Whose Passion? –A
Closer Look at the Portrayal of Mary in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ
Rudolph D. González, Ph.D. (4/2005)
Thirteen months after its initial release, “The Passion of the Christ,” a movie produced and directed by Mel Gibson, was re-released just in time for the Resurrection season. Sensitive to those who felt the original movie was too violent, Gibson cut six minutes of the movie’s most graphic scenes. In my estimation, Gibson cut the wrong material. I am troubled with the religious imagination that remains intact in both versions of his film.
There is no doubt this movie has captivated many in the evangelical community. And it is precisely because “The Passion” is likely to become a staple film that churches will turn to in their evangelistic efforts that I need to ask a question. Am I the only one who has a serious problem with the way Mary, the mother of Jesus, is portrayed in this movie?
Is there doubt in anyone who has seen the movie that Mary plays a major roll in Gibson’s vision of Christ’s passion? In my estimation, the movie does not just deliver a message about the sacrifice of Jesus to redeem humanity. Gibson has purposefully woven into the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life a subtle parallel story about Jesus’ mother’s role in redemption — a story I am hard pressed to find in the Bible.
The universal silence in the evangelical community on this issue is deafening. It strikes me almost like the pink elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge is there. Even prominent evangelical leaders who ought to know what the Bible clearly teaches fail to raise even an anemic concern about Mary’s “extra-biblical” portrayal. Most of the religious talking heads on television laud Gibson’s bravery for pushing through to the making and releasing of this film in the face of bitter opposition. But none that I am aware of have done so much as even acknowledge this glaring concern. I have thought hard on this issue and have concluded that I must address the uncomfortable question.
First, however, let me say this about Gibson: I would expect for him to make nothing less than a movie that is true to his religious convictions; I certainly would. In this respect, he has found a way to tell the story of Jesus’ Passion and still promote the Marian piety of his personal faith and that of the Roman Catholic Church. His creative cinematography in this respect is genius. But, it is precisely because of this aspect that I ask whether we can comfortably encourage the viewing of this film.
For the record, the four Gospels do not give much attention to Mary during the 12 hours leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion. While there are references made to other Marys that were disciples, interestingly, his mother is conspicuous by her absence (see for example Matthew 27:61; 28:1; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:27-29; 49). The only sure mention of Mary is found in the Gospel of John, which affirms that she stood at the foot of the cross, along with John the disciple, immediately before her son died (John 19:25-27). Thus, almost every scene depicted in the movie about Mary is the product of Gibson’s imagination.
None of the following scenes has any biblical basis:
· Mary locking her gaze on Satan as he mocks her in the midst of the multitudes
· Mary at the Praetorium observing the scourging of her son
· Mary at the Praetorium wiping up the blood and leaning down to connect with her son in a dungeon below
· Mary having a conversation with the wife of Pontius Pilate
· Mary following Jesus through the streets of Jerusalem and comforting him along the way
· Mary sitting at the foot of the cross holding the lifeless body of her son in her arms.
Although the scenes mentioned above are not found in the Bible, common sense would suggest Mary must have been present. Was Mary at the trial before Caiphas the High Priest? The Bible does say that Jesus caught the eye of Peter during that time (Luke 22:61); however, John 18:16 says Peter was specifically allowed into the court of the High Priest. Thus, Mary was likely not there. Was she present when Jesus was brought before Pilate? Probably so. Pilate had to come out to accommodate the scruples of the religious leaders (John 18:28-29), and so Mary may have been among the crowd outside the Praetorium.
Did Mary
enter the Praetorium where Jesus was being mocked and brutalized (Matthew
27:27-32)? John 18:28 says the religious
leaders did not enter the Praetorium for fear of being defiled. Moreover, the
disciples had scattered and it is unlikely that Mary would have entered
alone. Finally, did Mary follow Jesus
throughout the streets of
I do, however, have a problem with weaving into the movie a story of Mary the likes of which the Bible nowhere supports. It is totally without warrant to have her proactively warring against Satan, or mopping up the blood of her son, or having a conversation with Pilate’s wife. The Scripture is silent on all these things.
Unlike Gibson’s strong depiction of her, a more likely and historical representation would have been to show Mary totally distraught upon seeing her son’s physical condition (see for example Luke 23:27). Gibson has said that he was faithful to the Bible, but this is only half true. With respect to Mary his personal devotion to her has overpowered his responsibility to reflect accurately the biblical account.
