Rabbi Charles P. Sherman
Temple Israel, Tulsa, OK
March 26, 2004
Jesus' Passion and its Portrayal – What's it Really Mean for Jews?
My friends, this is my "Passion File." Since last August, I have been clipping material about Mel Gibson's movie. I have read all of this stuff, have participated in a national conference call with scholars of the Inter-Testamental Period, and have been part of several interfaith discussions here in Tulsa regarding the movie. Two weeks ago, Nancy and I finally saw the movie. How many of you have seen "The Passion of the Christ"?
MOVIE REVIEW
I am not a movie reviewer and I do not go to see many movies, so I am going to make this part very short. I felt this was a horrible movie. I was turned-off by its horrific brutality. It is the most sadistically violent movie I have ever seen.
Tulsa World's Dennis King is a reviewer whom I respect. He says that the dialog in Aramaic, Latin (and a little Hebrew) – with spartan English sub-titles – provided an authenticity and submersion in the sounds and rhythms of ancient life. He feels that this was a brave decision by the film-maker. While I do not generally like movies with sub-titles, I agree that the dead languages worked.
I did not find the Jesus portrayal at all charismatic. The actors performed with dignity, but opportunities for acting were severely limited. Jesus agonizes and suffers; Mary and Mary Magdalene cry. There is an interesting mix between obscene brutality and tedious boredom – how much torture can our tuchus endure?
Mel Gibson's movie presumes that the movie-goer knows the stories; therefore, characters are not clearly identified. As Jews, who often do not know the stories, we are confused over who is Peter and who is James and exactly which woman was Claudia Pilate, Mary or Mary Magdalene. The movie does not tell us, because it presumes that we already know the stories.
What shocked me was that at least a quarter of the audience in our theater were children – not teenagers, but young children – despite the "R" rating that this movie carries and despite the constant media reports of extreme violence. Somebody characterized the film as "gory, gory, hallelujah" – yet parents brought young kids. One of the Bible professors with whom I dialoged this week observed: "That is the equivalent of child abuse."
Our cleaning lady – a devout Free Will Baptist – said when she thinks of Jesus, she thinks of the baby Jesus. Who wants to remember that brutalized, broken, gory body as the picture of one's personal Savior? Mel Gibson does!
Few if any films have portrayed such terrible destruction of an individual – piece by piece, bone by bone, tissue by tissue. The depravity, the blood, the inch by inch, hour by hour scourging and abuse of Jesus extends over at least half of the film. Addressed to a contemporary culture already obsessed with and addicted to violence, is such a portrayal necessary, healing, persuasive, helpful? So much for Charles Sherman, film critic.
I am a teacher of religion and what I want to try to do tonight is to see what we can learn from this film. And it is going to take me a while, so get comfortable.
POGROMS
In Prague, on April 18, 1389, according to Heinrich Graetz' "History of the Jews", a local priest passed through the Jewish quarter on Easter Sunday. No doubt he had preached earlier, as was the custom on Easter Sunday, about how the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. The priest carried with him the Host, bringing it to a dying parishioner.
Jewish children were playing in the street, throwing sand at each other. A few grains happened to fall upon the priest's robe. His attendants immediately fell upon the children, cruelly beating them. Their cries quickly brought the parents to their children's rescue, whereupon the priest fled to the marketplace, loudly proclaiming "It is not enough that they killed our Lord, now they have stoned me – a servant of the Lord – and forced me to drop the Host."
Quickly a mob, already stirred up by that morning's fiery sermons of how the Jews killed Jesus, banded together, armed themselves with murderous weapons of every description and made a violent attack upon the Jews. As usual, they offered their victims the choice between death and baptism, but they found the Jews steadfast in their faith. Many thousands perished in the massacre. Several of the Jews, among them their venerable rabbi, first took the lives of their wives and children and then their own, to escape the cruelties of their enemies. The synagogue was laid in ashes and the holy books and scrolls were torn and trodden under foot.
