THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
or
A PASSION FOR THE
GOSPEL?*
[* C.W.I. discuss the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's new film.]
The
following article, written by Howard
Fleming and Mike Moore, was
published in the "Herald" - a quarterly magazine by "Christian
Witness To Israel" (C.W.I.) where
it was presented under the title: "A Passion for the Gospel?"
Foreword
"In the Herald we do not normally comment
on films, but Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ has generated so
much controversy in terms of how it views the Jewish people and the
responsibility they bore (or bear) for the death of Jesus that we felt it was
important to look at it. At the time of writing, the film has been seen by only
a select few (including the Pope), but even before its general release more has
been written about Gibson’s Passion than about most other
-------
The Prologue
It
has been said that Mel Gibson is usually portrayed in films as a "happy-go-lucky blue-eyed golden boy, with a malicious grin
on his handsome face and mischief forever on his mind". Many were therefore surprised that his most
recent venture, which he has both funded and directed, details the final hours
and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah. Thankfully, The Passion of the Christ
does not depict "the Christ" as a
European "blue-eyed golden boy" but
as someone who is clearly Jewish and is addressed as "Rabbi" by his followers. Furthermore, all the Jewish characters in the
film speak Aramaic and Maia Morgenstern, the actress who plays the
mother of Jesus, is herself Jewish. However, long before its release, the film
began to be branded as anti-Semitic.
People
have moulded Jesus into so many likenesses that any portrayal of the last
twelve hours of his life is certain to be controversial and to offend various
groups of people. However, many of the
films dealing with his life and death have not reached a wide enough audience
for the reaction to be of any significance. In contrast, The Passion of the Christ
will be widely distributed and be seen by many who would normally avoid, or
deny, the claims of Christ. Indeed, the film has already been the subject of
intense debate, being criticized by some even before they have seen the film
production.
The Critics
The
main assault on the film has come from Abraham
H. Foxman, National Director of the
Anti-Defamation League and Paula Fredriksen, the spokesperson for a coalition of Roman
Catholic and Jewish academics. The
Anti-Defamation League is well represented for its work in combating
anti-Semitism, but some have felt that Foxman has
marginalized himself by certain personal accusations he has made against Mel
Gibson. However, it is his wider agenda
that should concern us, for he believes that claiming one’s own faith to be
"the only valid path to life" is a
discredited Christian theology. As such,
he represents those for whom political correctness is often more important that
truth.
Paula Fredriksen is Professor of the Appreciation
of Scripture at
The Producer
But
where does Mel Gibson stand in relation to all of this? One of the reasons for the controversy surrounding
The Passion of the Christ is that
Gibson is a "traditionalist Catholic"
who opposes the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Amongst those reforms was the document Nostra Aetate (In Our Age), which rejected the notion that Jewish
people were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. One concern of groups opposing The Passion is that the film allegedly
reinforces this notion. As Rabbi Eugene Korn
(Director of Interfaith Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League) puts it, "We have ridden into the middle of ideological war between
conservative Catholics and Vatican II progressive Catholics." For his part, Mel Gibson rejects any change of
anti-Semitism, and it is reported that one of the two glimpses of him in the
movie is "when you see his hand placing the stake
on Christ’s palm - thus underlining Gibson’s own guilt for the death of Christ."
However, he has admitted that his
screenplay was based not so much on the Gospels as on the mystical visions of
19th century nun Anne Catrerine Emmerich, whose
reinterpretation of the passion of Christ included many details not found in
the Gospels. These details, it is
claimed, are the source of much of the anti-semitic
content of the original screenplay, if not the final film. Indeed, they prompted the accusation from Fredriksen that the true historical framing of Mr. Gibson’s
script is post-medieval Roman Catholic Europe. Ironically, this has led the critical scholars
to cry out "Scripture alone" and
demand that the final version rids itself of "fictious
non-scriptural elements that form an inescapably negative picture of Jewish
society and leadership". Sadly, as already noted, their love for Scripture wanes when it
comes to Jewish evangelism.
But
perhaps we need to ask if Mel Gibson set out to make a movie that was
historically accurate. Indeed he did! He is quoted as saying of The Passion, "It’s like travelling
back in time and watching the events unfold exactly as they occurred."
