The Passion & Saddleback

Tim,Greetings from New Zealand.I stumbled (not by accident I believe!) across your website several weeks ago when looking for a good, sound, biblical review of the Passion of the Christ. I hadn't seen it and haven't seen it for various reasons. I found your reviews, along with the comments from your readers and other links from your articles, extremely informative, balanced, thorough and biblical. I really appreciate your fundamentalist stand and find it refreshing and encouraging to read wise, diligent insight that is not slanderous (which is a fine line to cross when critically evaluating anothers work)...you are rightly dividing the word of truth!I believe truth is becoming more rare in the church, especially as we are living in increasingly perilous times. I have been reading Timothy lately and Paul has alot to say about avoiding deception and false doctrines.'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from truth & be turned aside to fables.'I do not use this scripture in direct relation to The Passion, but rather the concerning shift of the church in general, away from fundamental doctrine. I am also concerned that many christians (prodestants) are 'ignorantly' embracing this movie without doing their homework. Is this a lack of discernment?...as the bible says 'my people are destoyed through lack of knowledge'. Poor old Martin Luther would certainly be rolling in his grave! The situation with this movie and your comments about spiritual waves remind me abit of the account in Acts 16:16-18 where the girl with the spirit of divination followed Paul around for days crying out, 'These are the servants of the most high God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation'. Paul could have said, 'wow, this is great publicity, she speaks the truth and is doing the church a wonderful service, keep it up sister!,' however he discerned the spirit behind her was not of God and cast it out. Pure truth flows through a pure vessel huh?

I do not want to be unduly critical of this movie and I praise God what good He will bring out of it- however it concerns me.

I really enjoy your posts and am enjoying catching up on your archives and current series- it's a goldmine! Keep up the good work Tim, you're a good watchman!

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am still prayerfully working on my research and personal review of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. When I am released to share it with you, I pray you will take it in the spirit it is intended; that is to share what I believe to be the truth of Holy Scripture as it pertains to this particular worldwide media presentation of the last 12 hours of the earthly life our precious Lord, Jesus Christ [the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of all mankind].

Meanwhile, I think you might appreciate the attached virus-free word document that discusses the alleged Paul Harvey article that was innocently circulated among our group several weeks ago. I was shocked and disappointed when I learned that it was not, in fact, a genuine Harvey commentary.

It is my strong belief and deep spiritual conviction that the tremendous impact this Hollywood movie has had on the world and on believers, in particular, must be tempered and measured by the actual word of God.

Fictional or so-called “artistic license” taken with the real truth of the suffering of our Lord and Savior, Jesus of Nazareth, [the Messiah of Israel, the Son of the Living God, the Word made flesh], must be of real concern to every born-again child of God. If the depicted events that occurred from Gethsemane to Calvary are not biblically complete or accurate, or are possibly deliberately misleading, then I believe that we have an obligation to set the record straight. The eternal fate of many unsaved souls depends on an authentic telling of the biblical narrative. “Make-believe” can never become an acceptable substitute for “making believers”. Let the veracity of God’s Holy Word be the final arbiter of the events surrounding the REAL passion, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As God is our Father and we are His children, we can settle for no less!

If you do not wish to partake in the discussion of this issue or other relevant “Passion” commentary, then I suggest you stop reading here. I would strongly recommend, however, that you at least go back and pray, read, study and meditate upon the four gospels in the New Testament that describe the actual events leading to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on Mount Calvary. You owe it to yourself [and to the Lord] to compare those precious holy words to the Hollywood script of that sacred event. You will be shocked at the major discrepancies and biblical deletions that were made by the makers of that film.

Any assertion that this production is “faithful” to the biblical text is patently misleading. Just because one quotes isolated scriptures or generally follows the storyline contained in the Gospels, does not necessarily make one “faithful” to the intent and integrity of Holy Writ. Remember, even the devil can accurately quote scripture [as he did to our Lord Himself during the temptations]; it’s all in the context and faithful adherence to God’s revealed truth that really matters.

I realize this is a spiritually sensitive matter for all of us, but I expect those of you who have been receiving material from me to be willing to hear out a possibly differing viewpoint when it is accompanied by relevant, contextual scripture. As Paul, the apostle commended the Bereans for their biblical follow up to his comments, I, a mere layman and student of the Bible, also encourage you to double check everything presented to you and to check the scripture quotes to see if they are in fact being correctly cited and spiritually applied.

Let us reason together and if necessary, agree to disagree.

Prayerfully, your brother in Christ, the soon and coming King,

Carlos

Here is the Introduction to my review of Mel Gibson’s film, ‘The Passion of the Christ’.

It is Part 1 of a series and includes a sample of a biblical/scene comparison chart that I am developing for your study and consideration.