Was this terrible pogrom an isolated incident? Sadly not. For more than a thousand years Jews have been beaten, murdered, raped and tortured because of the accusation that they killed Jesus. Often this would occur after fiery, anti-Jewish sermons delivered during "Passion Week" or "Eastertide." Or after the viewing of a Passion play.
WHAT IS A PASSION PLAY?
So what is a Passion play? "Passion" in Latin means suffering; it refers to the suffering Jesus underwent from the time of his arrest through his crucifixion. A Passion Play is a religious pageant that depicts Jesus' final days and the events leading up to his death. The four gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – do not agree on the details of this final period of Jesus' life. Passion Plays weave the disparate accounts into a narrative whole, often using extra-biblical or extra-canonical material. Any Passion portrayal, therefore is part fact, part faith and part film-making or stage craft.
The earliest Passion Plays date back to 1150 of the Common Era, the time of the Crusades, so Passion Plays have been with us now for a little bit more than eight centuries. Over these centuries, many Passion Plays depicted Jews as responsible for the suffering and death of Jesus. In addition, Passion Plays drew on extra-biblical material identifying Jews as the servants of the devil. Such portrayal served to raise the passions of their audiences who, upon becoming incensed over Jesus' death, struck out against the Jews within their midst. Some Christian rulers in the Middle Ages warned their local Jews to stay indoors on Good Friday in order to protect them from the violence prompted by Passion Plays.
The most famous Passion Play is that at Oberammergau, Germany, which dates back to 1633. Hitler used that play to indoctrinate the SS, saying that it was "vital that it be continued . . . for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans."
The Passion was originally told in order to strengthen the faith of believers and evoke a personal, even spiritual response. It is meant to confront the viewer with the truth about God who, in love and justice, saved creation which had fallen away from God's ways. The audience is invited to identify with the story and its characters and to carry its meaning into their own lives.
A MODERN PASSION PLAY
Christian organizations are using Gibson's movie as a missionary tool. These are brochures which came to me at Temple Israel with the assumption that this is a church. Direct mail postcards are available, personalized color banners, invite cards or door hangers, Passion evangelistic booklets. "Invite your community to a Passion outreach." "Perhaps the best outreach opportunity in two thousand years."
The Head of Harvest Crusades says: "I believe ‘The Passion of the Christ' may well be one of the most powerful evangelistic tools of the last 100 years, because you have never seen the story of Jesus portrayed this vividly before."
And, closer to home, the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger says: "Passion provides opportunities for outreach, follow up." Churches are buying out theaters and taking even their youth groups to private screenings. As you know, the film has already grossed almost $300 million in sales. Mel Gibson has created, in movie form, a modern Passion Play. More people are going to get their impression of Jesus' last hours from this movie than perhaps all the other Passion Plays over the centuries combined. That is why Jews have a right to be concerned about this movie.
NEW GUIDELINES IGNORED
In 1965, recognizing how Christian belief had contributed to centuries of destruction and torture of Jews, culminating in the Holocaust, the Vatican determined that Jews are not to be blamed for the death of Jesus – reversing centuries of Christian anti-Judaism. Vatican II ruled that Jews should be held in respect because the man Christians chose as their Savior came from the Jewish People. As children of Abraham, Christians and Jews are linked together in the mystery of God.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the National Conference of Christians and Jews urged caution when preparing Passion Plays, particularly with passages which seem to show the Jewish People in an unfavorable light. For example, Catholic and Protestant church guidelines for Passion Plays recommend dropping scenes of large, chanting Jewish crowds and avoiding the device of a Sanhedrin trial. They also note that Pilate was not a vacillating administrator, but rather a ruthless tyrant.
In 1997, Pope John Paul II said that: "Erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish People and their alleged culpability [for the crucifixion] have circulated for too long, rendering feelings of hostility toward this People." The current Pope recognized what Passion Plays have led
to and has encouraged Catholics to revise and reconsider such presentations. And the presentation which was considered the worst of all – the Passion Play at Oberammergau – began presenting a revised version.
