There are any number of bold statements I could make about Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the… There are any number of bold statements I could make about Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” based on what I expect or want it to be, but, like most of its ardent supporters and critics, I haven’t seen it yet. Were it not for the vicious tug-of-war surrounding the film’s Feb. 25 release, I wouldn’t even know it was coming. But the controversy does exist, and it seems somewhat inevitable based on the nature of the crucifixion story itself. The biggest concern is that it might inspire – or be interpreted as – a clash between Christians and Jews. My point will be that it shouldn’t, because it isn’t.

What concerns me about this debate is that so much of it opposes the Gospel accounts themselves. Arguments have been made about the use of Anne Catherine Emmerich’s work in constructing the film’s violence, and they are warranted. But in the end, it’s a violent story no matter how you look at it or whom you reference. If Gibson bases everything in his movie on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John alone, we will still have a story about a crowd of Jews calling for Jesus’ torture and death, and so we will still have opponents to its telling.

The most vocal and persistent opposition to this film is embodied by Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham H. Foxman and Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor. In a Feb. 3 New York Daily News column, they argue that Gibson’s film will reinforce a Jewish “Christ-killer” stereotype that has caused surges of anti-Semitism in the past: “Our concern is that the images could be used by those who are disposed toward hatred to harden their hearts.”

Though the struggle between pure storytelling and potential backlash is multi-faceted in this case, it can pretty much be narrowed down to one verse, Matthew 25:27, in which the angry mob accepts responsibility for Christ’s death. It is this verse that has been used as a justification for hate, and so it is this verse that worries Jewish leaders like Foxman. The Gospels paint a picture of a Jewish crowd – governed by mob mentality and corrupt authorities – that chants and cheers for Christ’s execution. Opposite them we have Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor who would rather appease the crowd than pursue justice. And above all, we have Christ, who knows and accepts that his life was forfeit before it began.

In the January issue of Citizen magazine, Gene Edward Veith states it clearly: “What Jewish critics do not understand – and what anti-Semites and liberal theologians actively reject – is that the death of Christ, for all its horrors, was a good thing. ‘The Passion of the Christ’ dramatizes the events of Good Friday – a time of lamentation, but the most wonderful day in the history of the world … Blaming people – Jew or Roman or Christian or Mel Gibson – misses the point. The message of the Cross, and of ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ is that blame of every kind is removed.”

At the root of this debate is not Gibson’s technique, but the question of whether or not Jews killed Jesus, and what the answer means for us today. On the surface of the story, yes, a group of them did. We are given a picture in which a Jewish mob pushes Roman authorities into an execution toward which they are indifferent.

But digging deeper, the Gospels consistently present Christ as one who is destined to die in this manner, and who accepts his fate, knowing it is above and beyond any human intervention. We are told that the events of the first Good Friday were allowed and directed by God, and so it makes no sense to hold contemporary Jews accountable for something a select few of their ancestors did while operating within God’s will. And therefore, it is not right to omit specific points of scripture – Mattew 27:25, for instance – just to pander to those with misperceptions.

When considered holistically, the story of Christ’s crucifixion is loaded with meaning and defined by complex interactions between men and God. To whittle it down to anti-Semitism is to completely miss the point, and no one can soundly use it as a justification for hate. When this idea is embraced by Gibson’s critics and those they worry about, the Gospel accounts might be judged on reasonable terms. In the meanwhile, let’s not shred scripture simply because some people might not get it.

E-mail Eric Miller at [email protected].