The Christian Examiner
The Christian Examiner Volume I: August 2000 - July 2001 Volume II: August 2001 - July 2002 Volume III: August 2002 - July 2003 Volume IV: August 2003 - July 2004 Volume V: August 2004 - July 2005
Contact Us
Respond to The Christian Examiner

In This Issue

"The Passion of the Christ:" A Review

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Passion of the Christ, a movie recently released on the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ as portrayed by director Mel Gibson, has been the discussion of many in the world and also in the Lord's Body itself. Many claims have been made about it, ranging from charges of anti-Semitism to the proclamation by some Evangelicals that the movie is the "greatest witnessing tool of the 21st century." I have seen this movie and will make some comments on it for the benefit of those in the church and those in the world who may have questions about it.

It is always best to begin such things by commenting on the strengths of the movie. The physical suffering of Jesus is well made in the movie; the agony of the whippings and scourgings, the pain of walking from Jerusalem to Golgotha, the pain of being nailed to the cross and lifted up-- the imagery is evocative and extremely grotesque. Blood is everywhere, and the flesh of the character playing Jesus is heavily marred and abused. The movie overall does well at staying with the message of the Scriptures, although it must be stated that Gibson has added many conversations, encounters, and events that are not specifically stated in the Gospel narratives.

In regards to the claims of anti-Semitism that have been famously spoken of for many months now (in fact, some of these comments prompted me to write an article in September of 2003, What Makes a Church a "Responsible Church?"), I will simply say that I believe that Gibson's portrayal of the Jews is accurate. In the first century CE, one hundred years after Pompey established Roman rule in Judea and only forty years before the political situation of Judea boiled over into open revolt against Rome, a man like Jesus would cause great consternation to both the Jewish and Roman authorities; John himself speaks of the concern of the former in John 11:48:

"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

Now, a 21st century perspective of a Jew looking back after the events of the past two thousand years might find the portrayal anti-Semitic, but it must be remembered that the movie is portraying a different time with a completely different perspective: the Jews had not yet lost the Temple, their land, and a large portion of their numbers to persecution. The only fault that can be found in this regard is Gibson's sympathetic portrayal of Pontius Pilate; we know from history that this man was exceedingly brutal and was even condemned by Tiberius Caesar for his cruelty to the Jews; Gibson's Pilate is a man who is internally torn and extremely emphathetic to Jesus.

Having said these positive things about the movie, we must now highlight many of the inaccuracies of the movie in regards to the message of the Scriptures. We do this not out of a desire to criticize but so that brethren will know what to watch out for and for others to see the difference between some of Gibson's inaccurate portrayals and contradictions of the text.

Let us first discuss the contradictions and inaccuracies that stem from Mel Gibson's theological perspective. It must be said first that Gibson is an "old Catholic," one of a sect that adheres to the beliefs of Roman Catholicism but believes that the reforms made in Vatican II in the middle part of the twentieth century are false and that the majority of that church has apostasized from what they deem to be the "truth." As is not surprising, many of Gibson's specific biases regarding Catholicism come out in the movie:

  1. The use of Latin. The Jewish characters in the movie speak in Aramaic; the Roman characters in the movie speak in Latin (generally; when Romans speak to Jews they tend to use Aramaic and the character playing Jesus speaks to Pilate in Latin). While Latin was certainly a language used at the time and we do see in John 19:20 that the inscription above Jesus' head was written in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, the eastern Mediterranean world of the first century CE did not speak in Latin but in Greek. This is why the New Testament is written in Greek originally and not Latin; perhaps some of the Roman soldiers from western areas would have known Latin, but even in administration in the east the language was Greek. Not only was Latin not spoken much in the eastern Mediterranean world, it is evident in Gibson's movie that he has used the "church Latin," the Latin spoken in the western churches and in the Roman Catholic Church until only recently (this is obvious because the letter "c" is not pronounced as a "k," as it would have been in the first century CE, but as a "ch," which only is used in later times). The use of Latin over Greek -- and ecclesiastical Latin at that-- demonstrates Gibson's Catholic bias.

  2. The presence of Mary. We do know that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was present at His crucifixion per John 19:25:

    These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

    We are not told about Mary's involvement in the time before this; Gibson, however, has given us a very liberal dose of her. While we read nothing of her in the Gospels save at the cross, she is the second most present character in Gibson's movie behind Jesus Himself. While this alone perhaps could be chalked up to artistic license, the fact that the character portraying Jesus prays to the Father during the walk from Jerusalem to Golgotha and says that, "I am the Son of Your handmaid," and the fact that the character playing the disciple John calls Mary "mother" on many occasions before Jesus gives him this commission at His crucifixion demonstrates amply that Gibson has read his Roman Catholic beliefs about the perpetual Virgin Mary into the account of Jesus' death and has given Mary a role far greater than that given to her by the Gospel writers.

