- Is The Passion of the Christ biblically and theologically accurate? | written by Tim Jackson
In its essential retelling of the story of Jesus Christ’s suffering and crucifixion, The Passion of the Christ is one of the most biblically accurate and historically authentic films that has been produced to date. Mel Gibson has meticulously crafted the screenplay from the four New Testament Gospel accounts of what took place on that final day.
The storyline of the film faithfully follows the events of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ earthly life–from His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, through the mock trial before Pontius Pilate, the appeal to Herod, His return to Pilate’s hall to be condemned, the scourging, the procession to Golgotha, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.
From what I saw in a prescreening of a rough cut of the film, there was nothing that caused me great concern that the integrity of the biblical story was being revised or misrepresented. However, that is not to say there aren’t scenes in the film that will initially catch the viewer off guard and raise some questions. One of the most notable is the appearance of a Satan-figure that slithers throughout the film. Some may be tempted to write the film off as unbiblical because the text doesn’t say "And Satan appeared to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and said . . ." That was my initial reaction too. But as the film progressed, I better understood what Gibson was up to.
As a visual artist, Gibson uses the canvas of film to create a fuller and richer picture of Jesus as the suffering Lamb of God. He uses a collage of images to help the viewer visualize not only the known facts of the scriptural account, but also the theological importance of this event in redemptive history. Gibson takes creative liberties to vividly bring to life the reality of the unseen spiritual war between good and evil. The visualization of the anti-messiah–the unseen but real enemy of God and mankind–pitted against the Messiah vividly highlights the theological truths that undergird the importance of the historical events of that fateful day.
The creative liberties taken to embellish the biblical narrative were not objectionable nor did they contradict the scriptural account. The additional background information (such as the relationship between Jew and Romans during the occupation of first-century Palestine, and the procedures for scourging and crucifixion) and the three-dimensional development of some of the story’s key figures (Mary, Judas, Pilate, Simon of Cyrene) brought a refreshing vividness to the story that not only was consistent with the biblical account but enhanced one’s appreciation for what happened during those 12 hours.
back to the top
- Are there any biblical or historical inaccuracies in the film? | written by Tim Jackson
No creative work of art is flawless. This film is no exception.
One clear error in the version of the film we previewed was in a flashback scene after the scourging of Jesus that seems to identify Mary Magdalene as the woman caught in adultery by the Pharisees in John 8:3-11. Mary may have been remembering what she had witnessed one day in the temple when she was with Jesus. But it felt more like she was depicted as the one remembering the event as though she was the woman used by the Pharisees to entrap Jesus. The New Testament accounts provide no biblical evidence to support the conclusion that Mary Magdalene was ever a prostitute, much less the unidentified woman in John 8.
The film includes some of the traditional images of Christ’s passion that may not be authentic. For example, Jesus and Simon of Cyrene are seen carrying a traditional full cross instead of what has been historically verified as more likely just the crossbeam. Interestingly, both of the thieves crucified with Jesus carry only the crossbeams. There’s also the scene of a compassionate woman expressing her tenderness for her Lord by offering her headcovering to a fallen Jesus who wipes His face, leaving the bloody imprint of His face on the cloth. While it is possible that it could have happened, it is without authentication.
Nevertheless, these minor inaccuracies do not detract from the overall impact and accuracy of the story of the passion of Christ.
back to the top
- Who was Mary Magdalene? | written by Tim Jackson
Mary Magdalene was a woman from the town of Magdala, a small town located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee between Tiberias to the south and Capernaum to the north. She was one of the faithful women followers of Jesus. All that we know of Mary was that she was a devout follower of Jesus from whom He had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2). She witnessed His death along with several other women followers of Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). Along with Mary (Jesus’ mother) and the other Mary, Mary Magdelene observed His burial (Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47). And she was also among the first to visit the empty tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; John 20:1) where she had a personal encounter with the resurrected Christ that she later reported to the 12 disciples (Mark 16:9; John 20:10-18).
