MEL GIBSON’S FILM “THE PASSION OF CHRIST”

Standard

Updated March 29, 2005 (first published February
6, 2004) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O.
Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for
instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses,
see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

Mel
Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ” has been re-released in a
recut version, with some of the violence removed, and advertising had
been increased during Lent and Easter this year, so we want to renew
our warning about it.

While Jewish and many secular
reviewers have treated the film with great negativity, it has been
extremely popular with Evangelicals and Catholics.

After
a private showing, Billy Graham praised it. He even said, “Every time I
preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be
on my heart and mind.” Mission America Coalition plans to use the movie
for evangelism. Campus Crusade is promoting it. Rick Warren’s
Saddleback Church in southern California purchased 18,000 tickets. The
Evangelical Free Church of Naperville, Illinois, purchased more than
1,000. Two members of Wheaton Bible Church in Wheaton, Illinois, have
offered to buy out two screenings of the movie at a local theater.

Southern
Baptists are agog at Gibson’s movie. Jack Graham, president of the
Southern Baptist Convention, said, “The movie is biblical, powerful and
potentially life-changing.” Morris Chapman, president of the executive
committee of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “I don’t know of
anything since the Billy Graham crusades that has had the potential of
touching so many lives.” Not to be outdone, popular SBC preacher Adrian
Rogers even believes this Hollywood movie “is going to bring the Church
away from me-ology back to theology” (“Gibson’s Words Fuel
Controversy,” AgapePress, Feb. 20).

After Gibson
showed part of the movie to a convention of the Full Gospel Business
Men’s Fellowship, he received a standing ovation. Afterward, the
daughter of the organization’s president laid hands on Gibson and asked
Jesus to “bind Satan, bind the press, we ask you, Lord” (Peter Boyer,
“The Jesus War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). (Thus we see yet another unanswered charismatic spiritual warfare prayer.)

Worship Leader
magazine for Feb. 2004 offered a free guide to Gibson’s movie and says,
“There has never been a film like it! Powerful, life changing, an
unprecedented opportunity for evangelism & discipleship.”

Robert
Schuller was given a private showing and afterward proclaimed to
Gibson, “It’s not your dream, this is God’s dream. He gave it to you,
because He knew you wouldn’t throw it away. Trust Him” (“The Jesus
War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003).

The
movie has been recommended by psychologist James Dobson and by Don
Hodel, the current president of Focus on the Family. Ted Haggard,
president of the National Evangelical Association, called Gibson “the
Michelangelo of this generation.” The American Tract Society proclaimed
on its Web site that the movie is “one of the greatest opportunities
for evangelism in 2,000 years.” According to Teen Mania, at least 3,000
youth leaders have bought kits that instruct young people in how to use
the film for evangelism.


A ROMAN CATHOLIC MOVIE

Mel
Gibson belongs to a Traditionalist Catholic group that performs the
mass in Latin, abstains from meat on Fridays, eschews ecumenism and
other such things that were changed at the Vatican II Council in the
1960s. Gibson built his own Catholic chapel, called Holy Family, near
his California home. During the filming, Gibson attended a Catholic
mass every morning with the misguided desire “to be squeaky clean.”

The script was translated into Aramaic and Latin by Jesuit priest William Fulco.

What gospel is Gibson trying to preach through this movie? It is the
Catholic gospel of sacramentalism. When asked by a Protestant
interviewer if someone can be saved apart from the Roman Catholic
Church, Gibson replied, “There is no salvation for those outside the
Church” (Peter Boyer, “The Jesus War,” The New Yorker, Sept. 15. 2003). This was the official teaching of Rome prior to Vatican II.

According
to Romanism, Jesus Christ died on the cross and purchased redemption
and then delivered this redemption to the Catholic Church to be
distributed to men piecemeal via the seven sacraments. Man cannot
receive eternal salvation directly from Christ through faith; he must
approach Christ through the Catholic Church, via baptism, confirmation,
mass, confession to a Catholic priest, etc. The Catholic Church teaches
that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was not once for all sufficient but
must be perpetuated in the mass, which is called a non-bloody
sacrifice. Consider this statement from the Vatican II Council: “Hence
the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a
sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated … For in
it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on
the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world’s salvation
through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II Documents, “The
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the
Eucharistic Mystery,” Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108).

