Much
media attention has been concentrated upon the film,
directed by Mel Gibson, entitled: ‘The Passion of
the Christ’. This film purports to focus on the last
twelve hours of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. The
film begins in the Garden of Gethsemane where the Lord
Jesus had gone to pray after instituting the Last
Supper. In the garden, He must resist the temptations
of Satan and be betrayed by Judas Iscariot. He is then
arrested and taken within the city walls of Jerusalem
where the leaders of the Pharisees confront Him with
accusations of blasphemy and His trial results in a
condemnation to death. Media comment has particularly
been directed towards two matters:
[1] the violent nature of this film. There are
supposed to be scenes of the most grotesque violence,
prolonged scenes of the scourging of Christ and also
of the subsequent crucifixion;
[2] the anti-Semitism which might be stirred up as a
result of depicting the Jews in a particular way.
In America, and it is reasonable to conclude the same
will happen in Great Britain also, multitudes have
flocked to view this film. We are not surprised that
Roman Catholics are desirous to see it. Rome has since
the Dark Ages believed in ‘passion plays’. What is
more surprising is that professing evangelicals are
praising this film and even using it as an outreach
tool. Whole congregations of professing evangelicals
have block-booked ticket allocations so that they can
watch it together. The film cost $30 million to
produce. It has already recouped its costs during the
first few weeks since release. It was released in
America on Ash Wednesday, a day of significance for
Roman Catholics and increasingly for apostate
Protestantism. We want to consider whether the
production of this film is a good thing or something
to be opposed. Let us first deal with the retort that
you cannot criticise something before you have
personally seen it. We can answer that objection by
simply applying the same maxim to poison. You do not
have to drink poison to know the effects it will
produce in the body. You just need to read the label.
We will do the same with this film. We will read what
those who have produced this film have said about it.
There are five major issues surrounding this subject:
[1] Is it right for Christians to attend cinemas and
theatres?
[2] Is it Scriptural to make a physical portrayal of
the Son of God?
[3] Are the contents of the film in keeping with the
Word of God?
[4] Is the physical representation of Christ’s
sufferings an appropriate means of evangelism?
[5] Who did ultimately crucify Christ?
1.
Is it right for Christians to attend cinemas and
theatres?
This
is a general point but still very important. It has
been the historic position of Biblical Christianity to
oppose the attendance of Christians at cinemas and
theatres, whatever film is being shown.
Attendance at cinemas and theatres is manifesting a
love for pleasure and entertainment. The Christian is
to seek joy entirely in the Lord and not in the things
of the world. We are warned against being “lovers of
pleasures more than lovers of God,” 2 Timothy 3 v 4.
Believers are not to set wicked things before their
eyes. The cinema and theatre do not promote morality
or virtue. They promote ungodliness and immorality.
“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate
the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave
to me,” Psalm 101:3. “Finally, brethren,
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things
are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever
things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and
if there be any praise, think on these things,”
Philippians 4:8.
The ungodly lives of actors and actresses are an
indication of the spirit of these places. It has long
been known that those who give their lives to acting
are generally among the most ungodly of individuals.
“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not
one,” Job 14:4. The Christian ought to avoid all
appearances of evil. Cinemas and theatres are places
of worldly entertainment and amusement and therefore
not appropriate places to be frequented by a
Christian.
2. Is it scriptural to make a physical portayal of
the Son of God?
I do not believe that it is Scriptural in any way.
The whole concept of depicting Christ's life in film
is questionable. This point applies to all films of
this nature and not only this latest effort. The
question needs to be asked: Who would put himself
forward as worthy to play the leading part i.e. that
of the Incarnate Son of God? These films are not mere
depictions of a great man, but of Him to Whom one day
“every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that
He is Lord,” Philippians 2:10-11. It cannot be right
that an actor, who can in other films play an immoral
character, should be given the role of playing Him who
knew no sin. Who could claim to enter into the part of
playing the Son of God? No one is capable of doing so.
Anything less is an inaccurate presentation of Christ.
The uniqueness of Christ's person and ministry is
sacrificed in this film.
The use of any visual aid to depict Christ violates
the second commandment. “Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,”
Exodus 20:4.
It is worth noting that although art had been
established long before Christ appeared in Israel over
2,000 years ago, God did not inspire any artist to
give us a visible representation of Him. No sketches
or pictures survive to tell us what the Lord Jesus
looked like. The danger now is that when people think
of Christ, they will associate the Son of God with the
face of the actor who took upon himself to play Him.
This is practical idolatry. God gave us the Scriptures
as the sole revelation of Jesus Christ. The Scriptures
nowhere emphasise Christ’s physical appearance.
3. Are the contents of this film in keeping with
the Word of God?
I do not believe that this film is in keeping with the
Word of God.