The Pope underscored the importance of this on the first Sunday of Lent four years ago, when he asked forgiveness from the Jews for the hatred and death they have experienced as a result of those teachings. A few months later, he placed these words of apology in the Western Wall during his historic trip to Jerusalem – "God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring Your name to the nations. We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who, in the course of history, have caused these [Jewish] children of Yours to suffer. Asking Your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the People of the Covenant."
So why doesn't Mel Gibson listen to his own Church and Pope? Because Mr. Gibson is part of a fringe, ultra-conservative branch of Catholicism which does not accept the changes made by the Second Vatican Council, nor the authority of these Popes. So we are not seeing a film which comports with current Catholic teachings.
I believe it is important that Jews learn not to lump all Christians together. Not all Christians, by any means, think of the Jews as responsible for Jesus' death. We over-estimate the number of Christians who hold Jewish People historically – let alone today – as accountable for Jesus' death. It has now been a full month that Gibson's movie is out, and there have been no pogroms in Atlanta or in Boston or even in Miami. In fact, there have been very few reports of anti-Semitic responses to the movie. Our Christian friends in interfaith dialogue settings have stated clearly the historical inaccuracies and the boorish insensitivities which "The Passion of the Christ" exhibits. I participated in an interfaith discussion this past Tuesday, and the two people most critical of the Gibson film were Phillips Theological Seminary Professors of Bible.
GOSPEL BACKGROUND
Since Passion Plays are based on the Gospel accounts and most Jews have not read the Gospels, let alone comprehended the context of the Gospels, let me try to provide some background. Please understand that the Gospel writers were working two generations after the events which they recount. The Four Gospels were written between 60 and 100 of the Common Era. The Gospel writers were not historians in the modern sense of the term; rather, they were interpreting Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection from varying religious perspectives. Hence – and this is the view of Roman Catholic scholar John Pawlikowski – they felt free to utilize details about Jesus' life and death in ways that would enhance their primary theological perspectives. They were not especially concerned with what we would regard as historical accuracy. So while Christians consider the Gospels to be the word of God or Divinely inspired, the Gospels also reflect the social and political circumstances of their day, in the same way as our Bible does.
The bottom line for the Gospel writers was not the complexities of a Jewish community with many strands of belief and practice, but the theme of either accepting or rejecting Jesus. And that theme became even stronger in the centuries after the Gospels were written, when early Christian theologians framed their new faith in terms which are explicitly anti-Jewish.
SUPERSESSION
By the time of Gospel writing, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed. The Gospel writers, and centuries of Christian commentaries, interpret the Temple's destruction as a sign of God's rejection of the Jewish People and the confirmation of the Christian message. Theologically this is referred to as the supersession of the new covenant represented in Christian scripture – the New Testament – over the old covenant represented in Jewish scripture now labeled the Old (as in outmoded) Testament. Jews obviously reject this belief. According to Judaism, the covenant between God and the Jewish People is everlasting. Since the Holocaust, many Christian scholars have rejected supersessionism. That is why modern scholars tend to use the less value-laden terms "Christian and Jewish Scriptures" instead of New and Old Testaments.
With the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees – largely the Jewish aristocracy closely allied to Rome and involved in Temple leadership – had disappeared as an identifiable group. By Gospel-writing time, the nascent Church was in direct competition with the Jews for new converts among the gentiles. Therefore, for the Gospel writers, as the advocates of Christianity – then a new, struggling faith – it was important to placate, not antagonize the powers that be; i.e., Rome, and they therefore placed the blame for Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews instead of on the Roman governor.
