What Did You Know, and When Did You Know It?

My own thoughts... | 03/15/2004 | Ronald N Doughty

[DoughtyOne]

I suppose we'd all like to think Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of The Christ", has stuck it's thumb in the entertainment industry big-wig's eyes.  If it did or didn't, it doesn't really matter to me.  What does matter is, "What did they know, and when did they know it?"  And my friends, that is all that matters for any of us.

Gibson was moved to make a movie about the last hours of the life of Jesus Christ.  Beyond that he was motivated to explain what the life and death of Jesus Christ meant to him, to Christianity and humanity.  In that quest, Mel Gibson has accomplished his goal, perhaps as well as any human before him.

I have often thought that it would be a good thing to write a screen play that covered the rise and fall of sin, from heaven to earth to heaven and the new earth.  In fact I have been compelled to do so.  I never have.  In fact nobody has as well as the Bible.  While epic theme movies series such as Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings have been fantastic compelling movies, they are still just make-believe.  In the genre of the mystical good vs evil and the rescue of races of men, only the story of God, His Son and the Holy Ghost have quenched my thirst for the most compelling moving epic of all time.  There is no comparison.  Still, with this subject matter screaming to be told with all the skill today's craftsmen possess, the story remains untold by them.

Admiration for Mel Gibson is what I feel regarding his movie, "The Passion of The Christ."  I can identify with what motivated him to do what he has done.  I cannot identify with the risk and exposure to ridicule he must have felt for trying to bring his passion to life.  I think there is a lesson in this for me, for you, for everyone.  This movie isn't just about "The Passion of The Christ" is it?  No, it's very much about Mel's passion, my passion, your passion, in fact everyone's individual passion for Christ and His sacrifice for us.

Some have stated that the production of this movie was designed solely to explain how the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, how reprehensible their acts were, and that we should despise them for it.  To those who profess this theory, I would like to say, "Oh ye of little faith.  Do you have such little understanding of this subject matter that you cannot elevate your sinful selves even with regard to this?"   Yes Jews were shown to demand the death of Jesus Christ.  Others where shown to have compassion for Him.  One Jewish lady tried to give Him water as He carried the cross.  Another Jew helped Him carry the cross, reluctantly at first, but then seemed to change his demeanor as he witnessed the Man in person.  Jesus Himself asked God in heaven to forgive those who persecuted Him.  He turned his eyes on a Jew named John and asked him to take His mother as his own.  And there on the cross, Jesus accepted the repentance of a Jew who died with Him.

On the issue of the Romans, there has been some statements that they largely got a pass on the guilt for Christ's death.  In the movie, Pilate is shown to have been unconvinced of Jesus criminality.  He finally washed his hands of the case, ordering his Roman Captain to carry out the wishes of the Sanhedrin.  This is how the story is presented in the Bible.  Gibson uses some poetic license when it comes to the flogging that Jesus received, clearly depicting two Roman guards enjoying every moment of the sadistic actions they employed.  Another Roman who seemed to be in charge of the flogging, was also shown to be enjoying the vicious beating.  Other Roman soldiers were shown ridiculing, kicking, spitting on, crowning with thorns and committing other devious acts against Jesus.  When He was carrying the cross, Roman soldiers continued to viciously attack.  The claim that the Romans received a pass in this movie, is utter nonsense.

One well known actor made the claim that Jews were shown morphing into demons throughout the movie.  That claim was patently false.  He further stated that this was a constant effort to demonize the Jews, and it has resulted in a new wave of anti-Semitism throughout the nation.  As far as I know, both these claims are equally false..  In one three to five minute portion of the movie, some children are shown to morph into demons as they torment one of the disciples, post Jesus arrest.  In another scene Satan is shown with an albino infant in his (a female plays Satan in the movie, although the sex is never focused upon) arms.  I did not understand the significance of this.  I believe most Christians understand that the disciples must have had their own demons in the hours after Jesus arrest, much the same as you and I do when things go wrong.  I have never thought that they actually saw demons during this period.  Still, Gibson's poetic license works for me, because I do feel that the disciples were exposed to ridicule and danger during this period.  Who is to say who and what were present in the crowds around them?

Gibson did something that I really appreciate, when it comes to his production.  In it, he was quite faithful to the Biblical version of events.  When Jesus disciple cuts off the ear of a Roman guard, Jesus is shown to restore his ear.  Of course the Roman guard is never the same after that.  In that moment he realizes Christ's divinity.  This is the first depiction of the arrest, that I have seen which includes the ear restoration.  How the others could leave it out is beyond me.  As for emphasizing certain events that might have spoken more to Catholics than other Christians, Gibson took a pass.  For instance, he could have portrayed Christ's comments to Peter regarding the church and his duty to determine who would and wouldn't be saved on earth.  He didn't.  I don't mention this to focus on it as a topic in need of discussion.  I merely point out that anyone who thinks Gibson was in this to advance his own agenda as a Catholic, clearly has no grounds to do so.  At the death of Christ, Gibson is moved to depict the curtain between the most holy place and the rest of the temple, being wrent from top to bottom.  This touches on an issue of ceremonial law, an issue that is often combined with all traditional Jewish law and claims both were abolished at the time of Christ's death.  Here again, this seems to open a door to a broader segment of Christianity than just the Catholic Church.  Is this meant to spark discussion?  I'm not sure what Gibson's motives were.  I only know that I appreciate very much his presentation.

