Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The [Perfect] Passion: Three Reviews and a letter (The Most Complete and HONEST review yet)
The Ornery American ^ | Feb 29, 2004 | Orson Scott Card

Posted on 03/01/2004 5:37:36 PM PST by gobucks

The Passion of the Christ -- Three Reviews and a Letter

Pious films are usually embarrassingly bad -- one thinks of Richard Gere prancing around in a diaper in the mercifully forgotten King David -- primarily because the attempt to inspire and the need to be true to the source material are often incompatible with each other, and both interfere with the requirements of art and entertainment.

Director and co-writer Mel Gibson's artistic achievement in The Passion of the Christ would have been noteworthy had the film been merely adequate, as art or entertainment. Instead, it is superb; I believe that it is, in every way that matters, perfect.

The first excellent decision was to take the story's structure from the last hours of Jesus' life, starting with his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane and ending, except for a bit of denouement, when he is taken down from the cross.

But this structure did not stop Gibson from giving these hours of merciless torment the relief of meaning and context. Through brief flashbacks to moments in the past -- from tender scenes with his mother and the last supper with his disciples to the sermon on the mount -- Gibson reminds us of who the person was before he was physically tormented.

Moreover, the words Jesus says in these flashbacks provide meaning -- sometimes ironic, sometimes poignant, always illuminating -- to the precise moment where they are inserted in the story.

We see the flashbacks to Mary-with-Jesus from Mary's point of view, as she is dealing with the grief of seeing her beloved son suffer so much, even though she knows this is what he was born for. It makes the relationship between them come alive for us, so that in a few moments we get the sense of Jesus as a child, as a young man.

Other flashbacks, though, provide Jesus' own commentary on the events he knew were coming in his future.

Some of these techniques would have been heavy-handed indeed if this film had been fiction, or a fictionalized version of a little-known historical figure; imagine how dreadful Braveheart would have been if the entire film had taken place in the last hours of William Wallace's life, with mere flashbacks to illuminating events in his past.

But Jesus' life is well-known, in outline at least, even to nonbelievers; and to believers, every word of dialogue, every single event, is expected.

So the real surprise is how much Gibson was able to step away from the literal filming-of-the-gospels and insert his own (or co-writer Benedict Fitzgerald's) brilliant interpretations, augmentations, and allegorizations.

The most obvious such fictionalization is the way the film depicts Satan. I was astonished, after the fact, to find that Satan was played by a woman, Rosalinda Celentano. But the way Satan is presented, his face a mockery of tenderness and concern, surrounded by images of maggots, serpents, decay, deformity, I could not imagine a better depiction. And when we see, at the point of Christ's death, Satan in the midst of desolation, defeated, it gives the film meaning and resonance that would not have been there had we seen nothing more than the torture and death of Jesus' body.

There are other touches, though, that flesh out the gospel stories. I could have lived without the old canard that identifies Mary Magdalene with the woman-who-was-taken-in-adultery, whom Jesus saved from stoning, but the flashback works well in its context; I loved the extra acts of kindness and understanding that were given to Pilate's wife (Claudia Gerini) and Jarreth Merz as Simon, who bears the cross for Jesus; and the way John, Peter, and Judas are depicted makes them seem like living souls.

In fact, the most remarkable achievement was the way every person in the film -- including Jesus -- is presented as a whole human being. Nobody mopes through the film in the traditional but tiresome attitudes of piety. Nobody acts as if they thought they had a halo around them all the time. As far as they know, they aren't living through an epic story -- they're living through their own, personal lives, facing the worst catastrophe and not yet aware that it's a eucatastrophe that marks the beginning, not the end, of their work.

I also appreciated the use of the original languages. Aramaic, Latin, Vulgar Latin, and Hebrew are used to powerful effect. The subtitles do not interfere in any way. And the result is a truly international film -- everybody in the world gets exactly the same experience.

There is not a false step in the film -- and believe me, I was looking for them. James Caviezel plays Jesus as a man, with a sense of humor; his love for his friends is practical, not ethereal -- he likes them and cares about them.

This film does not exist outside its Christian context, any more than the film Gandhi would have meant anything at all had we not known of him as the builder of a nation and a prophet of civil disobedience. But working within the framework of how Jesus is regarded both by believers and nonbelievers, I believe Gibson has created a work of art that stands with the best ever created in the medium of film.

As a Believer

Viewing this film can be complicated for a Christian. Because Mel Gibson does not present a generic Christian view in The Passion of the Christ. He is a Catholic, and this is a profoundly Catholic interpretation.