TEACHING OF CONTEMPT
Now this early Christian antagonism to Jews and Judaism, born out of a competitiveness for converts, resulted in portraying unbelieving Jews as the enemies of God and the opposite of Christians. This is known as the "teaching of contempt", and it has influenced Christian theology down to our own times. It is only in the last half century that this teaching of contempt has been repudiated by many Christian churches, which no longer accept it as the framework for either teaching what Christianity is or for understanding Judaism and the Jews in any age. But, because the Gospels continue to reflect first century settings of competition and opposition, it is especially challenging to portray them in this new spirit, and the challenge is the greatest where the opposition appears greatest; i.e., in the Passion. We cannot expect Christians to excise portions of their scripture. I am not looking for a Reader's Digest version of either Jewish or Christian scriptures. That is why how we teach those scriptures, the context we place the stories in, becomes so important.
PASSION CONTEXT
So what do we know about this period which Mel Gibson's movie covers? I am going to quote not Jewish teachers, but a study guide prepared by the Christian Scholars Group of Roman Catholic Boston College. It says that historically some things are fairly clear. 1) Jesus was a Jew with many Jewish followers. Pontius Pilate – the Roman Procurator, Prefect or Governor – saw him as a very popular leader who was called "King of the Jews" by some of his followers.
2) Pilate had a reputation among his contemporaries for being ruthless and brutal. Within his realm, his political and military power was absolute. Temple priests were appointed by and were collaborators with Roman authorities. They served only as long as they kept the people calm and loyal to the governor.
3) Crucifixion was a method of execution reserved by Rome for its use especially against political threats – revolutionaries, seditionists, assassins. Jewish leaders did not execute anti-Roman seditionists, least of all, by crucifixion.
The Gospels, intentionally twisting history, minimized Roman responsibility and fabricated Pilate's innocence, thereby placing blame almost entirely upon the Jewish priests and populace whom they portray as lusting for Jesus' death. Mel Gibson's film, going still further, presents a timid Pilate, unsuccessfully trying to save Jesus from the Jewish mob. Yet Mr. Gibson claims his movie is the most historically reliable account of the crucifixion ever made.
IS IT ANTI-SEMITIC?
So we come now to one of the major challenges Jewish organizations have raised regarding Gibson's film – is it anti-Semitic? This is my answer. Mel Gibson has created a visually powerful movie which utilizes historic, stereotypical images of Jews found throughout Medieval, Nazi and modern anti-Semitic material. In the Passion, Gibson features two young Jewish boys wearing yarmulkes who first show compassion for Judas and then begin to harass him. One boy bites Judas and comes away with a face covered with blood. The other Jewish boy turns to the camera, and his face is transformed into a gruesome mask with the same eyes as we see in traditional anti-Semitic art. Later in the film, as Jesus is being scourged by the Romans, the devil walks through the Jewish crowd carrying a baby. When the baby turns to face the camera, the viewer sees the same eyes that were on the young Jewish boy.
Jesus has perfect teeth; other Jews – including the High Priest Caiaphas – all have bad teeth. The strange hermaphrodite Satan figure appears in every Jewish crowd scene calling for Jesus' death. In every crowd of Jews there is a quick image of a Jew with a large nose and big lips, grinning and laughing.
According to all four Gospels, after Jesus is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemene, he is taken by the Jewish guards to the High Priest. In Gibson's movie, the guards escorting Jesus brutally beat him and at one point throw him over a bridge. The only reason he does not crash onto the earth below is that his chains excruciatingly wrench him to a halt inches from the ground.
This episode appears nowhere in the Christian Bible. Drawn from the visions of a 19th century mystic nun, it has been added by the film-maker. While it certainly heightens the suffering of Jesus, which is probably why Gibson added it, it is at the same time an unnecessary embellishment and exaggeration of Jewish mistreatment of Jesus. Gibson shows the Jewish High Priest standing cruelly with his fellow priests, witnessing the scourging of Jesus, something not found in the Christian Bible.
Just about everything Gibson's movie adds to the Gospel accounts makes the Jews look more cruel, more satanic, more responsible for the death of Jesus.
The challenge to anyone staging the Passion today is how to treat the anti-Jewish aspects of the Christian biblical texts. In this regard, the Gibson film is problematic. Gospel accounts are used selectively, and negative portrayals of Jews are both embellished and exaggerated. For example, Matthew states: "So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd saying ‘I am innocent of this man's blood. See to it yourselves'. Then the people as a whole answered: ‘His blood be on us and on our children'."
