February 23, 2004
US:
'His Blood Be on Us': Mel Gibson and Matthew 27:25: If the verse meant only the Jews bear responsibility for Jesus' death, it would overturn Christian theology. (David Klinghoffer, BeliefNet)
Mel Gibson has reportedly dropped from his forthcoming film, The Passion of the Christ, what have been called the most inflammatory words in the New Testament. This cut has been hailed as a victory for Jews who worry about the impact of the film. Is it really something to celebrate? [...]Of course there have been anti-Semites who understood Matthew’s words differently, and any such hateful individuals still around today will find confirmation of their bigotry in Gibson’s film. As with any piece of art, what you see will be conditioned by what you bring to it. In the same way, because representatives of the ADL see Jewish victimization wherever they look, they will see anti-Semitism in the film even if none is there.
But it’s wrong to expect Mel Gibson to tailor his work because of the extreme imaginings of a minority of viewers, whether anti-Semitic bigots or self-appointed anti-bigotry watchdogs.
When you consider that Matthew got his idea in the first place from his Jewish background, and that at the same time it speaks not of Jewish people in particular but of mankind in general, the grounds for insisting that Gibson excise the verse seem very tenuous. According to news reports, he only deleted the scene because friendly screening audiences objected to it. That, at least, is a comfort. The irony would be too painful if he had been pressured into editing his faith by critics who claim to be defenders of the freedom of faith.
The desire of even handpicked audiences not to be reminded that we're all to blame speaks volumes, does it not? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 23, 2004 7:11 AM
Of course we're all to blame. Clearly. It's so obvious, one need not even mention it.
But some groups are more equal than others....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 23, 2004 8:25 AMSet Jesus aside for a moment - who among us would claim the ability not to sin as Adam (and Eve) did?
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 23, 2004 8:43 AMI have actually met one person in my life who claimed he had not sinned. His name was Jeff, but he lived near Pittsburgh and was a modern example of the rich young ruler who asked Jesus about this very question. I don't even think this Jeff was totally serious, but he certainly could act solemn.
Posted by: jim hamlen at February 23, 2004 11:59 AMThe stupidity of making "His blood be on us and on our children," an excuse for anti-Semitism is clear even from the Bible itself. When Israel sinned, God brought His judgment on them Himself. No one had be self-nominated as God's executor since He reserved that position to Himself. He did use His own chosen instruments, and it is interesting to note that those instruments - the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Selucids, the Romans - are all in the dust of history, but Israel is still around.
Posted by: Henry IX at February 23, 2004 12:18 PMRe: Matthew 27:25, And all the people answered, "His blood be upon us and on our children!" In John 11;49, Caiaphas makes a statement and John explains that the statement is prophetic. Matthew 27:25 must be taken the same way, it is prophetic. I wish to be covered by the blood, I wish my children to be covered by the blood, it is the only path to salvation.
In Romans 11:17, Paul writes of how the Jewish people are an olive tree. Branches were broken off and we Gentiles grafted in. But, Paul writes, Israel will one day be grafted back into that olive root. The statement must be understood in a prophetic sense of Israel being covered in the blood, or regrafted into that wild olive root.
Leviticus 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”
I'm pretty sure he didn't exist even as a man and I'm real sure he didn't exist as a god.
Maybe Jeff doesn't, but I do claim that since I left the church I have never sinned. It's true. I have never done a thing I thought was wrong, and everything I've done was because I thought it was the right thing to do.
What I have failed to do is to claim that my beliefs and my actions don't match.
The longer I think about it, the less I believe that it is possible for anyone to act against his beliefs.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 25, 2004 12:52 AMJeff claims the same. That's often all rejecting God is--a form of self-justification and self-elevation.
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2004 12:57 AMHarry:
That's only true if one has examined both one's own life/personality, and also the larger universe.
There are plenty of people who drift through life, doing whatever's expedient, and who have only survival as a core belief.
Witness Clinton.
Contra Orrin, I don't believe that whatever is, is right. Just that what people say they believe tells us exactly nothing about what they do believe.
It's possible that my profession makes me see the world this way. When you spend almost all day, five or six days a week, being paid to listen to people try to deceive you, sincerity is at a discount.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 25, 2004 9:13 PMExcept your own, proving my point.
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2004 10:21 PM