The New Catholic Catechism
of 1992 said, “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the
Eucharist are one single sacrifice … In this divine sacrifice which
is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in
a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in
an unbloody manner.” The creed of Pope Pius IV, which authoritatively
summarized the teaching of the Council of Trent, stated: “I profess
likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and
propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in the
most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and
substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity
of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In accordance with Catholic
theology, Gibson identifies the Mass with Christ’s sacrifice. He told
Eternal Word Television Network that the “sacrifice of the cross” and
“the sacrifice of the altar” are “the same thing” (EWTNews Feature,
Jan. 13, 2004, http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=42801). He depicts this in the movie by juxtaposing the crucifix scene with that of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

A MOVIE BASED ON VISIONS AND CENTERED ON MARY

The
movie is not based solely on the Bible but also on the visions of Roman
Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda.
Gibson obtained the writings of these mystics when he purchased the
library of a closed nunnery.

Of the visions of Emmerich Gibson said, “She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of” (The New Yorker, Sept. 15, 2003).

Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German nun who allegedly had the stigmata
or wounds of Christ in her body. Emmerich supposedly “had the use of
reason from her birth and could understand liturgical Latin from her
first time at Mass.” During the last 12 years of her life, she
allegedly ate no food except the wafer of the Catholic mass. Her
visions on the life of Christ were published in 1824 under the title
“The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” They are
still in print and were consulted by Gibson. An advertisement for
Emmerich’s Life of the Virgin Mary says, “This book is filled
with unusual, saintly descriptions that are not recorded in the Gospel
story — descriptions that supplement and illustrate the Biblical
narrative in a way that makes the actual Scripture passages truly come
alive.” Thus these alleged visions go beyond the Bible. According to
Emmerich’s visions, Protestants also go to purgatory but they suffer
more than Catholics because no one prays for them or offers masses for
them. She taught that it is more holy to pray for souls in purgatory
than for sinners who are still alive. Her deceptive visions on the
suffering of Christ describe His scourging and crucifixion in great
detail, giving many “facts” which do not appear in Scripture. For
example, she claimed that Christ “quivered and writhed like a poor
worm” and that He “cried in a suppressed voice, and a clear,
sweet-sounding wailing” as He was being beaten. She even claimed that
Christ “glanced at His torturers, and sued for mercy.” She also claimed
that Jesus suffered from a wound on his shoulder more than any other.

Mary of Agreda (1602-1665) was also a Catholic nun and visionary
mystic. Her entire family entered monasteries and convents in 1618,
which means that her mother and father disobeyed 1 Corinthians 7 and
separated for the sake of the Catholic church. She was given to trances
and even claimed that she could leave her body and teach people in
foreign lands. Her book The Mystical City of God
is about Mary. Like the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, those of
Mary of Agreda go far beyond the Bible. For example, she claimed that
though Joseph ate meat, Jesus and Mary seldom did.

Not
surprisingly, therefore, Gibson’s film contains gross errors when
judged by the biblical account. It is, indeed, a Catholic movie. For
example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the devil is depicted with
Christ, whereas the Bible says nothing about this. And the devil is
depicted as a woman. Mary Magdalene is depicted falsely as the
adulteress that Jesus saved from being stoned. After Christ is whipped,
Mary gets down on her knees and wipes up the blood. Mary is depicted as
accompanying Christ all of the way to the cross and basically enduring
the suffering with Him. On the way to the cross, Jesus tells Mary,
“Behold I make all things new.” As Jesus falls on the way to the cross,
there is a flashback to his childhood, when he supposedly fell and Mary
ran to pick him up. Mary is depicted as holding Jesus in her arms when
He is taken down from the cross. The apostles address Mary as “Mother”
throughout the movie. Mary is even depicted with supernatural powers.
One man who saw the movie described the following scene: “Mary was
walking across a stone courtyard and then stopped and went prostrate on
the ground, placing her ear to the stones. The camera went down, as if
through the earth, and showed Jesus hanging in chains from the stone
ceiling of a jail cell. Jesus felt Mary’s presence, and looked up at
her, as if to see her through the stones.” In another scene, “Mary is
watching Jesus being flogged and Jesus in turn looks to Satan who is
standing amongst the Roman soldiers holding what looks like (for lack
of a better description) a pale oversized retarded or demonic baby that
mocks and laughs at Jesus.”

