smerickson.com the personal website of steven m. erickson

Now that the film has been released, I have had some ask me for my views on it. After many conversations, these are some of the issues that I see as important. I will comment on them under the following four headings: 1) Scripture, 2) mediums of communication, 3) meaning, intention and interpretation, and 4) the Gospel.

1. The Sufficiency of Scripture

I begin by affirming that this movie does, for the most part, remain true to the telling of the Passion of Christ as it is written in the four Gospels. I do not deny the fact that there are many Biblical citations and allusions all throughout the film, and for this I am truly grateful. However, it should also be noted that there are things in this film which do not have their foundation in the pages of Holy Scriptures. The two main sources where these things have come from are Anne Catherine Emmerich’s book and Gibson’s own experience and imagination. Many have said that these extra-biblical scenes have enhanced the film and made it more powerful to watch. Scenes which give us more insight into the Spiritual realm of what is happening, the thoughts and memories of Christ as he reflects on his life and ministry, and more details about certain characters. All of the things in the film which are added to the Biblical account of Christ’s passion could have possibly taken place, but they are just that, possibilities. What is the warrant or reason for introducing these mere possibilities into the Biblical account? There are many things which I could think of that could have possibly happened during those twelve hours, but establishing possibilities is not the issue, the issue is establishing the necessity of introducing these extra-biblical details, no matter how beneficial they may seem to be. Why is it necessary, not just possible, to supplement the Biblical account?

While I know that it is not the intention of those who say these things to downplay the authority, sufficiency and clarity of Scripture, it is not the comments that I would expect from those who would claim a strong commitment to God’s Word. As Protestants, we are people who believe firmly in the power of God’s word. So much so that there were some in our heritage who gave their lives that the Scriptures might be available to every person. It is makes me sad, then, that some would say that God’s Word does not “move” them in the way that a movie like the Passion does. Our emotions are more stirred by a man’s vivid depiction of Christ than we are by God’s own revelation to humanity in the Bible. We are no longer grateful or amazed that God has made himself known in history and ordained means whereby that revelation was recorded in written form for future generations. Instead we look to the things around us for a fuller understanding of that revelation and perhaps even a better way of communicating it than writing, reading, teaching and preaching.

2. Mediums of Communication

This brings me to my second major issue which I see as foundational to other concerns about the movie. The question that has been raised in my mind is this: Is the visual an adequate medium for communicating Christian truths? It should be clear to all that we live in an age where the visual is seen as the highest form of communication. We have TV’s in every room of our houses, there are billboards and advertising posters everywhere, we use PowerPoint slides to enhance our oral communications, etc. Studies have been done which claim to teach us that people learn best when they can see something rather than just read or hear it. With all of that in mind, it can seem somewhat shocking when one comes to Scripture and finds command after command to read, teach and preach the Word. Is it simply our cultural distance which makes these forms of communication seem “outdated”? I guess my main question is, when the Bible speaks of preaching the Word, does it have in mind the use of images or movies? Has God promised to work through the viewing of a movie in the same way he has through the preaching of his Word? Many would say that these are the same thing; that a movie can communicate truth equally as well as preaching and in most cases, better. Gibson has told stories about why he attends the Latin mass. Because there in an element of mystery involved and it is not about understanding what is going on but simply seeing it. Undoubtedly this was probably an influence in wanting to film the movie in Latin and Aramaic. My concern then is, what does that say about our belief in the personal aspect of communicating Gospel truth – if it can be communicated more powerfully by seeing an impersonal movie than in the personal faith of believers acted out in love for their neighbor? What does that say about our belief in the spoken and preached Word of God – if pictures (even in another language) can communicate to our understanding the truths of the Christian faith better than words? Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that God cannot work through movies. What I am saying is that he has not promised to do so in the same way he has when his word is faithfully preached.

