The Passion of Christ

[aefting]

I wonder how many fundamentalists are going to see this film. Personally, I would not recommend it for several reasons:

1. Pervasive Catholic influence

Here is an interesting quote from the New York Times (Feb. 5, 2004):

Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism.

And then there is this warning from James While (www.aomin.org):

Prediction. Fast forward three years. EWTN's "Coming Home Network" show. Some former "evangelical" woman is on the screen, and she says, "Well, I had never even thought of the Catholic faith, until I saw The Passion film, and I was so taken by the portrayal of Mary that I went looking on the web for more information, and found Anne Catherine Emmerich's book, The Dolorous Passion , and that is when I realized there was so much more to Mary than what I had been taught. And then I found out sola scriptura isn't true and then I read Karl Keating's book and then...(fill in the rest with the standard template conversion story)."

2. The film is rated R

Oh, but it’s just for the realistic depiction of the torture and death of Christ on the cross. Yes, that is right but such scenes are not Biblical. When it comes to objectionable elements (e.g., profanity, scatological realism, erotic realism, sexual perversion, lurid violence, occultism, and erroneous religious or philosophical assumptions), we need to let the Bible teach us how to depict those things in a Christ-honoring manner. The only way to do that is to follow the Bible’s example. The Holy Spirit did not depict the gore involved in the crucifixion in explicit detail like the film does. Certainly, the written descriptions could have been just as vivid if (1) it was appropriate and (2) it was how God wanted to reveal the crucifixion to us. BJU Press has an in depth and helpful article on the Biblical Approach to Objectionable Elements online HERE.

3. The film violates the 3rd Commandment

I am in the minority here but I have serious concerns about physical depictions of God and, by extension, likenesses of Christ. For example, I tolerate in church, but do not appreciate, flannel graph pictures of Christ. This film goes a step beyond that and brings to life a particular version of Christ that is not accurate. We are to worship Christ as He is revealed in the Scriptures, not a version of Christ that is dreamed up by man.

4. My understanding is that the film downplays the resurrection

I may be wrong here but I have heard that it does not include the resurrection. Does anyone know if that is true? A film that concentrates on the crucifixion without climaxing with the resurrection does the true gospel an injustice.


Andy

 

[C.S. Murphy]

I am not totally discounting your points but I feel that a vivid picture of the horrors of this event would possibly be helpful. Concerning your view that the scene was overdone I have not seen it but I doubt that it could have been overdone. Look atPsalm 22 and get a closer glimpse at the agony our Lord must have went thru. I am sad to hear that Mel is catholic, maybe he will get saved himself. I will pray toward that end.
Murph

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by aefting:
I wonder how many fundamentalists are going to see this film.

At least two: Me, and the woman I'm dating, who is a Christian school teacher (which means the cost of the tickets are tax dedictible! Woohoo!!

I may be wrong here but I have heard that it does not include the resurrection.

The film is called "The Passion" for a reason. It's focusing on the sacrifice and punishment that Jesus undured for all of us. My understanding is, the scourging scene alone is so realistic, that we'll all have a different understanding of Christ shedding his blood for us. My understanding is, the resurrection is included, with text at the end as follows: "During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only One rose from the dead." Very powerful, and very true.

 

[Johnv]

BTW - The full name of the film is:

"The Passion of the Christ"

 

[All about Grace]

I have seen it and it does include the Resurrection (at least the version I saw did).

Actually I thought the movie was less RCC than I expected from Gibson.

Yes it is gruesome, horrific, and gory. Reminded me of Isaiah's prophecy that he was marred beyond human recognition.

Just my opinion here: don't let legalism prevent you from missing out on this experience.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by SBCbyGRACE:
...don't let your legalism prevent you from missing out on this experience.

Amen, preach it!

It's nice to receive input from someone who has seen it.

Thanks for clarifying the resurrection topic.

 

[All about Grace]

The film violates the 3rd Commandment

I thought I might add here ... if you follow this logic to its natural conclusion any word picture (verbal or non-verbal) would violate this command.

Each of us has a mental depiction of what it must have been like. The Passion of the Christ is a visual depiction of the same event. Did Isaiah violate this command with his depiction?

 

[aefting]

Just a few thoughts --

1. Neither Ps 22 or Isaiah depict the crucifixion in the same gory detail as the film. It's one thing to say that "His visage was marred more than any other man." It's quite another thing to (in word or in pictures) describe the gore in explicit detail. The Bible simply does not present gruesome subjects in stunning realism.


2. The 3rd commandment deals with graven images, not mental pictures.

3. It's not legalism to apply principles in God's Word to daily living. I'm pretty much in a Romans 14:23 situation. If you're in a Romans 14:22 situation, then that's between you and God.