In the history of Christian anti-Semitism this verse serves as biblical warrant for holding all Jews at all times responsible for the death of Jesus. Saint Augustine, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther all use it this way. Yet that verse occurs only in Matthew; it is not in Mark, Luke or John, and thus is not essential in depicting Jesus' death. The decision to include it is a conscious choice made by Mr. Gibson.
Under a barrage of protest from those who read the early scripts of the film or saw early cuts, Gibson deleted from the English subtitles – but left in the Aramaic – that line from Matthew, "His blood be upon us and our children." It is not in the English subtitles now, but will the French and Germans and Russians and Arabs read it?
It is bitterly ironic that while Gibson claims he is guided by a desire to promote "love and forgiveness," he stresses stereotypes of Jews that for millennia led to only hate and retribution. By not putting the events of The Passion into their context, the film poses a real danger of promulgating an almost subconscious or subliminal identification of the Jews as "other", as dangerous to society, and of assuring that the legacy of Christian anti-Jewish prejudice will be passed on to another generation. We have a right to resent that!
DIFFERENT EYES SEE DIFFERENT MOVIES
At the same time, I think that it is important for us not to overreact. Surely we have every right to not like the way Jews are portrayed in The Passion. Some Jews are furious, other Jews have been terrified. Our People is perfectly capable of paranoia and hysteria.
Dennis Prager suggested that Jews and Christians see two very different movies when they watch The Passion. That is an understatement. Biblical literalists, especially evangelicals, and scriptural liberals see two different movies. Mainline Catholics and ultra-conservative Catholics see two different movies, and Protestants and Catholics see two different movies. Many Christian viewers are deeply moved because they see the cornerstones of their belief reflected in this movie. They understand that Jesus gave up his life willingly, bowing to the will of his Father – God in Heaven. They believe that Jesus' life and death is a model for how to submit to God's will and how to express love and forgiveness to others. We Jews must be aware of the importance of the suffering of Jesus in Christian theology and be sensitive to the feelings of those millions of devout Christians who will be deeply touched by the film, without being at all influenced by its portrayal of Jewish brutality and accusations of Jewish complicity in the crucifixion.
I do not believe this movie is going to change anyone's opinion. Christians who are people of good will will see this movie with different eyes than we will as Jews. Those who enter the theater with anti-Jewish biases will undoubtedly find reinforcement for their hostility. Most Christians will simply be moved by the suffering and martyrdom of the man whom they believe died for their sins.
For some Christians, this movie will be an inspiring experience, even a call to faith. Jews will see that we have been presented as "Christ
Killers" – once again – a label that has caused us unimaginable pain and agony for two thousand years.
DEEP AND PROFOUND DIFFERENCE
So what's the Passion really mean for Jews? It is a reminder of how many, deep and profound are the differences between Christianity and Judaism, and therefore it is difficult for us Jews to even begin to relate to this movie. Let me give you several examples. In Judaism, a man can never become God. All human beings are created in the image of God, and no one of us is any better than any other.
On Rosh Hashanah every year we read the story known as Akedat Yitzchak – the Binding of Isaac. What do we read? When God saw that Abraham was about to slaughter Isaac, God could not bear to see him tortured, but immediately cried out "Do not put forth your hand against that child!" So how can Jews relate to a God who allows his son to be crucified? Shouldn't God have turned the world upside-down before allowing such a tortuous death as we witness on the screen of "The Passion"?
Our God has no family; we human beings are God's partners.
The idea of vicarious atonement, someone dying for our sins, is anathema to Judaism. Jews, first of all, do not believe in Original Sin. We believe that we are born pure into the world. We are responsible for our own deeds. When we do something wrong, we are called upon to ask forgiveness from those whom we have wronged and try to correct any harm we may have caused. We pray to God to have the strength to own up to our misdeeds and to correct our errors. God does not forgive our sins against other people, until we have made good faith efforts to seek the forgiveness of those we have hurt and tried to correct any harm done. When such correction is not possible, charity and the doing of good deeds are other ways of showing our repentance and gaining God's forgiveness.
