Saturday, March 06, 2004
The Passion of the Christ
On the 25th February this year one of the most controversial films made in recent years was released in the states. The 5 day in take from the box offices was more than any other film. Evangelical Christians in America seem to be waxing lyrical about the film while others claim that it isn't scriptural. Jews say that it will produce Anti-Semitic feelings amongst people while the some of the media call it "violent, contentious, emotional, extreme and highly proficient, must be the Jesus movie for this era." The film of course is, "The Passion of the Christ" produced and directed by Mel Gibson with his own money.
I have a few problems with the film which I will now list.
Many people claim that this film is an "evangelical movie" but this is not right. Mel Gibson says it "reflects his beliefs" which clearly are not those of an evangelical Christian. Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic. The theological advisors were Roman Catholic and the Pope is endorsing the film. They held catholic mass every day before shooting and many of the crew converted to Catholicism. The actor who played Jesus said that they needed to have that or at least he did "to play that guy" "That guy" is Jesus who came to make reconciliation for our sins.
The script was taken from the writings of a German Nun (Sister Anne Emerich) as well as the writings of the gospel. So we have Christ speaking words he never spoke and things that should have happened being missed out. For example, the cry "It is finished" (John 19:30) never appears in the film.
The film can never show what the gospels portray so vividly. Admittedly, Christ's suffering at the hands of the Romans and Jews was horrific and in the film portrayed correctly. But that only shows a small amount of the suffering. Surely the pinnacle of Christ's suffering was in the fact that his Father turned his back on him for people like you and I. When reading through the gospel narratives we aren't given great detail as to how Jesus reacted in pain when the nails were put in. The things that hurts me most when reading the story of the crucifixion is the words in Mark 9:34 of "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In those words we see the pinnacle of the suffering of Christ which the film can never portray. Rather, the film portrays the intense physical suffering of Christ as the major pain.
"We cannot fully understand his passion and sufferings. God alone knows what is in the curse of the law; we do not know it. God alone knows what is the true desert of sin; it cannot be fully understood by any but himself. They who undergo it must suffer to eternity; there is no end, — they never see, never know, what sin deserved. How do we know, then, what Christ suffered, when the punishment due to our sin, when all our iniquities met upon him, with the curse of the law? God only knows what is in these things. The fruits and effects of this love in himself, in his incarnation and passion are past our knowledge; therefore the love itself surpasses our knowledge" (John Owen, Works, 9:611).
For Christians the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is ultimately a glorious event. Full satisfaction for sin was procured by Christ on behalf of his people. The Passion of the Christ apparently gives a vision of the sacrifice of Christ being sad, sorrowful and full of grief.
With the Passion of the Christ being predominantly a Catholic film it is obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus plays a much larger role than is ever intended. In fact, the impression could be had that Mary "offered her son". This is clearly not what the gospels want us to draw from Christ's death.
The film has nothing of Christ rising again which is by far the most important thing that we are to grasp. Death was defeated otherwise the sacrifice would have been insufficient.
So, although there are many things that will change peoples thinking at this time of Easter, on the whole, the main points have been missed out.
I think that there is nothing more powerful to convey what the cross really meant than the Gospel narratives. After all, those narratives are written by men under the inspiration of God. In them, we are told all we need to know. That is, how to get right with God. The film focuses a lot on earthly things just as the Jews looked for a messiah to save them from the Romans, a temporary and earthly power. Christianity is primarily a heart religion and focuses not on how to be happy on this life but how to be happy eternally. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) The bible is continually stressing the importance of spiritual things while this film will primarily lead people to think about the earthly horrors.
A lot of Christians have made the objection that you are portraying God blatantly ignoring the second commandment. I am undecided but here is the argument against an actor playing Christ.
No where in the gospels is Jesus' physical appearance described and it isn't in mans hands to try and portray him. The second commandment clearly talks of not idolising God or trying to portray him by any image. The Westminster larger catechism puts it quite bluntly in question 109.
What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
Acts 17: 29 says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."
"It is Christ's Godhead, united to his manhood, that makes him to be Christ; therefore to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ — we separate what God has joined, we leave out that which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ." Those are the words of Thomas Watson on the second commandment. He clearly would be opposed to an actor "acting" Jesus.
To portray Christ is misleading. We cannot be too specific in describing Christ by giving him specific human attributes. In doing this also, we take away from Christ divine attributes.
God has ordained a number of ways to make Christ known.
You have faith. 2 Corinthians 5:7, "We live by faith, not by sight."
The word of God spoken and preached not acted out tells people of Christ. Romans 10:17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." So maybe it is wrong to portray Christ something which is not easy to decide...
Christ being made known is to change lives while the film really will only provoke emotion.
