| Since Mel Gibson's "The
Passion of the Christ" has come out I have been
asked several times what I think of the film. Some questions are really
hard to answer, and this is one of them. As a portrayal of the trial,
physical suffering, and crucifixion of Jesus it is, I think, an
outstanding piece of work. But the film professes to be much more than a
documentary about the final twelve hours of Jesus' life, it is billed as
being about the passion of the Christ, and it is in this portrayal that
the film is weak. Anyone who has seen the film must acknowledge that Gibson has made an effort to depict Jesus as an innocent man who bears an unjust punishment with immense personal dignity. Shown too, is His love for His enemies. But even these grand themes tend to get lost in the unrelenting focus upon the cruelty of His tormenters. So, in the end, one comes away with a deep sympathy for Jesus, and little awareness of why He had to suffer so. A true grasp of Christ's passion has much more to do with why He suffered than it does about the fact and form of His suffering, but the clear focus of this film is on the manner and extent of the Lord's suffering, not the reason for it. This is not to suggest that Gibson's work is without value. On the contrary, it is of vital importance that we grasp the enormity of the outrage committed against Jesus by wicked men. But it is far more important that we understand that His suffering was necessary to satisfy the Just and Holy God offended by the sins He bore. And unless we understand that they are our sins, we miss the point altogether. To truly understand this inspires gratitude, not sympathy, for Jesus. In a manner wholly consistent with his Roman Catholic beliefs, Mel Gibson has focused on the physical sufferings of Jesus, but has failed to show His death as the sole and sufficient atonement for sin. Perhaps he never intended to, and, if that is the case, fine. But then, he should have called the film The Suffering and Death of Jesus, not The Passion of the Christ. March 2, 2004 |