By Timothy Kwoh


I am writing to you in regards to the Mel Gibson film: The Passion. Mel Gibson is supposed to portray the role of Christ in this film, in portraying the last few hours of Christ on earth. This film, as you probably know, has received attacks from ungodly, unsaved Jews and praise from professing "Christians" (Catholics, Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox). However, as a Bible believing Christian, I wish to pose my critique as a warning to Fundamental Christians who are going to see the film.

The film, for some unknown reason, chooses to speak in two dead languages, and one half-dead language. These are Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew. The question needs to be asked, if Mel Gibson, being a traditional Catholic, wanted faithfulness to the Gospel accounts, then why not put it in Koine Greek? Or maybe I forgot, as a traditionalist Catholic, he has an obsession with Aramaic and Latin, in an attempt to prove the supremacy of Peter as Pope. (I am referring to the Catholic argument that Matt.16:18 was spoken in Aramaic, and hence Jesus was calling Peter in Aramaic the Rock). To make matters worse, Mel Gibson originally did not want to have the film subtitled in English, and therefore would have had the film speaking those dead languages without anyone understanding it, unless they were a scholar. It seems that Hebrew Roots heresy has long branches! In fact, ALL HERESIES BEGAN WITH THE HEBREW ROOTS HERESY. The Catholic Church was one of the first proponents of it, in an attempt to say that they are the "new Israel" and to say that Peter is the Pope of Rome. Is it therefore no surprise that Mel Gibson has picked those languages as part of Hebrew Roots heresy in Catholicism.

The other serious matter regarding this film, is that it does not end with the resurrection of Christ, but ends with the crucifixion. This leads to a serious question: Why would Mel Gibson, as a traditionalist Catholic, wish to end at the crucifixion, when clearly he knows as a traditionalist Catholic that the resurrection is a fact and official teaching? Perhaps it has something to do with the Catholic teaching of the Mass, where Christ is being constantly resacrificed again everytime the priest says the Latin words for: "This is my body", when offering up the wafer god. It is evident that the Catholic Church does not truly believe in the Resurrection of Christ, and hence their faith is in vain. What is the gospel when there is no resurrection of Christ, but half baked and incomplete? Praise God that true Bible Christians believe in a Risen Saviour, never more to die, and never more to be sacrificed!

Another serious matter in this film, is that in the sign written by Pontius Pilate above the cross of Christ, there is one language missing: Greek. The gospels make it clear that the sign was written in 3 languages, not just two. Instead, this film only has Latin and Hebrew. If this film is supposed to be a faithful portrayal of the gospels as compared to other films about the Lord Jesus Christ, then how is it that this film cannot even get this small aspect correct? Even the other films get it right, and even a 5 year old in Sunday School could tell you that this is automatically incorrect. What is the purpose of omitting that? Only the producer knows but nonetheless, it is seriously defective.

Two other serious matters in the film is that it does portray, without serious evidence, historically or biblically, the cross on which Christ was to be crucified was made in a Jewish synagogue and also that Christ was portrayed with long hair. In regards to the first, there is no indication in the gospels that the cross was made in a synagogue. Perhaps that is one of the excuses that the Jews are taking to accuse the film of "anti-Semitism". There is no historical reason to believe this either. Romans were known to make crosses outdoors, not indoors. Furthermore, a Jew would not let an instrument of execution, especially one that is made from a tree, which is considered cursed according to the Law, to be made in the synagogue or anywhere considered holy. This is clearly Mel Gibson's personal hatred for the Jews being reflected rather than a faithful portrayal of the gospel accounts. In regards to the second, this mistake is made in all the other Jesus films. Christ did not have long hair as is evident not only from I Corinthians 11:14, but from the fact that Christ was not a Nazrite. A Nazerene is not the same as a Nazrite. The only ones with long hair amongst the Jews would be those who took the Nazrite vow, and not anyone else. Christ is clearly not a Nazrite from the fact that he touched the dead, and drank of the grape, something that was clearly forbidden to those who took the Nazrite vow. If anything, it was John the Baptist who was the Nazrite. Yet, like all the others, John the Baptist is shown with short hair, and Christ with long hair. Is this what you call an accurate portrayal of the gospels?

Christian viewer, be warned and do not get so passionate about The Passion, for it is nothing more than a Romanist propaganda tool, rather than a faithful portrayal of the gospels. Trust your Bible and not a godless, Hell-i-wood production

Yours in Christ,

Timothy Kwoh