Editorial: This battle is Christian, not Jewish [Jpost's take on Gibson's "The Passion"]

Jerusalem Post ^ | Aug. 24, 2003

[yonif]

Is the Jewish community overreacting to The Passion, Mel Gibson's graphic portrayal of the Crucifixion of Jesus and Jewish culpability for that act even before the film's release during Easter 2004?

Or are Christian friends ranging from liberal Catholics long-involved in ecumenical dialogue to conservative Evangelicals, known for their unwavering solidarity with Israel being disconcertingly sanguine? At stake is freedom of artistic and religious expression, dogma, profound misgivings about Gibson's motives, and fear of stoking the embers of Jew-hatred.

There is no Christianity without the Crucifixion, and there is no Crucifixion narrative without the Jews. The Romans may have executed Jesus, but for 2,000 years Christian theology held "the Jews" ultimately responsible.

In The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, Jules Isaac argues: "No idea has been more destructive and has had more deadly effect... than the pernicious view of [the Jews] as the 'deicide people.'"

Referring to these "murderers of the Lord" and "Christ killers," Christian theologian Dom Gueranger proclaimed (in 1841): "The spectacle of an entire people placed under a curse for having crucified the Son of God gives Christians food for thought... This immense atonement for an infinite crime must continue until the end of the world." The enforced "atonement" took many forms: Crusades, massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, and, finally, the destruction of European Jewry between 1933-1945.

Christian "sacred history," as distinguished from the secular kind, is explicit: The Gospel of Mark (14: 63-64) records the Sanhedrin as declaring Jesus deserving of death because he was guilty of blasphemy. In Mark (15: 1) the Sanhedrin "bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to [Pontius] Pilate."

But hasn't modernity, secularism, and liberal theological adaptations largely taken the sting out of earlier Christian attitudes toward Jews? In short, who these days takes the Bible to heart?

Eighty-two percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. A staggering 87 percent say religion is either "very important" or "fairly important" in their lives. So a film that speaks to religiously receptive Americans with an emotive imagery that only contemporary cinema is capable of simulating certainly has the potential to kindle prejudice. If viewing Schindler's List can inoculate against anti-Semitism, why would the opposite not hold true?

How is an audience supposed to feel after watching the Son of Man being beaten until his skin is hanging off in strips? To see Christ mocked, whipped, beaten, and nailed to the Cross?

Part of the problem is Gibson himself, a member of a schismatic Catholic denomination that holds mass in Latin, rejects key Church reforms and the papacy itself. It was the 1965 Second Vatican Council that absolved Jews from collective guilt for the killing of Jesus "deicide."

Gibson's 85-year old father, Hutton, teaches that Vatican II was a Jewish plot, that the Holocaust never happened, and that al-Qaida was not behind 9/11.

Few have read the script, and even fewer have seen the movie in its current form. But all indications are that The Passion portrays Jews as guilty of killing Jesus. Referring to Matthew (27: 25), "His blood be on us and our children," Gibson's marketing director says, "We have softened the story compared to the way the Gospel has told it."

Gibson's work the dialogue is in Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles is said to be influenced by the writings of a 19th-century mystical nun, Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, who actually added various anti-Semitic elements absent in the Gospels. For now, all that can be seen of the film are its trailers at http://www.themoviebox.net.

But David Horowitz, the conservative pundit who saw a fuller version of the movie, says Jews need not be concerned. "The moral of this Christian story of Mel Gibson's film is that we all killed Jesus Jew and Gentile alike and tortured him, and we do so every day." And critic Michael Medved denounces "liberal activists who worry over the ever-increasing influence of religious traditionalism in American life." Unfortunately, Gibson represents the kind of "traditionalism" that is impossible to embrace. Perhaps the most disappointing voice comes from the National Association of Evangelicals, which warns that Jewish leaders should not "risk alienating two billion [pro-Israel] Christians over a movie."

Uncouth threats notwithstanding, stifling this film strikes one as wrongheaded and counterproductive. The best way to combat potential anti-Semitism here is to turn to our Christian friends.