What is really troubling is the theology of the scenes concerning the mother of Jesus. Mary is the one with spiritual discernment, who alone sees Satan in the crowd and stands firm as he mocks her. Mary also has a mystical bond with her son, and so much so that she connects with him through matter itself to the dungeon below. His pain and agony is her pain and agony.
Significantly, the scene where she interacts with Pilate’s wife is totally make-believe, but it hints at a future relationship between church and state. At the raising of the physical cross, Mary also rises to her feet simultaneously, letting the dirt fall from her hands; she is being glorified alongside her son.
Finally, when the body of her dead son is taken down, Mary cradles him mimicking Michelangelo’s Pieta. However, this contradicts the Bible, which states that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus took the body for immediate burial as the Sabbath was quickly dawning (Luke 23:50-54; John 19:38-40).
What is the theology of this scene? Gibson portrays Mary as the Mother of God, with her arms and hands stretched out to the world offering him to anyone who will receive him. But the Bible teaches that it is the love of the Father that made possible the gift of the Son (John 3:16).
The repeated mention of Mary as “mother” to the disciples is especially troubling. Does the Bible support such intimacy? To the contrary, Jesus downplayed and minimized his relationship to his mother and brothers (Matthew 12:46-50). There is no basis to hold that any such surrogate maternal relationship ever developed, before or after the crucifixion. But depicting Mary as a mother figure does support Roman Catholic beliefs. Consequently, given that she is repeatedly called “mother” by the followers of Jesus, by the time we get to the final scene where she is at the crucifixion, the prior echoes of her motherhood within the community of believers ring in our ears. Thus, at the cross Jesus is not simply entrusting John with his mother’s physical welfare, he is reaffirming and endorsing the exclusive ministry of “motherhood” Mary has had all along. Clearly, there is more here than simply “creative license.” Gibson gives to Mary some of the prerogatives of both the Son and of the Father. In the end, for these reasons and many others, I urge us to reconsider the value of this movie for our evangelistic work.
Some will say that many have come to faith in Christ as a result of having seen the film. Recent books such as Lee Strobel’s “Changed Lives: The Miracles of the Passion” focus on the radical transformation of some who have viewed the movie. However, most information of this sort is anecdotal. A Barna Survey done last year found that the movie did more to reinforce the faith of the faithful, rather than bring about the conversion of the unbeliever. Furthermore there are many reports of pious Roman Catholics who have been strengthened in their devotion to Mary by viewing this film. Still, even if I half acknowledge that some good has come about as a result of people viewing the film; do noble ends justify any means?
In my estimation, however, there is one issue, which ought to settle the question, at least for those of us who are heirs of the Protestant Reformation. A non negotiable tenet of our faith is that salvation is by grace through Jesus Christ alone. But this movie blatantly challenges that very belief. I am embarrassed to even have to say it, but are we really ready to undermine this core conviction, and all for the sake of a movie?
Hear me right. I am not questioning the means of a man like Gibson to propagate his Roman Catholic religion through his film. I do question whether we as evangelicals are wise in utilizing his means to expand our ends. We don’t use literature from sources with suspect doctrines to spread the exclusive message of salvation through Jesus Christ alone. Why are we relying on Gibson’s vision when we have the definitive message in our hands, and one without any such worrying dimensions?
Moreover, I am afraid that by having endorsed so publicly Gibson’s movie, we have tacitly endorsed the tenets of his faith, at least those implied in the movie. More ominously, we have potentially compromised ourselves when more troublesome media makes its way to the silver screen. The huge success of Gibson’s movie is already sparking interest in the making of more “big budget” religious films. Religious leaders can certainly choose to ignore low cost films that get little national attention. But when movies such as Gibson’s are announced, the pressure to get on the promotional bandwagon will be tremendous. Will we be swept into the tide of religious fanfare at the cost of setting aside sound doctrine?
About Gibson specifically, given the devotion he openly gives to Mary, her portrayal in the passion film — certainly intentional — may have laid the groundwork for future films from him. And if this is so, what kind of legs will evangelicals stand on? Having endorsed enthusiastically and without reservation “The Passion,” how will we be able to challenge anything later with any level of credibility?
Earlier I noted that Gibson is being truthful in part. If all I did is focus on his depiction of Jesus I would have little to argue about. But the fact is this movie is much like the birth of conjoined twins. Jesus and Mary are integrally connected in this movie and there is no separating them. I know this is not the last word on this issue. Actually, I pray that many more words will follow leading to a sober assessment of our recent actions and statements in the aftermath of this movie phenomenon.
Rudolph González is vice president
of student services at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in