But the Jewish author David Horowitz, who defends the film,
believes that it is an artistic vision and not an attempt to portray the
historical Jesus. He says, "It is as close to a religious experience as art can get."
But why does he reject Gibson’s own
assessment of the project? Because,
according to Horowitz, "there is no evidentiary
basis for such a portrait, no one can know what the
truth is". Here is someone
who appears to believe that it is possible to know the historical Jesus. Yet, as a commentator, Horowitz frequently
writes "authoritatively" about
historical events of which he was not an eyewitness!
The Messiah
The
New Testament, however, was written by
those who were witnesses, or had access to eyewitness reports, of the life
of Jesus. He was [is] a life that challenges the
"wider agendas" of Abraham Foxman, Paula Fredriksen and
David Horowitz, for it was dedicated to
seeking and saving the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew
15: 24 cf. Jeremiah 50: 6). And it was to those "lost sheep" that the Messiah sent his first
disciples to preach the message of the kingdom*
(Matt 10: 7). Those who oppose Jewish
evangelism, on the alleged grounds that it is anti-Semitic, and those who
oppose any evangelism, on the grounds that there is no ultimate
truth, find themselves opposing the One
who claimed to be "the way, the truth and the life".
[* See also Matt. 13: 19.]
Contrary
to what many critics of evangelical Christianity would have us believe, anti-semitism has a history that pre-dates Christianity. It is an evil that needs to be confronted,
especially to those of us who claim to understand God’s purposes for the Jewish
people. However, as Michael Medved (a film critic and
orthodox Jew), has observed, "If there are people
in the Jewish community saying Christians have to disregard certain passages in
scripture or else they will be accused of anti-Semitism, then that’s ‘a bridge
too far’". Yet that is exactly
what some expect us to do. For many of them, it is not only the cross of Jesus
that causes offence, but also the claims of Jesus.*
[* See footnote.]
It
was a Jewish high priest who asked Jesus if he was the Messiah, the Son of God
and it was a gentile, Pilate, who asked him "Are
you the king of the Jews?" On both occasions Jesus replied, "Yes, it is as you say." King Messiah has come**
and his people need to know, lest they perish.
[** See footnote.]
Losing the plot
Mel
Gibson, of course, has his agenda too. His
project, funded largely from his own cheque book, appears to be a traditional
act of Roman Catholic devotion. Just as medieval kings built cathedrals and
commissioned great works of art depicting the crucifixion, a
However,
it is sobering to remember that, in contrast to the explicit bloodiness of
Gibson’s film, the Gospel writers are remarkably laconic about Jesus’
suffering: "Pilate took Jesus and scourged him";
"the soldiers twisted a crown of thorns and put it
on his head"; "they crucified him".
The New Testament emphasis is not that
Jesus suffered, but that the Messiah suffered; and the glory of the gospel is
not simply that the Messiah suffered but that he suffered for us. It is highly unlikely that cinema audiences -
Jewish or gentile - who see Gibson’s film, with its grafic violence and Latin and Aramaic dialogue, will hear
that authentic message.
-------
NOTES.
* "...it
is not only the cross of Jesus that causes offence, but also the claims
of Jesus"
There
are multitudes anti-millennial Christians who are offended at some of "the
claims of Jesus." Let us
have a look at one instance relative to one of Messiah's claims:-
One
of the prayers Jesus prayed was: "Father, I want
those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to
see my glory ...," (John 17: 24).
Where
was the Messiah when he prayed these words to His heavenly Father? Was he
in heaven or upon this earth? He was upon this earth - not in heaven as
at present, where He is waiting, until He makes the nations His inheritance, and the ends of the earth His possession,
(See Psalm 2: 8.). Jesus has promised to return to this earth
sometime in the future, to establish His kingdom of righteousness and peace: so
say also ‘the Prophets’ of God:-
"At that time gifts will be brought to the Lord
Almighty from a people tall and smooth-skinned, from a people feared far and
wide, an aggressive nation of strange speech, whose land is divided by rivers
- the gifts will be brought to Mount Zion, the place of the Name of the Lord Almighty,"
(Isa. 18: 7).
