Some thoughts on the film "Son of God"

I was able to watch the new movie “Son of God” this week. I thought it was done well. I didn’t set out to do so, but I couldn’t help but compare Diogo Morgado (the actor who portrays Jesus in this new movie) with Jim Caviezel’s portrayal of Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” Gibson wanted to focus on Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion and resurrection, so Caviezel captured Christ's sacrifice; the fact that He would choose to submit to the torture of being flogged, beaten, and crucified.

While Morgado also captures the intense suffering of Jesus capably, he gets to display the incredible power of Jesus in “Son of God.” For instance, in the film, we get to see a reenactment of Christ bringing Lazarus back from the dead, feeding the 5,000 with just five loaves of bread and two fish, and walking on the water. Seeing these miracles makes the truth abundantly clear: Jesus could easily have come down off the cross, but He didn’t, because He submitted to God’s plan.

Incidentally, in “Son of God” the flogging scene is not nearly as violent as “The Passion of the Christ” but it is still unnerving to watch. Furthermore, there is a lot of blood that is shed. The body of Jesus is so broken and bloodied on the cross that I nearly expected the dialogue to be in Aramaic and with English subtitles as it was in “The Passion of the Christ.” It is a rather bloody PG-13 rating. I was reminded of a verse in Hebrews that says "the law says that almost everything must be made clean by blood, and sins cannot be forgiven without blood to show death" (NCV).

To sum it all up, I think “Son of God” does what it set out to do: present an accurate cinematic representation of Jesus’ life, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection for a new generation of movie watchers. That’s what is most exciting to me about “Son of God,” it’s an opportunity for conversations about Jesus.

Kevin