Correction: Jesus was stabbed in the side to make sure he was dead. From what I recall of the accounts, he apparently expired, somebody pointed this out, and a Roman Legionaire stabbed him to see what would happen.

Getting no response it was agreed that Jesus was indeed dead, and so his body was handed over to his family.

That last being a kindness, since most victims of crucifiction got dumped in an anonymous hole with the rest of the day's 'harvest'.

All things considered, it would appear that Jesus was not in that great a shape to begin with. I suspect stress and a deep depression.

You're right. Noted and corrected.

Dean, thoughtful piece. I haven't seen the movie yet myself— planning to get up to La Crosse to see it once the crowds thin out a bit.

And now, back to running through my sermon for this First Sunday in Lent one last time or two.

I, too, have not seen the movie, and may not see it. But my mother did.

You have to understand this about my mother: she is as devout a Christian as you can imagine. She is from the old country (as am I). She is "old school." Furthermore, for 49 years, she was the wife of a Protestant minister, my father. She raised her children in the faith. We were all very well-versed in the Bible and especially in the New Testament. We were all schooled in the Gospels.

In short, my mother walks the walk. She is someone who has always had a close relationship with her Saviour.

[Note: For those of you who know me as a Jew, well, that's a story for another day.]

Furthermore, she is, culturally & politically very conservative.

[Note: hee.]

So naturally I was interested in my mother's reaction.

In short, she was not impressed.

"Too much beating. That much beating would have killed 5 men. And where was the story of Jesus' life, all his teachings? Who was he and why were they beating him? What did it mean? All the beating didn't mean anything. And they didn't show him rising from the tomb on Easter morning! That's the most important part of the story. They skipped all the best parts of the story. I didn't care for any of it."

Go figure.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000359.html

It portrays the Jews as a bloodthirsty mob, led by cruel and malicious leaders, who repeatedly bay for Jesus to be crucified. It makes no acknowledgement of the fact that, writing decades after the death of Jesus and under the yoke of Roman tyranny, the Gospel writers would almost certainly have wanted to present the Jews in the worst possible light rather than the Romans who actually crucified Jesus along with many other Jews.

Dean, lapsed Methodist here. I am agnostic, which (to me) pretty much means a spiritual coward. I want to believe, and feel sympathy towards believers, but I'm either lacking something or have too much of the rationalist in me. At the same time, I cannot be atheistic because to me a belief in good and evil, right and wrong, and moral absolutes cannot exist in an atheist. (I know some will argue with that. But that is why *I* reject atheism.) My husband is seeing the movie this afternoon. I have never known him to go to church or exhibit any religiosity, yet he says "Christ went through this FOR US; I can't not see it." As far as films about Jesus go, I revere "Jesus of Nazareth" and loved "The Greatest Story Ever Told."

I also am a huge coward when it comes to most movie violence and am infamous in my family for walking out of movies. No matter what Christ may have endured for us, I can't sit through 5 minutes of the tortures in this film, let alone an hour. That being said, I cannot help thinking that many are dwelling on the violence purely as a means of discouraging as many as possible from seeing "The Passion," and that bothers me. I can't take the violence but I would never attempt to discourage anyone from seeing it, and this condemnation and outrage imply a political agenda at work here. There are many, many films with mindless and grotesque violence that elicit no comdemnation whatsoever from the same suspects who are having a complete hissy over this one. I have to add that I respect Roger and Jeff for their views, but for many reasons have lost all respect for and interest in anything Sullivan has to say, including his ranting pissy hissy fit over this movie. My "intolerance meter" has maxed out too many times on his site lately to pay any more attention, but I am extremely interested in your, Roger's, Jeff's, and others' views, whether I agree or not. Your post today is very thoughtful and also respectful of those who believe differently from you, and I thank you for that.

My only motivation for watching the movie is that I want to see how Gibson's linguistic advisors interpreted the Latin and Aramaic of the time. No religious significance for me personally, but it will be interesting to see how he portrayed the Jews as a whole, since I think historically that the Roman Jews weren't necessarily representative of all Jews -- Jesus surely had his followers -- and that it's an interesting allegory of the current state of Christianity: A large continuum of beliefs and traditions, some of which are repugnant to people elsewhere on the spectrum. Surely, there are Christians today who would denounce Jesus as a Socialist and a seditionist, were he to return.

Some of them. Not all of them.

As I once almost became a Methodist minister, I have an overwhelming desire to see this film even though I am now an atheist, I do not deny the historic existence of Jesus Christ, and I have little doubt that he was crucified as roughly described in the New Testament. The events leading up to his crucifixtion and his subsequent death were extremely dark, ugly, vengeful, and violent. If Jesus was seen as a significant threat to the religious and political leaders of the time, they acted out of self-interest and self-preservation. If this man claimed to be the Son of God, and they did not accept that fact, do you really blame them for wanting to get rid of him?