Then there is the
relentless torture itself, which goes far beyond what the Bible
depicts. One movie reviewer rightly observed that if Jesus had actually
been treated as described in Mel Gibson’s movie, he would have been
dead long before he reached the cross!

In an interview with Rachel Abramowitz of the Los Angeles Times
(“He’s Bruised, Defiant over Persecution,” Jan. 15), Gibson said, “Now
the message he [Christ] brought was one of peace and love and tolerance
— all the messages of tolerance that I put in there, particularly
toward the end.” The message of peace, love, and tolerance is popular
today, but it is not exactly the message that Jesus Christ preached. He
did exemplify the greatest love known to mankind, but He also
proclaimed Himself as the only Lord and Saviour, that no man can come
unto God except through Him (Jn. 10:7, 8; 14:6). He preached frequently
on eternal hellfire, warning that all men will go there unless they are
born again through faith in Him (Jn. 3; Mat. 25:46). He warned that men
will be judged in every area of their lives, even every idle word (Mat.
12:36). He warned that He did not come to bring peace to the earth but
division and a sword (Mat. 10:34; Lk. 12:51).

Jim
Caviezel, who plays Jesus in the Gibson film, is also a staunch Roman
Catholic. He prayed to St. Genesius of Arles and St. Anthony of Padua
for help in his acting career. He has visited Medjugorje to witness the
site where Mary allegedly appeared to six young people. One of the
things that Mary allegedly told them is that the pope “should consider
himself as the father of all people and not only the Christians.”
Caviezel said, “This film is something that I believe was made by Mary
for her Son” (Interview with Jim and Kerri Caviezel by Catholic priest
Mario Knezovic, Radio “Mir” Medjugorje, December 2003; http://www.medjugorje.hr/int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm).
Caviezel also said that his goal with the movie is to “bring mankind
back together.” Caviezel said that he was given “a piece of the true
cross, which he kept with him all of the time during the filming of the
movie. He also had relics of “Padre Pio, St. Anthony of Padoua, Ste
Maria Goretti, and saint Denisius, the Patron saint of Actors.” He
prayed the Rosary to Mary every day.

The Jesus in Mel
Gibson’s movie is depicted in the typical fashion with long hair,
whereas the Bible is clear that Jesus would not have worn long hair (1
Cor. 11:14). Gibson got his inspiration for the long-haired Jesus from
the Shroud of Turin. He attempted to re-create the face depicted on the
Shroud.

ROMAN CATHOLICS UNDERSTAND THAT “THE PASSION” IS A CATHOLIC MOVIE

When
Gibson’s movie opened in February 2004, Roman Catholics understood that
it is a Catholic film. Following are comments by Catholics that were
placed on the FreeRepublic.com web site:

“It
is also a very Catholic film. It is, in essence, a filming of the
Stations of the Cross. It also has a strong emphasis on Mary and the
Eucharist.”

“As the author above said, the movie is
profoundly Eucharistic. Mel has woven the Last Supper together with the
actions of the Passion in a very similar manner to the way that old
Catholic devotional books used to do.” [He does this by a flashback to
the Last Supper during the beginning of crucifixion, when Jesus is
raised up on the cross.]

“The other thing about the movie is how Marian it is. You go through
the whole thing at the side of Mary with John and Magdalene. You see a
lot of the action through her eyes. She goes every step of the way of
the cross and really suffers with Him. At the end, she holds her Son’s
dead Body and looks straight into the camera and right through into the
core of your own soul. Her gesture seems to offer Him to you
personally.”

“The flashbacks used throughout the motion picture were perfectly
placed, and they served to beautifully emphasize our Blessed Mother’s
role as Mediatrix, the Eucharist, the Holy Ghost, and many other
crucial aspects of our Faith.”

