The Bible indicates Gibson actually went easy on the injuries to Jesus' face!

There has been a lot spoken and written about the "undue violence" in Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ".

But if w review the Biblical record, Gibson actually may have gone easy on the physical damage done to Jesus' face. Consider the following:

Isaiah 52:13-15 (prophecy about the Messiah): "Behold, my servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, my people, so his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men. Thus he will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand."

Matthew 26:67-68, "Then they spat in his face and beat him with their fists; and others slapped him, and said, 'Prophecy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit you?'"

Matthew 27:27-30, "The the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around him. And they stripped him, and put a scarlet robe on him. And after weaving a crown of thorns, they put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand; and they kneeled down before him and mocked him, saying, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they spat on him, and took the reed and began to beat him on the head.

Mark 15:16-19, "And the soldiers took him away into the palace (that is, the praetorium), and they called together the whole Roman cohort. And they dressed him up in purple, and after weaving a crown of thorns, they out it on him; and they began to proclaim him, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' And they kept beating his head with a reed [staff made of reed], and spitting at him, and kneeling and bowing before him."

Luke 22:63, "And the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him, an beating him. And they blindfolded him and were asking him, saying, 'Prophecy, Who is the one who hit you?'"

John 18:22, "And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying, 'Is that the way you answer the high priest?'"

John 19:1-3, "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and arrayed him in a purple robe; and they began to come up to him, and say, 'Hail, King of the Jews!' and to give him blows in the face.

Now, to put this in perspective, when is the last time you received a direct blow to the face (accidental or otherwise). Now, imagine someone hitting you in the face two or three times. Assuming the blows are full force, your face would probably swell up.

Now, consider that a Jesus was hit in the face on more than one occassion during that horrific day. Also consider that on one of the occassions "a whole Roman cohort" REPEATEDLY hit Jesus in the face.

No wonder Isaiah 52:14 says that "his appearance was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men"!

To be blunt, it appears from the accounts cited that Jesus' face was beaten to a swollen pulp. This may account for the fact that, after Jesus resurrection, the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him even as they spoke to him! (Luke, chapter 24)

True, Luke 24:16 seems to stress the eyes of those disciples being "vailed" or "kept from recognizing him" (depending on the translation). Still, the condition of Jesus' disfigured face may have been a factor used by God the father to prevent his immediate recognition.

And, in case somebody is wondering if Jesus continued to bare these wounds after his resurrection, the answer seems to be YES! In addition to Luke 24:16, John 20:24-28 depicts Jesus as showing Thomas his wounds. Also, Revelation 5:6 depicts the Messiah as "a lamb standing, as if slain..."

But let us not forget why this terrible murder of Jesus took place (If you're reading this, Mr. Gibson, place direct a prequal and a sequal!):

Romans 4:25, "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

BTW, This is not an optional belief for those who seeking truth, or salvation from the coming wrath. It is a necessary belief. In fact, Paul says Jesus death, burial and resurrection IS the gospel! Therefore a denial of this death, burial and resurrection is a denial of the gospel itself:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4, "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures."

Romans 10:9, 10, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Gibson also curiously avoided many aspects and words related to what Jesus said would happen once the corrupt leaders of the nation murdered him -- in violation of their own laws. "You will die in your sins!" -- Armaggedon, etc. Thus, we are left only with a tale of his sacrifice (and unlawful murder of our Savior), and no mention at all of the context -- defense of the political unity of Israel (and ALL nations for that matter), how entire nations, not just individuals, can be sifted like chaff from the wheat, the role of the Church (to separate the wheat from the chaff), etc., etc. He died, in part, so that their evil way of life would be DESTROYED (if not in our world, then at the end of the world).

It is historical revisionism to portray Jesus as not mentioning anything about the Devil (who appears as a ghostly figure throughout), HELL, fire, the sword, Armaggedon, etc. What was coming to the people who were unlawfully murdering him...It helps to understand the historical context a lot better. The political and religious leaders of that era were rabid and murderous, not only because of what they had become, but because they violently rejected (like Demons) His message and his warnings of a Hellish ending to their entire way of life if they did not reform their ways -- of which He was entirely correct (once Roman armies came in and laid waste to much of the land in 68-70AD).

Finally, it does appear that Gibson was using Mark and John -- the original "source" Gospels, without some of the toned down and modified twists of Matthew and Luke.

Regarding Psalm 22 ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"), here is an excellent article from www.answers.org, written by the late Bob Passantino, husband of Gretchen Passantino (she wrote that 'Passion' article I posted). This article provides an excellent analysis of what Jesus meant:

"Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?"
By Bob Passantino

"On the cross Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Many Christians believe this signifies the one and only time that there was a split between the first two persons of the Trinity, that is, between the Father and the Son. The argument asserts that when Jesus "became sin," the Father was unable to look upon him, hence he "forsook" Jesus. This argument seeks to emphasize the great cost to Christ on our behalf. He was even willing to endure separation from the Father to accomplish our salvation. However, I believe such an interpretation, while well intentioned, has heretical implications.[1] It is a denial of belief in one eternal, indivisible God.