To call this film anti-Semitic is intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale. It may indeed anti- 1st century Pharisee and Sadducee, but that hardly describes each and every Jewish person before and since the 1st century.

As to the question of brutal violence in the film; I think people need to realize that when a person dies a violent death, it is not pretty. I for one , disagree that exposure to brutal violence desensitizes people to it, and thus, it becomes less of an outrage when we see or hear about it. I say that when we refuse to allow ourselves to be confronted with the realities of violence, the types we find in war, genocide, brutal political regimes, we are more likely to be apathetic towards things that are not in our backyard so to speak. Of course, we want everything to be sweet and nice and don't want to be bothered with the messy details of something like a soldier getting his leg blown off by a roadside bomb or the horrible way a person dies in a Roman-style crucifixtion. Blood hardly goes well with our expensive church clothes.

"He went through something deeply horrible and gruesome--not just getting beat up and then nailed to a cross, but was truly horribly punished. He had the power to stop it by saying just a word, by calling on God the Father to stop it, and did not."

Yes.

“And he did not in order to sacrifice his own self to redeem the sins of all mankind.”

That’s what Christian theology teaches. But he could have also been continuing his life’s work of teaching us how to live so that we might become closer to God. The ultimate act of forgiveness and selflessness would be to allow yourself to be tortured and murdered when you could destroy your tormentors with a thought. And that would be completely consistent with the lesson of turning one’s cheek “seventy times seven”. Of course, that sort of selfless pacifism is a tough concept for second and third (and twenty-first) century mortals to get their minds around. And it's useless for building church power.

And where was the story of Jesus' life, all his teachings?

Well, the movie is called "The Passion of the Christ," which I always understood referred to the last couple of days. If the movie were to about his life and teachings, I imagine it would have had a different title.

I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've read I guess it also leaves out the Resurrection.

I smell a sequel.

And maybe a couple of pre-quels.

shep - turning one’s cheek “seventy times seven” is selfless pacifism - it’s also an unrealistic utopian ideal that, if interpreted literally, invites humanity to follow the path of the dodo bird.

All living things share some basic traits – they reproduce, they eat, and they all have adaptations that enable them to escape being attacked or to survive an attack once it is underway. If an animal can’t defend itself it dies. If a breed of animal can’t or won’t defend itself, it becomes extinct.

The ‘ideal’ of living in a perfect state of peace, without the need to defend ourselves is as unreasonable as expecting to survive without reproducing. The Shakers were a Utopian group that believed in total abstinence. There are no more Shakers.

If Christianity had literally followed the ‘ideal’ of selfless pacifism there would be no twenty-first century Christians.

I think Mary might miss an unspoken clause in the Christian contract: "Love thy brother" means "Love those whom thou perceivest to be thy brother." It's been rationalized throughout history that there are "our people" and "those people", where "our people" deserve love and peace and forgiveness, while "those people" deserve the sword. Thus was the dichotomy of violence vs. Christian love solved. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, a consistent or hypocritical thing, but it's the way those principles were carried out for much of the history of Western Civilization, and it continues today. The Greek model of "citizens" and "barbarians" has not died out.

It's been rationalized throughout history that there are "our people" and "those people"

Is there any civilization, in the West or the East that doesn't follow those priciples?

- not that this is always a good thing. But when 'those people' want to kill 'our people' en masse, it's hard to love them as brothers. In fact, it's a really bad idea.

Total peace would be a nice idea. It would also save a lot of time and money if we didn't have to eat. Unfortunately, these are ideals that ignore basic biology. It's not workable now, and it probably never will be.

mary wrote: "shep - turning one’s cheek “seventy times seven” is selfless pacifism - it’s also an unrealistic utopian ideal that, if interpreted literally, invites humanity to follow the path of the dodo bird." But if there is a heaven and eternal life, what's the big deal? That's why Christianity is one of the biggest lies in history - Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. The philosophical teachings of Christ however, have a redeemable message. It's been echoed down the ages from Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK Jr. John Lennon, Mother Teresa, The Black Eyed Peas, All you need is love.

One of my friends worked for several years providing medical care in a 3rd world country. She was impressed with the amount of suffering that could be borne- in fact she used to say the primary lesson she learned there was that "It's really, really hard to kill a human being."

I have not seen the movie and I don’t know if I will. But from what I have read, the movie only depicts the physical suffering. And that seems pretty accurately depicted.