There is no biblical evidence of any intimate physical relationship between Mary and Jesus as has been popularized by some modern detractors of the New Testament, such as in the book The Da Vinci Code.
back to the top
- Is this film evangelistic? | written by Tim Jackson
The Passion of the Christ is not primarily an evangelistic film. Mel Gibson is a filmmaker, not an evangelist. He is also passionate about his Christian faith. His goal was to make a historically accurate and authentic film about the final 12 hours of Jesus’ life, based on the New Testament Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
If you’re expecting this film to preach at you, it won’t. Rather, the intent is to let you see and experience for yourself what the suffering of Jesus was all about. What viewers choose to do with what they see is left up to them. In fact, Gibson uses his development of the biblical theme of truth by the way he embellishes on the character and struggles of Pontius Pilate and his question, "What is truth?" (John 18:38). Gibson invites the audience to wrestle, along with Pilate, with the facts about the One who claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).
Interestingly, one of the lasting impacts of the film is the question that lingers in the mind of the viewer afterwards: "What have I done with Jesus?"
back to the top
- What should I be looking for if I choose to see the film? | written by Tim Jackson
We must remember when viewing a film that this is not the written medium of Scripture. And it certainly isn’t intended to replace the Bible. Film is a visual media. Gibson has attempted to portray not only the actual events of the last 12 hours of Jesus life, but also to visualize the unseen war between good and evil for the redemption of all mankind.
This film should not be made to be more than what it is–a filmmaker’s dramatic retelling of the agonizing betrayal, unwarranted trial, brutal beating, and torturous death of Christ. Gibson has taken artistic liberties to visualize the biblical story in a graphic and gritty way that gives the viewer the sensation of being an eyewitness to those events.
As I reflected on what I had seen, I classified the material in the film into three distinct categories: the biblical core of the story; the historical extra-biblical material (such as the setting, context, costumes, weapons, and background data); and the artistic liberties used by the filmmaker to develop the biblical themes and characters in the story. It was helpful for me to keep these categories in mind, because each one serves a distinct purpose in the film.
Of paramount importance is the film’s accuracy to the biblical account. This film faithfully follows the story line of the New Testament record with few deviations. (See questions 1 and 2 above for more details.)
Concerning the historical setting and background material, the film is quite authentic. Gibson has done his homework well by consulting the ancient works of Flavius Josephus and other historians of the times to authenticate such things as the procedures for flogging and crucifixion, the weapons of torture perfected by the Romans, and the relationship between the occupying Roman forces and the Jewish religious leadership. The sets and the costumes give the viewer the sensation of what life was like in first-century Jerusalem.
A unique feature of this film is that the dialog is all in Aramaic, Latin, and a little Hebrew, with English subtitles. At first I was skeptical of how distracting it would be. However, within the first ten minutes of the film, I was able to settle in and become more comfortable than I expected with the subtitles. The use of the ancient languages actually lends itself to the foreign and "other-world" feel of the film. As the film progressed, I discovered that it wasn’t a problem at all. However, this may be more true for those who are familiar with the biblical account than for those who are not.
The artistic style of the film is earthy and gritty–cast in the dimly lit shadows of night and muted tones of blacks, browns, grays, with only an occasional splash of color. The cinematographer attempted to re-create the look of the baroque works of art by the sixteenth-century Italian painter, Caravaggio. The flashes of light that pierce the darkness of the film lend weight to the battle between the Light of the World and the Evil One. This film feels more like high art than Hollywood glitz.
Along with the biblical narrative, there is a unique three-dimensional development of some of the key historic figures who play significant and minor roles in the story. Those familiar with the biblical narrative will be drawn into the tender mother-son bond between Mary and Jesus. The depth of Mary’s grief is agonizing to watch. Judas is portrayed as a tormented man who betrays Jesus and then is haunted by the demons of his decision until his desperation drives him to hang himself. The embellishment of the relationship between Pilate and his wife and their discussion about truth is quite believable. Simon of Cyrene, an ambiguous figure in the Bible, is transformed from a disinterested and even hostile bystander into a passionate believer in Jesus after being forced by the Roman soldiers to carry Jesus’ cross with Him.
The visual development of these characters woven into the explicit biblical narrative gives the film a real-life quality that leaves the viewer with the profound sensation of having been there.
back to the top
