The Passion of Jesus has been a contentious subject in drama for centuries. But how can one assign blame for something that is the central foundation of Christianity?
I've been hearing a lot about the new film (produced and directed by Mel Gibson) "The Passion of the Christ", and already it is generating a great deal of controversy. If you're unfamiliar with the theological nomenclature, "The Passion" refers to the period of Christ's suffering, from his arrest to his burial. Some say the film's message is anti-Semitic, for its depiction of the Jews role in Christ's death. Some say that any account of the Passion is an assault against Jews, as the account found in the Gospels establishes the Jews as complicit, although we have no primary historical record to establish this. (The Gospels as a historical source are secondary sources as they were written many years after Jesus lived and died. So as historical documents, they are secondary sources. The question of whether they reveal the true literal account and the undiluted Word of God is a question of theology, which I won't deign to answer here. So please don't argue with me on that account, as I'm expressing no opinion on this matter of faith. ) Some argue with presenting it at all, as the most important part is Jesus's life, and to focus on his death creates unnecessary conflict. I won't join in on any part of this bandwagon, as I've always hated the hypocrites who decry a film without seeing it. My question is how did this issue of blame come up in the first place?
I'm a damn poor scholar in Christian theology, I'll admit it. But I know the basics, and one of the central and most important tenets of Christianity is that Jesus Christ had to die to absolve the world of sin. This was part of the bargain, it was God's plan for his people, and it is the core of Christ's New Testament. So how is it possible for there to be responsibility in his death? It was all understood and Jesus asked to be spared if it were it God's will. While most of Christianity in the modern world accepts the doctrine of Free Will, particularly as it relates to the question of Pain and Evil, it is nonetheless recognized that all things are possible through God, and, by extension, God can exert control over the world.
So as this is a part of the New Testament with God's people, and as God chose not to spare Jesus in order to fulfill the Testament (the essential tenet of Christianity -- John 3:16), is it truly possible to assign blame or responsibility or complicity in Jesus's Death? Perhaps there's a Christian Scholar out there that can help me with this one. I don't see a way out, though, for responsibility to be possible, especially on the part of an entire race of people. The only way I could see it as theoretically possible is if one assumes that it was part of God's plan because God is omnipotent and omniscient that God knew the will of the Jews to be evil. But this seems unlikely for many reasons. First, the Jews are God's Chosen People, so an assumption of evil is out of place. Second, and much more importantly, it is a morally reprehensible concept that the Jewish people could be, by nature, inclined to evil, by race and in their entirety.
I suppose the short answer may be that the people beating Jews in response to the Passion Plays had not considered the philosophical implications. This is almost certainly the case. But nonetheless, I still frequently hear arguments about whether or not the Jews are complicit or responsible for Christ's death, and cannot recall anyone using the line of argument above. Can someone tell me what I'm missing?
Or course, it's possible there is an answer to this in the vast literature out there on theology which I could look up. But that's a lot of reading, and I have to go to bed. I think I'll just wait for the movie.
Link:
Apologist account of relations between Christians and Jews
Notes: Most of the Links in this entry come from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and as such have a Catholic Theist bias. They do not necessarily represent this author's view.
This entry itself deals with a philosophical examination of the theological issue, and as such makes a number of assertions consistent with Christian theology. This is necessary to argue within a consistent framework. Of course, the assertions made are a matter of personal faith and the author does not imply them to be either fact or fiction.
Posted by ktismael at February 9, 2004 11:11 PM