In conclusion, the film is not one that I will watch, even if I was 18. But because it has been released and will be shown we can pray that those who go to see it will be affected by and ask questions of us as Christians. We have to be prepared to tell them that the film doesn't show the whole of the suffering and tell them the whole picture. So, lets pray that what might seem as an evil, God would work through to save lives.
I have a few problems with the film which I will now list.
Many people claim that this film is an "evangelical movie" but this is not right. Mel Gibson says it "reflects his beliefs" which clearly are not those of an evangelical Christian. Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic. The theological advisors were Roman Catholic and the Pope is endorsing the film. They held catholic mass every day before shooting and many of the crew converted to Catholicism. The actor who played Jesus said that they needed to have that or at least he did "to play that guy" "That guy" is Jesus who came to make reconciliation for our sins.
The script was taken from the writings of a German Nun (Sister Anne Emerich) as well as the writings of the gospel. So we have Christ speaking words he never spoke and things that should have happened being missed out. For example, the cry "It is finished" (John 19:30) never appears in the film.
The film can never show what the gospels portray so vividly. Admittedly, Christ's suffering at the hands of the Romans and Jews was horrific and in the film portrayed correctly. But that only shows a small amount of the suffering. Surely the pinnacle of Christ's suffering was in the fact that his Father turned his back on him for people like you and I. When reading through the gospel narratives we aren't given great detail as to how Jesus reacted in pain when the nails were put in. The things that hurts me most when reading the story of the crucifixion is the words in Mark 9:34 of "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In those words we see the pinnacle of the suffering of Christ which the film can never portray. Rather, the film portrays the intense physical suffering of Christ as the major pain.
"We cannot fully understand his passion and sufferings. God alone knows what is in the curse of the law; we do not know it. God alone knows what is the true desert of sin; it cannot be fully understood by any but himself. They who undergo it must suffer to eternity; there is no end, — they never see, never know, what sin deserved. How do we know, then, what Christ suffered, when the punishment due to our sin, when all our iniquities met upon him, with the curse of the law? God only knows what is in these things. The fruits and effects of this love in himself, in his incarnation and passion are past our knowledge; therefore the love itself surpasses our knowledge" (John Owen, Works, 9:611).
For Christians the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is ultimately a glorious event. Full satisfaction for sin was procured by Christ on behalf of his people. The Passion of the Christ apparently gives a vision of the sacrifice of Christ being sad, sorrowful and full of grief.
With the Passion of the Christ being predominantly a Catholic film it is obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus plays a much larger role than is ever intended. In fact, the impression could be had that Mary "offered her son". This is clearly not what the gospels want us to draw from Christ's death.
The film has nothing of Christ rising again which is by far the most important thing that we are to grasp. Death was defeated otherwise the sacrifice would have been insufficient.
So, although there are many things that will change peoples thinking at this time of Easter, on the whole, the main points have been missed out.
I think that there is nothing more powerful to convey what the cross really meant than the Gospel narratives. After all, those narratives are written by men under the inspiration of God. In them, we are told all we need to know. That is, how to get right with God. The film focuses a lot on earthly things just as the Jews looked for a messiah to save them from the Romans, a temporary and earthly power. Christianity is primarily a heart religion and focuses not on how to be happy on this life but how to be happy eternally. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) The bible is continually stressing the importance of spiritual things while this film will primarily lead people to think about the earthly horrors.
A lot of Christians have made the objection that you are portraying God blatantly ignoring the second commandment. I am undecided but here is the argument against an actor playing Christ.
No where in the gospels is Jesus' physical appearance described and it isn't in mans hands to try and portray him. The second commandment clearly talks of not idolising God or trying to portray him by any image. The Westminster larger catechism puts it quite bluntly in question 109.
What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.
Acts 17: 29 says, "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."
"It is Christ's Godhead, united to his manhood, that makes him to be Christ; therefore to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhead, is a sin, because we make him to be but half Christ — we separate what God has joined, we leave out that which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ." Those are the words of Thomas Watson on the second commandment. He clearly would be opposed to an actor "acting" Jesus.
To portray Christ is misleading. We cannot be too specific in describing Christ by giving him specific human attributes. In doing this also, we take away from Christ divine attributes.
God has ordained a number of ways to make Christ known.
You have faith. 2 Corinthians 5:7, "We live by faith, not by sight."
The word of God spoken and preached not acted out tells people of Christ. Romans 10:17 "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." So maybe it is wrong to portray Christ something which is not easy to decide...
Christ being made known is to change lives while the film really will only provoke emotion.
In conclusion, the film is not one that I will watch, even if I was 18. But because it has been released and will be shown we can pray that those who go to see it will be affected by and ask questions of us as Christians. We have to be prepared to tell them that the film doesn't show the whole of the suffering and tell them the whole picture. So, lets pray that what might seem as an evil, God would work through to save lives.
Comments:
Post a Comment
