Posted on 02/26/2004 8:32:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM
There is a remote possibility you may hear something about The Passion of the Christ over the next few days. Yours truly would like to add a small point about scripture and a large point about theology.
The small point is that Mel Gibson's movie depicts Jesus as horrifically brutalized before his crucifixion, and though it is possible events happened this way, according to scripture it is far from certain. All four Gospels report that Pilate ordered Jesus "flogged" or "scourged" before sending him to the cross. But that's all the Gospels say: There is no description in any of the four books regarding how bad the flogging might have been. Gibson's assumption that the flogging was sustained and horrific could be right, but then, a lot of guesses could be right; Gibson is presenting a guess. Mark and John say that Roman police hit Jesus with their hands and with "a reed;" Matthew and Luke say that Roman officers blindfolded Jesus, hit him, and then mocked him by taunting, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" That's it for the Gospel accounts of the torturing of Jesus. Moviegoers will be given the impression that in seeing Jesus horrifically beaten, they are finally beholding the awful, historical truth. They're not--they are beholding a moviemaker's guess.
The Gospels emphasize Christ's suffering on the cross; Gibson has decided to emphasize Christ's suffering via the whip. Strange that Gibson should feel he understands Jesus' final hours better than the Gospel writers did. Maybe this is simply his artistic interpretation--but remember, Gibson is presenting his movie as the long-suppressed truth, not as an artistic interpretation that may or may not be right.
Beneath all the God-talk by Gibson is a commercial enterprise. Gibson's film career has been anchored in glorification of violence (the Mad Max movies) and in preposterous overstatement of the actual occurrence of violence (the Lethal Weapon movies). Gibson knows the sad Hollywood lesson--for which audiences are ultimately to blame--that glorifying or exaggerating violence is a path to ticket sales. So Gibson decides to make a movie about Jesus, and what one thing differentiates his movie from the many previous films of the same story? Exaggerated glorification of violence.
Numerous other devout depictions of the Jesus story--including the 1979 movie simply called Jesus, which, as recently reported by Easterblogg's colleague Franklin Foer, numbers among the most-watched films of all time owing to its showing in churches--downplay the flogging of Jesus and focus instead on his suffering on the cross. That is to say, numerous other devout depictions of the Jesus story take the same approach as taken by the four Gospel writers. Gibson instead decided to emphasize and glorify the story's violence. Hollywood has indoctrinated audiences to expect to see violence glorified and exaggerated: Gibson now gives audiences a Jesus story in which the violence, not the spiritual message, is the centerpiece. This is a deeply cynical exercise, and one that results in money in Gibson's pocket.
Now the large point about theology. Much of the discussion over The Passion of the Christ focuses on whether it is fair to present the Jewish people or Jewish leaders of the time as the agent of Christ's death. This debate is hardly new, of course; the great philosopher and Catholic monk Peter Abelard was excommunicated partly for asserting, in 1136, that it was wrong to blame Jews for the death of Christ. For a skillful and detailed treatment of this question in history, see Jon Meacham's article from Newsweek.
The point about theology is so simple and basic that it is in danger of being lost in The Passion of the Christ debate--and surely is lost in the movie itself. The point is that according to Christian belief, all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection. Jesus' ministry and story had to happen somewhere. That it happened among Jews and Romans is no more significant than if it had happened among Turks and Persians or Slavs and Finns or any other groups. All people are equally to blame for the death of Christ, and all people are redeemed by his suffering and resurrection.
The Gospel of Matthew reports at 20:17-19:
As Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day." Whether you believe these events actually happened--I do--does not matter to understanding the theological meaning of Jesus's fate, that all people are equally to blame for the death of Christ and all people are redeemed by his resurrection. The Gospels and the letters of the apostles support this conclusion; the majority of Christian commentary supports this conclusion; that all people were to blame for the death of Christ and all people are redeemed has even been the formal position of the Catholic Church since the Council of Trent almost 500 years ago. The Passion of the Christ seems to urge its audience to turn away from the universal spiritual message of Jesus and toward base political anger; that is quite an accomplishment, and a deeply cynical one.
Jesus was scourged in JCSuperstar, movie.
I'm a little dubious that violence is the differentiating factor. Most the the objections smell of posturing--
Meant to add that you are correct about the above.
This is a prophecy in the Old Testament referencing the crucifiction. The religious leaders of the day persecuted Jesus because He threatened their authority. But it was predicted and was a plan by God to redeem (buy back) the human race. The human race had been sold into sin by Adam. The Old Testament is full of stories of people being sold and then being redeemed, to me, at least, it's a shadowing of the price Jesus paid for us. God had already condemned the whole world because they were in sin, and someone had to pay the price for sin, because God cannot lie, and without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. So instead of requiring our blood, he required the blameless blood of His Son.
It's not much different today with some religious leaders who have their authority questioned -- (and secularism is a religion, as well), if someone comes along who challenges the doctrine of a particular church/denomination/institution on Biblical grounds, that person will be persecuted as well. It's human nature, not Jewish nature or Christian nature or any other nature.
At last, a reasoned analysis. Much of the support for the movie (at least by conservatives) stems from the fact that it is about Jesus, produced by someone who is at least marginally conservative, and is despised by liberals. Fair enough in its own way, but an artistic endeavor should be evaluated on its merits. Unfortunately, no one can give any kind of negative opinion on this production without being considered beyond the bounds of contemporary conservative orthodoxy. But in my opinion, the fact that liberal pundits don't like it for one reason shouldn't preclude other pundits from disliking it for another.
Certainly not anti-catholic in my book. I share your sentiments with those individuals who willingly participated in such a horrific scheme. I personally believe that noone who has ever been alive could even remotely conceive of the "reception" those individuals will receive from Christ.
In a pig's eye. Even Rome herself was embarassed by the bloodthirst of Pontius Pilate, who never hesitated for a second to off any jew that looked to exhibit leadership potential of any sort. Whatever any evil cabel of jewish leaders (which is your apparent defense now--argument by captulation, I guess) might have had in mind for jesus would have had the effect of a fart in a hurricane on Pontius Pilate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.