Furthermore, God wants – according to Judaism – not the death of the sinner, but that the sinner should repent, turn from his ways and live.
Judaism maintains that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah promised by the prophets, for he did not fulfill the Messianic hopes. Not one Messianic promise was fulfilled through Jesus. He neither established universal peace and social justice for all humanity, nor did he redeem Israel. As far as Jews are concerned, our People's two thousand year homelessness and the continuation of war, poverty and injustice – are conclusive proof of the fact that the Messiah has not yet arrived.
But not only do Jews not accept Jesus as the Messiah, he is not accepted as a prophet as well, for Jesus did not live up to the standards of the Jewish prophets. Jewish prophets were first and last the mouthpiece of God. None of the prophets of Israel ever taught in his own name and in his own personality. The "I" of the prophets is God. The "I" of Jesus is he himself. Jesus taught on his own authority, frequently in opposition to the teachings of the rabbis of his time.
No Jewish prophet ever claimed to be nearer to God than any other man, for that claim is contrary to the Jewish conviction that all people are equal before God and that there is no particular son of God who is nearer to the Father in Heaven than all the rest.
No Jewish prophet would preach in opposition to Jewish law. Jesus told his disciples to go out into the fields on Shabbas and pick the wheat – a violation of Jewish law. Jesus said you do not have to wash your hands before you eat – a violation of Jewish law. Jesus said divorce is not legal – it certainly is legal according to Halacha. Jesus ridiculed the laws of kashrut – a violation of Jewish law. He ignored the fasts of the
community – another violation of Jewish law. Thus Jesus was no prophet.
My friends, humility – not torture – is the way to salvation. And if God had Abraham spare his favorite son, God would never have inflicted the death of anyone to bring on the redemption of humankind. We Jews learned from Abraham, the very first Jew, and his experience with his own son, that God does not want human sacrifice.
SHOULD JEWS SEE "THE PASSION"?
So, should Jews go to see The Passion of the Christ? Only if you have a morbid curiosity to know what so many people are talking about. Otherwise, it is a terribly violent and historically inaccurate picture. Such violence does not sensitize or inspire, in my opinion. It desensitizes, numbs and coarsens the soul. We Jews will see all of the stereotypes which our experience of 800 years of prior Passion Plays is going to exacerbate in our eyes. And we are not going to understand the theology which is at the heart of this movie.
So here are my suggestions. 1) It cost Nancy and me $15 to see the Gospel according to Mel. Instead, make a donation to MAZON for the amount you would have spent to see The Passion. 2) Put as much energy into being Jewish as into worrying about anti-Semitism. We can make a greater statement about who we are by our actions than by our words and worries. If you are concerned about "The Passion", then come be with Jews, celebrate Judaism, live a Jewish life. 3) A week from Monday night, let us all sit down at our seder tables and passionately celebrate our rich and beautiful traditions. Instead of being defensive, I urge you to rethink what your Jewish life is like and how you can make it even more positive for those around you. Let's passionately live as Jews, celebrate our Judaism, act out our beliefs in our community and in our efforts at tikkun olam, repairing and healing this hurting world.
The challenge which confronts Jews and Christians today is to build bridges from hostility to understanding, from mutual ignorance to mutual respect, from contempt to admiration. Regrettably, Mel Gibson chose not to do that. Thank God, there are so many others who live up to the prophetic vision of Micah. "Let all nations walk in the name of their gods, while we walk in the name of the Eternal, our God, forever and ever." Amen
I've read a great deal in preparing this message and particularly benefitted from the writings of Rabbis Susan Grossman, Mark Hillel Kunis, Gilbert Rosenthal, David Fox Sandmel and Mitchell Wohlberg, Fr. John T. Pawlikowski and The Christian Scholars Group on Christian-Jewish Relations.
