hell. Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church [Roman Catholic Church],” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”

One Christian's letter to their pastor in response to the pastor's support of "The Passion of the Christ"
I am grief-stricken about how my church leadership has handled the Mel Gibson phenomena. Our sanctuary was literally defiled Sunday as elders praised the God of heaven for sending Mel to us in these days! Euphoria. Hysteria. I wondered if any of them had consulted the Lord before inviting Mel to speak to the congregation via a video promotional clip Mr. Gibson had provided them to use—much less to test the spirits. I left the sanctuary.

One person's response to the gore in "The Passion of the Christ"
"The only thing I will say about this film is that from what my cousin told me (she saw the first 20 minutes of it already), it's extremely gory. She saw pieces of flesh being ripped from Christ's back during the flogging. She had to leave the theatre to throw up....and she said she doesn't have a weak stomach.....

A Christian's response to Pastor Hartland of Baltimore concerning the "Passion" Movie
Last night we heard the most fantastic sermon by Pastor Hartland—about the Passion movie—Pastor Hartland really showed to us from Scripture why this movie is so wrong and why Christians should not be seeing it—he showed how the movie has an inordinate fixation on the physical details of the Crucifixion, how it is unable to present the message of the gospel, how it denigrates the exclusive role of the preaching of God's word in evangelism, and how, most importantly, it is idolatrous (the people, saved and unsaved, who see this self-described "powerful" movie can't deny that the images of Jesus are going to be burned into their psyches, and they'll be seeing those images when they think of our Lord instead of the biblical image of our risen Lord as he really is, in Revelation 1).

The cast for the movie is quite a notorious cast:

Even though Reviews from "Focus on the Family" say-- “The film is an intense two hours. It uses unknown actors, which keeps the focus on the message.”

The actors ARE WELL KNOWN--according to one website--at This page

From which the following is taken--

The actors in this film may be unknown to American Christians who usually do not darken the door of a movie theater, or frequent pornography websites, but they are quite well-known to the rest of the Western world which does. In fact, to say that the actors and actresses who perform in “The Passion” are well-known is an enormous understatement.

Three of the actresses who have key roles in this film are not only internationally renowned actresses, but are hardcore pornography stars!

Monica Bellucci, who plays Mary Magdalene in Gibson’s “Passion” movie, is quite the rage as a European porn queen---Ms. Bellucci is no ordinary porn star, but performs in hardcore films such as the 2002 production, Irreversible. “Premiered at last years Cannes Film Festival, ‘Irreversible’ proved so shocking that 250 people walked out, some needing medical attention. Fire wardens had to administer oxygen to 20 people (at the Cannes Festival) who fainted during the film - which includes a 10-minute depiction of sodomy and also contains graphic scenes of rape and murder

Rosita Celentano, who is the androgynous character of Satan in “The Passion”, and Claudia Gerini, who plays the role of Pilate's wife, are hardcore porn stars as well. A simple search on the internet [not recommended] for any one of these Italian actresses brings up numerous pornographic websites.

Jim Caviezel has starred in over twenty movies, including box office hits like “The Count of Monte Cristo” and, in the supernatural thriller “Frequency”, he played the son of a dead man with whom he was able to communicate via ham radio. A devout Roman Catholic who is reputed to be a paragon of moral integrity, Caviezel has credited the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje as his inspiration for taking on the role of Jesus.

Caviezel is reported as saying "I ask Mary to guide me and my career... This film is something that I believe was made by Mary for her Son.”
.

Samuele Bacchiocchi writes:

NO BLOODY DETAILS IN THE GOSPELS

The problem with such positive evaluations of the film is their failure to recognize that there are no gruesome, bloody details in the Gospels’ narrative about Christ’s trial, mocking, and crucifixion. As I took time to reread the four accounts of Christ’s trial and crucifixion, I was impressed by the cryptic and brief account of the Passion, without any reference to blood covering Christ’s blood. The only reference to “blood” is found in John 19:34 where we are told that one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side to find out if He was dead. “A sudden flow of blood and water” came out. In view of the fact that Christ was already dead, his legs were not broken, like in the case of the two thieves standing next to Him. If the focus of the narrative was on “bloody details,” then the amputation of the thieves leg, would have received far greater coverage.