It is they who should be trying to influence Gibson into removing from the movie elements which perpetuate the canard of deicide and eternal collective Jewish guilt. Failing that, they should be teaching the faithful that a true Christian rejects doctrinal anti-Semitism and all that comes with it. It is Christianity that must come to terms with its own theology and history, and decide whether it wants to allow Mel Gibson to steer it back to another era.

Leading Christian Zionist Rev. Elwood McQuaid strikes just the right note: For Christians, the Crucifixion "was a crime of humanity. Scapegoating Jewry is only a cop-out for the rest

[Victoria Delsoul]

What is it about the Passion that scares the hell out of these people... Truth?...

No… ignorance.

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

Gibson's 85-year old father, Hutton, teaches

Ah ha! Here's where they go off the deep end and reveal their true purpose for writing this, lambasting Mel Gibson. This Frank Rich/NY Times Talking Point about his father, like that has anything to do with the movie, is so transparent, and tiresome.

Well, keep talking anti-religious liberals, the publicity and righteous indignation at my faith being opening held up for review and "disappointment" is going to be the fuel that drives this movies box office numbers through the roof.

[missyme]

I just realized through biblical research that the Jews that are awaiting the Messiah "Moshaich" by who he is what he will do and what the world will become is Jesus Christ, the same prophecys are what christians beleive some just beleive this will be his first time and some will think it is the second. For 2000 years we have always been talking about the same person.

[wimpycat]

*sigh*

[freeangel]

"what is it about the Passion that scares the hell out of these people..."

Many people are afraid of the Truth..that God so loved man that He sent His only Son...it rather takes the wind out of other religions that tell their adherents to murder people.

[friendly]

Complete ignorance and bigotry guides the critics of The Passion. I have been tracking this movie carefully. It is completely benign and utterly powerful.

For a broadband trailer preview, see Quicktime clip at

http://www.passion-movie.com/images/ThePassion_hi.mov

The trailer has two spoken phrases: one in Latin by Pilate, and one in Aramaic by Jesus. It is much more powerful without distracting subtitles. 99% of the film is in spoken Aramaic, and it is (up to this point) Gibson's intention to show the film without subtitles, using only the skill of the actors and the power of the story to convey the message.

BTW, The mysterious dark-eyed woman (filmed through blue filter)with accompanying snake is Lucifer, I found after some researching.

Gibson is an absolute artistic purist and is a man possessed, believing completely in the project. I cannot wait to experience his work, his masterpiece, his labor of complete love.

[friendly]

One other point. The reason the film is in the long extinct Aramaic language is that this was the language of Jesus and the common Jewish people, not Greek, nor Latin, nor Hebrew.

[Righty1]

Left wing Jews are increasingly like the maginot line french i.e. fighting the last war. They just seem obsessed with hating/fearing Christians while ignoring the arabs/muslims that definitely want them dead right now! When I heard that Chomsky was working for El-Jazzera it reaffirmed my belief that NE Jewish liberals literally lack the instinct for self preservation. No wonder the Israelis have nothing but contempt for these pansies.

[pawdoggie]

This Frank Rich/NY Times Talking Point about his father, like that has anything to do with the movie, is so transparent, and tiresome.

Good point. Moreover, isn't it ironic that talking heads who are so terrified that the discredited concept of "collective guilt" might be applied to innocent people are only too happy to visit the sins of father (Hutton) on the son (Mel).

[Victoria Delsoul]

I trust Mel Gibson's research, and I'm convinced he's done an outstanding job. I'm getting tired of the Leftist theologians constantly pounding on the foundations of the Catholic Church. It's time for us the true believers to defend our faith and to stand by Christ, the fountain of truth and liberty. And if Gibson's film is the starting point, so be it. As Matthew said, 16.2, 3:

"When you see a cloud coming up in the west, at once you say that it is going to rain--and it does. And when you feel the south wind blowing, you say that it is going to get hot--and it does. Hypocrites! You can look at the earth and the sky and predict the weather; why, then, don't you know the meaning of this present time?

[Victoria Delsoul]

Correct.