3. Interpretation, Meaning and Intention

If indeed the visual is an adequate medium for communicating Christian truth, how then is it to be interpreted? Wherein does the meaning lie? As already stated there are scenes in this movie which are not found in the Gospel accounts. They do not just happen to be in the movie; they were put there with a purpose. The place of Mary in this film is directly related to Gibson and Emmerich’s Catholic beliefs about her. That is not a secret. Likewise, the flashbacks on the cross to the scenes of the Last Supper are in the film because, as Gibson has said, see understands the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice of the Mass to be the same thing. Gibson is not trying to hide these things and subversely communicate them to his audience. He has been forthright in sharing his reasons for certain cinematic decisions. With all of that said, this is a movie, and films can be viewed by many and interpreted in many different ways. As a result, can we legitimately dismiss the director’s stated intentions for certain things in this movie with which we do not agree? Can we simply dismiss his motives for including a scene and interpret it another way? I’m not sure.

My concern is that there will be those who go and see this movie who, having never read their Bibles, will think that this is an accurate portrayal of Evangelical beliefs when on some accounts it is not. Again, let me state that this movie does, for the most part, remain true to the testimony of Scripture, but it is at the other parts, especially when they are juxtaposed with Scriptural accounts, where we need to offer a Biblical corrective, not reinterpret them and simply dismiss their stated objectives.

4. The Gospel

Finally and most importantly, even after having spoken with people who have seen it, this film does not adequately convey the truth of the Gospel. Yet this that is exactly what it has tried to do. That this is the intention behind the movie is clear. On the homepage of Passionoutreach.com they have a quote from Gibson, “My hope is that this movie will affect people on a very profound level and reach them with a message of faith, hope, love and forgiveness.” Gibson’s movie is the way he has chosen to communicate that message. By seeing this film, Gibson hopes that people will be affected on a very profound level and recognize the message of faith, hope, love and forgiveness. Does this film adequately present the entire truth of the Gospel message?

While I have heard many praise this movie because it so clearly communicates the message that Christ died for us and bore on his body the penalty for our sins, I have not heard anyone talk about how in this movie the righteousness of God is revealed. Not the righteousness of God whereby he justly punished the sins of the Church on Christ, but the righteousness of God in Christ which is imputed to us only by faith. True that this movie probably brings out the point that Christ was innocent and according to the world’s standards being unjustly punished, but it does not stress the righteous life which he lived that satisfied God’s holy demands. When we place our trust in Christ we are trusting not only in his sacrifice on our behalf but for his righteousness which permits us to stand before God as just. Salvation, specifically justification (being in right standing before God), requires two things. The first is that the penalty for the sins of the guilty be paid. This is being communicated when people point to passages like Isaiah 53 for support of this movie and in saying things like “Jesus died for us”. While it is interesting to me that we have non-Calvinists proclaiming the specifically Calvinistic doctrine of subsituntionary atonement, this is only half of the message. The forgiveness of sins is necessary, but it does not put us in right standing before God, it only makes us neutral before Him. It is not only that we must be forgiven of our sins but that we must also obtain righteousness, righteousness which is in accord with God’s eternal and holy demands. It should be abundantly clear to all that we, as sinners, can never hope to attain this righteousness of our own striving, running or willing; we need a righteousness that is outside of ourselves. The glory of the Gospel is that God, in Christ, has perfectly lived the righteous life. He has met his own eternal standard of holiness. It is this righteousness which is then counted as ours only when we have faith in Christ. We trust in him, not only for the forgiveness of our sins, but for his active and positive righteousness on our behalf.

This message is integral to the distinctly Evangelical doctrine of justification by faith alone – the article, according to Luther, on which the church either stands or falls. This is the thing which separates the Biblical Gospel of historic Evangelicalism from that of Rome. Without it, the Reformers argued, there is no Biblical Gospel. Have we come to a day and age where that is no longer the case? Why is it that we do not see this as important as our fore-fathers in the faith did? Perhaps, we as Evangelicals need to reaffirm what it is we believe about the Gospel instead of assuming that everyone knows it.

