The Passion of the Christ
The Passion of the Christ is Mel Gibson’s sincere effort to communicate his obviously very personal connection with its central figure, Jesus of Nazareth, who is called the Christ by millions. Mel has reportedly invested millions in production costs because he believes that Hollywood has missed a very important dimension in this story, which Mel captures by focusing on the last twelve hours of Jesus’ life – The Passion of the Christ during His trial, torture and death by crucifixion. Accused of turning the story of the gentle Jesus into a “war movie,” Mel passionately responds that he is faithful to the script of the gospels as directed by the Holy Spirit, and indeed, the controversy generated by his efforts seems proof that he has landed very close to the truth.
Therefore, Good News for Israel has invested in the development of this web site in order to further discuss this story of a man and his dream. It also examines the cultural and historical context of the controversies that surround Mel Gibson and his new movie. These controversies reflect some of the most serious questions facing western civilization today, and we believe that a better understanding of them would benefit millions, too. In fact, this story concerns “The Story” of Yeshua, the Jewish Savior Messiah who is the Hope of all humanity.
Even though we do not agree with all of Mel Gibson’s comments concerning things spiritual, we deeply respect his artistic objective and do agree with him on many areas – especially that something has been lost in Christianity’s comprehension of its central figure. In fact, a good bit of that lost comprehension revolves around the translations of Hebrew to Greek, Latin and other European languages - from “Yeshua” to “Jesus” and “Mashiach” to “Christ.” Even here Mel’s intuitive genius shows itself by his insistence of filming the characters speaking the ancient Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin with English subtitles (even if historically inaccurate for using Latin instead of Greek).
Are we shocked and surprised that Mel has been accused of viewing the life and passion of Jesus through a “Braveheart” lens? No, not at all. He would not be Mel if he didn’t. These are the kinds of stories that really seem to attract him. The problem is that his violently bloody and heroic vision of Jesus disturbs most folks. It disturbs them because most of us forget that the resurrected Jesus is alive reigning as Christ. We would rather He remain in the imaginary lead-lined coffin we have placed Him. A buried Jesus is one who won’t interfere with our daily lives - leaving us seemingly free to pursue our higher priorities of wealth, fame, status, power, material pleasures and other lifestyle or professional expressions of moral, psychological and spiritual self-creation.
Gibson’s bloody images of Jesus do not tread lightly on our consciences. They remind us of the many costs of sin that human beings experience at various levels of awareness and social involvement. The movie threatens our personally designed universes, which we naturally construct around consciously chosen or unconsciously adopted beliefs and values that guide our behavior both in private as persons and in public as members of society. These fabricated mini-realities come crashing up against this bloody Jesus resurrected victorious over sin and death.
For the guardians against anti-Semitism, both Jewish and Gentile, the questions once again arise, “Is the New Testament anti-Jewish? Does reading the Bible literally always result in a rise of anti-Semitism? If so, why?” Is the best answer to rewrite the gospel, or to better understand it?
It is a fact that centuries of Christian churches’ tolerance towards and promotion of anti-Semitism culminated in their inexcusable complicity in the massive atrocities of the Holocaust. If the causes of Christian anti-Semitism are not addressed, then it will raise its terrible plague of hatred, persecution and death again – even in the United States, for this irrational hatred is ever just below the surface of western civilization.
For revisionist theology scholars, perhaps the movie testifies of the irrelevance of their life’s work. Who needs to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars investigating the “historical Jesus” when all one has to do is go to a few movies and read the Bible for herself or himself? We will briefly and very generally discuss the role of biblical scholarship in a movie like this or as it applies to understanding the Bible.
The personal story and beliefs of Mel Gibson enter into all of the above in addition to the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Gibson and other members of his family are Roman Catholic Traditionalists. They do not accept the second Vatican Council, nor do they recognize the legitimacy of the popes in Rome since then. They continue to practices the traditions of that church, as they existed before Vatican II.
Lastly, we will also draw some connections between these issues, their proposed causes and contexts, in order to reach for a better understanding of the world in which we live and where it is headed. -cjp October 2003
|
