For a long time, my copy of “The Passion of the Christ” has sat on a shelf and gathered dust. So many reviews had slated this film that it seemed that watching it would be a waste of time and effort. Having fallen and partially immobilised myself, it finally has had a viewing.
WHAT A REVELATION!
Mel Gibson has produced an horrific film potraying the evils that come with a demented priesthood, an occupational army without sufficient numbers of troops and the mob mentality that demented priests can engender. As an historical representation of the times, the film appeared quite credible. Mob rule created by the fear of the priesthood that it was in danger of losing a very lucrative industry was illustrated in a subdued but effective manner.
The pathetic washing of hands by Pilate was an eloquent illustration of the sheer incompetence of a ruling force to ensure that due, legal process was followed.
The scourging of Jesus by two hulking Roman centurians was just a little drawn out and lost it’s way because the scene simply didn’t seem to know when it was finished.
The eventual journey to Golgotha was a tour de force and brought out the best in the principal players. The total disregard for the value of human life and the massive indifference to the suffering of a fellow human being by the crowds of on-lookers was something of a revelation and bore some resemblance to the modern day indifference of “rubber neckers” at the sites of human tragedy.
My feeling, after watching the film, was that it was a reasonably accurate depiction of the events. Certainly, more than lip service was paid to the stories to be found in the Bible but it left me with an answer to a question I have been asking for some years.
I am now fairly sure that Jesus was not sent to earth in order to “take upon himself the sins of all mankind”. It seems clear to me that ONLY contemporaries of Jesus were to be saved. Seeing the written word performed shows that the words of Jesus were addressed to those people in His presence. The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at the last supper was not invoking that activity for all time but was an intimate act between close male friends. The obvious misogyny of Jesus and His followers was the final indicator that there was a huge, empty rift in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus came to Earth to be an example and a teacher – a DIVINE example and teacher – and yet he adopted the belief of his contemporary males and taught the second class position of females.
This, out of all the contrary and disappointing aspects of the teachings of Jesus on Earth, double under-lined his true mortality and lack of divinity.
At the creation, God made men and women as living souls from the dust of the Earth without assigning superiority to either sex. If there really was a serpent that tempted a woman to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, wasn’t that just a little too convenient for misogynyst philosophy?
Wasn’t the story of Adam and Eve a mere contrivance by a greedy and corrupt priesthood to allow men to subjugate women?