But, the focus of the four Evangelists is not on the “Passion,” that is, on the bleeding Christ, but on the nobility of His character, which is revealed in the dignified way he handled Himself before His accusers, mockers, and executioners. Crucifixions were common in those days. Thousands of Jews were crucified at various times by the Romans because of their constant uprising. What makes Christ’s crucifixion unique, is not the unusual harsh treatment He received, but His willingness to suffer silently “like a lamb led to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearer” (Isaiah 53:7).

The focus of The Passion is notably different. According to Newsweek: “The arrest, the scourging and the Crucifixion are depicted in harsh, explicit detail in the R-rated movie. One of Jesus’ eyes is swollen shut from his first beating as he is dragged from Gethsemane; the Roman torture, the long path to Golgotha bearing the wooden cross, and the nailing of Jesus’ hands and feet to the beams are filmed unsparingly. The effect of the violence is at first shocking, then numbing, and finally reaches a point where many viewers may spend as much time clinically wondering how any man could have survived such beatings as they do sympathizing with his plight.”

BLOOD SELLS MOVIES

Commercially, it is a known fact that “blood” sells movies. Film producers and promoters know that snap-shots of the bleeding Christ appeal to some bloodthirsty elements of our society. Popular films contain a generous (sickening) dosage of violence and bloodshed. This I know, not from viewing films, but from being confronted during the evening news with the snap-shots of shooting and bloodshed, used to advertize the latest films. The marketing industry know too-well that “blood sells” and this applies to religious films as well.

Frederica Matthewes-Green perceptively notes, “It's a mark of our age that we don't believe something is realistic unless it is brutal. But there's another factor to consider. When the four evangelists were writing their own accounts of the Passion, they didn't take Gibson's approach. In fact, the descriptions of Jesus' beating and crucifixion are as minimal as the writers can make them. Instead of appealing to our empathy, they invite us to awesome wonder, because they had a different understanding of the meaning of his suffering.”

Apparently Gibson has a reputation for directing and/or producing films like Braveheart, where blood flows freely. Gregg Easterbrook writes in The New Republic that “Gibson has a reputation for movies that revel in gore, so there's legitimate worry that The Passion will depict an over-the-top, splatter-movie Hollywood version of Christ's final hours; and Gibson will sell this as historically accurate ‘truth’ when it is just one of many possible interpretations of an event no one can be sure about.”

WOMAN COLLAPSES DURING SHOWING OF "THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST"
Wichita
KAKE News

A woman collapsed in an East Wichita theatre this morning, during a showing of "The Passion Of The Christ". Peggy Law apparently suffered a heart attack. She was pronounced dead a short time later at a Wichita medical center. Peggy Law, also known to some by her married name Peggy Scott is a respected figure in the local broadcasting community. The tragedy has hit some here at KAKE especially hard. She was a former employee. People viewing the movie at the Warren Theatre East say Law collapsed during the portion of the movie where the crucifixion of Christ was shown. A few off-duty doctors and nurses who were in the audience tried to revive her. But when she was taken away in the ambulance, authorities say Law still had no pulse. The movie has been criticized for it's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death. Religious leaders around the country and here in Wichita say people need to be prepared for the graphic brutality. Whether Law's death and the timing in the film are related, we will never know, but religious and medical officials stress this film is not for the faint-hearted. Killed by a movie? Better this than a "horror film;" if it was a horror film, they'd condemn them all and sue the filmmakers ... but they can't do that here.

Jami Bernard
New York Daily News
The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M; club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.

The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."

Peter Rainer
New York Magazine
I didn’t leave The Passion believing I had witnessed a movie made by a man of great spiritual gifts. Gibson’s fervor, it seems to me, belongs as much to the realm of sadomasochism as to Christian piety.

A Christian's response after having seen "The Passion" movie
I am sorry to say that I have just seen the movie. I was deceived from the endorsements of other Christian pastors that this was a biblical movie. My pastor on Sabbath however, did NOT recommend that we see the movie, fearing that the true message of God's sacrifice would be lost through all the violence, and also because that this comes from a devil-indorsed industry.

However, my husband and I still, yet repentantly, viewed the film. I was in shock at the false doctrines being portrayed in the movie. The "Marian" themes portrayed were so incredibly obvious. The characters in the movie kept calling Mary, "Mother." I was furious. Blasphemy I say !!!!!!!! Catholic mysticism also played a primarily role in the form of relics. At one point in particular, when Christ falls with the cross, a women goes to give him water and wipes his face with her tunic. The supposed "image" of Christ's face is then revealed on the cloth. This is the cloth that is supposedly kept at the Vatican. I am so thankful that my pastor did not indorse the film, but am shocked that other evangelical Christian leaders have not exposed the film for what it truly is, false catholic dogma. This is not a film for believers and now that I know the truth I will try my best to discourage it to others, believers and nonbelievers alike.