I remember my shock the first time I went inside a Catholic cathedral -- in the town of Araraquara, Brazil. I had not been prepared for the bloody images of saints, and especially of Jesus.

But having now visited Catholic cathedrals in many countries, I must say that American Catholicism is almost puritan by contrast with Catholicism elsewhere. The images that are presented to most Catholics are designed to make them feel great pity and respect for the suffering of the martyrs. And, since Jesus is the greatest of all, his suffering must be the greatest.

To those whose background is in Protestant churches, especially those with Calvinist, puritan histories, the emphasis on violence might be shocking -- especially if you're from one of the religious traditions that in recent generations have concentrated on the "nice-Jesus" teachings that remove him from the harsh and brutal times in which he lived.

So the emphasis in this film on wringing every scrap of suffering out of Jesus' body can seem excessive, almost unbearable. To Catholics, it will be less surprising -- but what they have long seen in static, blood-streaked images now comes to life and seems to be happening to a living person, which is shocking enough.

My own beliefs are even more removed from the violence. After all, tens of thousands of people suffered death by crucifixion; hundreds of thousands have been scourged and tortured cruelly. I don't believe that the manner of Jesus' death had anything to do with either the atonement or the resurrection. That's why we Mormons don't use the symbol of the cross on our churches -- to us, crucifixion was merely the method that the Romans used to execute those of whom they wanted to make a public example. Had the death been by lethal injection, the effect on our salvation would have been the same.

I believe that Christ's real suffering was the anguish he felt as he bore the horror of complete spiritual separation from God -- taking upon himself to an infinite degree the torment that is the natural spiritual consequence of sin. The remorse and despair we feel (or will feel) to varying degrees because of our disobedience to or rejection of God, he felt so utterly that we cannot imagine it. In this context, what was done to his body was almost a distraction. Many people have borne as much.

The problem is, the inner, spiritual suffering could not be filmed. So even for someone who believes as I do, the torment of Jesus' body stands as an outward representation of the inner torment. Viewed in this way, the violence is not excessive at all; it is all the glimpse that we can bear of the inner torment he suffered for us.

Even so, no matter what religious context you bring to the film, you will find that the critics who wrote or spoke of a festival of gore have misled you. This is not like the blood-thirsty movies that kill people left and right and seek for new and excruciating ways to titillate an audience. There is nothing here designed to promote a corpse-filled computer game.

In this movie, violence is shown as appalling, evil, vengeful, malicious. The moral context is never lost. The people in the film recoil from precisely the same actions that we recoil from. If some critics can't see the difference between this film and movies that delight in casual violence, they're in the wrong line of work.

Some have reported that the violence became so excessive it left them numb. In a sense, yes -- you have to detach at some point. In fact, for me it happened at precisely the point where, in the movie, Mary says out loud, How long are you going to keep letting them do this before your work is finished? The standard Hollywood expectation -- that the hero will bear up under suffering and live to pound his enemies into the ground -- is destroyed in the long scourging sequence, where Jesus rises to his feet after 32 strokes from rods. We have that standard response: Yes! They can't beat him down! (Bruce Willis in Die Hard comes to mind.)

Whereupon they switch to flails designed to kill, and strike him far more blows than before, and from this the hero does not rise, he is dragged away on the verge of death. From then on, we see his suffering as being more of a struggle to stay alive until his work is completed. We no longer wish for him to be saved; we wish for him to be relieved, and the only possible relief is death.

So yes, we detach. But it is not the detachment that we feel toward the casual killing in action films or the pornographic violence in slasher movies. It is never that we don't care; it's that we've stopped hoping for life and recognize that death holds no terror for this man.

The violence is not what makes us weep.

All my tears in this movie were shed in empathy for those who loved Jesus, and in gratitude for those who are shown attempting to be kind to him. I was moved by Pilate's wife, who knows what is right and tries to do the one small thing that is possible for her. I was moved by Mary's love for her son. I was moved by the epiphany that came to the reluctant cross-bearer, Simon of Cyrene; by the shame and empathy discovered by one of the soldiers -- the one required to pierce Jesus' body with a spear, but who can hardly bear to do it in front of his mother.

The woman who brings him water to drink at one of the stations of the cross; Pilate himself, caught in a terrible political situation where he has no good choice, but chooses his career over his integrity and makes the futile, empty gesture of washing his hands; the "good thief" (Francesco Cabras) who is promised paradise on the cross -- it was goodness, or the yearning for goodness, that brought tears to my eyes.

And this is not a movie about despair. Though by no means did Gibson even attempt to show the story of the resurrection, we get a glimpse of a whole, perfect, uninjured body rising from the shroud.