The true suffering was the spiritual one. Jesus had to suffer enough to pay for the sins of all those who would become saved. That’s a lot of suffering.

The Jews would sacrifice a perfect lamb at Passover. In a broader sense, Jesus was that perfect sacrifice for all mankind.

Someone must have left the theater before the end of the movie - the resurrection is the last scene before the closing credits.

Thanks, Dean, for your understanding of the motivations of Christians regarding this movie. It's a beautifully awful depiction of what my Savior endured.

Lovely essay, Dean. And to all others: I am amazed and touched when we as human beings can come together, think together, and honor one another--regardless of our backgrounds, foregrounds, and future grounds. You all inspire me.

I saw the movie Thursday.

I am almost dead from the shock of JOHN KUSCH getting it exactly right (since I agree with him about practically nothing else :)

This movie is about choices (not violence, not anti-semiticism). Its about the choice the ancient Jewish leaders made to go after Jesus, and the choice that Jesus made to stay on the cross. It shows the choice that Judas made to betray him, the choice that his disciples made to run and deny before returning. It shows the choice his mother made to stay with him and endure the horror of seeing it all. It shows Pilot troubled by the choice he's trying to make. MOSTLY it is about the choice in front of modern Christians today: This was His choice, what's yours? Are you going to talk the talk or walk the walk?

I suspect the target audience is people who go to church and fill the pew, but don't really allow Jesus to fill their life. Someone that already knows his teachings, but who hasn't grasped the full import of what happened. For all intents and purposes, that would be me. This movie is NOT about leading people to Christ, its about prompting a decision in people that are already there. Perhaps thats why people are so infuriated by it. The movie almost demands a decision of you at the end. I've discovered that humans don't like to feel forced to make a decision, we like options. This movie leaves no room for that. You either "are" or you "aren't".

The movie is entirely spiritual. The violence is only a secondary bit-part of the movie. The real focus is on the spiritual choices people made, and are still making.

Incidentially, the movie is VERY well-made. Its not some second-rate splatter film. The score is great, and weirdly appropriate. Its fascinating to hear Aramaic spoken, and the sub-titles were nicely done. I almost didn't notice them. The cinematography is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. The acting is beyond reproach, every single actor. I am astounded. It is exquisite.

I got so interested in the comments I almost forgot the original post.
Roger Simon is normally a pretty sharp guy, I'm willing to overlook a bad day. I'll just note that Roger seems upset that the violence involved in the crucifixion of the Rabbi from Nazereth would kill a man. Um, Roger? That was the whole point of the exercise.
An earlier poster has complained that this movie made the Jews look like a bloodthirsty mob. The one thing that humanity has never been in short supply of is bloodthirsty mobs. Witness the throngs of people watching an old western hanging. Witness the throngs of people showing up at Saudi beheadings or the good use the Taleban made of the soccer stadiums after they outlawed sports. How about the Brits with fathers holding their children on their shoulders so they could have a good view?
Hell, just look at the rubberneckers at a traffic accident.
It ain't Jews that make up a bloodthirsty mob, it's people. It wasn't then and it ain't now.

Allison,
That is an excellent observation. You may have tipped my uncertainty to the point that I go see the film.

Very, very well said, Dean. And a good rebuke to Roger; though Roger makes some good points, and Hitchens is more critical. Athiests will find reasons to criticize the movie, and because it IS spiritual, and thus heretical, are almost compelled to criticize it. As proof of their superior atheist rationality, athiest failuers of the last century notwithstanding.

And Donald Sensing is prolly best, overall; but your outside view with sympathy is great.

Dean -

It's not easy being an empathetic heretic. Your essay illustrates why the rest of us want you to hang around. Ya dig?

Peg C.:
"That being said, I cannot help thinking that many are dwelling on the violence purely as a means of discouraging as many as possible from seeing 'The Passion,' and that bothers me. I can't take the violence but I would never attempt to discourage anyone from seeing it, and this condemnation and outrage imply a political agenda at work here."

I'm sure there are some people for whom that's the case, but it strikes me as likely to be a cultural thing for most people. We Americans like holiness to be bright, open, and sunny. But there's an ecstatic release that we get (most cultures would say instinctively) from contemplating extreme pain or torture--I'm not saying it's good, mind you, only that it does seem to be instinctive. Some people who see a movie such as The Passion probably feel fascinated by the violence in a way that conflicts with their idea of the proper reaction to holy suffering. Their analysis then is, "Anything that makes me feel like that is pornography."

The score is great, and weirdly appropriate.

The parts I've heard of it (on Ebert & Roeper's show) reminded me very strongly of the music Peter Gabriel did for Scorcese's film, to the extent that I might almost say it was a ripoff. (I hesitate to go that far without hearing the whole score, however.)

