God moves in mysterious ways…

Michael Anbar Ph.D.

In the last few months Christians and Jews have written hundreds of articles and op-eds on Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”  It seems there is little to add to this avalanche of words. Still I would like to present another perspective. 

Most of the articles that were written by Christians praise the movie as a meaningful, though crass, religious experience. On the other hand, most Jewish writers, joined by a number of prominent thoughtful Christian clergy, criticize this movie for presenting an anti-Jewish polemic and a fundamentalist revisionism against Vatican II that was intended to eradicate the traditional Christian animosity against the Jewish people.  Besides offering religious inspiration to Christians, Gibson’s gross showpiece intentionally or perhaps unintentionally looks like an attempt to reopen the chasm between Christians and Jews.  This seventeen hundred years-old enmity culminated in the systematic murder of more than six million Jews by German Christians.

Moreover, Gibson’s fundamentalist revisionist Christian ideology, which does not permit critical analysis of the Bible or changes in its interpretation, is reminiscent of the fundamentalist Islamist Wahabist ideology that meticulously adheres to ancient scriptures, failing to realize the reality of today’s world. The Koran describes Jews as sub-human beings and mandates the killing of Jews and the conversion or subjugation of Christians. Gibson’s Christian fundamentalist film was produced while the West is hoping that Islam reforms and produces its own version of “Vatican II” of religious tolerance. Otherwise, we all are going to face an unprecedented global horrendously bloody war. I wonder what Gibson would say if an Egyptian Islamic film director produced a movie that dramatizes Mohammad’s massacres of Jews in Arabia and shows him giving explicit orders to his believers  (repeating verbatim the Koran verses) how to brutally treat infidels like Mel Gibson and his friends. Al Jazeera would broadcast that movie worldwide, endorsed by the Grand Imam of Mecca as a true presentation of the acts of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him... 

Scientists are expected to be socially responsible in their research and its dissemination, irrespective of the recognition they receive.  Industrialists are expected to be socially responsible in the products they manufacture, irrespective of their profits. Politicians are expected to be socially responsible irrespective of the power they muster. Why is this not true also of artists?

However, besides offering Christians a vivid religious experience of a dramatic presentation of Jesus’ sufferings, Gibson’s film has inadvertently several additional positive outcomes: 

First, it retells millions of viewers the undeniable fact that Jesus was a Jew and that the Romans executed him as the Christ, the anointed king of the Jews. This affirms the Jewish origins of Christianity, demonstrating the absurdity of Christian hatred of Jews. History tells us that during their reign in Judea the Romans crucified many other Jews, in addition to Jesus, for the same offence. Messianic anticipation, awaiting a descendent of King David to regain sovereignty over Jerusalem, has been a basic premise in Judaism since the destruction of the First Temple, when the last king of the House of David was humiliated and exiled. Also the notion of a tormented servant of God whose death atones for all men’s sins (Isaiah 53: 4-7) has been a premise of ancient Judaism, recorded more than 500 years before the rise of Christianity. Even if this was a prophecy from God heralding the coming of Jesus, his suffering and death, as most Christians believe, this prophecy reached the Christians only because the Jews maintained it for centuries as part of Jewish culture.  Had traditional Judaism been eradicated by Antiochus IV, the Greco-Syrian despot, which might have happened if not for the successful Hashmonean revolt, this prophecy, which is conceptually key in Christian faith, would have been lost forever and Christianity would have never been born.

Second, this movie tells its millions of viewers that Jews were the native inhabitants of Jerusalem 2000 years ago, oppressed by the Roman imperial legions that conquered and subjugated their ancient holy national capital. Notwithstanding Gibson’s untrue image of Pilate (Pontius Pilatus), the brutal Roman Procurator of Judea, who crushed Jewish resistance to his blatant attempts to infringe on Jewish religious laws (remember Antiochus IV), movie viewers do learn from Gibson that the Jewish people were the owners of the land long before the crucifixion. This refutes the Arab ludicrous “historical” claim to this land that was conquered and occupied by Arabs six hundred years after the crucifixion. Moreover, the movie depicts the Jewish Temple, the existence of which the Arabs deny as a “Zionist myth,” while frantically destroying its archeological remains. It is hard to see how the Arabs could use “The Passion of the Christ” in their anti-Jewish propaganda, when this film affirms the Jewish historical ties to their ancient capital.

Third, most Christian viewers do not see Gibson’s flagrant anti-Jewish bias, although Gibson selected from the four Gospels every anti-Jewish polemic he could find, including the notorious incredible self-curse of the Jews “All the people answered, ‘Let his blood be on us and on our children!’” (Mathew 27:25), embellishing these with medieval anti-Jewish rhetoric and adding his own imaginative impersonation of the non-biblical devil whom he subtly associates with the Jews. It is difficult to believe that all these Judeophobic choices are coincidental. However, all this has failed and even backfired. Most Christian viewers do not perceive the anti-Jewish streaks in this movie, and those who do, disassociate themselves from them. While making unbelievably large profits from this film, Gibson seems to have failed in his ideological goal of challenging Vatican II’s absolution of the Jews from the false collective guilt of deicide.

Fourth, the consensus is that, at least in the US, this movie will bring Jews and Christians closer together. Christians will better recognize the Jewish roots of Christianity and Jews will better understand the spiritual meaning of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus in Christian faith. This understanding is conducive to better interfaith relations.

Fifth, by showing the historical roots of Christianity in Judaism, this movie is likely to bind Christianity and Judaism together against militant supremacist Islam. Western culture, which is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, is now under vicious attack. Notwithstanding Gibson’s intentions, this movie and the historical discussions it stimulates, in addition to the existence of a common enemy, will bring Christians and Jews closer together rather that alienate them from each other.

In other words, like Balaam son of Beor, who wanted to blaspheme the Jews but God made him bless them, Mel Gibson may have inadvertently done the Jewish people a favor, socially and politically. God moves in mysterious ways…

March15, 2004