Mel Gibson's movie is what it is.  It is one man's attempt to depict the final hours of Jesus Christ, thereby motivating others to accept His sacrifice.  It remains true to the Biblical accounts.  It doesn't go off on an agenda driven path.  It does not take Jews to task any more than Romans.  It is not insightful of hatred.  I will admit that the leaders of the Sanhedrin are portrayed as vile heartless individuals, who seem incapable of any love whatsoever for their fellow man.  They are not alone in that portrayal.  So are the Romans.  My understanding of the accounts of Jesus last day, follows what Gibson portrayed.  These people were not alone in their inhumanity to man.  Throughout the ages history is replete with examples of man's inhumanity to man.

As for the violence depicted in the movie, I think some will come away thinking it was overly violent.  Others will come away thinking it was just about right.  I would not take a child to see this movie.  As children grow up into young adulthood, they should see it, but not before.  Adults understand the violence and what it represents.  I don't see any value of showing this to children.  Some will disagree with the idea that 16 to 18 is probably about right.  Personally I don't think showing this to pre-16 year olds is advisable.  Let's face it, even adults have some problems watching the violence in this movie.  I'm not sure I would have included all the violence in this movie that Mel did.  I am not convinced that Jesus had to die the worst death ever, to atone for our sins.  I know he was beaten and ridiculed and mistreated terribly.  Perhaps Gibson's movie is more tame than actual events were.  I don't know.  I do not take Gibson to task for his version.  After pondering the issue, I may have included exactly what he did.

To the Sanhedrin's way of thinking, Jesus was a blasphemer.  When He condemned them for some of their practices and made it clear He had no intention of setting up a kingdom on earth, they and many of the Jews of the day rejected Him.  Lest we forget, there are many who reject Jesus today.  No, the Jews did not have a corner on that then, and they haven't throughout history.  I would venture to say that the Jews rejected Jesus due to their tunnel vision and inability to see Him in His proper role.  While that was largely due to their stiff necks, it's important to consider that as Christians who fully understand Christ's redemption of us, we still  reject Him in our own way today.  When Christians are tempted to wonder how the Jews could have rejected Jesus, they should realize that they did not fully understand His role.  Jesus was a man in their midst.  While I'm sure He seemed like a good man, how many thought He was without sin and the living Lamb of God.  I'm sure it must have been a difficult concept to grasp.  And yet at the same time, it was and still is a very simple concept.

I say that this is a simple concept, because men of all stripes and levels of comprehension will ponder the issue.  Some of the best Christians I have known have been people of limited capacity.  None the less, day in and day out, they maintain a steadfastness to Him that puts me to shame.

Mel has reminded us that there is one who comes knocking at the door of our hearts.  I don't know how many times Jesus will knock on our hearts, compelling us with the Holly Spirit.  I do know that it is a finite amount.  I do know that each day that passes we have one less day to accept Him and do what we know to be right.  Through the "Passion of The Christ" we are touched by Gibson and once again the Holy Spirit, motivating us to make things right with the Lord.

Many millions of people will see the Gibson movie.  Many will be moved to study what God's plan is for them.  They will once again open the good book and do their best to adhere to what God wants them to do.  Here's to each of them, to you, to Mel and his critics, may each of us resolve to deny Christ less and less until we do so, as seldom as possible.

We are told that by their fruits ye shall know them.  My read of this movie tells me that Mel Gibson is a very good man.  If his heart was as pure when making this movie as his finished product seems to be, then he will have little problem when his final accounts are settled.  As of this moment, I am not inclined to think his critics are going to have an easy time of it at all.  If he was truly doing God's bidding, then whose bidding are they doing?

After all the talk of Mel Gibson's dad being this or that, one thing stands out to me.  The son he raised created this movie.  For what faults Mel's dad might have, his son is a credit to him.  Something the old man did turned out a very good son, one that God and man can be very proud of.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for your interest.

[Blueflag]

bump for a good and thoughtful read.

[sneakers]

Thank you for the very honest and thoughtful review. I've only seen it once. Should see it again - probably during Holy Week. God bless you.

[LS]

1) Just for the record, Malchus was a Temple guard, not a Roman guard.

2) There is a tremendous book, written in the 1930s by Frank Morison, called "Who Moved the Stone?" He argues (convincingly, I think) that Pilate's mind was made up before the "trial" because sometime between 11:00 and 12:00 midnight Caiaphas made a trip to Pilate's quarters and informed him of the impending arrest, conviction, and anticipated execution. This was all on a tight timeline, as Caiaphas had to have Jesus convicted, executed, and buried before sundown. If Jesus were held captive over the feast weekend, C. thought, His supporters would get wind of the plot and overwhelm the kangaroo court and its minimal Temple Guard.

Thus, once C. was informed NOT OF JESUS' LOCATION---because almost everyone knew where Jesus was---but of the FACT THAT HE WOULD BE ALONE, or nearly alone, in the Garden, and could be taken at night without a crowd---C. moved. But he didn't dare arrest Jesus if he wasn't 100% sure that he could effect a conviction and, more important, that the Romans would then agree to the execution. Thus, Morison argues, Pilate had already consented to an execution, and it was only the utter innocence of Christ and His words under questioning that gave Pilate even a second thought about executing Him.

[AFPhys]

Yet another "one of the best reviews I've seen" regarding this masterwork. Thank you for taking the time.

[AHerald]

Many millions of people will see the Gibson movie. Many will be moved to study what God's plan is for them. They will once again open the good book and do their best to adhere to what God wants them to do. Here's to each of them, to you, to Mel and his critics, may each of us resolve to deny Christ less and less until we do so, as seldom as possible.

Amen. Amen ... Nice read. Thanks for alerting me to this, Doughty.