This passion film is based on the Bible and also on
the visions of two Roman Catholic mystics. Mel Gibson
is a traditional Roman Catholic, belonging to a group
which wants to overturn the reforms of the Second
Vatican Council and return to old-fashioned Romanism,
before she put on her ecumenical mask. He has produced
this film about the death of Christ based on the
visions of two Catholic mystics. The first is Anne
Catherine Emmerich, who claimed to have seen visions
of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ which
were recorded in her book, ‘The Dolorous Passion of
Our Lord Jesus Christ.’ She narrated in incredible
detail her understanding of the horrendous sufferings
which He underwent in His death. The second is Mary of
Agreda from Spain, who wrote a book entitled ‘The
divine history and life of the Virgin Mother of God as
manifested to Mary of Agreda.’ Needless to say
‘the stations of the cross’ form the basis. A
number of these stations are nowhere found in the Word
of God. Christ falling three times on His way to
Calvary, the meeting with His mother and His meeting
with Veronica who wipes His face on her veil, who in
turn discovers the image of His face on her veil - His
gift to her, are nowhere found in the Bible. By
intertwining truth and falsehood into one account, we
have an adding to the Word of God, a practice
forbidden in the Bible. “Add thou not unto his
words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a
liar,” Proverbs 30:6.
This film gives an inordinate place to the Virgin Mary
in the last twelve hours of Christ’s life. A
minister, present at a preview of this film, reported
that the film should be renamed as the Passion of
Christ and Mary. Without doubt, Mary suffered greatly
as she watched her son die on the Cross. What mother
wouldn't? However, despite the persistent claims of
the Roman Catholic Church, Mary's sufferings were not
atoning in value. Claims that she is a Co-Redemptorist
in the work of salvation are totally opposed to the
teaching of the Bible. Speaking of Christ, Peter said:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there
is none other name under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12. Unlike the
film where Mary features prominently, the true,
unadulterated account of Christ's passion mentions
Mary only once, John 19:25-26. Some interpret the
constant looking of Christ to His mother in this film
as Him drawing strength from her presence. This is
Roman Catholic fiction and without any Biblical
authority. Christ did not need to draw strength from
His mother or anyone else. His deity was all
sufficient to strengthen His humanity to fulfil the
work of the cross.
4.
Is the physical representation of Christ's sufferings an
appropriate means of evangelism?
Though many believe that it is, the physical
representation of Christ’s sufferings is not an
appropriate means of evangelism and will never prove to
be of an efficacy to bring souls to Christ.
An attack upon the sufficiency of the Bible. To promote
another means of evangelism ahead of the Scriptures
cannot have the blessing of God. It is the preaching of
His Word God blesses and not ‘passion plays’. Those
who wish to learn more about the sufferings of Christ
ought to search the various accounts as they appear in
the Bible, Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 or the Gospels. The truth
is learned from the Bible. Who can argue that the film
experts of Hollywood with all their expertise in camera
work and music etc., can outdo the effect of the Spirit
of God working upon the heart?
‘Passion plays’ versus preaching. Medieval Europe
was a hotbed of passion plays where fact mingled with
fiction was presented as gospel truth. This period of
time has now been rightly described as the Dark Ages.
The Reformation marked a return to solid, sound Bible
preaching. The latter alone has the approval of God upon
it as a method of communication. “For after that in
the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe,” 1 Corinthians 1:21. Gibson’s film is
just a high-tech, state of the art passion play. It is
just another Roman ‘passion play’ which has moved
out of a Church building into a local cinema. It is
amazing that some evangelical churches have block-booked
cinemas to endorse not only the message of this film,
but its method of communication.
His physical sufferings made no impression upon many who
stood around the cross. Is this not testimony to their
inefficacy as a means of witnessing? Grace alone saves
the soul. Films of any sort are not means of grace. The
enormity of His sufferings involved more than the
physical pain. Others were crucified as well. What made
Christ’s sufferings so unique was that His soul was
becoming an offering for sin, “Yet it pleased the LORD
to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt
make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his
seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the
LORD shall prosper in his hand,” Isaiah 53:10. His
soul was exceeding sorrowful unto death. No physical
representation of these sufferings can ever be made. The
communion feast is not a meditation upon His physical
sufferings alone.
5. Who ultimately crucified Christ?
To say that Christ was crucified because Judas betrayed
him to the Jewish authorities, who in turn delivered Him
up to the ruling Gentiles, who in turn nailed His hands
and feet to a Roman cross is true, but falls woefully
short of the whole answer.
Humanly speaking both Jew and Gentile were guilty.
“For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom
thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with
the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered
together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel
determined before to be done,” Acts 4:27-28.
The charges of anti-Semitism may well have some
foundation in the light of comments made both by Mel
Gibson and his father who said that the Holocaust was
exaggerated, just prior to the release of the film in
the USA.
Ultimately it was God Himself Who crucified His own Son.
The Bible tells us: “He that spared not his own Son,
but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with
him also freely give us all things?” Romans 8:32. This
does not in any way lessen the accountability of those
who were humanly responsible for His death. The real
reason why Christ was crucified? God crucified His Son
to accomplish redemption once for all — something this
film will never convey because neither Rome nor Mel
Gibson believes in the finished work of Christ. Calvary
is God's way of enabling the guilty sinner to go free
while still maintaining every last jot and tittle of His
holiness. Calvary enables God to be just and the
justifier of him who believes in Jesus, “For Christ
also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to
death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,” 1
Peter 3:18. To declare, I say, at this time his
righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier
of him which believeth in Jesus,” Romans 3:26. Calvary
completely put away sin. Its benefits are received by
faith alone in Christ alone. This is the true message of
the cross and one which this film in no way portrays.
It is sad that evangelicals are deceived into thinking
that some good will come from this film. When it
contravenes the Scriptures in so many ways, how can it
ever have the blessing of God?
Rev Brian McClung, Newtownabbey FPC
|
