The Jews didn't cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed.
By Charles Colson
The cover of the latest Newsweek magazine asks the right question: "Who killed Jesus?" This has been a raging debate for a year, since Mel Gibson started his remarkable film project The Passion of the Christ. He immediately ran into a buzz saw of opposition from the liberal media and Jewish groups who were afraid the film would rekindle anti-Semitism.Now, Jews have a legitimate concern about this. During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly. In Russia there were pogroms against the Jews. And of course some of the maniacs around Hitler professed that they were killing Jews to purify the Christian race.
But is this sensitivity today well-founded? If we would look at history alone, we would have to say that Pontius Pilate certainly was guilty. Legend has it that years after the crucifixion he was frantically washing his hands trying to cleanse himself from the blood of Christ. And, of course, Caiphus the High Priest certainly bears his share of responsibility. So do the crowds who yelled, "Crucify him." So was it the Romans or the Jews, the venality of Pontius Pilate or the passion of the mob?It was both and neither.
The Jews didn't cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed. He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross so that the sins of mankind might be forgiven. And those who take Scripture seriously have always known who killed Jesus: You and I and all other sinful human beings did so.Mel Gibson understands this. In his movie, The Passion of the Christ, the hand holding the spike being nailed through Christ's wrist is Gibson's. Who killed Jesus? Mel Gibson knows. And he made the very point with his own hand that he was responsible, not the Jews.
« Prev Page Next Page »
Page 1 2
2 comments:
Today when I signed on to finish up some homework I found this article in my AOL news box. It is bascially an article stated how Billy Graham is defending the movie. He believes the movie is not antisematic because it shows how we are all responsible for Christ's death through our sins. Now I don't know much about Graham, but at the end of the article it says that Graham only apologized last year for disparing remarks he made against the Jewish community during a conversation with Nixion in the Oval Office 30 years ago.
My question is how can a man who only just apologized last year about remarks he made that apparently offended the Jewish community say that this movie is not antisematic? I have no clue what those remarks were that he made, but still I find it highly unbelievable that this man can determine whether or not the film is antisematic. The article also stated that Graham saw the movie in a private screening about a month ago. If the movie was so dramatic and he wanted to back it up, why did it take him a month to make a statement about it?
At a screening of the movie in August, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League told readers that the movie falsly portrayed Jewish leaders and the Jewish mob for causing Christ to be crucified. This is the first I have heard about this statement and I found it after the statements made by Graham in this article. I feel more ready to believe Foxman than Graham because of the research that I have done on the film since I first heard about it at the Conference.
In a question and answer section found on the ADL website concerning this play one of the questions asked was "Is the ADL trying to censor Mel Gibson? Doesn't he have the right to make any film he wants?" Their response was as follows:
" ADL has never tried to 'censor' the movie. We are requesting a process similar to successful projects on the Oberammergau Passion Play and other sensitive artistic productions. ADL is urging Mr. Gibson and Icon Productions to consult with interfaith professionals and New Testament experts to ensure a historically accurate and theologically responsible depiction of the crucifixion that is devoid of anti-Semitic dimensions. We are asking Mr. Gibson to assume sensitivity and moral responsibility, which are obligations of all good people, and particularly artists who influence many around the world."
So if you are one of the many people out there who believe the ADL is just trying to censor the film and get the movie they want made than maybe you should take a look at the link I provided above. I believe that they are just trying to get Gibson to make a film that will be a more moving and accurate portrayal of what Christ went through in his final hours on earth.
Maybe I am just getting worked up over nothing, but I was incredibly disgusted by the fact that the film makers were portraying things in such a way that so many of the Jewish population are getting upset over it. I have many Jewish friends and I believe them when they say that the film puts them into a bad light. From what I understand the Jewish mob scene was incredibly wrong in that the mob probably had about 20-30 people in attandance and the film shows a crowd of about 100. What is so wrong with reshooting that sceen with less people? I don't know, this is just how I feel. If you feel differently I suggest that you ignor everything that I have said.
Tiffany
Posted by Tiffany Brattina at November 30, 2003 9:25 AM
Comments
Tiffany, this is an extremely interesting post. Although I don't know anything about this movie other than from what I've read in your posts and the links you've provided, I think it raises some important ethical issues for filmmakers (and for everyone in general).
It takes a lot of work to make sure a film is historically accurate. If the mob did indeed only consist of 20 to 30 people, perhaps there is a reason why the director chose to shoot the film with nearly 100 extras. Clearly, the director wants to get some kind of message across, even if we don't necessarily agree with it.
Another thing to consider: this is a Hollywood film. Had this film been produced independently and without a Hollywood figurehead like Mel Gibson, you'd probably have a more honest film. However, when you throw big names into a film, production companies just want to make money. If that means distorting the truth, that's just fine. So, that mob scene has to be made into something more awful and violent just to keep viewers' attention. Hollywood doesn't care if it's honest or true to the story -- all that matters is the money it brings in. Sex, violence, and Mel Gibson sell, even if they're featured in a biblical story.
Please follow up on this when you find more information! Great post.
