Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi's most recent book, the self-published, self-distributed (www.biblicalperspectives.com) The Passion of Christ in Scripture and History is in one sense a there you go again effort, consistent with the 18 or so other books the Italian-born Seventh-day Adventist cleric/author has published. Bacchiocchi uses his knowledge of Catholicism and its early and medieval manifestations to warn against the insidious infiltration of dangerous Catholic ideas into contemporary Adventism.

For a person born and reared in a Protestant-dominated culture, this may seem interesting but not compelling reading. But for people who have grown up in cultures dominated by Roman Catholic mores, the book may have more significance. Unfortunately, any reader will be distracted by the unacceptable number of typos.

In The Passion, Bacchiocchi's major premise is that Mel Gibson's graphic film on the crucifixion and death of Jesus represents a return to the pre-Vatican II emphasis on the culpability of the Jews in killing Jesus. This is a dangerous turn, Bacchiocchi says, a truly bewildering return to Gothic Christianity in which infidels were demonized and believers beatified. Not once, but several times, Bacchiocchi reminds us that Adolf Hitler found the famous, and still extant, Oberammergau Passion Play (which in Hitler's day dramatically portrayed Christ's crucifiers as literal demons with horns) highly to his liking in its portrayal of the Jews. Hitler is quoted: It is vital that the Passion Play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans.

Bacchiocchi argues that Gibson's film is patterned, to a large degree, on the Oberammergau play, which relies primarily on mystical, extra-Gospel sources and Catholic tradition for its most graphic content.

According to Bacchiocchi, both the medieval passion plays and Gibson's film deviate significantly viewsfrom the Gospel accounts. The film, in particular, fails to include mention of the host of Jews who sympathized with Jesus and stood by him, lamenting and supporting him, during all or portions of his passion. In this, Bacchiocchi writes, the film's effective anti-Semitism is particularly egregious. By no means did all Jews reject Jesus; yet, from the point of view of the film, it seems the whole nation was given over to demonic hatred against him.

Bacchiocchi does not accuse Gibson of purposely demonizing the Jews. But he points out that Gibson, a passionate Roman Catholic, has relied heavily in his script on sources that portray the Jews as inhumane, blood-lusting demons. Performance of such plays historically preceded some of the worst massacres of Jews in Europe. This is perhaps the most salient message of the book that in the name of Christianity, atrocities can be and are perpetrated. The caution is explicit: Let us not allow ourselves to return to those not-so-long-ago days of pogroms and demonization of other cultures, including Islam.

Bacchiocchi raises other issues, as well the film's gratuitous elevation of the Virgin Mary to a place of co-mediation with her Son; the film's Catholic emphasis on a philosophy of suffering as necessary to appease a wrathful God; the near-veneration of the blood and flesh of Jesus (liberally flayed and spilled onscreen) as an analog to the actual Catholic mass of today; and Bacchiocchi's view that a physical depiction of Christ on screen is irreverent.

These finer points, however, pale in comparison with the larger issue that the film in question represents a return to the horrendous mentality of the Holocaust, in which Jews are seen as so morally compromised that their elimination becomes a matter of social expediency, rather than horror. A kindred view, says Bacchiocchi, is prevalent even among evangelical, dispensationalist Christians today, whose Darbyist views on the rapture include the humiliation of the Jews as a preamble to Christ's post-tribulation return.

The issues addressed in The Passion go far beyond the significance of Gibson's film. The question is, Will we use Bible stories to demonize others, to separate and alienate cultures? After we have condoned the demonization of the Jews, who will be next?

» Edwin A. Schwisow is a reporter, editor, screenwriter, freelance writer and author, with 27 years experience in denominational journalism. He serves as director of development for Adventist Today.

The release on DVD of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ offers another opportunity for people to reflect on one of the most influential films of 2004: Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If ever there was a film with an accurate title, this film is the one. Although in contemporary usage the word passion connotes romance and zeal, its Latin origins refer to suffering. Over the years, Christian theology came to speak of Christ's suffering on Good Friday as The Suffering or The Passion.

This is the most violent film I have ever seen. Yet it is not glorifying violence but being faithful to the violence that was part and parcel of the experience endured by him who first loved us.

The movie is longer than most, but its 126 minutes is not as long as the actual suffering Christ endured. Christ's torment began on a Thursday evening and concluded more than 12 hours later on Friday, prior to sundown and the commencement of the Sabbath.
I am not persuaded by the criticisms I have heard of the film. For example, It is too Catholic. While this film is produced and directed by a Catholic Christian, it gets the basics right. Theatrical license is to be expected. But there is nothing heretical about the portrayal of Jesus. He is God incarnate. And both his divinity and humanity are evident.

I've heard criticism that the film is too obsessed with just a portion of Jesus' life. But this is unfair. Gibson's film was never intended to be a comprehensive documentary of Jesus' ministry. It is titled The Passion of the Christ. Flashbacks give glimpses into the life that led to the cross, but Gibson never pretends to be filming a full-blown biographical documentary. Rather he, following the pattern of the Gospels, interprets the life of Christ through the lens of the defining act of the crucifixion. This is not a sermon but an artistic presentation of the essential event in the Christian faith.

Another criticism often leveled against Gibson's film is that it is anti-Semitic. The Jewish leaders are portrayed as politically motivated, selfish and unscrupulous. They want Jesus dead. But Gibson is filming only what is recounted in the Bible story. I guess if you do not like the movie, you probably did not like the book either. The anti-Semitic charge ignores the fact that the many heroic characters in the film are also Jewish. Need we mention that Jesus himself is Jewish? Why ignore the admirable Jews in the film and focus on those who bring about the crucifixion?

If any group comes off looking poorly in the film, it is the Roman soldiers. Should we then suggest the film is anti-Italian? This film is no more anti-Semitic than, say, a film set in World War II would be anti-German or anti-Japanese. The historical account indicates that certain leaders took certain actions, and they happened to be from a particular ethnic group. An entire race cannot be responsible for actions taken by a small segment of that community long ago.

When I got home after seeing the film for the first time, I found myself still so overwhelmed by what I saw that I could not sleep immediately. I was speechless for hours. I actually picked up an old copy of a biography of Christ by 18th-century American Adventist author Ellen White and read two chapters, Gethsemane and Calvary.

There I found words articulating what I had just experienced in Gibson's movie! It was as though Gibson's screenwriters had read those very chapters in preparation for the making of the film. Perhaps not. But clearly both White and Gibson had been inspired by the same Gospel account.

The next morning I turned to Isaiah, chapter 53. I have since seen the movie a second time, yet the prophetic words continue to haunt me: and by his wounds we are healed!

The bottom line for Gibson was to reveal Christ's unshakeable and relentless love. In the garden of Gethsemane the devil tempts Christ by questioning whether humankind is worth saving at such great cost. Calvary was Christ's answer to that question.

The depiction of the devil also merits comment. This shadowy and androgynous figure is utterly terrifying. The subtle ways in which lies are intertwined with truth are a reminder to all of us to keep up our guards. Truly, if you are watching out for a horned devil armed with a pitchfork, you may miss out on one much cleverer. That is what makes evil so dangerous. Evil can appear at first glance harmless and reasonable.

I strongly recommend The Passion of the Christ. No review can do it justice. You have to experience it for yourself. You may love it or you may hate it. But I promise that you will not be indifferent to this movie.

I believe that it is always a good thing to present the story of Jesus to the masses. Every retelling whether flawed or flawless provides an opportunity for people to be touched by the love of God.

» David Pendleton is an attorney and Seventh-day Adventist minister writing from Hawaii.

(Vol. 13, Issue 1., pp 22,23)