So even if you are not a Catholic, and the sangre de cristo is not something to be venerated, this film will still speak to you.

(And for those who piously refuse to see R-rated films, I can only say: There are movies that children should not see, and this is one of them. But for a Christian adult to refuse to see it as a matter of moral principle, as if this movie will somehow dirty you, moves you over into the category of those who let the letter of the law keep them from its spirit.)

As an American

I have hated antisemitism since I first learned, in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, what it was. And I have loudly insisted that antisemitism be named for what it is in most of the opposition to Israel from both the PC Left and the vast majority of the Muslim world.

But to call this movie antisemitic and therefore un-American is shameful.

First, this movie strictly follows the only historical record we have of these events. There is no competing record to refute the depiction in the gospels. So to say Gibson should not have shown Jewish leaders being the driving force behind the killing of Jesus is to say that Christians are not allowed to actually believe in or dramatize their own scripture.

I remember how, after 9/11, everyone leapt to their pulpits to make sure no one blamed these events on Muslims -- when it was absolutely Muslims, acting according to their interpretation of the Muslim faith, who did the act.

Of course there were Muslims who were appalled by the actions of the terrorists of 9/11. There were also Muslims who danced in the streets to celebrate. But one could imagine that the people attacking Mel Gibson for antisemitism would insist that any film of 9/11 must not show that the terrorists were Muslim, lest it cause an outbreak of violence against Muslims.

It is not surprising that Jewish leaders are hypersensitive about antisemitism. But the attempt by some to condemn this movie because of the effect it "might" have on some Christian viewers is wretched excess.

In fact, to many Christians it sounds as though some rabbis thought they had the right to tell Christians which parts of the Christian scripture are acceptable to believe in. This is so outrageous and so resented that, if anything, it is not the film but the reaction to it by these few Jewish leaders that is most likely to cause negative feelings toward Jews.

The Passion of the Christ makes it very clear that there are Jews on both sides, and that Jesus himself was a temple-centered Jew.

In the movie, Simon of Cyrene is reviled as a Jew by the Romans, even as he picks up the cross to carry it for Jesus. The only person who is shown in a profile shot that emphasizes a stereotypical Jewish face is Peter. In countless other ways, Mel Gibson shot and edited this movie to make it clear that it wasn't Jews per se who sought Jesus' death, but only a segment of the leadership of the Jews. And even among those leaders, the film shows that some spoke loudly against killing Jesus.

In the absence of competing historical records contradicting the gospels, the only argument I've heard is that the Jewish leadership "would never have" behaved that way because it was illegal and immoral. Therefore the Christian gospels are slandering Jews, proving that Christians have been antisemitic from the beginning.

But this is ludicrous. Most Christians at the time the gospels were first written down considered themselves to be Jews, since they considered Jesus to be the fulfilment of the promises God made to Israel. Christian antisemitism was still more than a century away.

And to insist that the Jewish leadership in the 30s C.E. were so righteous and pure that the events recounted in the gospels could not have happened is also ridiculous. It wasn't that many decades later that assassinations and betrayals and plenty of illegal actions tore the Jewish leadership apart during the revolt against Rome.

The gospels show the dominant faction of the Jewish leadership acting according to patterns that have been repeated again and again through history. The Dreyfuss case in France, where an irrational hatred led to a man being hounded and convicted of crimes he absolutely did not commit, is merely one of the most famous cases in recent history. Anyone who doubts that huge and powerful sections of a seemingly rational society can be filled with nearly insane hatred of someone who has done nothing to deserve it have only to look impartially at contemporary American politics.

The gospels seem to present a reasonably impartial, unhateful depiction of people behaving the way people in power usually do -- they are so sure they are right, so sure justice is on their side, that they toss aside the law in order to accomplish a "higher purpose." We have judges like that today, too.

It is not reasonable that the historical account in the gospels should be doubted solely because some contemporary Jews would like to think that Jewish leaders two thousand years ago could not have conspired to get the Romans to kill a particularly offensive leader of a movement that threatened their ability to control what other Jews believed.

Moreover, the Jewish leaders are shown as the powers-that-be, never as the sadistic torturers whose actions and attitudes would inflame the viewers to outrage. That role is reserved for the Roman soldiers -- and since they are depicted as speaking Vulgar Latin, which sounds like Italian, I would think Italian-Americans would have far more cause to fear backlash from this film.