The composer's previous credits include such masterpieces as "Inspector Gadget," "Snow Dogs," "The Tuxedo," "Scary Movie," "See Spot Run," and what is surely the pinnacle of his career, "The Hot Chick."

Of course that doesn't mean he didn't do a wonderful job in this outing, and as I said I'll reserve judgment until I've heard more, but you have to wonder what made Mel Gibson think, "Yes, what my film clearly needs is a soundtrack by the very man who scored 'The Hot Chick.'" Maybe it was, in fact, the music.

I haven't seen the film, but when people say "no one can survive all that violence", I suspect wishful thinking. It's generally said that the minimal calorie requirement for life is higher than what Holocaust survivors got, and prisoners elsewhere in the world too. But they survived.

I heard that the Roman soldier might break your leg in kindness on the cross, as this would prevent you from moving, and you would die quickly from suffocation instead of living for another few days.

the resurrection is the last scene before the closing credits.

Good to know. Still, there was a whole lot that happened after that, so here's still room for a sequel.

Just a couple of additions from a lapsed medievalist who did her thesis on Passion plays:

The gore is actually a standard device in depictions of the passion. In the middle ages, buckets of pigs blood were often used during the passion cycles to recreate the scourging and cruicifixion more accurately. Imagine seeing it live and getting splattered with blood. The spiritual symbolism there was obvious--his blood washes away your sins. I just assumed Gibson was following a very old dramatic tradition.

So the moral of this story is: be glad you've got a movie screen in front of you instead of a moving stage.

Haven't seen the movie. Not sure what all the hullabaloo is about regarding anti-semitic overtones.

I do think that an allegory is presented. Allison did a great job at identifying what is presented for consideration. The choice to be made.

I'm not sure any amount of graphic violence can represent what may be expected when someone dares to live a life free of moral corruption and shares how and why they choose to do so with those around them.

Reminds me of that guy who speaks up during a group assemblage. Things are winding down, most of the participants would like to go home. Someone is addressing the crowd and explaining that it is time to relax and go home. Then that guy speaks up. Says out loud what many have been thinking. Once what he says is heard, those who weren't thinking it before are aware now. What that guy said is reasonable and is also a good idea. But who the hell is he? Everyone else was willing to go home, who is he to say that there is more to be done? Wrath unto that guy until he says these things no longer. Show that guy to reap naught but pain and blood for speaking out. Let there be a lesson for all who would follow him in his thinking or his actions.

Anyone can be that guy. Jesus was that guy.

(disclaimer: I am a Bright, a buddhist, an agnostic, taking what makes sense as I can fit it into what I understand to be true)

Blood hardly goes well with our expensive church clothes.

Odd that you would smear Christians this way, given that they have been the most enthusiastic supporters of the film, both vocally and financially.

From what I have seen, the chief critics of the film have been Jews (for the obvious reasons), secular-humanists (who are understandably squeamish about the violence and the depiction of Jesus as sacrificial Savior instead of pleasant teacher) and fair-weather Christians.

Like George W. Bush's foreign policy, the film forces you to make a hard decision. Either you believe this event happened as recorded, all the way through Easter, and we owe Jesus an incalculable debt of gratitude, or else you don't believe it. It is purely digital, and must be very uncomfortable for anyone unclear about his or her faith.

mary wrote:
"If Christianity had literally followed the ‘ideal’ of selfless pacifism there would be no twenty-first century Christians."

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.'" Mathew 16:24

People surviving a week on a cross? I didn't think that was physiologically possible, since exhaustion would cause death by asphyxiation (has to do with the muscles in the chest) within a number of hours, maybe a day or so at the most. In fact, from what I've read, it was common to break people's legs to accelerate the process--although that did not happen with Jesus, because he died more quickly than most, evidently.

A few quick comments -- the resurrection is shown at the end, the flashbacks present a nice, albeit brief, picture of Jesus's teachings throught his life, and the movie is the most important thing I have ever seen. I am grateful to God that the controversy moved me to see it.

You can't miss the reasons for the torture and killing in this movie if you are paying attention. They make the point very clearly several times, with Jesus answering their charges as often as they ask.

His teachings and the life He led are shown in flashbacks that give all the flavor of His early life that the story needs.

The resurrection was handled beautifully and unmistakably. The only way to miss Him rising up and walking out of the tomb, nail holes still in His hands, is to leave the movie early (or turn your head).

Whether you believe He was the Son of God, simply a historical figure, or a complete work of fiction - this movie is great. The acting, cinematography, effects, make up, music.... all of it was amazing. If not for the controversy, I believe there would be talk of awards.