The Passion of the Christ was produced by the popular actor Mel Gibson.

I have heard

that Mr. Gibson is serious in his Christian faith. His Christian (Roman Catholic) commitment is

very evident in this film. In many ways I agree that the movie was “powerfully moving” and

painted an “an impressive passionate vision,” as the DVD back cover jacket suggests.

Use of the Gospels

The film focuses on the most important, the most critical last hours of the Lord: from

Gethsemane to Golgotha. The resurrection was a kind of insert at the end of the movie, but it

provides a compelling and an utterly surprising beautiful ending. The stone slowly rolling away

to open the tomb, the sun infusing light into the darkness, the linen burial cloths collapsing, and

Jesus walking out with a note of joy and victory in his eyes and smile – this brief scene fittingly

closes the movie, yet also opens up a new world of wonders. The One who suffered such a

painful and gruesome death is alive!

The decision to focus on the last hours of the Lord was a very good film strategy. The

result was that the movie was not very long and dragging, and yet there was enough space to

develop the person of some important characters in the story.

“But He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the

chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.” These words from

Isaiah 53 open and introduce the movie. Wounds. Bruises. Chastisements. Stripes. All these were

literally and unambiguously depicted in the movie. All these happened to him, to the main

character of the movie, to Yeshua. It happened to him for us, for our sins, and our peace and

healing. The Isaiah quote perfectly captures the main theme of the movie. The meaning and

purpose of the movie are clear to viewers, Christian or not. This clarity enhances the power of

the movie. You know that this is not a mere and unfortunate brutal killing of an innocent man.
 The movie combined narrative elements from the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of

John. Except those scenes where Mary is highlighted (more on this below), I think the movie

stuck closely to the facts and words of the Gospel materials. Because the film tried to capture the

events of Gethsemane to Golgotha, it is understandable that large chunks of the Gospel materials

before Gethsemane is left out. Nevertheless, by means of flashbacks, we are given window into

certain aspects of the life and teachings of Yeshua.

The flashbacks give you additional knowledge of the man Yeshua, but not much. The

Christian who already knows the Gospel story will deeply appreciate those flashbacks and their

settings in the movie. Of course, the flashbacks were recreation of the movie writers, and we

could not now find out what was really going on in the minds of the characters. Some flashbacks

are fictitious (like the one where Mary and Yeshua enjoyed some fun and jokes at the carpentry

shop); some are historically true (like Peter’s confession of love and allegiance to Yeshua, but

was prophesied to betray him). Still, the juxtapositions of the flashbacks with the events in the

movie create powerful experiences in the believer and explanatory value to many Gospel events

or concepts. For instance, when the cross carrying Christ’s crucified body was put up and

dropped on the whole of the ground, the flashback scene was Yeshua lifting up the bread in

thanksgiving to God, saying “This is my body….” Another unforgettable juxtaposition was when

Yeshua and the priests crossed paths on Golglotha, and Yeshua in the flashback was saying, “I

am the Good Shepherd….” The priests were supposed to be shepherds of Israel. But what were

they doing to an Israelite like Yeshua?

Depiction of Jesus and Others

Jesus as a true human being like us is portrayed, although he and other Jews appeared

physically as very un-Jewish, like in most movie recreations of the Gospels. The beard, the cap,

and the curled hair on the side are all typical Jewish traits, and they are here. At least the Jesus
here has black eyes. He was also not wimpy. In terms of muscular built, the movie almost got it

right. Jesus was not skinny, and neither was he a big wrestler. But he was a carpenter or a stone

mason, works that require certain muscular strength. The Jesus of this movie was just right.

Jesus was shown to be enjoying a joke with his mother in their carpentry shop, even

laughing. This is close to the biblical Jesus, who in all probability must have a “sunny”

personality. The people and the children love him! One who told parables and stories with great

wit and humor can only be someone who enjoyed life to the full. This Jesus was the Jesus shown

in the flashbacks. These juxtapositions create the amazing feeling that the one being beaten was

in control of things, though submissive; that he was going through such terrible ordeal so that

others can enjoy true life with him.