Posted by: Kate Cielinski at November 30, 2003 10:17 AM
SAYING THAT THIS FILM SHOWS JEWISH PEOPLE IN A BAD LIGHT, IS LIKE SAYING THAT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND RACIST BECAUSE OF SLAVERY FROM GENERATIONS PAST. I DO NOT EVEN KNOW IF MY FAMILY OWNED SLAVES AND WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR MISTAKES MADE BY OTHER PEOPLE. OBVIOUSLY RACISM IN ANY FORM IS NOT WHAT CHRIST DESIRES FOR ANY OF US. JEWISH PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING SINGLED OUT BY WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS A BAD PORTRAYEL. I DO HOPE THAT THE FILM IS USED TO BRING PEOPLE TO FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION OF YOUR LIFE. I DO NOT DESIRE TO EVER BELITTLE OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS. I DO BELIEVE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LOVE OTHERS AS WE LOVE OURSELVES, AND AS CHRIST LOVES THEM. PLEASE GO SEE THE FILM WITHOUT THE PREJUDICE THAT IT IS ANTI-SEMITIC. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE FROM THE INFORMATION I HAVE HEARD. YOU CAN EVEN CONTACT LOCAL CHURCHES TO POSSIBLY OBTAIN FREE TICKETS, AS SOME LARGER CHURCHES HAVE CHOSEN TO BUY OUT MANY SHOWINGS OF THE FILM TO GIVE AWAY TICKETS AT NO CHARGE. IF IN THE AREA OF WOODSTOCK, GA , CONTACT FIRST BAPTIST WOODSTOCK. IF ANY TICKETS REMAIN, THEY WILL BE GLAD TO GIVE THEM TO YOU.
Posted by: PAUL at February 16, 2004 8:25 PM
You seem to believe in what you are saying, but are the caps necessary? You are shouting at us, and caps are usually very abrasive to the eyes (hard to read and usually has the effect of red pen).
Posted by: Amanda at February 17, 2004 5:36 PM
Haven't seen the movie, but have read the Bible.
Christianity and Judaism has been seperated since Jesus was proclaimed the Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. And the only way to Heaven is by accepting the sacrifice He made with His blood on the cross of Calvary as the payment we owe God for our sins, and be born again into a new life with His Spirit living in our hearts. Traditional Judaism does not believe that. We both hold the old testament as holy truth, but Jesus is the difference.
If Mel Gibson portrayed an angry mob in Jerusalem made up mostly of Jews, then he went according to the Christian bible's description of the event.
I also agree that there were other faiths that were there supporting the crucifixion. I also believe that they did not understand what they were doing at the time. (Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".
The crucifixion was proficied and therefore necessary to complete the plan of salvation.
It was an awful thing for Christ to go through, and He did it for us. He was sinless, and the only spotless sacrifice available to be our once and for all Saviour whose blood was shed to wash our sins and make anyone who accepts Him as their Savior able to go into the Holy New Jerusalem prepared for His people.
In a way, we all crucify Christ each time we fail Him, and each time we deny Him. Whether we are Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Agnostic, Arabic or whatever, we need to realize that Jesus is the Son of God, for without Him in our hearts, our souls will be sent to Hell judgment day.
Posted by: Ron at February 21, 2004 10:57 PM
Why so much contraversy? It is written. Mel Gibson only portraited what he has read. Now if the portrayal of the complete betrayal not just Judas' part is incorrect then why is the Bible still in existence as is today? Believe it or not as said IT IS DONE!
Posted by: Concerned Christian at March 11, 2004 5:12 PM
Why so much controversy? It is written. I don't know what BOOK you've read. But Mel Gibson portrayed this portion of the BIBLE as we've learned it. And no one religion, nationality, or group was being blamed for JESUS being crucified.
IT WAS WRITTEN! Now if the portrayal of the complete betrayal (not just Judas' part) is incorrect then why is the BIBLE still in existence AS IS, today? Believe it or not as it has already been said, "IT IS DONE"!!!!
Posted by: Christian at March 11, 2004 5:25 PM
Hey, just wanted to make a little comment. I went to see Passion last night. I thought it was a very good movie. One thing that I found was that, or at least I felt that this movie was not anti-sematic. Firstly, it was told the way it happend in the Bible, and you can't change that, secondly, Jesus died for everyon's sins, therefore every single one of us put him up there on that cross.
Posted by: SueMyers at March 11, 2004 8:27 PM
Mel was chosen by God, annointed and equipped to make this movie. As Mr. Gibson put it "I couldn't have not made this movie." For those who view the Passion it should be a time for reflection and self-examination. No more time for fence straddlers. Either we believe who he is and what he has done for us or we go our own way. It changed my life after having lived with a cleaned up, sanitized version of Jesus suffering and crucifiction. I will never again take my salvation for granted.
Posted by: Lupie Riley at March 18, 2004 10:12 PM
that was a great movie, yo dawg u did it.
Posted by: babyg at June 5, 2004 10:14 PM
Post a comment
Hmm.... well if we all have freewill and God can't force us to do anything, then technically hey weren't instruments of God because he couldn't force them to do it. However, just because some Jewish and Roman people in a heated moment after a lot of negative propaganda towards a man brought Jesus to his end, it does not mean an ENTIRE group of people is to blame. That would be ridiculous and extremely close minded. It would be like saying people with brown hair are bad because here was a brunette serial killer. No one would say that so the same should apply with race.
Post a Comment