Would
any be so bold as to suggest that "the place," of which Isaiah is speaking, is anywhere other
than where he says it is - "to
The
prophet Daniel reminds us of this , when he
writes: "Then the sovereignty, power and greatness
of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints,
the people of the Most High ... and all rulers
will worship and obey him," (Dan.
7: 27).
God’s
prophet Zechariah prophecies to the same
effect:
"... the survivors from all the
nations that have attacked
The
prophet Ezekiel says:
"For on my holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel,
declares the Sovereign Lord, there in the land the entire
house of Israel will serve me, and there I will accept
them," (Ezek. 20: 40).
The
prophet Hosea prophecies concerning
"... they will seek my face; in their
misery they will earnestly seek me. Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days - [i.e., after
two thousand years, (2 Pet. 3: 8)] - he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that
we may live in his presence," (Hosea
5: 15- 6: 2).
The
prophet Zephaniah informs us that: "The nations on every shore - [therefore
it will be upon this earth] - will
worship him, everyone in his own land," (Zeph. 2: 11).
The
prophet Malachi, describing the blessing
which will come from the Lord upon
"... ‘You are under a curse - the whole nation of you - because
you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may
be food in my house. Test me in this,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and see if I
will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out much blessing that
you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouiring your crops, and the vines in your fields will
not cast their fruit,’ says the Lord Almighty. Then all the nations will
call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,’ says the Lord
Almighty," (Mal. 3: 9-12).
After
His resurrection, Jesus said to His disciples: "Everything
must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law
of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms," (Luke 24: 44). Therefore, all the above prophecies,
including Isaiah 18: 7, have yet to be
fulfilled; and the scriptures, which cannot be broken, tell us that they will
be fulfilled during the millennium, after the "First
Resurrection". Rev. 20: 5.
**
"King
Messiah has come ..."
Every
Jew and Christian should know what the word "Messiah"
means. The following definition is from
Black’s Bible Dictionary:-
"Messiah, the Christ; the
looked-for king and deliverer of the Hebrews. The root meaning
of the word is ‘anointed one.’ It recalls the ancient Hebrew custom of
anointing a person who was being set apart for high office, especially a
priest or a ruler. In the New
Testament it becomes ‘the Christ,’ the exact Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Messiah’."
The
promise of God to Abraham, that in him and his descendants all the world was
to be blest (Gen. 12:1-3, 15: 1 f.), created
the expectancy - [an expectancy many of the
regenerate members of God's church today would appear not to have] - of a kingdom of God on earth.
The Old Testament is the story of the growth of this expectancy, and of changes
in the way it was understood. One form limited the promise to the
physical line of Abraham: "the chosen people"
were "the sons of Abraham." With
the emergence of Saul as the first Hebrew king, the national and political
conception was quickened (1 Sam. 8: 1- 12: 25).
The brilliance of the reign of David, Saul’s successor, and his own personal
character, set the pattern of Messianic thought for later centuries (2 Sam. 7: 1-29). The conviction grew that the kingdom of God,
in the Abrahamic covenant would be consummated, would
be a kingdom like that of David, and its ruler would be "a son of David," a king like David, only
greater (Isa. 9: 2-7; Jer. 23: 5-8; Ezek.
34: 20-31; cf. Ps. 89: 3, 19-37; 132: 1-18).
The
checkered history of the kingdom, especially after
the division that followed the death of David’s son and successor Solomon (1 Kings 11: 9-12: 20), and still later the
destruction of the separatist Northern kingdom by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17: 1-6),
which left the loyalist Southern Kingdom, or Judah, to carry on alone the
Davidic tradition and hope (17:18), threw
into prominence the idea of a Deliverer. If the promise of
Abraham were to be fulfilled, someone must deliver the people of God from their
enemies. Hence the important meaning of the word "save" in the Old Testament notably by the Psalms (28: 9; 69:
35; 72: 13 f; 106: 47), and in Isaiah
(25: 9; 33: 22; 35: 4; 37: 20; 63: 1-5; cf. Jer. 42: 11).
Often the "salvation" or "deliverance" desired and promised was from "enemies" especially from threatening world
powers. A person who could thus "save"
or "deliver" would be king indeed.