What I find truly disturbing, as an American, is how the American Left, which supposedly glorifies free speech and cultural inclusion, should so brutally reveal their true colors. The fact that Gibson could not find distribution for this film, and had to turn his production company, Icon, into a distributor (a very expensive and difficult process), speaks volumes -- there was no such problem over The Last Temptation of Christ, which apparently was acceptable because it would offend Christians and denied the accuracy of the scriptural account.

Hollywood touts itself as courageous -- just like the rest of the PC Left -- whenever they stomp on Christians. It's part of the elitist war on Christianity that's clearly going on. Other people's ethnic heritage or "folk beliefs" can be celebrated in school -- but Christian customs and beliefs can hardly be mentioned.

When the Christian Right spoke out against The Last Temptation of Christ, you would have thought that Hitler had just taken over in America, to hear the PC Left scream about censorship and suppression and the sanctity of art and the need to be open to many different views.

But to a large degree, the people trying to censor and suppress Gibson's movie, and to slam the door on this "different view" and ignore the sanctity of art in this particular case, at least, were the same people.

So they stand revealed as hypocrites. They don't believe in freedom of expression, they believe in anything that hurts Christians; and anything that actually expresses Christian belief effectively, they will oppose.

That's an ugly place for America to be in today.

But that's what happens when you have an established church, as America does now -- as priests of that church strike down American laws and ancient customs, not by democratic process, but by authority of their private beliefs about what is "fair," thus imposing their religion on others against their will.

Personal Comments about Mel Gibson

In fact, the behavior of the Left toward Mel Gibson as a believing Christian -- and not just over this issue -- follows a pattern that makes the historical record in the gospels seem quite realistic.

Crucifixion isn't the way we kill offenders today. We do it metaphorically, in the media, and financially, by withholding the means to make a living.

And now, ironically, because it is clear that Christians are supporting this movie in vast numbers and it is going to make back its investment, Gibson is being accused of profiting from his faith.

Here's the truth: Any movie can fail. There was no guarantee. Gibson spent $24,000,000 of his own money, put his own talent and reputation on the line, did not put any stars in his movie, and had no established distributor sharing the risk. No one in the history of film has ever taken such a personal risk.

He made a bet that Christians would support an excellent film about the death of Christ. He had no takers. And when he turned out to be right after all, it is stupid and mean-spirited to accuse him of having financial gain as his motive.

So I have a few things to say to Mel Gibson, beyond the praise I have already given to him as an artist and as an interpreter of the Christian gospel:

Dear Mr. Gibson,

It looks like you're going to make a profit on The Passion of the Christ. Please don't donate any part of the profits to charity. Instead, use it to finance other films, so this faithful audience can have the visualized stories they hunger for. Keep the standards high, and the audience will only grow. This will do far more for Christianity -- and religious faith in general -- than any other donation you might make.

Remember the parable of the talents, and keep putting this money at risk in service of your faith. Remember that these profits were given to you by fellow believers, because we trusted you as an artist and as a Christian to bring the scripture to life in a way that no sermon -- and no lesser artists -- ever could.

And when award season rolls around next year, please withdraw The Passion of the Christ from consideration for any and all awards.

It would demean this great film to be listed as a competitor for a prize. We don't need to hear absurd and offensive statements like "The Passion of the Christ really has legs as a contender for the Golden Globe" or "The Passion of the Christ is a shoo-in for the best-makeup Oscar."

Hollywood shut you out on this one. Keep this film outside. Don't let them use it as a tool to show how open-minded they are, after the fact. Since this is one of the few perfect films ever made, and since it deals with a subject matter sacred to you and to most of its audience, there will never be four other films worthy of being listed with it in any category.

Copyright © 2004 by Orson Scott Card.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: antisemitism; christ; hollywood; moviereview; orsonscottcard; osc; thepassion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161 next last
To: Valin
ummmm....I think 'You Da' MAN' would be a bit better, yes? We have too many guys and boys in this world .... :)

(And they tend to be sissy leftists I've noticed.)
121 posted on 03/03/2004 7:11:31 AM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; onyx
But this structure did not stop Gibson from giving these hours of merciless torment the relief of meaning and context. Through brief flashbacks to moments in the past -- from tender scenes with his mother and the last supper with his disciples to the sermon on the mount -- Gibson reminds us of who the person was before he was physically tormented.

Right on target! Reminding us Who this person was before he was scourged and crucified, thereby putting that suffering into its proper context, is THE reason the media critics hate this movie. This is about the death of the Son of God, Who by that death provides forgiveness to a lost and sinful humanity. The message: Even the media naysayers need this Savior, and that is a message they detest.

