Updated: Reflections on 'The Passion of the Christ'
Disclaimer: This post is not at all related to ASP.NET. See this post for more info. I'm also attempting to not include it on the weblogs.asp.net homepage (by unchecking the Include in Aggregated Site option), so if it doesn't work, let me know.
Introduction
First, I’d like to address the controversy. It seems to me that this film is, like the clothing line, for us by us (FUBU). That is to say, this film was made by Christians for Christians. It presupposes a familiarity with the surrounding story and theology. I’ve read many articles on it, each commenting on this or that aspect, many of which seem to miss the point, in my estimation.
This film is not about the few Jews who pushed the Roman governor to have Jesus killed. It is not about man’s inhumanity to man. It is not about a touching story of a mother’s love for her child. It’s not about the amazing strength of a man enduring much suffering. And it is by no means a senseless blood and gore flick. This film is about God’s love for us—for all of us--expressed through his willing submission to a very painful, bloody, and gruesome death.
For this article, I, too, presuppose at least a familiarity with Christian theology, if not a belief in it. Much of what I say will be foreign to those without either of these. Naturally, because I am Roman Catholic, my theological perspective may differ on some points from my non-Catholic brethren, but I hope all can bear with me and hear me out, regardless of whether we agree on the finer points.
Particular Reflections
Turning to the film, note that the Devil, in this film’s garden of Gethsemane, did not say that the pain of being scourged and crucified was too much for one man. No, he said that the weight of the sin of the world is too much for one man to bear. Through this Gibson implies, and rightly so I think, that Jesus’ hesitance and anxiety in the garden was not because of the physical suffering but rather because of the spiritual separation from God. And it is only with this view that Jesus’ calling “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me” from the cross makes any sense. Bearing the sins of the world means utter separation from God.
As in almost any recollection of the Passion events, such as on Palm Sundays, it was difficult for me to watch the betrayal of Christ by Judas and Peter’s denials of Christ because I know that too often I have betrayed or denied Christ in my own life, for every sin is an implicit betrayal and denial of Christ. Gibson’s addition of the encounter between Peter and Mary in this scene only made it more poignant, causing me to recall the word of the mass—Domine, non sum dignus (Lord, I am not worthy). Similarly, it is always difficult to hear the crowd crying out for Jesus’ crucifixion, for each of our sins cry out for it.
[Added Following Three Paragraphs - 3/4/2004]
Some have commented on the possibility that Gibson's film overemphasizes the human aspect of Jesus and leaves off his divinity. I think this is a strange criticism because Jesus himself refrained from showing his divinity during the passion, even though many were mocking and tempting him to do so. So one has to wonder how an artist attempting to stick to the gospel story, which includes Christ's refusal to demonstrate his divinity, would show that divinity.
However, I did notice one thing that I feel did demonstrate it to a small extent, that is, when Jesus answered Pilate's questioning in Latin instead of Aramaic. Most probably didn't notice this, but Pilate even seemed a bit taken aback by this because it would be unlikely that Jesus would know Latin via human learning. It's an addition, to be sure, but I appreciated it.
And of course, we must not forget the more obvious parts of the story that also show Christ's divinity, such as the events surrounding his death--the earthquake, the sky darkening, and the Temple Veil being rent in two (the whole Temple in this movie). And the Resurrection is the final demonstration, so I think the criticism of overemphasizing the humanity is unfounded.
Others have noted the significance of the flashbacks to the Last Supper. I can only emphasize and reiterate this. The flashback to the washing of the feet was wrenching for me. One recalls Christ’s words that the servant of all is the greatest of all in God’s kingdom, and here is God being the servant of all, modeling what he taught, again showing us through our humanity what love means.
Other flashbacks to the Supper culminate in the raising of the Cross being juxtaposed with Jesus’ raising of the bread, compelling a connection between the historical (i.e., temporal) Sacrifice on the Cross with the eternal Sacrifice made present in each valid mass. For me, this was the most difficult, the most moving, the most compelling point of the entire film. It is yet another way in which God shows his great love for us, making himself truly present with us in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.
The actor playing John impressed me by his ability to communicate an intense connection with Jesus on the Cross. It was almost as if there was unspoken dialog taking place, and the flashbacks here helped us imagine what John might have been thinking—first truly making the connection between what Jesus said and taught regarding eating His Body and Blood and the Sacrifice that was taking place. It seems believable given John’s inclusion of the Bread of Life narrative in his gospel (John 6).
Mary’s pleading with Jesus to let her die in his place recalled the prophecy of Simeon about Mary when she presented Jesus at the Temple: “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce.” For the Catholic, of course, these words have special meaning because of our understanding of Mary’s participation in the salvation story, and Gibson’s inclusion was an effective way to remind us of that.
Many have commented on the violence in this movie, which has gained it an R rating. I am not one to go into rapture at gore, but I have seen my fair share of violent movies and gory shows. In all reality, this movie was far less violent than many films I’ve seen, including Braveheart, the Patriot, Bad Boys I & II, the Terminator I, II, & III, and many, many more. The violence itself was limited to some beating, the scourging (definitely the most violent part), and the crucifixion. All in all, it really was not that violent.
The gore factor was perhaps a bit higher than some of the movies noted above, but I felt it was not as bad as what you can see on The Learning Channel and others, if you watch the emergency room shows or the like. I don’t think the gore was overstated, given the actual events in question.