Let us now look at some other inaccuracies and criticisms of the movie:

  1. Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is present (along with the disciple John) with Mary the mother of Jesus throughout the movie. Her characterization is fairly accurate until we reach a scene with many disputable events. As she and Mary the mother of Jesus get down on their knees and wipe up the blood of Jesus after His scourging (a scene for which we have no evidence anyway), she has a flashback to a previous scene. We see the character of Jesus sitting on the ground writing in the sand and then Jewish men and elders in front of Him throwing down stones and walking away. As this occurs we see the same woman who is having the flashback-- Mary Magdalene-- crawl over to the character of Jesus and kiss His feet. The connection cannot be denied; Mel Gibson has cast Mary Magdalene as the woman caught in the act of adultery as described in John 8:1-11. There is absolutely no evidence from the Scriptures about Mary Magdalene as being this adulterous woman (or, for that matter, as a prostitute, which is how she is generally portrayed) or any such thing.

  2. The role of Pilate's wife. In Matthew 27:19 we read the following:

    And while he was sitting on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, "Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."

    Here we see Pilate's wife speaking to Pilate regarding Jesus and her advice to have nothing to do with Him. Gibson takes this one episode and for whatever reason greatly increases her role. We see Pilate's wife standing in the peristyle while the Jews ask for Jesus' condemnation; we even see Pilate's wife coming down to where Jesus was scourged and giving cloths to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene who use them to wipe up the blood (see above). This is entirely fanciful and is one example out of many where Gibson has taken signifcant liberties with the Gospel accounts.

  3. Satan. We read the following regarding Satan after his temptation of Jesus in Luke 4:13:

    And when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him for a season.

    We do not hear of any specific times when Satan returns to tempt Jesus, and we certainly will not deny the strong possibility that Satan in some way did tempt Jesus during His last hours on earth. Regardless, the ever-presence of Satan in a physical form throughout the movie is excessive. We see him in the garden of Gethsemane attempting to get Jesus to deny His mission; Satan even sends out a serpent from his person toward the character of Jesus; the character portraying Jesus stands, looks at Satan, and crushes the head of the serpent. Gibson has literalized the metaphor of Genesis 3:15:

    and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    Satan re-emerges at every major scene: the scourging, during the walk from Jerusalem to Golgotha, and in the crowd at the crucifixion. While we certainly will not deny the possibility of Satan having done such things to Jesus during those final hours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that the Scriptures never speak of Satan doing these things.

  4. Accessibility of the movie. This is a criticism less of Gibson and his intentions with the movie and more of the Evangelical community who is touting this movie as a great evangelistic tool. This movie presupposes a familiarity with the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus; there are many quick flashbacks of various episodes in Jesus' ministry-- the Sermon on the Mount, the adulterous woman, washing of the disciples' feet; the institution of the Lord's Supper, and many more-- and there are no references or such things to be of assistance. The flashback of the adulterous woman, as has been noted above, does not even contain the dialogue that leads up to the conclusion; the statement of Jesus, "let he who is sinless cast the first stone," is not even said (John 8:7)! It would be very difficult for someone who is unacquainted with the Gospel accounts to understand the flashbacks and many of the events that transpire in the movie.

  5. Purpose of the movie. This again is less of a criticism of Gibson than those who heavily tout the movie for its evangelical potential. It is evident from the movie that Gibson's purpose is to show in great detail the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. The physical and mental pain is evident; the psychological suffering is seen throughout. The movie does not speak of the redemptive nature of His death save the quotation of Isaiah 53:5 at the beginning of the film:

    But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

    The movie is full of the physical suffering but the hope of the redemption to come is not explicitly stated; the glory and power of the resurrection and its fruit for mankind is not stated; the resurrection, in fact, lasts but 12 seconds, and all we see is the naked character of Jesus come out of the tomb. If a viewer of this movie is not already a Christian, this movie will not necessarily make him want to be one in and of itself; it shows only the violence and suffering and leaves out the glory and the redemption. All of that said, the movie would be good for a Christian to see to recognize the pain and suffering our Lord went through on our behalf; for the unbelievers, however, there is merely violence and abuse, and no message of redemption.