122 posted on 03/03/2004 10:06:28 AM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
It is not surprising that Jewish leaders are hypersensitive about antisemitism. But the attempt by some to condemn this movie because of the effect it "might" have on some Christian viewers is wretched excess.

Precisely. I saw the movie. Nobody exited the theater mumbling under their breath, "Those filthy Christ-killers!" Anti-semitism is one of Europe's stains from dark periods of its history. Jews are understandably concerned about anything which might raise the spector of anti-semitism. But this is the 21st Century, for crying out loud, not the 14th! The only ones raising the issue of "anti-semitism" are Jewish leaders. They would do well to give it a rest.

BTW, thanks for posting this article. I LOVE Orson Scott Card!

123 posted on 03/03/2004 10:12:29 AM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
In Mormon theology, animal sacrifice was instituted to provide a symbolic reminder of the sacrifice of Christ, who was to come (Mormons believe the knowledge of Christ and His mission was taught from the time of Adam onward, but was frequently lost or perverted through apostacy and rejection of the prophets). The blood is symbolic of the death of Christ. The blood in and of itself has no intrinsic power or effect. This is why Christ replaced the shedding of blood with the ordinance of the eucharist, where wine was to be symbolic of Christ's blood.

This is consistent with all the scriptures you cited. It all comes down to a matter of how they are interpreted. A Mormon would simply maintain that by declaring that it was blood that was the operative agent, and therefore Christ had to shed his blood, you are putting the horse before the cart. The Mormon will maintain that it was Christ who was the operative agent by (though sinless) being punished for the sins of all mankind PAST, present, and future, and thereby satisfying the requirements of divine justice and offering redemption from spiritual death (separation from God). His death and resurrection then offered redemption from physical death, thus providing full redemption from the Fall. Blood, and the intricate ritual animal sacrifices of the old testament were simply a symbolic representation of this. Again, the blood itself is meaningless. Old Testament believers were saved through faith on Christ who was to come. Modern believers are saved by faith on Christ who has come.

The Mormon position is a biblically valid position. Like nearly every theological difference between Mormon Christianity and Protestant Christianity, it is simply a different way of reading the same passages.
124 posted on 03/03/2004 11:16:02 AM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
don't know it offhand, and do not have my KJV here at work - I'll get back to you on it - it's the part concerning if you have a heathen wife or brother, don't set them aside etc... the passage goes along the lines of "and these heathen, knowing not the law, yet have the law"
like I said, I'll get back to you on this when I get home
125 posted on 03/03/2004 11:39:15 AM PST by King Prout (I am coming to think that the tree of liberty is presently dying of thirst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I'm warming up to OSC too .... and you are quite welcome.
126 posted on 03/03/2004 1:04:28 PM PST by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: notorious vrc
wasn't it the Resurrection that defeated Satan

The same thought occurred to me at that moment but then I thought, no, Mel got it right. Satan's intent was to cause Jesus to give up the path He knew he had to take. That failure was the most important and the one which spelled defeat. I interpreted the "desolation" of the scene as a perfect representation of what the deepest pit at the center of Hell would look like. I agree with this review. I could not find a single flaw in the film and, IMHO and if anything can be described this way, it is perfect.

127 posted on 03/03/2004 1:30:20 PM PST by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
Thank you for the expostion on Mormon teaching concerning the blood of Christ Jesus my Lord.

You say,

The blood in and of itself has no intrinsic power or effect.

And yet you claim also that

The Mormon position is a biblically valid position.

It is not my argument. Here are the biblical teachings:

1 John 5:6
This is the one who came by water and blood–Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

1 Peter 1:2
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood

Hebrews 12:24
to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

1 Peter 1
18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Matthew 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

John 19:34
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Hebrews 13:20
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep

Hebrews 10
18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body

Hebrews 13
11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.

Here, here is the symbol; all else is literal, according to the Scriptures:

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

May He cause His face to shine upon you and give you peace.

128 posted on 03/03/2004 2:33:00 PM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine; frgoff
I'm LDS (convert) and I never thought about this in this way before. Small children have been interrupting my lessons and scripture study for ten years straight now. :-)

I'm following your discussion and I look forward to learning from your reply, frgoff. My thanks to both of you.
129 posted on 03/03/2004 4:14:19 PM PST by Triple Word Score
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
I had a feeling that he was a Mormon from his distance from "blood" in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. Mormons as well as some other "denominations" strive to take away the importance of the BLOOD in the sacrifice made. You see, The Old Testament sets the example for what is to come - the Law stated that BLOOD had to be spilled. Jesus represents the Perfect Lamb of sacrifice. For the remission (forgivenenss/attonement) of sins, blood must be shed. Therefore the contention that the manner of Jesus' death was not important is quite wrong. He had to shed His blood. Why else is His blood mentioned so many times?