With that in mind, how can one say that “the message will come through in this movie”? To what message are they referring? Are they referring to the entire Gospel as it is found in the pages of the New Testament and affirmed throughout Church history by faithful Evangelicals? The two main questions that I think people who see this movie should wrestle with are: Who was Jesus? and Why did he die? If we do not adequately, fully and Biblically answer these two questions people will leave the theaters having had a profound “spiritual” experience but there will be no repentance of sins, saving faith, or desire for baptism and involvement in local Churches. They will go back to watching their TV’s, buying clothes and worrying about all of the concerns of the world, all the while never realizing that their very soul is in jeopardy.

In sum, does this movie have the potential to spark conversations about the message of the cross? Absolutely. But should that be our only standard of judging it? Is it enough to view it from a pragmatic perspective and not think about other issues that may be wound up in it? I offer these comments not with the hope of stifling conversation about these things but that we might better know and love God as he has revealed himself to us most perfectly in the person of Christ through His word and faithfully proclaim him and the entire Gospel to a lost world.

Please feel free to post your comments on these things as we continue dialoging about this important film.

My friend, Clayton, saw the Passion yesterday and has posted his thoughts on his blog. He responds to those who have concerns about this movie and I am grateful to him for filling out my understanding of the film. I will post more concerning his thoughts this weekend. In the mean time read them for yourself.

Clayton’s blog

Many of you know that I respect John Piper. He was on a radio program today where he shared his thoughts about the Passion. I post them here for your listening. John Piper radio program

Also, he has a great book out which addresses the question that this movie does not answer, namely “why did Christ die?” The Passion of Christ the book

Seeing that Wednesday is almost upon us, here is a review of the Passion that I think is worth reading.

http://www.aomin.org/BressonPassion.html

If any of you follow James White’s blog on his site then you will know how blatantly I use links to and from his site. I do so not simply to mimic all that he does but because I believe he is providing helpful links to resources on important issues.

With that said, here is a link which I commend to you before you see this movie

This is the BEST interaction with this movie that I have heard or read. I’m not sure if I agree with all of the points made, but I think it should be listened to by any Bible-believing Christian who seeks to honor God in all he does and test everything against the standard of God’s Holy Word. A.N. Martin’s Sermon

Perhaps I should add that although the conclusions of this link is one which would tell people not to see this film, please don’t then make that my intentions. I will say that after listening to this sermon, I am not sure what I am going to do when this film is released.

Be sure that I’ll have more thoughts here in the coming days. I’m anxious to hear some of your thoughts about the release of this movie. Feel free to email me or post your comments here.

With the release of Mel Gibson’s new movie, the Passion of the Christ, there have been many opportunities for Christians to engage in dialogue about Jesus and Christianity. Most of the public conversations seemingly focus on the same question, ‘Who Killed Jesus?’ This is evidenced by the latest Newsweek cover article, as well as, Diane Sawyer’s interview with Gibson. There have been three primary answers offered to the question, ‘who killed Jesus’; we can categorize them as follows: 1) The Jews, 2) Pilate and 3) every individual of the human race. Each of these responses deserves a full explanation in its own right, but for the purposes of this essay I would like to focus on the element that is lacking from each of these responses. While it is in some sense true that the Jews, Pilate and even humanity are responsible for the death of Christ, it is the Biblical testimony that they are not the primary or ultimate cause for Jesus’ death. The Bible is clear in its teaching that answer to the question ‘who killed Christ’ is: God. Let us examine the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures to see where this is taught and why it is important.

Gibson’s movie opens with a quotation from part of Isaiah 53. This is indeed a powerful passage, one which foretells of the horrible things that Christ, our Lord would one day suffer. When we go to the context of Isaiah 53 we find this verse, “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (53:5). In our culture we do not use the word smote (or smitten) very often. It is defined as: “to attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows” (Dictionary.com). This is what the Scriptures say happened to Christ, not by Jews or Romans, but by God. Why would God do such a thing to His son; what were His purposes for doing so? I think the clearest answer to this question can be found in Romans 3:23-26, “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” According to this passage, God sent and afflicted Christ for two reasons: 1) to vindicate His justice and 2) to reconcile man to Himself. Indeed this is the continued witness of the New Testament. In Galatians Paul writes, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen” (1:3-4). Later in the letter he adds, “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (4:4). Colossians 1:19f reads, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.”