What, then, shall we say regarding The Passion of the Christ? As long as Christians enter in to the movie realizing its weaknesses and the theological perspective of its director, I believe that the movie does very well at portraying the suffering of our Lord on our behalf. The Gospel writers move over the scourging and crucifixion of our Lord in one verse each; the pain and suffering that scourging and crucifixion entailed was well-known to the first century audience. We, however, live in a time where anything more than a shot in the arm or a trip to the electric chair is considered a "cruel and unusual punishment;" we only see blood and gore if we see the backroom of a grocery store's meat department or whatever we see in the movies. The cross has become a cute accessory for our clothing; it has ceased to be a tool of pain and suffering and humiliation. We have become very separated from the suffering of our Lord, and this movie can help us to bridge that gap. This movie is not in and of itself a good witnessing tool since it focuses only on the pain and suffering of Jesus and not the glory and the redemption that resulted; there is no bridge made in the movie for the unbeliever to be able to recognize, as the Jews did on the day of Pentecost, that Jesus suffered and died in this way for the redemption of our sins and that God the Father has made this Jesus Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The movie has many, many inaccuracies and contradictions, and these should certainly be noted; if, however, in your walk with Christ you have ever felt it difficult to understand the pain and suffering of our Lord, The Passion of the Christ may certainly give you a better understanding of what our salvation required.

Issues Regarding Romans 14, Part II: Arguments Over-Extending Romans 14

Ethan R. Longhenry

In our last edition we recognized that Romans 14 is a very contentious issue among brethren today and we spent some time analyzing the text itself. We determined from the text that Paul was counseling the Romans on how to fix a divisive situation that should not have been divisive: if some brethren believed that meats were unclean, then it is unclean to them and those who have faith in eating meat should not give the former any cause for stumbling.

We did see, however, that Paul did not attempt to assert that any disagreement between brethren ought to be handled in the same way. In Romans 14:17, Paul gave us a delineation of what types of issues are and are not in Romans 14:

For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Thus, as we saw, liberties fall under the category of "eating and drinking," while direct commands and specific examples fall under "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit," and are therefore not up for compromise.

There are many in "Christendom" and even within churches of Christ, however, who over-extend Romans 14 by placing within its jurisdiction issues of direct commands and specific examples. Let us now examine their argumentation and seek to reach a harmonious understanding of the Scriptures.

  1. Argument: Romans 14:4-12 establishes that we are not to judge the servant of another. We, therefore, have no right to judge our brethren regarding any issue.

    Answer: Let us again look at Romans 14:4-12:

    Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written,
    "'As I live,' saith the Lord, 'to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God.'"
    So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.

    This passage, out of context, certainly appears to establish that we have no right to judge one another. As good Bible students, however, we must learn to examine the context and also other passages of Scripture to make sure that our interpretations do not cause contradiction with any portion of the Word of God.

    It is critical to remember that this argument of Paul is based on his explanations in Romans 14:1-3:

    But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples. One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

    We therefore see that the whole argument regarding judging one another is set in the context of a discussion of a liberty. It may not be proper to extend the message of Romans 14:4-12 beyond its immediate context since this is so.

    We also have the witness of the Scriptures in many other places regarding false teachings and immorality and the Christian's response; let us examine to this end Romans 16:17-20, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, and Galatians 1:6-9:

    Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I rejoice therefore over you: but I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple unto that which is evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
    It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.
    I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema.

    These verses establish that discernment of the soundness of individuals-- otherwise known as "judgment--" is certainly required, and that those who are teaching falsely are anathema-- accursed-- and we are not to associate with them. We have further proof from 1 Corinthians 5 that in a situation where a Christian is engaged in immorality without repentance we are to remove him from our midst! This certainly requires judgment and a separation, the opposite message from Romans 14!

    Is there then a contradiction? By no means! Romans 14:4-12 is absolutely correct in its context-- regarding issues of "opinions," i.e. liberties in the faith, we are not to judge and condemn one another. Regarding issues of morality and false teachings (and all direct commands and specific examples), however, either all must obey God and remain one or those who are obeying God must disassociate from those who are not obeying God. We are not to judge in matters of liberty, but regarding the "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit," we are commanded to judge (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)!

  2. Argument: The principles of Romans 14 should apply to any disagreement between Christians; after all, who is the judge of what fits in Romans 14 and what does not?

    Answer: Although this question does look similar to the issue seen above, it represents a small distinction, notably, whether or not we can truly determine with what issues Romans 14 should or should not be applied. This type of argument is very relativist; since, the position goes, humans will be the judge of how to use Romans 14, how can we be sure that the judgment will be right? While some will take this type of logic and declare that Romans 14 is not designed for issues today, many will use this logic and then over-extend Romans 14 and declare full unity-in-diversity: none of us can truly ascertain the truth of God perfectly, therefore, the issues of contention do not matter; we will have full fellowship regardless. Is this position justified?