I have no intention of turning this thread into a debate on Mormon theology, but as a Mormon I feel I must correct some of what you said about our faith.

We DO believe in the importance of the blood of Christ in the atonement and you will find passages in the Book of Mormon that confirm this. The difference lies in that to us it is the blood that was forced out of every pore of his body while he was alone in the garden that redeems us. It was in the garden that he suffered the pain of ALL the sins of EVERY person, past, present and future, and that pain was far beyond any pain man could inflict.

130 posted on 03/03/2004 5:23:47 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Romans2 and 1Corinthians7 together point to it.
131 posted on 03/03/2004 5:36:11 PM PST by King Prout (I am coming to think that the tree of liberty is presently dying of thirst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: King Prout; chuckles
Romans2 and 1Corinthians7 together point to it.
132 posted on 03/03/2004 5:36:24 PM PST by King Prout (I am coming to think that the tree of liberty is presently dying of thirst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Texas2step
"This commentary deserves to be widely read, regardless of OSC's specific personal beliefs."

Just to be clear, this idea that OSC states that how he died isn't important is not one I recall ever hearing or reading in my whole lifetime as a Mormon. It is his own opinion, not Mormon doctrine.
133 posted on 03/03/2004 6:17:13 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Grig
this idea that OSC states that how he died isn't important is not one I recall ever hearing or reading in my whole lifetime as a Mormon

Not being Morman myself, I used the word "personal" when I referred to OSC's beliefs, particularly that one statement.
134 posted on 03/03/2004 7:05:24 PM PST by Texas2step (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Texas2step
Right. I should have changed the To: value to ALL.

There are some who like to take anything any member says as being a perfectly accurate statment of LDS doctrine and I wanted to discourage that.
135 posted on 03/03/2004 7:16:07 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Here's another wonderful review that was linked to NRO Online, specifically Rod Dreher provided the link:

Sunday, February 29, 2004

And here's the blogspot address:

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_markshea_archive.html#107810244134717345

Justice in the Universe!
posted by Mark Shea at 10:54 PM

The quick assessment: Hands down the finest film ever made about Jesus Christ. Period.

The longer assessment: Let's get a few things out of the way immediately.

First: Thanks, Mel, for having the great courage to make this film. It was a profoundly *manly* thing to do and has given us a portrayal of Jesus that is, in the very best sense of the word, the most masculine Jesus ever committed to celluloid. Interestingly, several men I have talked to have spoken of the film in that way as well. The sense of sheer *warfare* that permeates the film is overwhelming. And it is deeply and profoundly warfare with powers and principalities, not with flesh and blood. Jesus has no enmity to his human adversaries. He prays for them repeatedly. But his hostility to the devil is implacable, utter, and steely. Indeed, if I were the devil, I would quail in terror at what is, for Lucifer, the single most frightening moment in the film: the look of Resolve on the face of the Risen Christ in the final moments of the film. Satan has done his worst. Now it's Time to wrest the entire cosmos away from him.

Second: I cannot speak for Jews because I am not Jewish. So I'm not going to go around telling Jews what they can and cannot feel about the film. If it makes some Jewish people feel upset then they are entitled to their reactions. That's what works of art do: provoke reactions. However, I *can* tell Jewish people and anybody else who will listen what this work of art did to me and to the 30 teens and adults (and the packed theatre) who, well, not "saw" but experienced it on Friday.

It made us pray. It made us feel ashamed of our sins. It made us embrace each other. It made us weep. It took our breath away at times--both because of the depth of human cruelty and the awe of divine love. It made me admire Gibson's theological depth and his artistic vision. We left the theatre in silence and did not at all feel very inclined to find baseball bats with which to smash synagogue windows. Personally, I felt a strong need to go sit before Jesus in the Tabernacle. I thought of the sins I'd confessed and been forgiven of a couple of days before--and what it cost to have those awesome words of absolution given me. I thought how easily I hold grudges and how much I've fallen into the habit of contemptuously dismissing people who hurt me. I thought of how troubling it was to me that the violence did not trouble me more. I came away from it asking God for a compassionate heart. My son and his friends, God bless their beautiful young souls, immediately went away for a retreat and he came back the wonderful laughing boy I've known all these years, yet there was a seriousness in the joy--like a young boy becoming a man. I came away from the film not only with gratitude for the Sacrifice, but with joy over the gift of all those kids.