Did You Recognize This Momentous Event Or Were You Caught Unawares?

“The Passion of Christ”: Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception
By Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar

There seldom has been a movie that has created such favorable publicity and anticipation in the Evangelical community. A tidal wave of excitement is sweeping the church and the movie world. On the Catholic Ash Wednesday the film will appear in theaters across America. Evangelical churches are buying huge blocks of tickets, reserving theaters. An endless list of endorsements from church leaders publicly promoting the film is paraded. Names like Billy Graham, Jack Graham (President of the Southern Baptist Convention), Rick Warren, Jack Hayford, names of Catholic leaders, and an endless list of celebrities are presented to the public as endorsing the film. It is being promoted as one of the greatest evangelistic opportunities in history, a concept dear to the heart of every Evangelical. Even the secular media, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, the Internet, feed the frenzy. There is a fawning adulation of the film. The Evangelical church’s acceptance of Gibson’s movie gives shocking - maybe apocalyptic - insight into the state of popular Christianity today. Will history reveal this day as the time when Evangelicalism, on a popular level, merged with the Roman Catholic Church?

Blood, but little forgiveness, in Mel Gibson's 'Passion'

By Glenn Whipp
Film Writer

"The Passion Of The Christ'' is exactly the kind of movie you'd expect from a man who has staked his career on bone-crunching martyrdom. Mel Gibson's version of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life has the Christian savior being bound and chained, thrown off a bridge, beaten and spat upon, kicked, mocked, his shoulder ripped out of its socket and in an excruciating (and repetitive) 30-minute torture scene, flogged until he's nothing more than a bloody pulp.

By the time the movie makes it to the crucifixion, the cross _ not to mention Jesus' mission - seems like an afterthought.

Lost in the film's beautifully lit orgy of abuse is the sense of who Jesus was and why the Jewish priests - Gibson's villains in this old-fashioned melodrama - wanted him crucified. Gibson, who directed the film and co-wrote it with Benedict Fitzgerald, teases us with brief flashbacks of Jesus' life - the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper, some tender moments with mother Mary. But these are just blips between the relentless brutality. Jesus' suffering is all that matters in this movie. It's as if Gibson is measuring God's love by the amount of blood he shows on the screen.

The centerpiece of "The Passion of the Christ" is, rather strangely, an episode of torture that doesn't rate a mention in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, while Luke and John only devote five verses to it. Here, it's one-fourth of the movie.

It begins with Roman soldiers caning Christ's back 30 times - a supervisor helpfully counts the lashes - followed by a camera pan to a table containing various instruments of punishment. The sadist decides on the cat o' nine tails, and it's back to the count-off - one, WHAM, two, WHAM, three, WHAM - all the way to 30 again.

When they're done flogging Christ's back, stomach and legs, the camera moves back to reveal a courtyard covered with blood, more blood, in fact, than any human body could hold, following a brutalization that no human body could endure. But the humanity of Jesus as Christ is not in play here. He is the Son of God, come to Earth to die in order to redeem our sins. Only in Gibson's "Passion," Christ must not only die, he must endure the kind of punishment and persecution that the martyrs in Gibson's films - from "Lethal Weapon's" Martin Riggs to Scottish hero William Wallace - have grimly faced at the hands of enemies.

The film places a particular emphasis on the Virgin Mary, a figure central to Gibson's Roman Catholic faith, as well as an androgynous Satan, who lurks, cloaked, on the edges of the action.

Gibson doesn't take the stuff with the devil any place interesting. As presented, it's just window dressing, like something from the outtakes reel from a souped-up "The Exorcist." But the moments between Jesus and Mary give "The Passion" its flashes of heart and humanity. For a few seconds at least, Gibson stops beating on Jesus and lets him breathe. And, for a few seconds, the audience can breathe, too.

But the film, which is in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles, wants to shock you with its unrelenting violence; so Gibson doesn't let Jesus off the hook for long. The aim is for us to feel the enormity of Christ's physical sacrifice, and this the film does, helped immeasurably by actor Jim Caviezel's ability to silently express noble, dignified suffering.