In
light of the grossly unscriptural Catholicism of the movie, what does
the widespread support of the same by Evangelicals tell us? The
following important question is raised by former Catholic priest
Richard Bennett: “WILL HISTORY REVEAL THIS DAY AS THE TIME WHEN
EVANGELICALISM, ON A POPULAR LEVEL, MERGED WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH?” (Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar, “The Passion of Christ:
Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception,” http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/mel_gibsons_vivid_deception.htm).



WHY IS THE MOVIE SO BRUTAL?

The
film is rated R because of its violence. The scourging and crucifixion
are shown in great detail. In fact, it goes far, far beyond the
biblical account. In his review of the film, Roger Friedman observed:

“But
the real problem with ‘The Passion’ is that it is graphic beyond
belief, and unrelenting. How anyone will be able to sit through this
thing is the real mystery. There is blood, blood, everywhere. The
violence toward Jesus is sadistic and grotesque. Basically, the entire
second half of the film is spent watching Jesus endure physical torture
never before seen in a movie. By the time it’s done, actor James
Caviezel’s body is a map of bloody rivers and lakes with craters of
flesh excised from his torso. Is this disgusting? You bet. It’s also
puzzling, because what Gibson hasn’t done in ‘The Passion’ is explain
his love of Christ or his own passion or devotion. We have no idea why
Christ is so reviled by the Jews, what he’s done to earn their anger,
or what he’s done to earn Gibson’s respect. From the moment the film
begins, Jesus is simply a target for unbridled, unrestrained bloodlust.
Yes, we get to see the nails driven through him, blood spurting in
every direction, skin being torn in the process. Is there anything
that’s learned by witnessing this enactment? I wish I could say there
was, but there isn’t. IT’S SIMPLE BRUTALITY, WITH A HARD ROCK MUSIC
TRACK PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND” (Fox News, Feb. 25, 2004).

A woman who saw the film and posted her review of it on the FreeRepublic web site said:

“The
film is unrelentingly violent. It’s blood-soaked. Jesus gets so whipped
you can see his ribs, blood spatters all over the cobblestones, and the
sound is frighteningly realistic. And it doesn’t stop after a pivotal
scene or two — it goes on and on and on. Non-stop violence. … He
drags the cross while enduring more whipping. There’s a trail of blood
on the ground behind him. He falls, gets up, falls, gets up, falls,
over and over. … When it comes to the crucifixion, Jesus doesn’t just
get his hands nailed to a cross, no — once he’s nailed to the cross
the Romans flip the cross over and Jesus lands face first into the
ground. Finally they prop up the cross and he dies pretty quickly after
that…” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084596/posts?page=56#56).

Contrary
to Gibson’s Catholic movie, the Bible does not focus on the violence of
the crucifixion. Following is how the Bible describes the crucifixion.

“…
and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then
the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and
gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped him,
and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of
thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and
they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of
the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on
the head. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off
from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify
him. And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name:
him they compelled to bear his cross. And when they were come unto a
place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull, they gave
him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof,
he would not drink. And they crucified him…” (Matthew 27:26-35).

Thus we see that the Bible does not linger on the details of Christ’s suffering. The Bible’s description is not R-rated.

While
it is true that “by his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5), this does
not mean that salvation came through Christ’s beating. The focus of the
Scriptures is not upon Christ’s suffering but upon Him being made sin
in the sinner’s place. It was not Christ’s suffering in itself that
made the atonement; it was our sin being laid upon Christ during His
suffering. That is why Christ cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” God laid the sins of the world upon Christ. That is what
has made our salvation possible. “For he hath made him to be sin for
us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Further, it was not Christ’s suffering in general
that made the atonement; it was precisely His blood and death. “Much
more then, being now justified BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from
wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God BY THE DEATH of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be
saved by his life” (Rom. 5:9, 10).

Why does Gibson
make Christ’s suffering the very focus of his film, then? Why did he
not give a more comprehensive life of Christ and thus give the viewers
the entire story that leads up to the crucifixion?



The
reason is found in Catholic theology. In the gospel according to Rome,
the focus is on suffering, not only Jesus’ suffering but the suffering
of others. Allegedly, Jesus, by His suffering, purchased merit which
was delivered to the Catholic Church. This cache of merit was and is
increased by the suffering and good deeds of the “saints.” The
salvation thus purchased through suffering and good deeds is
distributed to sinners via the seven Catholic sacraments, the chief of
which are baptism, the mass, and confession to a priest. Rome’s gospel
focuses not on the once-for-all atonement which Christ purchased on the
cross, but on a continuing, never-ending suffering which is repeated in
the mass.