4. I'm glad there is at least some reference to the resurrection.

Andy

 

[Daniel David]

Just something to remember, it is just a movie. It isn't the same thing as preaching. This movie does not call people to faith in Christ. It only depicts the events.

Also, as far as gore is concerned, the people during that time knew what it meant to carry your cross. Nowadays, it means everything from a headache to a bad relationship. It should give a very good understanding of what the people in the 1st century could have seen any day of their life.

 

[Ps104_33]

Andy, I wholeheartedly agree. At first I was thinking about seeing it although I dont attend movies. But now I think I'll pass. Its just another tool of Satan to soften us up to Catholicism.

BTW Johnv. What are you doing in this forum? You are by no stretch of the imagination a fundamentalist Baptist.

 

[Johnv]

I adhere to the Baptist Fundamentals. My political and social views are towards the centrist side of conservative, but that doesn't change the aforementioned.

 

[blackbird]

Amen, Daniel David!! Amen and amen again!! Ditto to your post from this Southern Baptist preacher!

Here's the problem---folks grab hold to anything "visual"--whether it be the "Left Behind" series or this motion picture---and seemingly suddenly to the reader and the viewer everyting read in the books and every picture frame that moves by the camera projector lens----becomes "The Bible" to them!!

Then when the preacher stands and presents the truth---presenting a word about the Word---the response seems to be "WELL! That SURE ain't how the movie pictured it!!"

 

[LadyEagle]

Also, as far as gore is concerned, the people during that time knew what it meant to carry your cross. Nowadays, it means everything from a headache to a bad relationship. It should give a very good understanding of what the people in the 1st century could have seen any day of their life.

Amen!

Re: Gore.

OT:

2 Chron. 35:6,7 6 So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses. And Josiah gave to the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all for the passover offerings, for all that were present, to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king's substance.


33,000 animals being sacrificed at once according to the OT ritual would have been pretty gory.

Historical Fact:

The Romans crucified 6000 prisoners of war along the Appian Way - 73 BC -

6,000 naked people hanging dying and dead in various stages of decay and stench with birds and insects feasting on the remains - all for the average person to see and smell - seems pretty gory to me.

Soon after midnight, Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane by the temple officials and was taken first to Annas and then to Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest for that year. (1) Between 1 AM and daybreak, Jesus was tried before Caiaphas and the political Sanhedrin and was found guilty of blasphemy. (1) The guards then blindfolded Jesus, spat on him, and struck him in the face with their fists.

Scourging Practices

Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution, (28) and only women and Roman senators or soldiers (except in cases of desertion) were exempt. (11) The usual instrument was a short whip (flagrum or flagellum) with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals. Occasionally, staves also were used. (8,12) For scourging, the man was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. (11) The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged either by two soldiers (lictors) or by one who alternated positions. (5,7,11,28) The severity of the scourging depended on the disposition of the lictors and was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death. (8) After the scourging, the soldiers often taunted their victim. (11)

[snip]

Medical Aspects of Crucifixion

With a knowledge of both anatomy and ancient crucifixion practices, one may reconstruct the probable medical aspects of this form of slow execution. Each wound apparently was intended to produce intense agony, and the contributing causes of death were numerous.

The scourging prior to crucifixion served to weaken the condemned man and, if blood loss was considerable, to produce orthostatic hypotension and even hypovolemic shock. (8, 12) When the victim was thrown to the ground on his back, in preparation for transfixion of his hands, his scourging wounds most likely would become torn open again and contaminated with dirt. (2,14) Furthermore, with each respiration, the painful scourging wounds would be scraped against the rough wood of the stipes. (7) As a result, blood loss from the back probably would continue throughout the crucifixion ordeal.

With arms outstretched but not taut, the wrists were nailed to the patibulum. (7,11) It has been shown that the ligaments and bones of the wrist can support the weight of a body hanging from them , but the palms cannot. (11) Accordingly, the iron spikes probably were driven between the radius and the carpals or between the two rows of carpal bones, (2,10,11,30) either proximal to or through the strong bandlike flexor retinaculum and the various intercarpal ligaments. Although a nail in either location in the wrist might pass between the bony elements and thereby produce no fractures, the likelihood of painful periosteal injury would seem great. Furthermore, the driven nail would crush or sever the rather large sensorimotor median nerve. (2,7,11) The stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms. (7,9) Although the severed median nerve would result in paralysis of a portion of the hand, ischemic contractures and impalement of various ligaments by the iron spike might produce a clawlike grasp.