I did not, and I daresay no Christian did, come away from the film saying, "I want to hit a Jew." The very idea that anybody could come away thinking that is so repulsive, so *alien* to this film that I cannot believe anybody could come away desiring that.

The reason for that is simple: The film is so deeply immersed in the message of the gospel that only a wilful misreading by a Christian could derive a message of hate from it. Indeed, apart from Jesus and Mary, the strongest character--a character so strong he actually threatens to overshadow Jesus as Mercutio threatens to overshadow Romeo--is Simon of Cyrene. In his relatively short time on the screen, he establishes himself as a true hero. And Gibson is careful to identify that hero as Jewish. He is not a believer in Jesus, but he is a deeply humane man (though fearful at first) and he stand up with immense courage to the Roman brute squad (who are the true villains of the film). By the time he has walked the Via Dolorosa with Christ, he is a changed man, but so should be any Catholic anti-semites lingering out in Hooterville. In one of the most moving images in the film (I still well up when I think of it), he and Jesus make the final ascent to Golgotha with their arms linked over the cross.

Are there Jewish villains in the film? Of course. The film is true to the gospels in that it makes clear that the Temple elite and some of the citizenry (though not all) wanted Jesus dead. To get rid of that fact you must get rid of the gospels themselves. But to this Catholic, I was moved far more to think of some of my own bishops and their selfish clinging to power than I was to generalities about The International Jew or some sort of theorizing about racial guilt. Caiaphas acts, not as all Jews act, but as all corrupt men act--particularly when they are clinging to power. As the reviewer for TIME pointed out, calling criticism of the Sanhedrin "anti-semitic" is as dumb as saying "Either you are with the Republican Party or you are with the terrorists." It is possible to fault the ruling class without despising the entire people. Then, as now, there were lots of Jews who defended Jesus--and not all of them were his disciples as both the cinematic Simon of Cyrene and Rabbi Gamaliel in the book of Acts shows.

As is commonly known, Gibson draws on a variety of sources: the NT, the stations of the cross, Emmerich's visions, and his own imagination. Of course, secular viewers have complained about the violence and, particularly, the blood of the film. One particularly desperate writer not only assumes the film is anti-semitic but also tries to cash in on old American Know-Nothing chips and ignite some good old Protestant hatred of the film.

But it's a total non-starter. Evangelicals are wild about the thing, and well they should be. A tiny minority of Fundies complain that it takes liberties with Scripture, but these are indeed a tiny minority. The rest recognize that liberties with Scripture are an old artistic practice. And the liberties are not so much contradictions as they are theological illustrations of obvious Scriptural teachings. So, for instance, Evangelicals know that there is "Power in the Blood". So do Catholics. After all, the blood, the selfsame blood that is splattered all over the scourgers at the Pillar, is the blood that we drink on the altar. We say in earnest, what the mob said in unconscious irony: "May his blood be on us and on our children." I pray that prayer will be granted me and my children all the days of our lives. So do Evangelicals. The main difference is that, as a Catholic, I regard the blood of Christ as being just as physical now (albeit sacramentally) as it was then, while my Evangelical friends have a piety that tends to be wary of encounters with the Incarnation in the here and now. (Though encounters with things like this film may serve to alter that.) And since Gibson is a Catholic, he has no trouble with that identification between the blood on the floor of the guardroom and the blood in the chalice. So we are shown the scene (straight from Emmerich) in which Mary blots up the blood of Christ with towels just as a Catholic would blot the spilled Precious Blood with a purificator. It's all one for Gibson because it's all one for any Catholic who knows his faith.

This link between Catholic teaching and the imagery of the film is brilliantly shown in the way Gibson has edited the film. So for instance, as Jesus gazes up to Mount Calvary, the scene suddenly cuts to the Sermon on the Mount and his admonition to love your enemies. As he is beaten, he falls on his back and can see only the foot of the soldier who is scourging him. The scene then cuts to Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. And as he falls to the ground at Calvary at the very feet of the Jewish rulers who condemn him (and who, by this time, an ignorant Christian may be tempted to blame) Gibson chooses that moment to flashback to Jesus saying, "No one takes my life from me. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again."