On this point, many have commented on Gibson’s seeming predilection with blood. They are ignoring, forgetting, or are ignorant of its purpose and significance. For the Christian, the Blood of Christ is a very powerful theological symbol, and for most Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, and some Protestants) it is an ontological reality, since we believe that we consume its substance when participating in Holy Communion. And for centuries, in Catholicism, there has been particular devotion to the Sacred Blood of Christ. The abundance of blood, its centrality in this film, is more than just an attempt at realistic presentation of the events—it is a theological statement.
In accordance with this, I think that Gibson’s addition of the Marys’ sopping up of the blood from the scourging is an indication of their realization (Mary, the Mother, first and then Mary Magdalene) of the sacredness of the Blood. For me, it was also reminiscent of how we Catholics handle consecrated wine when it is spilled—we make every attempt to retrieve every spilled drop.
Some of the more perplexing scenes in the movie deal with the devil and demon characters. The scenes involving these and Judas seem a bit out of place in the story. And what Gibson was trying to say is not entirely clear to me.
Traditionally, the belief has been held that Judas went to hell because of the betrayal and suicide. Dante even puts him in the lowest circle of hell, being chewed by Satan himself. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the subject is that we cannot know for certain if any particular person is in hell, and since the Second Vatican Council, this has been made even clearer.
So even for the likes of Judas, Hitler, and Stalin, the Church makes no dogmatic declaration on their eternal status, and I’ve often heard it pondered that Judas could have repented before he died. Knowing that Gibson is a traditional Catholic, one wonders if he is trying to reinforce the traditional belief concerning Judas by emphasizing his association with demons.
Another possible interpretation, that I personally find more likely, given the somewhat sympathetic and penitent portrayal of Judas, is that Judas did repent (throwing the money back at Caiaphas) but that he was driven to suicide by demonic forces; the evil children clearly agitated him, and I think the rotting carcass, apart from being generally revolting, was supposed to be reminiscent of the donkey that Jesus rode into Jerusalem, when he was welcomed and hailed the previous week. This reminder of that event could arouse greater feelings of guilt and, coupled with the demonic torment, could drive him to suicide.
The other demonic imagery was also unclear. There is the seeming showdown between Mary and the devil on the road. Then there is the image of the devil holding a child that turns out to be one of the demon children that tormented Judas. I think this must have been an allusion to the Madonna and Child image—Satan’s perversion of the love between Mary and Jesus and his trying to use that to further antagonize Jesus during his suffering.
And finally, there is the scene of the devil in hell, screaming after the death of Jesus. It is unclear whether this is supposed to be a scream of delight (at Jesus’ death) or a scream of defeat (by Jesus’ resurrection). The quality seemed to be more one of pain, but the placement just after the death and the consideration that a demonic scream of delight could seem like one of pain make it somewhat ambiguous.
I think the film would have been fine, perhaps better, without the demonic interaction, especially since its meaning is somewhat ambiguous in most places; however, I can appreciate the need to remind folks that the devil is real. And I can believe that the devil did his best to torment and tempt Jesus during these last, difficult hours.
The Burning Question
All of these comments aside, I think the big question that should be on the thoughtful person’s mind is: Why did God allow himself to go through this? Christians throughout the ages have been asking this question. I do not propose a definitive answer, but this is what strikes me, given my own studies and considerations.
God chose to suffer in this way first and foremost to show us his love for us. I think it is important and significant to stress that, even granting the necessity of fulfilling the Mosaic Law, this act was a completely free act of God’s will. He did not have to die in this way to fulfill the Law. Further, it seems to me that the Law itself did not have to be what it was, i.e., requiring blood sacrifice for atonement of sins.
What I am proposing is that God both created the Law that necessitated the final Blood Sacrifice (Jesus) and chose to die in an inhumane, non-kosher way for the same reason. That reason is that we are humans, bound to our flesh and the things of this world, and because of that we must understand metaphysical realities through the things of this world. A blood sacrifice is not a pretty or pleasant thing (particularly to modern sensibilities), even if the animal is killed humanely. Blood sacrifices are striking, and are meant to be so, in order that we may understand the seriousness of sin, that is, our own freely-willed separation from God.
So it was with the passion of Christ. We—not God!—need Jesus to suffer terrible physical pain at the hands of fellow humans in order to understand the spiritual suffering, that is, the suffering of taking all the sins of humanity—our sins—upon Himself. And it is in this that we see the awesomeness of God’s love made known to us—that he would take on this physical suffering just to help us understand the true, spiritual suffering that he endured for our sakes.
From this view, we also see the preparation from the foundation of the world for the passion and death of Jesus. We see it in that the whole mode of atonement in the Law is geared towards this final fulfillment in Christ. We see it even in our own falling away, in original sin, by the fact that this occasions the need for the Law and, ultimately, Christ, i.e., by its binding us to sinful humanity and causing our inability to understand God in a truly metaphysical manner.
So we see the radical nature of God’s love, that he created us with a view to taking on himself his terrible suffering (both physical and spiritual) in order to redeem us. He knew that we would Fall. He knew that he would create the Law. He knew that that he would die for us in order that we might live, to fulfill the Law and to conquer sin, death, and hell.
It is this that the film is about. And it is precisely this that will seem foolishness to many; this that non-believers will not understand. So those who go in looking for anti-Semitism will miss this and will likely find anti-Semitism. Others who do not believe will see only the human elements, such as the inhumanity, Mary’s motherly love, Jesus amazing strength, blood and gore, artistic imagery, or whatever. It seems to me that it is only through the eyes of faith in Christ that one can wholly understand and appreciate this film. And through those eyes, there is no controversy, only love.