Eshin Direct

Passion of the Christ

The Passion of The Christ focuses on the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth’s life. The film begins in the Garden of Olives where Jesus has gone to pray after sitting the Last Supper. Jesus must resist the temptations of Satan. Betrayed by Judas Iscariot, Jesus is then arrested and taken within the city walls of Jerusalem where leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and his trial results in a condemnation to death.

(Summary written by James Hutchinson.)

I was interested in seeing The Passion of the Christ because it holds relevance to me as a Christian and my recent readings into the loss of the sacred feminine, explored in books like the Da Vinci Code and the Woman with the Alabastar Jar. Actually I hadn’t really read up much on the film and I think my expectations were set a little differently to what the film actually was.

The film depicts the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ which is essentially when Jesus was betrayed in the gardens by Judas Iscariot until the breaking of the temple. I believe Mel Gibson’s intention was to create one of the most realistic representations of these last twelve hours of Christ as a mortal. In this, he succeeds and gives us a version that is unique unto itself and gives new meaning to a story that has been told countless times through word and film. It is a version that is disturbingly graphic as a result and could quite have easily been called the Suffering of the Christ.

What amazed me about the film was that there was very little Hollywood influence in this film. The dialogue was all in the original context being either Aramaic, Hebrew or Latin. There were no sudden misplaced miracles to make you feel better in it all. The people, including Jesus, were surprisingly human in that they loved, hated, feared and doubted as real people. The film was dramatic but these human emotions displayed weren’t glossed over with simplified dramaticisms. The only real sign of Hollywood trappings was the music score which accentuated the feelings that you should have been feeling at the time.

While the film focuses on the suffering of Christ, there are flashbacks to put certain things into context. While short, as the film’s main theme wasn’t about the life of Christ, in most cases they are appropriate footnotes for the viewer.

I loved the film and this modern day, realistic enactment of the suffering of Christ was what was needed for a Christian world that is losing rapidly losing its way. This film should help us to understand the extent of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. I do not want to send people packing to the Church since I don’t believe in institutionalised religion but it should serve as individual spiritual reminder if you do believe in Jesus Christ.

On a personal note, I have always worn my crucifix each day letting it serve as reminder of the suffering that Christ went through for me yet this film helped me to open my eyes to what exactly that suffering was.

Apparently the film has generated some controversy as being anti-Semitic. One might feel that this an overly sensitive claim by the Jewish community on this but the spiritual effect that this film might have on some people might incline them to continue the blame to the Jews for being responsible for the suffering of Christ. Scoff at that at your own peril. The Jewish people have been persecuted and punished for what it was believed that they did to Christ throughout European history. All I can say is that midway through the film, after I had gritted my teeth and hated those that persecuted Jesus, an appropriate flashback was inserted. It was the sermon where Jesus taught us that it is easy to love your friends but so much more rewarding if you can love and forgive those who hate and persecute you. Think about that before you go on a crusade to make the Jews pay. Remember too that Jesus, his disciples and those that followed him were essentially Jewish too.

James Caviezel was an excellent choice for the role of Jesus. There was something about his performance that just made it feel right. He portrays the right amount of doubt, nobility, strengths and weaknesses that one would assume that Jesus, the man, would have had. Before you go harping on at me about the divinity of Jesus, God sent His Son to earth as a man. His divinity came later.

Alright, enough praise, what are my gripes?

While the film was an excellent and much needed depiction of the last twelve hours of Christ, it didn’t offer anything new other than a realistic depiction of the suffering. This is okay itself for the reasons that I have talked about earlier and the film remains a great film because of that. However, it would have been nice to have something more to chew upon.

One particular complaint that I had about the film was that it continued the myth, and the lie by the Catholic Church, that Mary Magdalene was the repentant sinner. There is some confusion to the different Mary’s and women that were involved in Jesus’ life but it is highly doubtful that the Mary Magdalene was the Mary who was the redeemed prostitute. The Church has since officially apologised for making this assertion.