[Ambisonx]

Rearding those "left wing Jews" whom Michael Savage calls "Red Diaper Doper Babies:


"I certainly don't underestimate the RED DIAPER DOPER BABY, either. The RED DIAPER DOPER BABY- although pot-ed out, although deviant- is very, very smart with more power than you can imagine. They run every image in this country. Every image that comes out of Hollywood, RED DIAPER DOPER BABY driven. Every image that comes out of a New York newsroom, RED DIAPER DOPER BABY written. Every last one of them, RED DIAPER DOPER BABY, pull the switches on the images and the words that come out of Hollywood and New York. Don't for one minute think otherwise." (6-11-03)

(I am surprised that Savage neglected to mention that the Red Diaper Doper Babies control the banks in addition to the press and the media)


"And so when you see the RED DIAPER DOPER BABY lawyers lining up to apologize for them, and you see the RED DIAPER DOPER BABIES lining up to defend them, you understand that we have internal enemies in this country that must be sorted out, separated and controlled before we are all dead. And yes the time will come. I'll make that prediction. You may not believe but the time will come that because of our need for self-preservation, we are going to stop the RED DIAPER DOPER BABIES from killing us before we all die." (10-25-2002)


You suppose sorting them out, separating and controlling them is the answer to the leftist Jewish question?

[ladyjane]

The Jews of that day were manipulated by the prince of darkness and thus are not the real ones to blame.

Most of the murderers on death row were probably manipulated by the prince of darkness too. Does that absolve them?

[El Cid]

"...but for 2,000 years Christian theology held "the Jews" ultimately responsible. "

I don't understand...
Adam sinned through disobedience, and by one man sinned was imparted onto all men. But through the Son's obedience, one man (God-Man) made the ultimate (and we're not merely talking about scourging and death) sacrifice so that we might be saved....Heck, Romans 5 says it better than I - so here's a partial excerpt:

Rom 5:12-21
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

If anyone considers themselves saved - then they realize that they are responsible for Christ's death. If we were sinless, and worthy to appear before the thrice Holy God by our own merits and righteousness - then we wouldn't have needed the Son's sacrifice, the gift of God's grace. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God - but we have a Mediator - God the Son - who alone is able to wash our filthy rags clean.

So this comment about '2000 years of Christian theology holding the Jews responsible...' is some strawman accusation and is not consistent with Biblical Christianity. Any Christian realizes that this accusation falls squarely on them - and we can only bow in reference and joy for the gift of His love.

[MHGinTN]

I'm very curious as to why you would frame such an argument! Have you a motive, other than chatter? Do you now hold Jews in your contemporary world to be responsible for the cross? I would truly like to hear your reason for framing such a question as, "Most of the murderers on death row were probably manipulated by the prince of darkness too. Does that absolve them?" in response to my assertion that the prince of darkness manipulated the Jews contemporary to Jesus's day to seek His death then.

[ladyjane]

A motive other than chatter? Yes. Curiosity. Your comment sounded like a liberal's interpretation. My response was all about personal responsibity as viewed by liberals versus conservatives and murderers on death row.We're all targets of temptation. If we give in then we have to accept at the very least some of the responsibility.

Now the question of blaming someone today for something that happened thousands of years ago - I can't even begin to understand that notion.

[MHGinTN]

You offered, "Now the question of blaming someone today for something that happened thousands of years ago - I can't even begin to understand that notion." If that were so, why make the association between current murderers and the Jews contemporary to Jesus's day? What did you expect to serve with such a connection?

[friendly]

Matthew said, 16.2, 3: "When you see a cloud coming up in the west, at once you say that it is going to rain--and it does. And when you feel the south wind blowing, you say that it is going to get hot--and it does. Hypocrites! You can look at the earth and the sky and predict the weather; why, then, don't you know the meaning of this present time?

Perfect. Beautiful.

[ladyjane]

Re-read my post. I never made that association. Your statement about blaming the prince of darkness for our actions struck me as a very liberal perspective on a conservative forum. I do not believe that the existence of a "prince of darkness" lessens our own personal responsibility. The comment was on liberal versus conservative perspectives.

[Frank_2001]

Give it up, flame-baiter!;)