Thus, in Catholic churches Christ is
depicted as perpetually suffering in the Seven Stations of the Cross;
He is perpetually hanging on the cross. He is rarely depicted as the
victorious, resurrected Christ but always rather as the weak,
ever-suffering, always-dead Christ on the cross or in Mary’s arms
either at birth or following the crucifixion.

Whereas
the Bible focuses more on Christ’s resurrection than His actual
suffering, the Roman Catholic Church focuses far more on His suffering.
This is exactly what we see in Mel Gibson’s movie.

Further, the demonic visitations of “Mary” at Medjugorje and other
places focus on the sufferings of Christ and teach wrongly that men
must make atonement for the suffering that He endured. One of the
messages from the alleged Mary at Medjugorje said, “Dear children, this
evening I pray that you especially venerate the Heart of my Son, Jesus.
Make reparation for the wound inflicted on the Heart of My Son”
(Message of April 5, 1985).

This is exactly the opposite of the message of the Bible, which tells
us that Christ suffered for our sins and that there is nothing that man
can do to add to that complete salvation. Hebrews 1:3 proclaims that
Jesus Christ “BY HIMSELF purged our sins.” Eight times in Hebrews 7-10,
the Bible tells us that Christ suffered “ONCE” for our sins.” “Neither
by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in
ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”
(Heb. 9:12).

THE MORAL FILTH ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOVIE

Monica Bellucci, the actress who plays Mary Magdalene in Gibson’s movie, posed for the 2001 GQ Italia Totally Nude calendar. She has appeared in the nude or nearly nude in many movies, including Irreversible, Melena, Brotherhood of the Wolf, a Dracula movie, and Under Suspicion. Describing the film Irreversible, a
professional movie reviewer says it “makes pure pornography look pretty
appealing in comparison.” The reviewer, Steve Rhodes, said it should be
rated X, and based on his reviews of other films, it is obvious that he
is no “prude.” The movie has a ten minute anal rape scene featuring
Mrs. Bellucci, which is “complete with penetration shots and depictions
of sodomy” (http://us.imdb.com/Reviews/343/34312). The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards gave this warning about Bellucci’s Irreversible:
“Premiered at last years Cannes Film Festival, ‘Irreversible’ proved so
shocking that 250 people walked out, some needing medical attention”
and described the movie as “hard-core pornography” (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0303/S00182.htm).

Mel Gibson has made the millions that he used to finance the movie
through his roles in R-rated films that have contributed significantly
to the moral debasement of society, such as Mad Max, Braveheart, Payback, and the extremely violent Lethal Weapon
series. In the latter Gibson played a rogue policeman who excels in
violence. Most of his movies are filled with foul language and
profanity, including those he has made during the past 12 years since,
according to his own testimony, he has been dreaming about making The Passion of the Christ. The Payback
movie, for example, contained at least 94 instances of cursing
(including the most vile words) and filthy language and using the name
of the Lord in vain, according to one reviewer. Gibson also starred in
the sexually debauched 2000 film What Women Want. In this movie
Gibson played “a character named Nick whose goal in life was to bed all
the women his lustful heart desired.” One Christian reviewer summarized
Gibson’s movies as follows: “The legacy of Mel Gibson has been sexual
immorality, profanity, coarse jesting, extreme violence and
vigilantism” (Joseph Herrin, The Passion of Mel Gibson, http://www.watch-unto-prayer.org/cast.html#gerini).

BUT WHAT ABOUT EVANGELISM?

Many
are making much of this movie as an evangelistic opportunity. In light
of its unscriptural nature, the only evangelistic opportunity we see is
to assist the unsaved that have seen the movie.

I
have heard from several brethren who are doing this. They know that the
movie is not godly or scriptural and they are not using the movie
itself for evangelism, because they know that it is not a proper medium
and that it has as much potential to confuse the gospel as to present
it; but they have prepared gospel materials to distribute to those who
have seen the movie or who are thinking about the subject of the movie
in order to lead them to the truth.