    To the chagrin of postmodernism, the God in His New Testament requires His adherents to make judgments. We have seen above many Scriptures regarding the need for judgment; we have others in 2 Corinthians 13:5, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, and 1 John 4:1:

    Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith; prove your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed ye be reprobate.
    If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.
    Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

    We see in these verses the need to judge: we first need to constantly examine (i.e., judge) ourselves, to make sure that we are in "the faith." If we need to examine ourselves to be sure of this, does this not mean that it is entirely possible to believe that we are in the faith but are in reality in error? Does anyone knowingly teach that which is false? We see further that there assuredly are persons who teach error and that we are to test every spirit and teaching that comes our way. How can we make these judgments if we cannot ascertain truly the will of God in the New Testament? Does God expect us to be in an exercise of futility? By no means!

    Regarding Romans 14 specifically, we return back to Romans 14:17 and Romans 14:22:

    For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
    The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth.

    The need for proper judgment is apparent in these verses: Paul establishes that there truly are two categories of issues, one of no concern (food and drink), and one of the greatest concern (righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit), and that it is entirely possible to condemn oneself by what you approve. We can see, therefore, that even if the judgment is difficult sometimes it must be made. The standard is fairly simple: if the given practice is recognized by all as a liberty, i.e. that if it is not performed one is not going to be charged with a sin of omission, then it ought to be sacrificed for unity; if a given practice is not so recognized, it is not to be compromised. The relativist position about judgment in Romans 14 is not in harmony with the text itself.

  3. Argument: I can have fellowship with someone with whom I believe is not teaching the truth as long as we have "agreed to disagree" and I am not myself practicing the error according to Romans 14.

    Answer: Even though the majority of the substance of this argument has already been discussed above, I feel compelled to explicitly discuss this argument since it is seen in the brotherhood especially regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The idea is that one who is the "strong" brother and who teaches God's truths regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, can see the one teaching error on the subject as the "weak" brother and therefore should not judge him but accept him without judging his opinions. What shall we say about this thing?

    We have seen above powerful Biblical evidence that establishes that in areas of God's direct commands and specific examples-- and issues of morality are in the forefront of His commands-- we are not to associate at all with those who practice or teach anything that is not in harmony with God's direct commands and specific examples. Romans 14 does not provide a contradiction or an exception to this truth-- it in fact magnifies it by declaring powerfully in Romans 14:17 that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. If one desires to compromise the righteousness of the Holy Spirit, he is not in the Kingdom of God!

    God has spoken in Romans 16:17-20, 1 Corinthians 5, Galatians 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, and 1 John 4:1: we are required to judge the practices and the doctrines of those with whom we associate in the fellowship of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and we are to disassociate ourselves with anyone who practices or teaches contrary to the direct commands and specific examples of the Word of God. Romans 14 provides us principles by which we may maintain unity in issues of "food and drink--" issues of generic commands and examples that do not mandate a specific practice or a specific means by which a given practice is to be performed. Regarding issues of morality-- and marriage, divorce, and remarriage is assuredly such an issue (Matthew 19:9, Galatians 5:19-21)-- we are not in any way to compromise the truth of God's Word nor are we to associate ourselves in any way with those who compromise the truth of God's Word. This type of argument may make everyone feel better and allow people to "remain friends" despite critical disagreements, but God does not look upon such association kindly, as we have seen.

Thus we have seen the arguments of those who over-extend Romans 14 to apply to any form of disagreement among brethren or to justify association with those who practice and/or teach contrary to the direct commands and/or the specific examples of the Word of God. We have seen that all of these arguments fail since the Scriptures most assuredly delineate two categories of issues: issues of liberty of which there is no concern ("food and drink," Romans 14:17), and issues of God's direct commands and specific examples of which there is the greatest concern ("righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit," Romans 14:17). We are most assuredly not supposed to apply Romans 14 to all issues, and we must keep this in mind especially regarding the current controversies over marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

Having examined the arguments of those who over-extend Romans 14, we will begin in our next edition to examine the arguments of those who undervalue Romans 14 and do not apply it at all or not to all of its circumstances.

Ethan R. Longhenry
ethan@thechristianexaminer.com
www.deusvitae.com

For Further Discussion

Thank you for examining the materials from The Christian Examiner. If you have any questions or comments regarding anything you have read here, or you desire more information, please feel free to e-mail us at tce@thechristianexaminer.com. Thanks!

Please click here to return to the main page for Volume IV, or please click here to return to the main page for The Christian Examiner.