Most commonly, the feet were fixed to the front of the stipes by means of an iron spike driven through the first or second intermetatarsal space, just distal to the tarsometatarssal joint. (2,5,8,11,30) It is likely that the deep peroneal nerve and branches of the medial and lateral plantar nerves would have been injured by the nails. Although scourging may have resulted in considerable blood loss, crucifixion per se was a relatively bloodless procedure, since no major arteries, other than perhaps the deep plantar arch, pass through the favored anatomic sites of transfixion. (2,10,11)

The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion, beyond the excruciating pain, was a marked interference with normal respiration, particularly exhalation. The weight of the body, pulling down on the outstretched arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the intercostal muscles in an inhalation state and thereby hinder passive exhalation. (2,10,11) Accordingly, exhalation was primarily diaphragmatic, and breathing was shallow. It is likely that this form of respiration would not suffice and that hypercarbia would soon result. The onset of muscle cramps or tetanic contractions, due to fatigue and hypercarbia, would hinder respiration even further. (11)

Adequate exhalation required lifting the body by pushing up on the feet and by flexing the elbows and adducting the shoulders. (2) However, this maneuver would place the entire weight of the body on the tarsals and would produce searing pain. (7) Furthermore, flexion of the elbows would cause rotation of the wrists about the iron nails and cause fiery pain along the damaged median nerves. (7) Lifting of the body would also painfully scrape the scourged back against the rough wooden stipes. (2,7) Muscle cramps and paresthesias of the outstretched and uplifted arms would add to the discomfort. (7) As a result, each respiratory effort would become agonizing and tiring and lead eventually to asphyxia. (2,3,7,10)

The actual cause of death by crucifixion was multifactorial and varied somewhat with each case, but the two most prominent causes probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. (2,3,7,10) Other possible contributing factors included dehydration, (7,16) stress-induced arrhythmias, (3) and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and perhaps pleural effusions. (2,7,11) Crucifracture (breaking the legs below the knees), if performed, led to an asphyxic death within minutes. (11) Death by crucifixion was, in every sense of the word, excruciating (Latin, excruciatus, or "out of the cross").


Reprinted from JAMA - The Journal of the American Medical Association
March 21, 1986, Volume 256
Copyright 1986, American Medical Association

The rest of the Study is here:

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a024.html

I seriously doubt that Hollywood, Mel Gibson, or anyone else can depict the actual gore of the Crucifixion or the horror of it or the suffering.

I pray many will see this movie and come to know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Redeemer.

 

[aefting]

33,000 animals being sacrificed at once according to the OT ritual would have been pretty gory.

Historical Fact:

The Romans crucified 6000 prisoners of war along the Appian Way - 73 BC -

6,000 naked people hanging dying and dead in various stages of decay and stench with birds and insects feasting on the remains - all for the average person to see and smell - seems pretty gory to me.

I don't think we want to set up the Roman army as our standard of right and wrong.

Animal sacrifices, while intentionally vivid in their visual typology, are of a much different character than seeing human gore, extreme suffering, and torture. Man was made in the image of God; animals were not.

The thing to realize is that the Bible does not depict the crucifixion with extreme gory detail, even though it could have. Did God make a mistake by not shocking the reader with graphic word pictures?

Andy

 

[Daniel David]

Andy, he didn't have to. The reader in the 1st century didn't need a detailed explanation.

As far as God writing explicitly violent words, consider the book of Judges.

 

[aefting]

The reader in the 1st century didn't need a detailed explanation.

Neither do we. Was God writing for the 1st century, exclusively?

As far as God writing explicitly violent words, consider the book of Judges.

Could you give me some examples of what you are referring to? I know that there are gruesome stories in the Bible. My point, however, is that the Bible does not paint the gory details like Gibson does in his film. Just how does the Bible treat the cutting up of the concubine in Judges 20? Do you think it would be proper for Gibson to treat Judges 20 in graphic detail like he does the crucifixion? How do you draw the line regarding what is appropriate or not if you don't follow the Bible as your guide?

Andy

 

[All about Grace]

Neither Ps 22 or Isaiah depict the crucifixion in the same gory detail as the film. It's one thing to say that "His visage was marred more than any other man." It's quite another thing to (in word or in pictures) describe the gore in explicit detail. The Bible simply does not present gruesome subjects in stunning realism.

Have you read the OT accounts???

Again if we take what you say here to its logical conclusion then any verbal or visual depiction of the crucifixion should be banned. Toss out those crucifixion sermons describing the brutality of Roman scourgings and crucifixions.

The 3rd commandment deals with graven images, not mental pictures.

No more Easter or Christmas pageants. Throw out the Jesus film, gospel tracts that show a crucifixion scene, and children's Bible story books while you are tossing.