I must be quick to say, though, that I doubt that many people who see
and love this movie will subsequently be open to full-orbed biblical
truth that includes an exposure of idolatry, an emphasis on the
pre-eminence of faith, and a bold defense of the faith against every
heresy. Think about that.

CONCLUSION: IDOLATRY VS. FAITH

In
conclusion, we would warn that attempts to portray Jesus Christ are
idolatrous. The law of God forbids man to make any likeness of God.

“Take
ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of
similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the
midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven
image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female”
(Deut. 4:15-16).

Man has no divine
authority to do this type of thing. It is presumptuous in the extreme
for a fallen man to attempt to portray the holy, sinless, eternal Son
of God. As for Christ’s deity, that would be impossible to depict, and
even His humanity is not depicted properly in this film. The only thing
the Bible tells us about Christ’s earthly appearance is the following
statement from Isaiah: “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we
shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah
53:2). Further, we know that Jesus Christ was a Jewish man. Thus,
whatever Jesus looked like, he certainly DID NOT look like the handsome
Caucasian Hollywood movie star that plays the part in Gibson’s film!

The
following warning about depictions of Jesus is from Andrew Webb: “Billy
Graham in his endorsement of The Passion of Christ said, ‘Every time I
preach or speak about the Cross, the things I saw on the screen will be
on my heart and mind’ (“What Others Are Saying,” http://www.passionchrist.org).
This is unfortunately part of the problem with all visual
representations of Jesus. Although we may intend for them only to have
a role in teaching, they inevitably become part of our worship and
adoration. As a result of seeing this film James Caviezel, the ‘Jesus’
of The Passion of Christ, will become the figure countless
thousands if not millions of people think of when they worship Jesus
Christ. To do this is to fall into the trap of changing ‘the glory of
the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man’ (Romans
1:23) and to violate the Second Commandment.” (For the complete article
see http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:E3yWWAGCuC8J:forums.5solas.org/showthread.php%3Fgoto%3Dlastpost%26t%3D1518+%22s 2/19/04)

Note the following warning about depictions of Christ from former Catholic priest Richard Bennett:

“Creating
a visual representation of the Lord Jesus, by definition, is to portray
‘another Jesus.’ The Lord Jesus in His Person, character, and work is
divine and perfect. No Savior other than the One proclaimed in
Scripture is permissible. Those who claim they are only depicting the
humanity of Jesus Christ fall into the grievous heresy of Nestorius, as
they wrongly attempt to divide the humanity from the deity of Christ,
ending up with idols produced by the imaginations of their own hearts.
The Lord God gave believers a Wordbook, not a picture book. … The
visual works of a man’s devising, for all their emotional power, are
too dull a tool to bring to the individual conviction of sin and the
explicit Gospel of grace that the Written Word and the truth preached
bring” (Richard Bennett and J. Virgil Dunbar, “The Passion of Christ:
Mel Gibson’s Vivid Deception,” http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/mel_gibsons_vivid_deception.htm).

God has ordained that men approach Him by faith, and faith does not come by seeing; it comes by hearing God’s Word.

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

“For we walk by faith, NOT BY SIGHT” (2 Cor. 5:7).

“For we are saved by hope: but HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NOT HOPE: for what
a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” (Rom. 8:24).

“Whom HAVING NOT SEEN, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet
believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Pet.
1:8).

Evangelicals
and fundamentalists who are supporting this movie are supporting
godless movie theaters, a Roman Catholic producer who preaches a false
gospel, an R-rated Hollywood movie star, and a movie that is based on
the Mary-centered visions of deluded Catholic mystics.

There are many other articles warning about “The Passion of the Christ” at the Way of Life web site. See the End Times Apostasy Database.

See Also:

Responses from Readers

Links to External Articles

In His Service,

Source:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/melgibson-thepassionofthechrist/melgibsons-film.html

Marie M. Buchanan, M.Ps.
Researcher, Webmaster, Pastor-Assistant, Translator, Blogger
http://www.the-truth-ministries.us





Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

One thought on “MEL GIBSON’S FILM “THE PASSION OF CHRIST”

  1. Pingback: Resources for Matthew 27:26 - 35

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s