I pray that you will receive understanding and spiritual insight rather than offense and rebuke by this project. That is my sole intention.

God bless you all,

REVIEW OF MEL GIBSON’S FILM ‘THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST’ – PART 1

Researched, compiled, revised and edited by Carlos Campos, a redeemed sinner, saved by the grace, mercy, love, blood, suffering, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God of Israel to whom alone belongs all the glory, power, majesty, allegiance, praise and worship.

Introduction: *WARNING...do not proceed further if you are so spiritually or ‘religiously’ sensitive that consideration of a differing biblically-based viewpoint is out of the question. This review is intended solely for mature believers or seekers who wish to avail themselves of a full-gospel New Testament perspective, regardless of the traditions of human-based religious institutions.

The following is a selective sample of various comments by Catholic and non-Catholic reviewers of the film that reflect my reaction to Gibson’s movie. Sources will be credited at the conclusion of this series in a bibliography. I have taken some liberty to intersperse my own comments when deemed necessary to conform them to my understanding of New Testament scripture. As a serious Bible student and believer for over 24 years, I feel compelled to address this issue, only because very few of my fellow believers (and a scant number of Christian apologists) are rising to the defense of the Holy Scripture, and by extension, to the defense of the Christian Gospel. A gospel that is so poorly depicted and distorted in this media presentation that has so dramatically impacted our nation. No claim of inspiration is made other than that the Lord has provided His Holy Word to all of us to feed upon and to spiritually thrive upon as we journey towards fulfillment of His calling and purpose in our lives.

Whatever is stated here should and must be weighed and measured by the very Word of God and that will remain your responsibility to perform for “man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4)_______________________________________

Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ [POC] projects a world in which demonic powers and evil, faithless humans blow by blow and wound by wound gradually destroy the body of Jesus of Nazareth. As David Elcott has observed, the film encourages viewers to take sides in a war of good vs. evil, a cosmic battle of belief vs. the powers of darkness. One is either a follower of Jesus or a pawn of Satan. For some this dualism seems to reach out from the screen into reactions to the movie. A viewer either praises the film or is aligned with the sinister forces that oppose it. Fans of the film pillory critics of this Hollywood production as enemies of the New Testament.

The film begins at a zenith with its opening, though incomplete reference to the Prophet Isaiah’s 53rd chapter and spirals downward from there with its unrelenting concoction of out-of-context biblical references and disproportionate doses of extra-biblical, spurious source material. "I wanted to be true to the Gospels," Gibson has said of his goals in creating "The Passion of the Christ." In an introduction to a book about his movie, he wrote, "Holy Scripture and ‘accepted visions’ of the Passion were the only possible texts I could draw from to fashion a dramatic film." But because scripture is silent on certain details of the Passion, several scenes in the movie aren't found in the Bible. Some of Gibson's additions are quite plausible embellishments of brief biblical mention but most came from other ‘religious’ sources, namely the visions of the mystic nuns Sister Anne Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. And a few scenes, apparently, are outright fabrications--often artistically daring ones. There is a biblical saying that aptly summarizes the problem, “a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf” which speaks of the leaven (false teachings) of the Pharisees, a legalistic sect of early Judaism (from which the Apostle Paul originated before his dramatic conversion to Christianity on the road to Damascus).

The film is leavned/polluted with many non-biblical elements. In principle there is nothing wrong for a screenwriter to contextually augment the rather meager passion narratives. Indeed, choices such as staging, lighting, costuming, etc. make the supplementing of the biblical texts inevitable. But in Gibson’s gospel, these unbiblical features are so interwoven with scenes from one synoptic Gospel or another that the unwary viewer, already experiencing sensory overload because of the film’s vivid brutality, is unlikely to detect them or ponder their significance. In a word, it is deception and what’s worse, it so maligns God’s sacred texts (God’s inspired Word) that it crosses the line into spiritual deception which can have eternal consequences; not only for the perpetrator, but for the innocent or biblically illiterate masses of believers and potential converts to Christianity. I am in wholehearted agreement with the following Catholic statement:

"It is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that “it's in the Bible.” One must account for one's selections". (U.S. Catholic Bishops, Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion (1988).

Is it acceptable for a filmmaker – even though he regularly repeats the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ died for the sins of all humanity – to so poorly combine elements from the four Gospel accounts and to add many scenes not found in the New Testament with the result that the wickedness of Jewish characters is magnified? Can such directorial choices simply be overlooked because they occur in a movie about Christ? Why has Gibson chosen to select and combine in the way he did? What is the source of the extra-biblical material in Gibson’s film?

There is an author at work who ought to have received the major screenwriting credit for the film. Indeed, it is obvious upon close examination that Gibson has actually created a cinematic version, not so much of the Christian Gospels but of the so-called mystic nun’s (Anne Catherine Emmerich) purported visions of the death of Jesus.