The New Testament church, when faced with opposition from Jewish authorities (dare we say, similar to that of our own day), was clear to affirm that it was the Jews who had killed Christ, but never without declaring the greater purpose behind that death. At Pentecost, in the first “evangelistic sermon” ever preached, Peter affirmed, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:22-23). Soon after that Peter and John were taken before the Jewish authorities. When they had been released, they praised God saying, “truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people’s of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan has predestined to take place” (Acts 4:27-28). All of the wicked and evil deeds committed in the crucifixion took place exactly how God had planned. While Herod, Pilate, the Jews and Gentiles were the material agents of that evil, none of it took place out of God’s control or against His will. God sent Christ to earth knowing that He would die, indeed because He had decreed it, in order that He might ransom for Himself a people, His Church.

Therefore, the answer that it was the Jews who killed Christ, or Pilate who manipulated them or even that it was humanity who killed Christ, misses the entire point of the Gospel message. We must answer this question with clarity and in accordance with Scripture because it addresses both why Christ came and why He died, which is the Gospel. The Good News is that, when we were dead in sin, God, in His mercy, sent Christ to reconcile His elect to Himself. It was God who initiated salvation, but what is more, He has and will accomplish it without fail. Truly, all those for whom Christ died will be brought to repentance and saving faith and will be raised up on the last day. The glory of the Cross is that God killed His son instead of us. Praise be to our God; a God who intentionally, actually, and perfectly saves.

I am constantly amazed at how fast information can be put up onto the web and the speed with which it can be interacted. Within 1 hour of my 2nd post here there were some comments regarding my thoughts on Mel Gibson’s new film. It seems as though I should clarify some of my views on issues related to Roman Catholicism. I will not try and respond to all of this at once, so what follows is the beginning of things to come.

I will begin by making some initial comments about Mary. First, I recognize that Roman Catholics do not at all claim that Mary is equivalent with Christ. She is not a member of the God-head nor is she comparable to Christ. That is why in my previous post I said she “in some ways plays just as significant of a role in salvation”. I tried to limit the effect of what I was saying because I did not want to push that further than the Roman Catholic does and misrepresent their position. That said, the Roman Catholic does hold Mary in very high regard and speaks of her in connection with salvation. I would also add that it could be seen by some to be somewhat misleading to use the term “Co-Redemptrix” with Christ. To me that just seems like a sticky word which would require great explanation. The reason that I mentioned Mary at all is because while it has been said that this movie trys to remain faithful to the telling of the Passion as it is recorded in the four Gospels, Gibson has said that he has used Emmerich’s book to supplement the Biblical account, especially in those places where Mary appears in the movie. The movie will not portray Mary in any kind of salvific role, but I’m guessing she will be more prevelant in this movie than she is in the Gospels because of Gibson’s beliefs about her.

I hope that those comments clear up a little of the confusion which has come about. I appreciate people’s comments on my posts. That is one of the reasons why I post them. Please feel free to use the comments button on the top of each entry. I will do my best to respond to what is posted there, but it is sometimes difficult to write a response in as timely a manner as I would like.

I will be posting my thoughts on what seems to be the “question of the hour” regarding this movie; that being “Who Killed Jesus”. Look for those in the next day or two.

Undoubtedly, everyone has heard of Mel Gibson’s new movie, to be released later this month. It is sure to bring conversation, and controversy, even Gibson has called it a potential career killer. Many in the Evangelical community are hailing this as the best movie which has been made about our Lord and a great evangelistic tool for telling others about Jesus, including both Bill Bright (Campus Crusade) and Billy Graham. I recently came across an interview with Mel Gibson where he explains some of the factors which influenced his decision to make this film, as well as, explanations concerning some of its scenes. After listening to this interview, I am not so quick to embrace and promote this new movie; what follows is some information concerning the film, along with some of my reservations.