The emotional struggle in Gethsemane was portrayed properly in the movie. Here we see

our Lord’s humanity shining through; he did not waltz to the cross. In the same garden, we hear

the sound of a snake or dragon, and Satan made an appearance. There was no record of this in

the Gospels, but the thought is not farfetched. It is not impossible that Satan was there, or even in

the Roman flogging and other scenes. The scene of Jesus crushing the serpent’s head was,

however, definitely a creative novelty. Yet here the movie writers displayed proper theological

sense. For the biblically informed, he is reminded of God’s promise to Eve and of its fulfillment

in the coming suffering and crucifixion.

Thus the humanity of Yeshua was not in doubt. It is the divinity of Jesus that the movie

was not able to emphasize clearly. The scenes meant to show it were tantalizingly few: Jesus

praying to the Father, Satan asking him who is his father, and Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God,

the bread of life and the one way, the truth and the life. There is only one miracle – that of

putting back the ear! But other prophets also healed. Maybe the closest thing for Jesus’ claim to
divinity was during the fictitious encounter he had with Mary along the Via Dolorosa. He said,

“Mother I am making all things new!”

Satan. Satan was a silent but strong presence in the movie. The instinct of the movie

writers with respect to his (and demonic) activity was right. Nevertheless, the undoing of his

kingdom was not clear. I cannot blame the movie makers here: how would you depict the

collapse of Satan’s dominion?

Judas. He was portrayed as confused, remorseful and disturbed (by the darkness). This I

think is closer to historical truth, rather than the Judas of the film Jesus of Nazareth who

appeared to exert a more powerful control rather than Jesus.

Peter. The portrayal was maybe close to historical truth. It should be noted though that

the “three denials” were not in accord with the Gospels, including his calling Mary, “Mother.”

Mary. The mother of our Lord is everywhere in this movie. We can almost title this film

Jesus and Mary, because of the latter’s pervading presence. None of the “Mary scenes” however

was based on the Gospels, except that at the foot of the cross when she was entrusted to John.

We mention also here the fictitious wiping of Jesus’ bloody face with a towel.

Pilate. The actor did get the troubled Pilate of the Gospels (and his troubled wife). But

the other side of Pilate, the one that said, “What I have written I have written,” was missing.

The priests and the Jews. There was no anti-Semitism here. In fact, one man on the cross

shouted that Jesus prayed for the priests. Still, we note that the high priest was portrayed to be

more involved here than he probably was in the Gospels.

The Roman soldiers. Their hatred of the Jews was never covered. They were bloodthirsty

and cruel. Still, we must point out that the Gospels do not focus on the flogging and beating of

Jesus as such, whereas the film spent a lot of time on it to an emotionally disturbing degree.

Perhaps Gibson and company wanted to wake us up to the ugly, physically-gruesome feature of
the Roman flogging and torture. If the Jewish priests were shepherds who preyed on the sheep,

the soldiers were beasts who lacerate bodies. I have to check on the historical accuracy of the

flogging instruments and flogging count.

Personal Reflection

I most certainly did not enjoy the film. When I first saw it on big screen, I was shaking

when I left the theater. I was shaken to the core of my being. There was so much blood, so much

pain. It was horrifying to imagine those metal clips burrowing into the very flesh of my Lord,

cutting away flesh, lacerating his back and legs and arms. I cannot bear it. Oh, my Lord, you

went through all that for me. You bore my sin, and it was heavy.

One sees that Mr. Gibson’s team did their research well. They followed closely the

contour of the Gospels (and the words as well). I am not competent to comment on the clothes or

costumes used. But they were colorful, and seemed apt. Very apt too is their use of music.

We commend the film for its creative juxtapositions of Gospel events and flashbacks.

They are biblically and theologically sound. Though fictitious, I will never forget that scene

when the Lord told his mother, “I am making all things new.” He did it through the cross.

We give the film five stars for its compelling vividness, general faithfulness to the Gospel

narratives (except that of Mary), and their biblical-theological astuteness in the flashbacks. Vivid

it was when Yeshua crushed the serpents head at Gethsemane. Vivid was the flogging. Vivid and

red was the blood when the nails pierced his hands. The hands that held the cup up with the

words, “This is the blood of the new covenant.”