Sometimes only God Himself would suffice; otherwise it must be "the anointed one" of God, a veritable
[true] Messiah. Psalm 72 is
believed by many to express the sentiments of the group that supported the
reformations of the young king Josiah (2 Kings 22:
1-23; 25); but in due time the psalm was used and cherished, as it still
is, for its Messianic significance.
With
the great prophets, however, there came a different reading of the promise to
Abraham. An occasional prophet retained the national outlook (see Obadiah; Nahum; Habakkuk), but the idea grew that if
God is not merely the God of Israel but the God of the whole earth, then his
concern was not limited to one people, but extended to all mankind.
The collapse of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. and the virtual
destruction of the Jewish state, gave force to the message already being
delivered by Jeremiah, that the promise to Abraham would be fulfilled not in
any political organization but in a truly religious "community," a brotherhood broader than race,
between whom and God existed "a new covenant
written on the heart," and open to every man (Jer. 31: 31-33)...
The
more spiritual and universal concept, however, still had its advocates.
It obviously inspired the writing of the book of Jonah
(300 B.C.). In the second half of the book of Zechariah
(chapters 9-14) ... the emphasis
is markedly on a national restoration, and on
"The
King Messiah has come" to suffer and die for the sins
of the people; and "the King Messiah" will
again come to reward His faithful servants, and establish His
Millennial Kingdom of righteousness and peace upon this earth. Rev. 22: 12.
"Great and marvellous are
your deeds,
Lord God Almighty.
Just and true are your ways,
King of all ages.
Who will not fear you O Lord,
and bring glory to your
name?
For you alone are holy,
ALL NATIONS WILL [future tense] COME
AND WORSHIP BEFORE YOU,
FOR YOUR RIGHTEOUS ACTS
HAVE BEEN REVEALED."
(Rev. 15: 3, 4).
The
Jews are waiting today for their true Messiah and they will soon see Him in all
His glory. What they refuse to believe is that Jesus of Nazarath - their true Messiah - came two thousand years ago
to purchase eternal salvation by His death at
-------
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST*
[* On April 6, 2004 the following article was
published in the "Thought for the Week" section of a local
newspaper and entitled: "The Passion Of The
Christ".]
Have you read J. R. Tolkein's The Lord
of the Rings? More than likely not, but you may have seen the film.
Or what about Margaret
Mitchell's book Gone with the
Wind, or Louis De Bernieres's Captain
Corelli's Mandolin? No! How
about Jane Austin's Pride and Prejudice, John Gresham's The Firm, Tricia Stewart's Calendar
Girl or Rudyard
Kipling's Jungle Book?
Maybe not, but chances are though you will have seen the film before you read
the book.
Many years ago when Cecil B
DeMille was making great biblical epics, like The Ten Commandments, some people
when asked had they ever read the bible? would reply, 'no but I've seen the film!'
Once again, in The Passion of the Christ there is an
opportunity for us to see something of what 'The Book', is talking about.
How do you portray crucifixion in any other way than it being horrific?
It is one of those things that you cannot dress up and make it
look like it wasn't as bad as it was.
I haven't seen the film yet, but I intend to. I've read 'the Book',
and the event it tries to present and it doesn't make pleasant reading, so I
know that the film is going to be hard to watch as well.
It's been described in some film critic circles as a 'horror' movie. Maybe
that should be horrific. Anybody who has read anything about crucifixion
will know that it was the most barbaric of deaths that the Romans reserved for
the worst of criminals. There was blood, pain and cries of agony so
intense that we cannot even begin to imagine, so why should we think that the
film will show anything less.
The question that we should ask as we watch it or even read the
story and not bother going to the film, is not 'how?' it was done and whether
Hollywood has gone over the top or not in visualising it, but 'why?'
Why should one human being allow himself to be put through such an
ordeal? Why should He be put to death, in such a way and why did he need
to die in the first place? We need to ask the question why? because the answer will tell us the real reason for the
Passion of the Christ.
And to get the answer, we need to go back to the original script
rather than the screenplay. Let it, in it's own
words explain why.
"He loved me and gave himself for me," Galations 2: 20.
"This is real love. It is not that we loved God, but that he
loved us and sent his son, as a sacrifice to take away our sin," 1 John 4: 10.