It was a shame that the relationship between Mary of Magdalene and Jesus was not explored more fully. There is new evidence to suggest that the possibility that Jesus was married to Mary of Magdalene. This idea is put forward by writers such as Baigent and Starbird in their various works. This is what misled me about the title, believing that the Passion was about His relationship with Mary. Of course, now it is clear that the Passion was His love for mankind yet one can’t help but wonder why Mary of Magdalene is featured so prominantly in the film as she was and despite still being portrayed as the sinner repentant. Is there perhaps a subtle suggestion that they were more than just companions?

Another problem that I had with the film was that it portrayed Judas Iscariot in a stereotypical manner. Unsurprisingly, this man has got some bad press for the last two thousand years or so and it quite rightly, he is going to be demonised as a turncoat and a betrayer. But another possibility that is making the rounds is that Judas was not the weak-willed man that he as depicted but a completely different character.

One has to understand that Israel was an occupied land at the time of Christ and that there were Jews who were ultra-nationalistic (zealots) in their intentions. Judas, before entering into the service of Christ, was from one of those hardline sects. I’m not making excuses for Judas but merely offering a new take on his motivations. Imagine a hardliner who is expecting his messiah to overthrow the Romans and expel them from Israel, and instead He preaches about loving thy enemies, being the Son of Man, and promising rewards in an afterlife. There has to be more than just thirty pieces of silver to make Judas betray Jesus. The man had motivations just like you and I. What were they?

Having said that, the film’s realistic portrayal, which has limited Hollywood “miracles” happening, begs the questions that are not often asked. Why exactly did the Jewish authorities not approve of Jesus? Why did a Jerusalem who welcomed Jesus with open arms and affording Him the welcome of a royal king suddenly turn so soon against him? Again, the answer may lie in understanding the politics of Israel and the bloodline of Jesus at the time.

If one understands that Jesus was of the royal lineage of the House of David, then Jesus had a rightful earthly claim to be King of Israel. Herod, for all intents and purposes, was a puppet king and one that could get along with the Roman occupiers. I don’t think the depiction of Herod was far from the truth in the film. The disgust of the Jewish farasees at Herod even when they brought Jesus to him to be judged is telling. They never wanted to bring Him to Herod, rather they wanted Him to be tried by Roman law and they were only forced to bring the matter to Herod when the Roman governor forced them to.

The encounter between Herod and Jesus is an interesting one. Herod takes a look at the abused Jesus and contemptously laughs in His face, questioning whether He is the one to usurp his position of king. For Herod, this was probably a very real threat that he had to live with during his life. Herod was the one that threatened by the portenses that someone who had more claim to the throne would usurp him. I believe that is why Joseph and Mary went into hiding when Jesus was due to be born yet Joseph still obeyed the demands of the Roman census that was issued.

The whole point in Herod’s, the Jewish farisees, and Judas Iscariot’s behaviour in condemning Jesus was removing Him from the earthly political sphere that was in effect in Israel at the time. He claimed a spiritual dominion not an earthly one. Herod feared the earthly dominion and laughed at the spiritual dominion Jesus claimed. Yet he would have done anything to get rid of Jesus knowing that the danger of the earthly claim was still very real and valid. The Jewish farisees were already angry at Jesus for He would not side with them since He viewed them as corrupt. Along with Judas, they were disappointed maybe with the failure of Jesus to be the earthly deliverer of Israel from the Romans. Instead, He had, what to them seemed fanciful notions and ever increasingly popular preachings of a spiritual deliverance. Not something you want someone who has a rightful claim to the kingship of Israel to have when you want them to be kicking out the Romans.

The film, the Passion of the Christ, rightly accentuates the suffering of Christ but also offers up new questions to be asked by myself and others. These are all questions that no longer can be answered with concrete proof. History has since clouded the issue. What remains is a riddling story that has been told through the ages and one which can only be answered with the substance of what is at the heart of anyone’s spirituality. Faith.