Apply the command for what it was intended in its context.

It's not legalism to apply principles in God's Word to daily living. I'm pretty much in a Romans 14:23 situation. If you're in a Romans 14:22 situation, then that's between you and God.

I can agree with this ... just don't try and justify your decision with skewed logic.


We live in a visual day and age. We are visual people. No one is arguing this movie should "replace" the proclamation of God's word (in whatever form that comes). This movie should serve as a tool to initiate dialogue, thought, and questions regarding who Christ was/is. To not take advantage of this awesome opportunity to share the message is, I will use a kind word here, unwise (IMHO).

My reaction to the movie was much like that of another viewer ~ 4 simple words: "I'm sorry I forgot."

 

[aefting]

I can agree with this ... just don't try and justify your decision with skewed logic.

I think these things are worth discussing since most Christians have jumped on the Passion bandwagon without much discernment, IMO. That being said, I’m also discussing this to sound out the “skewed logic” that I used to come to my conclusions. I realize that I’m in a small minority here and so I am willing to adjust my thinking if it is shown to be Biblically inaccurate. I haven’t seen that yet, though.

Have you read the OT accounts???

Could you give me an example that we could discuss.

Again if we take what you say here to its logical conclusion then any verbal or visual depiction of the crucifixion should be banned. Toss out those crucifixion sermons describing the brutality of Roman scourgings and crucifixions.

No, we just have to be careful that we don’t go beyond Biblical propriety in our depictions. I don’t have any problem saying it was brutal, but I do have a problem with describing the brutality in graphic detail. Of course, there will be differing opinions as to what is too graphic. That’s OK but I think we do need to admit that there is a Biblical line that we should not go beyond.

I have heard sermons on the crucifixion that crossed that line, IMO, and though they delivered results, they did so using “enticing words of man’s wisdom” resulting in results that stand in the wisdom of man rather than the power of God.

No more Easter or Christmas pageants. Throw out the Jesus film, gospel tracts that show a crucifixion scene, and children's Bible story books while you are tossing.

Apply the command for what it was intended in its context.

There are many churches that take this exact stance. I am uncomfortable with these things but would not separate over them. To be honest, I am still working out in my own mind what is appropriate and what is not. Have you ever read Charles Hodge on the 3rd commandment in his systematic theology? If I get a chance, I may post some of his comments latter on today.


Andy

 

[LadyEagle]

Straining at gnats.

 

[LadyEagle]

I am sad to hear that Mel is catholic, maybe he will get saved himself. I will pray toward that end.
Murph

Are you saying that because he is Catholic, he is not saved?

“The scourging by Roman soldiers is probably more graphic and heartrending than the crucifixion itself. Gibson spared no detail. Actor Jim Caviezel, himself a devout Christian, plays Jesus. He is almost unrecognizable by the end of the scourging scene. The viewer sees flesh rip from his back and blood splatter across the courtyard as the Roman soldiers laugh sadistically. The crucifixion is hardly easy to take, though the phrase “saved by his blood: becomes quite vivid. The decision to show such violence was deliberate, Gibson said. He wants viewers to see what Jesus suffered on their behalf.” The Focus article then quotes Gibson as saying: “If anything, I backed off a bit.”

Source

Miracles during filming of "The Passion"
Few films have been discussed before their release as much as Catholic actor Mel Gibson's 'Jesus film' "The Passion". The film is a portrait of the 12 hours before the crucifixion. In interviews, Mel Gibson tells of astonishing events, even miracles, which occurred during the filming. "Many unusual things happened, good things. For example, people were healed of illnesses; some have regained their hearing and sight. Another was struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion, but just stood up and carried on. The power in the script alone is very interesting."

Epileptic girl's suffering stops
"There was even the case of a six-year-old girl, daughter of someone connected with the film crew, who has no epileptic fits for a month. She used to have up to fifty fits each day, and has not suffered a single attack in over a month." Gibson is amazed how the film has touched most of the actors and actresses in some deep, personal way. "That is real hope, it's true - wow! - and it really happens!" he says.

Hope for a torn world
Jim Caviezel, a devout Catholic who plays the role of Jesus in the film, is convinced that it was the Holy Spirit who led him to play the role. "It is important for me to portray Jesus' character as God intends," he says. "Mel Gibson shows the violence of the events so realistically that some will not be able to look, and will leave, believe me. But may will stay, and will gradually realise the whole truth." "In a world in which pretty much everyone is at each others' throats, this film has a good and very up-to-date message, one of faith, hope, love and forgiveness which will touch people very profoundly, and change them. I believe that there is no better message than the one contained in this film," says Gibson.
Source: Mel Gibson, www.passion-movie.com

Source