The Passion According to Anne Catherine EmmerichAnne Catherine Emmerich lived between 1774 and 1824. An Augustinian nun in Westphalia, Germany who was renowned as a mystic and stigmatic, her dreams or visions of the life of Christ were collected after her death and published. Living when Catholics and some uneducated Christians simply took it for granted that Jews were collectively cursed for the crucifixion of Jesus, her narratives emphasize Jewish evildoing. Probably the most disturbing indication of Emmerich’s attitudes toward Jews is found in a reported vision that occurred in 1819. A recently deceased Jewish widow takes Emmerich’s spirit on a journey to a distant Jewish city:

“The soul of the old Jewess Meyr told me on the way that it was true that in former times the Jews, both in our country and elsewhere, had strangled many Christians, principally children, and used their blood for all sort of superstitious and diabolical practices. She had once believed it lawful; but she now knew that it was abominable murder. They still follow such practices in this country and in others more distant; but very secretly, because they are obliged to have commercial intercourse with Christians.” [4] Given this matter-of-fact repetition of the blood libel, followed by racist descriptions of Jews with “hooked noses” (whose degree of bend indicates their degree of evilness), [5] it is not surprising that Emmerich’s account of Jesus’ passion prominently features negative images of Jews, including a close association with the demonic:

In the Christian world [...] erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability [for the crucifixion] have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people. Pope John Paul II, Oct. 21, 1997

“At the same moment I perceived the yawning abyss of hell like a fiery meteor at the feet of Caiaphas; it was filled with horrible devils; a slight gauze alone appeared to separate him from its dark flames. I could see the demoniacal fury with which his heart was overflowing, and the whole house looked to me like hell. [...]I remember seeing, among other frightful things, a number of little black objects, like dogs with claws, which walked on their hind legs; I knew at the time what kind of wickedness was indicated by this apparition, but I cannot remember now. I saw these horrible phantoms enter into the bodies of the greatest part of the bystanders, or else place themselves on their head or shoulders.” [6]

While Gibson did not include this scene, its worldview of a cosmic battle between demonic powers and Jews against the forces of believers in Christ certainly permeates his film. Indeed almost all of the film’s extra-biblical scenes mentioned above are derived from Emmerich. To them one could add the picture of Herod as effeminate, of Barabbas as bestial (which makes the crowd’s preference of him even more vile), and of Jesus’ arm being dislocated by his crucifiers in order to line up with pre-drilled holes in the cross. The film’s arrangement of the different Gospel elements is also indebted to Emmerich. The Passion of the Christ is a filmed version of Emmerich’s imaginative interpretation of the Gospels. The film is so dependent on her that it could have been aptly titled “The Passion According to Emmerich”.

It is thanks to Emmerich’s influence, for example, that the film exaggerates Gospel passages that describe Jesus as struck by Jewish individuals and turns them into a severe assault upon Jesus. All the Gospels describe some violence being inflicted on Jesus when he is brought before the high priest. In the synoptics, he is spat upon, blindfolded, struck on the face, and slapped (Mt. 26:67-68, Mk. 14:65; Lk. 22:63-65), although in John a single soldier only strikes Jesus once with his hand (Jn.18:22 ).

However, in Emmerich, Jesus is brutally abused at this juncture, a scene that is clearly echoed in the film: ”[A] crowd of miscreants— the very scum of the people—surrounded Jesus like a swarm of infuriated wasps, and began to heap every imaginable insult upon him. [...] [They] pulled out handfuls of his hair and beard, spat upon him, struck him with their fists, wounded him with sharp-pointed sticks, and even ran needles into his body; [...] around his neck they hung a long iron chain, with an iron ring at each end, studded with sharp points, which bruised and tore his knees as be walked. [...] After many many insults, they seized the chain which was hanging on his neck, dragged him towards the room into which the Council had withdrawn, and with their sticks forced him in, [...] A large body of councilors, with Caiaphas at their head, were still in the room, and they looked with both delight and approbation at the shameful scene which was enacted, [...] Every countenance looked diabolical and enraged, and all around was dark, confused, and terrific. [7] “

Gibson has been quoted as saying that Emmerich “supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.” [8] He also carries what he considers to be her relic, which he showed during a recent television interview. [9] This raises the possibility that Gibson has relied so heavily on Emmerich because he believes she was gifted with a historical vision of the first-century. Whether this is true or not, Gibson claimed in the same television interview that he saw nothing anti-Semitic in her writings. However, from a Catholic perspective it seems undeniable that both Emmerich and Gibson have failed to “avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes toward the Jewish people.” [10].