First, if the Father cannot look upon sin, meaning that he had to turn away from the Son on the cross (and I have found no verse which says that), then what does that say about the character and deity of Jesus? Is Jesus somehow less than God, so that he can "look upon" the sin that was laid on him on the cross? Or does he simply have a stronger stomach for sin than the Father? Or perhaps Jesus is more merciful than the Father, able to suffer what the Father cannot even face? It is interesting that in Genesis 6:5, God looked upon the sin of mankind. When scripture says that God cannot "look" upon sin, contextually it means he cannot look with approval upon sin. His consistent reaction to sin is just judgment - against the unrepentant sinner, or through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the one who died in our place and on our behalf.

Second, Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time. Jesus did not believe God had forsaken him: this would be lack of faith, which is sin (Romans 14:23), and Jesus never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He was himself God and always in perfect obedience to the Father. Instead, he referred to the psalm in its entirety as a messianic psalm. That he knew God had not actually forsaken him is clear from the same psalm, which says, "He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard" (verse 24). In fact, Jesus was declaring to his accusers that they were in the midst of fulfilling this psalm, which was commonly understood in His day to refer to the coming Messiah, the Suffering Servant. The psalmist himself understood that the "forsaking" of God was not abandonment, but a lifting of His Sovereign protection according to His divine plan so that the threats of his enemies could be carried out in fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, there were many times during Jesus' public ministry when His enemies sought to kill him (John 5:16; 8:59, for examples). They were not able to because, as He said, His "hour" was not yet come (John 12:23-28). He declared to Pilate, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11). On the day of Pentecost Peter declared that no one could have crucified Christ in defiance of God's power: "Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24).

Third, when 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Jesus "to be sin," it means that God made the penalty for all sin to fall upon Jesus, not that Jesus himself could become sin, e.g., sinful. As perfect God and perfect man, he could not sin. 1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus "a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Fourth, is it reasonable to assume that the Father would desert the Son who was acting in obedience to him through every moment of existence, "obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:8)? Is it consistent with the character of God for the Father to reward Christ's obedience with rejection? On the contrary, Ephesians 5:2 says Christ's sacrifice was "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma."

Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a "split" between any persons of the eternal Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any "split" in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.

In conclusion, it is fallible humans who think the Father would reject the Son on the cross. The bond between the Father and the Son is inseparable, not only because of their deity, but because of the complete agreement between their wills, desires, mercy, justice, and love for mankind, exemplified in Christ's great sacrifice on the cross. Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, records the erroneous reaction of men to Christ's humiliating death: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted." Christ's declaration on the cross, far from being a admission of separation or abandonment, is a powerful affirmation of God's essential unity, perfect justice, sovereign power, and matchless grace.

For further information on this problem, I recommend James Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, Vol. Two, pp. 66-69).

1. This view and my view are not the only possible interpretations of this passage, and there are interpretations other than mine that do not have implicatory problems. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to address those alternate interpretations."

First off theologians do not impress me but the power of God does. Secondly you think Jesus was God and he was not, he was a man like you and me. If Jesus had special powers we do not have, God would be unjust to use Jesus as the measure. Jesus was a man who walked in obedience to the Father perfectly because the Father upheld him. He was born under the Law and his soul was not upright in him but he had the Spirit of the Father. Jesus could do nothing on his own. He could only do what the Father told him and allowed him to do. Even Jesus said he was not good but there was only one good and that was the Father.

Why would you believe a theologian and not Peter or Paul or Jesus?

I can walk exactly like Jesus on the Earth once my faith is perfected because it wont be me doing the work but my Father in heaven. The Father wants us to walk like Jesus did because Jesus was obedient to the voice of God.

If I were you I would toss my theological knowledge out the door and grab the bible and let the Spirit of God lead you to repentence and then to give you understanding.

Do you think you can study your way to God? Do you think an illiterate person can not find God? How did Noah find God? How did Abraham or Adam? God does not promote you because of your intellectual capacity or reading ability.

First off theologians do not impress me but the power of God does.

Did you even read the article? Bob Passantino was a friend of mine, and I can assure you he was not interested in impressing people in the way you seem concerned about. Bob "Rightly handled the word of truth" as the Apostle instructs.

Secondly you think Jesus was God and he was not, he was a man like you and me.

Um...yes..he most certainly is God:
John 1:1, 14 "...the word was God...the word became flesh"

John 10:31-33, "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to him [Jesus], 'My Lord and my God!'"