"But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off, have been
brought near by the blood of Christ," Ephesians 2: 13.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that
everyone who believes in him will not perish but have everlasting
life,"
John 3;
16.
-------
FOOTNOTES
I've also 'read the Book and it doesn't make pleasant reading'; and furthermore, 'the Book' has a number of
things to say about regenerate believers which they
may not like to hear, believe, or speak about. Here are
four selected texts which I have chosen to comment upon, to balance the record
of divine truth:-
1. "Command those who are rich in this present world - [or 'age', see Greek text or
alternative reading in the R.V.] - not to be arrogant nor to
put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope
in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command
them to do good, to be rich in good deeds and to be
generous and willing to share. In this
way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation
for the coming age, so that they may take
hold of the life - [i.e., as the context indicates, life
during 'the
coming age'.] - that is truly life," 1Timothy 6: 17-19.
Are Christians being taught today to obey this
command? Many of those, who dress up in long robes and 'dog collars',
have time only for smooth words; they habitually shun God's conditional promises,
and are afraid: "to proclaim to you the whole will of God,?" (Acts 20:27).
2. It is written: "Their teaching will spread like gangrene ... They
say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they
destroy the faith of some," (2 Timothy 2: 17, 18).
This popular deceit is frequently practiced at funeral services,
where we are told that at the time of death a believer supposedly enters into
the presence of God in heaven! This teaching
erroneously implies: "that the resurrection has already taken place!" One by
one, at the time of death, believers supposedly ascend into heaven! The
time of death has substituted that of resurrection; and this false teaching
negatives the importance of the "First Resurrection". Duped teachers, "destroy the faith of some” who rightly believe
in a millennial kingdom which the Lord will establish between the
"First" and general
resurrection of the dead. (Rev.
20: 4-6, 13).
3. "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of
witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily
entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race. - [i.e., to win the
"crown" and the "prize" in the "age to come" - not
to obtain the "gift of God" which is eternal
life, (Rom.6; 23).] - Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter
of our faith, WHO FOR THE JOY SET BEFORE HIM ENDURED THE CROSS, SCORNING
ITS SHAME, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider
him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow
weary and lose heart," (Hebrews 12: 1-3).
In the above 'Thought for the Week,' the author has rightly
pointed out the sufferings of Christ upon the cross for the eternal salvation
of all regenerate believers. But in the above texts 'The Book,' speaks of another
reason for those terrible cruel sufferings which our Lord Jesus endured upon
the cross - it was "FOR THE JOY SET BEFORE HIM". And part of that 'joy' will be an
inheritance in the
Presently Christ is seated at His Father's right hand in
heaven waiting for the appointed time to install Him -
the rightful King and Heir of Zion. God says: "I will make the
nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth
your possession. You will rule them with an
iron sceptre; you will dash them to pieces like pottery," (Psalm 2: 8).
4. And so it is not surprising to find numerous conditional
promises to believers written in 'The Book':-
"If we died with him,
we will also live with
him;
IF WE ENDURE,
WE WILL ALSO REIGN WITH HIM.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown
himself,"
(2 Timothy 2: 11.)
Christ cannot disown himself by rewarding believers who fail to
fulfil these conditions by allowing them, on the basis of grace
(i.e., unmerited favour) and bare faith alone, to rise at the first
resurrection and inherit the kingdom. Many believers may think the
contrary but 'the Book' states otherwise! (Eph.
5: 3-5; Jas. 1: 12; 1 Pet. 3: 9; Rev. 3: 11; 2: 10; 20: 6, etc.)
Christians need a passion for suffering for righteousness
sake; and the only way to experience that, is to be actively
righteous themselves; and the only way to attain a genuine hope, based
on the teaching of the Word of God, of being "considered worthy of that
age"
(Luke
20: 34)
and an inheritance in that kingdom, is by strict compliance
to Christ's commands!
"I am coming soon! My reward
is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has
done," (Rev. 22: 19).
"Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no
favouritism," (Col. 3: 25).
"My fellow-prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the
cousin of Barnabas. ... Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings.
THESE ARE THE ONLY JEWS AMONG MY FELLOW-WORKERS FOR THE
Are circumstances any different among the people of God
today? No. Only a few are prepared to proclaim the whole will of
God!
-------