The awesome power of this film comes from the connections it makes (at least for me). I literally caught my breath when Gibson cuts to a scene from the Last Supper where the Passover bread is brought to the table, wrapped in cloth. The bread is set at the table and the cloth is taken off, then Gibson cuts back to Jesus being stripped of his garments. The bread is elevated for the consecration at the Last Supper, and Gibson cuts to the elevation of the cross ("If I be lifted up, I shall draw all men to me.") These kinds of juxtapositions occur throughout the film. Probably the most moving one is the scene where Mary is simply paralyzed by fear and cannot follow Jesus any further on the road. He stumbles under his cross. She has a flashback of him falling as a child and her running to comfort him. It somehow gives her the will to run to him again with the same words "I'm here." She is a comfort for him, yet he is somehow the greater comfort for her. His grace has made it possible for her to wrench free of her paralyzing fear. He looks at her and says, "Behold, I make all things new" (words from Revelation that remind us of the cosmic backdrop to this harrowing torment.

I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that this film is one of the most theologically informed films I've ever seen. Not a frame of it is left to chance. As to the complaints about blood and gore, I'm afraid that from a Catholic perspective, this only illustrates to me that most people don't, at the end of the day, *really* believe what we say when we talk about the blood of Christ and the agonies of the cross and so forth. In the end, I suspect there is something of the spirit that whispered to Simon Peter on Caesarea Philippi at work: "No, Master! This must never be!" We say that because (we assure ourselves) we don't want this "pornographic violence" (as the suddenly puritanical Andrew Sullivan and similiar critics have clucked). But, in reality, we are upset because we don't want to face that fact that the man who endured this said, "Take up *your* cross and follow me." It's not him we're concerned with. It's saving our own skins--as Peter himself discovered. In our heart of hearts, our response to the message of the cross is, if we are normal, "No. No thanks. Not if it involved that. He can't be serious."

Don't feel too smug about the Sullivans of the world recoiling in horror from that. If you don't recoil, you haven't thought about the implications of the gospel. I *hope* that, should it be necessary, I can someday be willing to endure what the gospel has cost some of our brothers and sisters--and supremely, our Lord. But I don't know if I could. I fervently pray I shall never have to find out.

In the meantime, I remember the counsel of a Father of the Church (Ephraim the Syrian, I think) who said, "Be kind to everyone you meet, for every person is fighting a great battle."

136 posted on 03/03/2004 7:25:40 PM PST by AlbionGirl ("Ha cambiato occhi per la coda.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grig
In the just over a year that I spent as a member of the LDS church, I immersed myself in everything I could to learn all that I could. Yet I do not recall anything about blood shed in the garden while praying being the key to attonement for our sins.

Why would the Bible and "Book of Mormon" be in such direct conflict? My personal belief is that anything in opposition to/in conflict with the Bible is, by default, incorrect/false.

Our God is not the author of confusion.

If you would like to take up this debate via freepmail, fire away. I don't see a reason to bog down this tread with any further theological debate.


137 posted on 03/03/2004 7:47:46 PM PST by TheBattman (Miserable failure = http://www.michaelmoore.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
The gospels seem to present a reasonably impartial, unhateful depiction of people behaving the way people in power usually do -- they are so sure they are right, so sure justice is on their side, that they toss aside the law in order to accomplish a "higher purpose." We have judges like that today, too.

Not just judges, anyone in any position of power can act this way...police officers, pastors, school teachers, professors...

...but his point is well made.

138 posted on 03/03/2004 8:03:41 PM PST by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
I had a feeling that he was a Mormon from his distance from "blood" in relation to Jesus' sacrifice. Mormons as well as some other "denominations" strive to take away the importance of the BLOOD in the sacrifice made. You see, The Old Testament sets the example for what is to come - the Law stated that BLOOD had to be spilled. Jesus represents the Perfect Lamb of sacrifice. For the remission (forgivenenss/attonement) of sins, blood must be shed.

You are correct Battman, the BLOOD is a very important part of the redemption. Also, the suffering from flogging is crticial as well, if only because it fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 53. This "lethal injection" nonsense was the only part of the article where I had some disagreement with the author. Otherwise, his analysis is supurb.

Back when their was a temple in Jerusalem, each year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur?) the priest had to sprinkle BLOOD on the ark in the Holy of Holies. It was the blood that was payment for the sins, along with the sacrifice of the animal. Both were, and still are necessary.

But, as Abraham prophesied so long ago: "God will provide the sacrifice." Thank you Jesus! He is the one final, perfect sacrifice. And just to make sure we get the point that his blood was sufficient, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and never rebuilt, about 40 years after the crucifixion. God destroys his own temple (using the Roman army) to make sure we get the message.

139 posted on 03/03/2004 8:17:16 PM PST by Ronzo (GOD alone is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
"If you would like to take up this debate via freepmail, fire away. I don't see a reason to bog down this tread with any further theological debate. "

Will do.
140 posted on 03/03/2004 8:32:33 PM PST by Grig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson