After viewing "The Passion of the Christ", one of the most amazing cinematic experiences of all-time, I felt I must express my opinions about what I saw and felt. I am a very opinionated person and will not hold back on what I believe. It is now known that Mel Gibson, the director of the film, relied heavily on a book by Anne Catherine Emmerich, "The Dolorous Passion", in which this Catholic nun told of visions she was given of other things that happened at the Passion. I haven't read the book, but this may be the source of many things that were in the movie that are not in the Gospels.

Unfortunately, there were not enough of these flashbacks, and they were not long enough. Those of you who have seen the movie "For Love of the Game" starring Kevin Costner as a baseball player closing out his career, think about how that film was structured. The main point of the story was the game which Costner was pitching, but the bulk of the TIME of the movie was spent on flashbacks. From the flashbacks, however, you empathized with what was going on in the player's mind as he finished his career in this game.

The Passion, however, was the opposite of this. The larger blocks of time were spent on showing the savagery of Jesus' beating and crucifixion, when the REAL story was WHY the crucifixion was taking place, and what led up to that event. The short parts of the movie were the flashbacks.

The carpentry flashback was awesome. It made you understand Jesus' rough, yet playful side. He was a carpenter's son, and probably helped his father as a young man growing up in the household. This flashback could have lasted much longer than it did.

I'm thinking of the fact that the cross of wood already had bloodstains in the wood from other victims, and that the cross already had holes in the wood. Also, the attire of the people was accurate for the times.

None of these details are recorded in the Bible. In my opinion, entirely too much time was spent on Judas in this movie. In order to appreciate the mental torment that Judas was no doubt experiencing - which led him to commit suicide - I would need to understand the close relationship he had with Jesus before his betrayal. If I knew about their relationship, I could understand Jesus' pain and anguish at the realization that he was being betrayed by one of his chosen, and I could understand how incredibly sorry Judas must have felt. This was not in the film.

Aside from the betrayal scenes in the garden, every single bit of coverage about Judas could have been left out of the film. Leaving these scenes out would have allowed more time for flashbacks of Jesus ministry so that the viewer could be better connected with the relationships he had established with the disciples. This would make the fact that he was being betrayed and denied by two of them, and abandoned by all of them, even more heart-wrenching.

If we go into the New Testament, we find some VERY interesting facts about Caiaphas, high priest. When Jesus was brought before him, and we read the following:

Up until his answer above, Jesus had not opened his mouth in answer. But when Caiaphas told Jesus to give an answer "by the living God", he was invoking a law in Leviticus which states that if a man knows the truth, and is asked to tell it but keeps silence, he is guilty of what he is being accused of:

This is called the oath of swearing. When Jesus is confronted with this, he knows he must answer, because not to do so would be a sin. He gives quite an answer, because it CAUSES THE HIGH PRIEST TO TEAR HIS ROBE. This was a VERY serious event: the tearing of the high priest's robe. Jesus answer to Caiaphas, the high priest of Jerusalem, so angered or infuriated, or maybe CONVICTED, Caiaphas that he tore his priestly garment. The question Caiaphas asked was interesting to, because he was asking him directly if he was the prophesied Messiah, the Christ, and the Son of God. Now the answer Jesus gave we must explore, because it is earthshattering in its importance:

This isn't just an answer off the top of Jesus' head, but it was an Old Testament prophecy from the book of Psalms. The high priest demanded an answer as to whether he was the Christ, and Jesus was quoting from the following prophecy of David in the Psalms:

When Caiaphas heard that answer, he knew that Jesus was quoting a Messianic prophecy. As the high priest, he KNEW the book of Psalms. But he had to also know that in that same Psalm is another verse of the utmost importance:

There is no doubt that when Caiaphas, the high priest, heard Jesus answer, went in his mind to the Psalm Jesus quoted and realized it was a Messianic prophecy, that he also understood that this man standing in front of him was that person that would take over the priesthood. This man, Jesus of Nazareth, was the man who was going to fulfill that ultra-mysterious prophecy of Psalm 110:4 - the priest forever after the order of Melchizedek!

Again, Caiaphas reaction to this was that he tore his robe, something that the high priest was NEVER TO DO. Something so serious that the robe was crafted such that it would be extremely difficult to tear. Yet Caiaphas did it.

You may be thinking: but how do we know Caiaphas was thinking of Psalm 110:4, and that is why he tore his priestly robe? How do we know Caiaphas knew that Jesus was the one that would take over the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek? We find an INCREDIBLE passage earlier in John's gospel, straight from the mouth of this same Caiaphas:

How is it that Caiaphas came up with this information? Is it possible that this was explained to him by NICODEMUS, a member of the Sanhedrin ruling council who came to Jesus one night?

Indeed, Jesus revealed to Nicodemus that he had to die for the purpose of drawing all men to him!

Nicodemus, as a member of the Sanhedrin, would have had many opportunities to communicate this information with Caiaphas. Yes, Caiaphas knew MUCH MORE than what you may think if you were asking that question of Jesus. Caiaphas "prophesied that Jesus should die", and he understood that one man was going to die for the sins of the people! Did he understand that Jesus was the one? Did he understand that this mysterious, tall, sun-tanned Nazarene that was standing before him going to take over the priesthood? According to this passage, YES. Look again at the question he asked him at the trial:

He was asking him whether he was the Messiah, whether he was the one that they were waiting for. When he heard Jesus' answer from the Messianic prophecy in the Psalms, and knew that passage also said that the Lord said he was also a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, Caiaphas knew this was the man. He immediately TORE HIS PRIESTLY GARMENT. He knew the charade at the corrupt Jerusalem temple was over! He knew he was being replaced, and Jesus Christ was going to be the new high priest after he offered himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the nations on the cross:

Again, Caiaphas' reaction to Jesus answer was:

This robe was not to be torn, because if it was, the high priest could die and God's wrath could come on the people, as the passage below indicates:

We can see from these verses that it was very important for the priest to never have his robe torn. Why is this important? Because in the Old Testament, it is recorded several times that men would reach up and tear their clothes and put on sackcloth when they were very upset and they knew God was unhappy with them. Here is one example:

The priestly robe was double reinforced because if it was torn, it was a sign that he had lost his priestly authority. Symbolically, by reaching up and tearing his priestly garment, Caiaphas was saying that the priesthood had been taken from him, and he knew that Jesus was going to die for the people as shown in John chapter 11. He knew this was the man that was going to be the Messiah, the priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Since Jesus trial and crucifixion were at the feast of Passover, Caiaphas, as high priest, was supposed to be inspecting the lambs that were to be killed at Passover. But he just tore his priestly garment, signaling that he knew the priesthood had been taken from him.

Of course, these details were not revealed in the movie.

John's gospel reveals that Peter's first denial occurred while he waiting at the gate to be let in, by the doorkeeper, while he was standing by a fire warming himself:

While he was still warming himself in the courtyard, the second and third denials occur:

In the movie, Peter was shown to deny Jesus three times in the matter of seconds, and not in the courtyard before the high priest, and not while he waiting by a gate, warming in front of a fire.

What was about to happen when Jesus was strapped into the whipping post I was not prepared for. The tag-team brutality displayed by the two soldiers was unconscionable. The way that the shard of glass on the end of the whip implanted itself into the flesh on Jesus back before it was savagely ripped off was gross sado-masochism, in my view.

It is a fact that Catholicism focuses on the suffering Jesus more than the conquering risen one. So many times, you will see Jesus hanging on the cross in Catholic statues, paintings, etc. The crucifix is a good example. In this film, it was no different. The thought that entered my mind is that Mr. Gibson was fixated on showing Jesus mutilation, even though it is not in the Bible. I found myself questioning whether Mr. Gibson was some kind of masochist. If you have seen the film, then you know what I am talking about.

The film shows Jesus being beaten around 40 times with strong reeds, then whipped on the back with leather straps with pieces of glass and metal attached to the end. But that's not all. Just when you think it is over, they unhook one of his hands, then whip him another 40 times on his front side. Friends, this is NOT in the scripture. Mr. Gibson may have read historical accounts of what a Roman scourging entailed, but it is not right to go outside of scripture in this case.

Furthermore, we have evidence outside of the Bible of what Jesus suffered. It is the Shroud of Turin, what I believe is the burial shroud of Jesus for many reasons too detailed to delve into here. When you look at the back portion of the shroud, you can see whip marks, and you can see dumbbell-shaped marks on the end of them. You do not see these whip marks on the chest of the man in the shroud. The shroud shows Jesus was whipped with a Roman flagrum, pictured below. Here is a picture of the back side of the shroud, with an artist's rendition of what the whip marks looked like:

I find it odd that Mr. Gibson would not use the shroud as evidence of what Jesus experienced, because it is known to be a revered Catholic relic. The marks on the shroud match PERFECTLY with the instrument pictured above, not a whip with pieces of glass that would rip open his flesh. Here is a picture of such an instrument:

Mr. Gibson's depiction of the whipping post was gripping, but way overdone. It is this that I believe deserves the NC-17 or X rating. The two soldiers who beat him are shown to be enjoying the event, and when they are done, they are completely exhausted from beating him so hard. I question Mr. Gibson's motivation in showing so much blood and violence, especially when the evidence in the Bible and on the Shroud of Turin shows otherwise.

The verse in Luke makes it clear Simon carried the cross BEHIND Jesus, who was walking in front of him.

In fairness to Mr. Gibson, there is a verse in Psalm that he may have been relying on for this:

However, clearly all of Jesus' bones were dislocated before he died, so this barbaric use of poetic license by Mr. Gibson was grossly overdone, once again. 

This is not in the gospels, but if you saw the film, you know what I am talking about. The thing with the film was that Mr. Gibson showed the entire thing, and showed it happening in slow motion, if I recall it correctly. I don't understand why this needed to be shown, especially since it was not in the gospels.

Some of these things included:

This is a tragedy, because those who see the film but have not yet come into covenant with Jesus will not understand that the resurrection is the whole reason why Christianity is the only way! Consider the following verses:

Peter said on the day of Pentecost:

Stephen stated before his death by stoning:

The men on the road to Emmaus after Jesus' resurrection said:

Paul said in one of his epistles:

However, the most important verse of all is this one, uttered by Jesus just before he died:

That is the bottom line. Yes, the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, and yes, the Romans were responsible for carrying out the sentencing and torture. The Bible is clear on that, as shown above. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that Jesus forgave them, and then died for the sins of the world. His example was unconditional love, which means love despite our past faults. We must all follow this example with all men, whatever their ethnicity or background.

David Lowe

March 20, 2004