What doesn't quite get through is Christ's message of forgiveness and love. You occasionally read it in the subtitles, but you don't really feel it in the movie. It just doesn't engage Gibson. He doesn't even show much interest in the Resurrection (given all of two minutes here), and why should he when his camera can zero in on a crow devouring the eyes of the mocking thief crucified next to Jesus? And that pretty much sums up "The Passion": God (and Mel) revealing himself through eye-gouging.

That is the CATHOLIC GOSPEL-- that's what the film portrays.

Now, even the Protestants say we must see this film if we want to understand the "gospel".

That is the part which makes the popularity of this film so disturbing-- it is the ROMAN CATHOLIC GOSPEL, not the real gospel and all the Protestant world (almost) is heralding it as a great revelation of the gospel.

The film was inspired by "mary" [the apparition that is]. I believe it's one of the MAJOR COGS in the plan to bring all religions back under the primacy of the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. Click here.

“A surprisingly violent narrative that falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate... One of the cruelest movies in the history of cinema... The movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beating, blood and agony.”
David Denby, The New Yorker

A proof is the comments of those who saw the movie, including Catholic and Protestant church leaders. The vast majority acclaim the movie as the most accurate reenactment of Christ's Passion. The truth is that the movie is a gross misrepresentation of Christ's Passion because it contains many glaring [falsehoods] and the traditional Catholic view of the atonement. Gibson himself admits that his movie is largely based, not on the Gospels, but on the visions of two Roman Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherene Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. My point is that viewing a religious movie, without knowing the biblical and historical facts, can lead uninformed people to accept as fact what in reality is fiction.

To silence the criticism and to do justice to the review you are about to read, I decided to make time in my busy schedule to view the movie. Thus, on Catholic Ash Wednesday, February 25, I went to see the film at the Celebration Theater in Benton Harbor, Michigan. This was the first time in my life (66 years old) that I stepped in a movie theater. I would have preferred to rent the movie and view it in my home. This would have made it possible for me to stop the movie whenever I needed to jot down some observations. Unfortunately, at this time the movie is not available at video stores.

The best word that I can think of to describe the impact of the movie on myself is: "Shocking." What I saw is hundred times worse than the most negative reviews I read. From a biblical perspective, the movie contains numerous glaring errors designed to promote the Catholic view of the Passion and of the redemptive role of Mary, as co-redeemer with Christ. What shocked me most is the relentless torture of Christ's body. The brutality of flogging with switches and cat-o-nine-tails, blows out of proportions the physical suffering of Christ in order to promote the Catholic imitation of His suffering as a way of salvation.

The movie is truly a blood bath, where Jesus body is constantly beaten, wipped, kicked, spit on, and slapped. Christ's flesh is literally flayed with metal-tipped whips by sadistic Roman soldiers who compete among themselves for inflicting the most devastating blows. In fact, after the first flogging, Mary attempts to clean the flesh and blood lying on the pavement of Pilate's courtyard. By the time Christ reaches Golgotha, his body is so mangled, bruised, and disfigured that it looks like a sausage coming out of a meat grinder.

While the Romans and Jews killed Jesus once, Gibson in his movie succeeds in killing Jesus a hundred times over. In view of its sadistic content, the movie can rightly be titled: "Mel Gibson's Slaughter of Christ." No SUPER MAN could have endured the blows inflicted to Christ in the movie, including being thrown off a bridge while bound to a huge 3 inch thick chain, strong enough to pull a train. It surprises me that Gibson never went to see the Church of St. Peter in Chain in Rome, where the alleged chains of Peter's imprisonment are displayed. Those chains are four times smaller than the ones used in the movie.

The movie raises important questions that I will attempt to address in this review. What led Gibson to produce such a bloody and gruesome Passion of Christ that blatantly misrepresents the Evangelists account of His trial and execution? Since the blood factor is minimal in the Gospel, where did Gibson get his information and inspiration? Can such a bloody, gruesome, and gory misrepresentation of Christ's suffering and death be biblically justified and shown to young people? Is it not idolatrous to portray the Divine Son of God in a way that will distort the worship experience of millions of Christians for generations to come?

Billy Graham himself acknowledges that "Every time I preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be on my heart and mind." ("What Others Are Saying"). If a preacher like Billy Graham will be permanently influenced by Gibson's distorted portrayal of Christ's Passion, will not millions of average Christians unfamiliar with the Gospels' narrative "exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man" (Rom 1:23)?

The fact that some Protestant church leaders accept Gibson's Catholic view of Christ's Passion, causes one to wonder: What impact will the film have on the future relationship between Catholic and Protestants? Will Protestant gradually adopt the Catholic devotion and imitation of the Passion as a way of salvation? Will Protestants unconsciously come to view Mary in the role portrayed in the film as a partner in Christ's redemption? Moreover, how will the movie affect the Christian attitude toward the Jews, in view of the fact all the Jewish people shown in the film, including the children who tried to stone Judas, are portrayed as angry, mean and demonic? These are some of the questions that I will attempt to address in the following order:

THE SOURCES OF THE PASSION

SOME GLARING ERRORS OF THE PASSION

THE PROMINENT ROLE OF MARY IN THE PASSION

THE RELENTLESS BRUTALITY OF THE PASSION

THE THEOLOGY OF THE PASSION

DOES THE PASSION OFFER A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR SPREADING THE GOSPEL?

THE POTENTIAL OF THE PASSION FOR CATHOLIC EVANGELISM

THE SOURCES OF THE PASSION

The Passion of the Christ is heralded as the most authentic reenactment of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. To add historical credibility to the movie, Gibson has the characters speak Aramaic and Latin. The Pope himself is reported to have said: "It is as it was," that is, the movie is a factual representation of the events leading to the Crucifixion. Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls confirmed the Pope's view, describing the movie as "a cinematographic transposition of the historical events of the Passion of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel." In fact, the film was shown to members of the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. All of them expressed unanimous approval, praising it as the most accurate reenactment of Christ's Passion ever produced.

The same view is shared by many Protestant leaders who are enthusiastically promoting the film, to use the words of Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, as "the Michelangelo of this generation." Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in southern California purchased 18,000 tickets. A host of Protestant churches, including several Adventist Churches, have sponsored the film in rented theaters. At the Loma Linda University Church, Pastor Roberts and staff have rented a theater in Redlands for a showing of The Passion on Thursday evening before Easter. An announcement I received indicates that a special showing has been arranged for the General Conference workers.

Bill Hybels of Willow Creeek, Robert Schuller of Crystal Cathedral, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and Paul Harvey, just to name a few, are all eagerly promoting the film as an unprecedented truthful reenactment of Christ's Passion which is supposed to bring about massive conversions to Christianity.

In view of the extraordinary ecumenical endorsement and promotion of the movie as an authentic portrayal of Christ's Passion, we need to ask at the outset: Does the movie truly reflect the Biblical account of the last 12 hours of Jesus life? What are the major sources of the film, the Gospels or the Catholic mystical literature? The answer is readily available, because Gibson himself openly admits that the movie is based not only on the Gospels, but also on the visions of two Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda.

Referring to the visions of Emmerich, Gibson said, "She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of" (The New Yorker, 9/15/03). This is evident, because, as we shall see, many of the details of the movie are foreign to the Gospels. Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German nun who allegedly had the stigmata or wounds of Christ in her hands. The stigmata (bleeding hands) are the ultimate proof of sainthood for Catholics, because the focus of their devotion is imitating the suffering of Jesus. Any believer with the wounds of Christ in the hands, becomes as it were a little christ. During the last 12 years of her life, she allegedly ate only the body and blood of Jesus contained the wafer of the Catholic mass. It is evident that she had serious mental problems which for Catholics are evidence of sainthood.

Emmerich's visions on the life of Christ were published in 1824 under the title The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The book is advertized in a website as "filled with unusual, saintly descriptions that are not recorded in the Gospel story." Her deceptive visions describe Christ's scourging and crucifixion in the gruesome details shown in the movie—details which are absent in the Gospels. The same is true of the key role Emmerich attributes Mary as co-Redemptor with Christ. The partnership of Mary in Christ redemptive mission is evident in the movie, but absent in the Gospels. In her visions she saw that Protestants suffer more than Catholics in Purgatory because no one offers masses for them or prays for them.

Gibson was also influenced by Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a Catholic nun and visionary mystic. Her entire family entered monasteries and convents in 1618. She was often taken in trances which carried away to teach people in foreign lands. In her book The Mystical City of God, Agreda offers many details about Mary and Christ's Passion, which are not in the Bible.

In spite of the groundswell Evangelical support for The Passion of the Christ, the movie is not Evangelical or biblical for that matter. It is a Roman Catholic movie, made by a traditional Roman Catholic director, with Roman Catholic theological advisers who sought approval from the Pope himself. As Gibson well puts it, "It reflects my beliefs." His beliefs are rooted in the traditional Catholic beliefs and practices that preceded Vatican II (1962-1965).

While Vatican II offered the possibility to non-Catholics to be saved by following the lesser light they have, Gibson is on record in affirming that he believes that "there is no salvation for those outside the Catholic Church" (The New Yorker, September 15, 2003). Indeed, this has been the historical Catholic position until Vatican II: "No salus extra ecclesia-so salvation outside the church." In an interview with the Eternal Word Television Network, Gibson said: "I don't go to any other [Catholic] services. I go to the Old Tridentine [Latin] Rite." To be able to practice his traditional Catholic faith, he built his own Catholic chapel, called Holy Family, near his home in California. During the filming, he attended Catholic Mass every morning with the misguided hope "to be squeaky clean."

A major problem with the movie is Gibson's ulterior motive to portray the Passion according to the understanding of the Old Roman Catholic Church. As Robert Tippie points out in his insightful review, "No longer is he [Gibson] attempting to take facts from the scriptures and 'enhance' them to get across the scriptural feelings and meanings, but he switches to old Catholic dogma that is attempting to 'teach' us something, rather than make us feel something from the scene. It is the latter form of poetic license that I disagree with in The Passion. The movie became so dogmatically heavy with Romanism that it was ridiculous. If Mel would have stuck to the striking embellishments as seen in the first scene in the Garden, the movie would have been much more impacting on me" ("The Passion: A Review After Seeing the Movie").

The fact that The Passion is produced by a staunch, traditional Catholic who is eager to win people to his Catholic faith through his movie, should be of concern to Evangelicals who wish to protect their members from Catholic heresies. It is hopelessly inconsistent for Evangelicals to endorse a movie that says and shows things that are unbiblical, while committed to uphold the integrity and authority of the Bible.

SOME GLARING ERRORS OF THE PASSION

Few viewers will note the glaring errors which are strategically located throughout the film. Most viewers come out thinking that they have seen an accurate portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. The truth is far from it. The truth and errors are so intricately interwoven that the average viewer who knows little about [the] Gospels' account of the Passion may not notice the Catholic interpolations designed to promote their historical teachings. Let me mention some of the errors and inaccuracies that have caught my attention.

Gethsemane

The movie opens with Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. Both the garden and Jesus look awful. The garden looks like an abandoned field in Southern Italy, with dry high grass and without the millenarian olive trees that are so characteristic of the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem.

Jesus looks frightening, covered with mud or grease over his hair and face. He looks as if He just came out of a mud pit. Why should Christ look so dirty and greasy when He had just finished eating the Passover meal with His disciples? The Gospels tells that three times Jesus fell on His face and prayed to His Father if it were possible to let the cup of suffering pass from Him, but such prayer could hardly have made Him look so dirty. It is evident that Gibson wants to make Christ look shocking from the beginning to the end of the movie. Such a picture promotes the Catholic devotion to the Passion as a way of salvation.

As soon as the soldiers and priests capture Christ in the Garden, they bound Him with a heavy duty chain suitable for anchoring sea vessels, and start beating on Him. But in the Gospels there is no reference to the beating of Jesus in the Garden. We are simply told: "And they laid hands on him and seized him. . . . And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and elders were assembled" (Mark 14:46, 53; cf. Matt 26:50, 57). "Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest house" (Luke 22:54; cf. John 18:12-13). What in the Gospels is presented as a simple arrest and escort of Jesus to the high priest house, in the movie becomes a plot to lynch Jesus even before he gets a chance to appear before the high priest.

Physical Appearance of Satan

Satan, with his black cloak and mime-white face appears various times in the movie, inciting everyone against Christ. In the Garden a serpent crawls out of the nose of Satan. Slowly the serpent creeps toward Christ and is almost ready to bite His head bowed low in prayer. But Christ stands and crushes the serpent head. There is no question that Satan was hard at work in the final hours of Christ's life, hoping to defeat His redemptive mission. But there are no allusions in the Gospels regarding any physical appearances of Satan during the Passion to incite Jews and Romans against Christ. There are no satanic snakes attempting to bite Christ.

Riot Between Jews and Romans

A frenzied riot brakes out around Jesus as he drags the Cross to Calvary. Romans and Jews fight wildly, with Christ being brutalized by all. A reviewer perceptively comments: "Wild riots happened a lot in Mad Max movies [by Mel Gibson], but not in the Gospels. Christ is depicted as falling at three points, but otherwise the carrying of the cross is presented as a solemn event. Here is how the Gospel writer Luke, a deeply ardent believer, presents the scene: 'As they led him away a great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him. But Jesus turned to them and said, 'daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.' This doesn't sound like the depiction of a crazy riot, nor does Christ's injunction sound like the sort of thing shouted over a melee."

It is unfortunate that Gibson is more concerned to shock people by using the typical Hollywood audio-visual portrayal of violence and bloodshed, than to capture the solemnity and dignity of the Gospel story. The fact that the episode of the riot and the ensuing beating of Jesus is foreign to the Gospels, shows again that Gibson uses the Gospels as a pretext for his violent and shocking movie. The beating of Christ is relentless throughout the movie, even while falling under the weight of the Cross. It is evident that Gibson is determined to blow out of proportion Christ's sufferings in accordance with the Catholic devotion to the Passion.

Christ Thrown Off of a Bridge

While taking Christ to Pilate, the Pharisees throw Him off of a bridge together with the huge chain and thick rope that bound him. One would expect that a fall from a bridge into a rocky ground below with the weight of a heavy chain, would result in broken bones and emergency assistance. But in the film Christ is portrayed like a zombie Super Man who can withstand any fall or beating. They pull Him up with the chain bound around his waist like a sack of potato, and then they continue to beat Him all the way to Pilate's judgment hall. Common sense precludes the possibility of a normal human being able to walk normally after a hard fall from a bridge. But the movie shows that common sense is not so common after all.

Since there is no mention in the Gospels of Christ being thrown off of a bridge by the Pharisees on the way to Pilate, where did Gibson get the information from? Most likely from Catholic mystical literature that exaggerates the physical suffering of Christ in order to promote the devotion to the Passion as a way of salvation.

Wicked Children Throw Stones to Judas

I was shocked by the totally unexpected brief episode of children playing on the street and then being suddenly transformed into demons throwing stones to Judas while he was walking outside the city to hang himself. For few second I could not understand what was happening.

This episode is foreign to the Gospels, but reflects Gibson's intent to portray the Jews as people, including their children as wicked, demonic individuals, responsible for the death of Jesus. Vatican II and the Pope himself have apologized for the historical Catholic position against the Jews as the murderers of Christ, but Mel Gibson does not accept the new Catholic admission. His movie show that all the Jews, including their children are a sadistic, demonic people, guilty of Christ's death. Gibson denies this charge, but the actions of his movie speak louder than his words.

Unfair Portrayal of Jews and Romans

Throughout his movie Gibson portrays both the Jews and the Romans as mean, sadistic, with angry looks and bad teeths. The Jewish leaders always stand in the front row of the crowd with their evil look and sinister faces. They show no compassion toward the lacerated body of Jesus made worse at every passing moment by the relentless blows. The only time they express grief is when they see their Temple collapsing as a result of the earthquake that accompanied Christ's death. This is another unbiblical and unhistorical episode, because there are no indications that the Temple collapsed at the death of Jesus.

Similarly the Roman soldiers are portrayed as sadistic and sarcastic. They joke among themselves on who can dig deeper into Christ's flesh with their metal-tipped whips. They look like hardened executioners with no empathy toward their helpless victim.

There is no question that there were sadistic and bloodthirsty Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers who played a major role in the torture and crucifixion of Jesus. But the question is: Can such a characterization be applied to all the Jews and to all the Romans? Gibson makes no effort in his movie to acknowledge the presence of Jews and Romans who believed in Christ and supported Him. Yet a balanced reading of the Gospels shows that there were both Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers that accepted Christ and were gracious toward Him.

For example, the Gospels tells that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both of whom were members of the Sanhedrin and secret followers of Jesus. They arranged with Pilate for taking down Jesus' body from the Cross, treating it with myrrh and aloes, and placing it in a brand new garden tomb (John 19:38-41; Luke 23:50-53; Mark 15:43-46; Matt 27:57-61). Later on Luke informs us that "the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:6). Note that not only the common Jewish people, but also "many of the priests were obedient to the faith." In Acts 21:20 James tells Paul that "myriads of Jews have believed and they are all zealous for the law."

On the basis of the figures provided by Acts, it is estimated that about half of the Jewish population living in Jerusalem accepted Jesus of Nazareth as their expected Messiah. Thus, it is inaccurate and misleading for Gibson to make the Jewish people as a whole guilty of Christ's death. To bring this point home, I might mention the prevailing belief among Europeans that Americans are obsessed with guns which they use freely to settle disputes. They like to speak of President Bush as a Texan cowboy who wanted to take on Saddam Hussein. This stereotyped image of Americans is hardly true.

During the 30 years I have lived in the USA, I have found that the vast majority of Americans do not have guns and do not use them to settle disputes. To stereotype all Americans as gangsters, is inaccurate and offensive. The same is true of Gibson's portrayal of the Jews. To the extent that he portrays the Jews as a sadistic people, responsible for Christ's death, he perpetrates the historical Catholic anti-Jewish teachings and policies that have done incalculable damage to the cause of Christianity.

The same is true of the Roman soldiers. The Gospels tell us of a centurion who beseeched Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus acknowledged his faith and performed the miracle (Matt 8:5-8; Luke 7:2-6). Even more telling is the reaction of the centurion who most likely was in charge of the soldiers at the crucifixion of Jesus. We read: "And when the centurion, who stood facing him [Christ], saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, 'Truly this man was the Son of God" (Marl 15:39; cf. Matt 27:54). In Acts time and again Roman soldiers delivered and protected Paul from popular lynching (Acts 21:32; 23:10; 23:27). There is ample evidence that many soldiers were decent men who accepted the Gospel. In fact the evangelization of countries like Great Britain is attributed to Roman soldiers stationed in that country.

It is unfortunate that Gibson makes no attempt to portray a balanced picture the good and bad people among the Jews and Romans. Instead he chooses to portray the Jewish people and the Roman soldiers in a negative light. The reason is his aim to promote the historical Catholic bloody view of the Passion as well as traditional Catholic anti-semitism. There is reason to fear that the movie, by portraying the Jewish leaders angry, ugly, and demonic, may refuel historic antisemitism, which many thought-leaders have worked so hard to overcome in recent years.

The Final Earthquake

Another glaring error that caught my attention is the devastating impact of the earthquake that accompanied Christ's death. In the movie the whole Temple is split apart in two, with sections collapsing. Again this is pure fiction, not a biblical fact. The earthquake is mentioned only in Matthew 27:51. Luke speaks of the darkness that encompassed the land from noon to 3:00 p.m. There is no mention of the Temple sustaining any damage from the earthquake. The only thing that happened inside the Temple was the splitting of the curtain that divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy. "And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split" (Matt 27:51).

Had the Temple collapsed at Christ's crucifixion, there would be historical accounts of its reconstruction as it happened in A. D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the Temple. But there are no indications that the Temple was rebuilt or repaired because of the earthquake that occurred at the Crucifixion. Gibson ignores biblical and historical facts, because for him fiction offers more shocking images than facts.

The Carrying of the Cross

The episode of the carrying of the Cross contains a glaring error, because Gibson has both Simon of Cyrene and Jesus carrying the cross together. I could not believe what I saw because this openly contradicts the Gospels account which reads: "And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus" (Luke 23:26; cf. Mark 15:21; Matt 27:32).

In the Gospels it is clear that Simon carries the Cross for Jesus by himself, while following Jesus who by now was totally exhausted. One wonders, Why does Gibson misrepresent the Gospel story by having both Jesus and Simon carry the Cross together? Most likely to suit his purpose to intensify the suffering of Jesus in order to promote more effectively the Catholic devotion and imitation of the Passion. Had Christ been relieved altogether from carrying the Cross, then His sufferings would have been reduced. This would run contrary to Gibson's strategy to shock people by making the agony of Christ stretch beyond the limits of human imagination.

It was shocking for me to see people beating on Christ, not only while carrying the Cross, but also while collapsed under its weight. It is hard to believe that people can be so sadistic by relentlessly beating on a bloody victim fallen under the weight of a heavy Cross. But for Gibson, religious and commercial considerations demand that the beating of Christ must go on non-stop, even when fallen under the weight of the Cross.

Religiously, the Catholic devotion to the Passion entails that Christ's sufferings must surpass human limitations. Commercially, relentless brutality sells movies. Gibson knows it too well. His earlier best selling movies The Patriot and Pulp Fiction, are described by the New York Times as "two of the most gory and violent artistic works of the modern era."