Again, the point is not to be the most unique cross, positioned like no other on top the hill, but rather identifying with the rest of suffering humanity on the road. Jesus was placed in one of these long lines of crosses, among the newly crucified and the bodies that had been rotting for some time. There numerous crosses that lined the road out of the city, an ever present warning to anyone who would disturb the Pax Romana. Rather, Golgotha overshadowed the road below outside the city gates. But crucifixions didn’t take place on top. That former rock quarry was a landmark outside the gates of the city. Problem 4: The location of the crucifixion was portrayed on the top of Golgotha, the place of the skull. This portrayal simplifies evil to the level of the ridiculous. The evil impulse resides in all of us, a power that seizes collectives as well as individuals. The devil floats around in human form like Harry Potter’s Voldemort, the one whose name shall not be spoken. Problem 3: Evil is personified as a comic book character.
That’s why the emphasis on inordinate quantities of blood the more blood, the more pleasing the sacrifice. People like the apostle Paul and the early church fathers asked the question: What is the meaning of the death of the messiah? Their answers were several but Gibson gives us one. Mel Gibson’s Jesus knows he is the sacrifice, something Christians meditated on at a much later time. This means that Jesus is portrayed as a vicarious victim whose blood is appeasing God. Problem 2: The movie appeals to one theory of atonement in the substitutionary track. That’s why it’s important not because it was carried out in a unique way, but rather because it was like all others. The crucifixion of Jesus would have been much more routine, like thousands of others. The movie portrayed him as a somebody being crucified rather than a nobody being crucified. Which means that the movie was making a theological statement about Jesus. The reality of the time was that a peasant like Jesus would have been dealt with in a summary way, dispatched quickly and without much fanfare. The specter of Pilate running a survey of the crowd to find the consensus, even in the Barabbas narrative, is dubious, as scholars know. If it consulted Jewish leaders it was in private, never publicly bowing to any other authority.
We also know that the High Priest was appointed by Rome to keep order. We know Jesus was in conflict with Jewish leaders.
Problem 1: The portrayal of the Jewish crowd as ravenous beasts is an outrage. The second was close on its heels: How will this theology speak to church and culture today? Entire congregations watch it.Īs I watched it again a haunting question appeared: How can I be fair to your story, Jesus? Today, in certain Christian circles, one is easily branded heretical if this movie is negatively critiqued, challenged, or questioned. Even to raise modest protest about the point of view of the movie is to call into question the veracity of one’s faith. But I can’t, I won’t gloss over the implicit theology and Christology of this movie. Ok, forget Hollywood and what it has to do to sell its product. So I tuned in, trying to look at it with new eyes. In recent years The Passion of the Christ (Mel Gibson) has become standard fare on Good Friday television. After our Good Friday service I sat at home, reflecting.
0 kommentar(er)