Historical ErrorsThe Passion of the Christ’s filming in ancient languages gives the film the veneer of historical verisimilitude that may mislead some viewers into thinking they’re watching a documentary. And despite claims that the film is the most accurate portrayal of the death of Jesus ever filmed, The Passion of the Christ contains many historical errors and omissions.

For instance, although graphic and bloody, the movie shows Jesus carrying a complete cross and not simply a crossbeam; the nails are driven through his palms, not his wrists; and Gibson adds a footrest to the cross, which is unattested in Roman literature or archaeological studies that instead describe a projecting seat. [11] It is also noteworthy that those crucified with Jesus are not scourged, even though that was the standard Roman procedure. The film’s depiction of the mechanics of crucifixion is more derived from traditions of Christian art than from historical knowledge. An artistic judgment is also evident in the scourging scene where, although Jesus' flesh is torn to ribbons so that his ribs are visible, his loincloth seems amazingly resistant to the whips.

More importantly, the film totally reverses the relationship of Pilate to Caiaphas. It is an undisputed historical fact that Caiaphas was dependent on the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, to retain his position as high priest. Since Caiaphas held the high priesthood throughout Pilate’s eleven-year tenure as prefect, but was quickly removed when it ended, it seems clear that the two collaborated closely. There was surely no possibility that Caiaphas could even imagine revolting against Roman rule, as the film contends. The result of this historical fantasy is that the Jewish leader is made the driving force behind Jesus’ execution.

Also significant is the historical fact that the Passover festival was an especially volatile time since it celebrated freedom from foreign domination. Jerusalem overflowed with Jewish pilgrims from around the Empire, and it was the usual practice for Roman governors to station soldiers in the Temple precincts to prevent any uprising. [12]

Statement by Richard Leonard, S.J., Director of the Australian Catholic Film Office:To realize their insights into the Jesus story on screen, all these directors, bar Pasolini, and now including Gibson, commit a fundamental and serious sin. They collapse the four canonical Gospels into one, as though they are identical stories about Jesus. Then they take whatever they want from this biblical smorgasbord. Unlike the church in its liturgical traditions in Holy Week, "The Passion of the Christ" liberally jumps between all the narratives with no regard for any particular Gospel.

The Second Vatican Council in its decree "On Divine Revelation" and the Pontifical Biblical Commission have warned that this process does a disservice to the integrity each of the texts, and can do harm to the portrait of Jesus it paints.

What we have in the Gospels are four highly stylized, inspired portraits of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. The differences between these accounts are especially evident when they turn to the passion of Jesus.

In Mark Jesus suffers grievously and feels abandoned on the cross. Matthew sees Jesus as the rejected Messiah of Israel and is noted for its anti-Jewish tone. Luke has Jesus reach out to Gentiles and sinners, even on the cross, and then reconcile himself to his death. John's Jesus is poised, controlled and majestic as he enters into his suffering and death.

Each of these inspired narratives comes out of a particular historical context and community which contributed to the final work we have today. But "The Passion of the Christ" rolls them all into one. It takes the suffering of Mark, the blame-game of Matthew and the compassion of Luke and, very broadly indeed, follows the events and characters recorded by John. "The Passion of the Christ" interprets and selects material from its Gospel sources in a way that does not honor the original meaning or intention of the Gospels, and cannot be seen as the "historically accurate" account of the first Good Friday, which the director has claimed it to be.

There are just too many of these errors to list, but three will do. "The Passion of the Christ" continues the calumny against Mary Magdalene by casting her as the woman taken in adultery in John 8. The film argues that all three versions of his last words recorded over the four Gospels were said by Jesus from the cross. Worst of all it changes the tearing of the veil of the temple into a fully-fledged earthquake that physically breaks up the temple floor.

The second sin Gibson and his colleagues commit with the passion story is the insertion of extraneous material they inflict on the already homogenized narrative that they have created. In Gibson's case this material is key to understanding his film and why he made it in the first place.

We know that Gibson was drawn to make this film after a spiritual awakening. His is on record as saying that one of the texts that affected him most deeply on this laudable journey was "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Written in 1824 by the German mystic Catherine Emmerich, this book records her private revelations and visions about the suffering and death of Jesus.

In many instances Emmerich's work varies significantly in detail and tone from any of the Gospels and unfortunately Gibson has incorporated a number of scenes from this book into his film: a confrontation after the arrest between a chained Jesus and Judas; a much larger role for Pilate's wife; a tender meeting between Jesus and his mother; a raven picking out the eyes of the bad thief; and a waterfall of blood pouring over the Roman Centurion as he pierces Jesus' side. As befits Catholic spirituality of the time, Emmerich was obsessed with the details of how Jesus suffered, and for how long. So is Gibson. I never thought the scourging at the pillar would end. This particular episode is unrelentingly violent.

*PART TWO TO FOLLOW.....