People do not make movies about Jesus for no reason; there is always something that motivates an individual to undertake such a monumental task. For Gibson, he has said that one of the things that prompted the making of this movie is a book called “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ” by Catherine Emmerich. This book recounts in gruesome detail the vision which Emmerich had of what happened to Jesus and Mary during the passion week. Many Catholics, including Gibson, have said that Emmerich’s book has been most helpful for them in knowing where the Holy Mother was during the final hours of her son’s life and the content of her inner-most thoughts. When Gibson was asked about why he included so many scenes of Mary in this movie, he responded by saying this is because he feels she “suffered as much as Christ.” This reflects the Roman Catholic belief about Mary being a Co-Redeemer with Christ, who in some ways plays just as significant of a role in salvation as our Lord. Gibson’s Catholic beliefs about Mary are not the only thing which has influenced his cinematic decisions in the making of this film. During the interview, he was asked why he devoted so much of the movie’s time to the scene of the Last Supper. He did not respond by saying that this is because the account is one of the longest scenes we have recorded for us in the New Testament. Rather, he said this is because to him the Eucharist and the atonement are “the same thing”. While these things may not be explicitly stated in the film, recognize that Gibson’s beliefs concerning Mary, Christ and the Gospel have influenced its making.

My main concern about the release of this movie is the ecumenism that it is already and will continue to bring about, an ecumenism which is not based on a common understanding of the truth of the Gospel. Many will see this movie as an opportunity for unifying the Evangelical and Catholic communities, unfortunately at the expense of core doctrines like justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness on behalf of sinful man. Some may say, “why are you trying to be so divisive by bringing up such inconsequential doctrinal matters. Can’t you see that this man obviously loves Jesus?” My goal is not to blindly reject anything that comes out of Rome. My goal is to see us, as Evangelicals, be prepared to give a defense for what we believe about Christ and the Gospel, and to be able to fill in the holes of the Gospel message that this movie will leave. For the Gospel is not simply the narrative story of Jesus, but it is the intention and purpose behind why he came and what he accomplished. This is, perhaps, why the New Testament has so much more material interpreting the meaning and application of the cross than it does telling about it. As such, when one simply sets out to provide a very emotional, seemingly objective, historical presentation of the life and death of Christ, the content of the Gospel will inevitably be lacking. It will lack an emphasis on the deadness of humanity in sin as a result of our being “in Adam” during the fall. It cannot adequately explain that God, in Christ, came into the world to propitiate the wrath of the Father against sin; He lived a life that met the righteous demands which God required and substitutionaly died in our place in order that, solely by faith we might be counted as righteous in His sight, thereby securing a foundation upon which our sanctification can be built.

Before concluding, perhaps I should offer two qualifications of what I have written so as to not be misunderstood. First, some may question my understanding of the relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics. In this essay, my aim is not to respond to the question, “Is the Catholic my brother?” (maybe that could be the topic of another article ☺) Briefly, I would say that I believe there are some in the Roman Catholic church who are among God’s elect. My second qualification is that, maybe contrary to what you think, I am encouraging people to go see this movie. Rarely in our culture are we afforded such an opportunity to converse with people about Christ and the Gospel. My hope is that we will be prepared to respond to the many questions that will arise from the viewing of this film. We must know the Gospel and always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within us and to give that with gentleness and reverence (1 Pet 3:15-16). I provide this information so that we will better understand the influences that went into the making of this film and that we might not forget how content is not divorced from presentation; the one has an affect on the other. Let us not be so naive as to think that just because this is a moving story about Jesus that it is therefore inline with what the entirety of Scripture teaches. We must constantly compare everything, even things that come out of our own Christian communities, with the entirety of Scripture to measure its truthfulness. May God use us in this time for the full proclamation of His Gospel and to declare worth of His glory both here in Boston and around the world.

Sources: Gibson’s Interview: rtsp://rxns-rbn-sea04.rbn.com/farm/*/ewtn/g2ewtn/g2demand/odaudio/wo031403.ra Emmerich’s Book: http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks/Dolorous-Passion.pdf