Efrat, Israel - “A soul that sinned ... denying before his colleague regarding a deposit ... or theft ... must restore the stolen object which he stole ... and bring before the Lord his sin offering” (Leviticus 5:21-25).

The sin-offering was understandably one of the staple features of the sacrificial ritual, with many educational, social and theological ramifications. Only one who sins inadvertently (due to his lack of awareness that he was committing a crime) may receive expiation through the bringing of a sacrifice; a purposeful act of sin requires paying one’s penalty before the law and can never be expunged by a ritual sacrifice. Even inadvertent transgression - whether it be by an individual, a King, a Religious Court or an entire community - requires confession, repentance and restitution (wherever possible) in order for the ritual sacrifice to be effective. Judaism believes that the individual has the ability to rise above sin and can redeem himself. But he must take responsibility for his actions! This is underscored in the Biblical verse: “Parents shall not be put to death because of (the sins of) their children, and children shall not be put to death because of (the sins of) their parents; each individual shall die because of his/her sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16).

I find this lesson especially meaningful after viewing Mel Gibson’s wildly successful and heatedly controversial Passion movie. No, I did not find this film particularly anti-Semitic - at least, no more anti-Semitic than the gospel according to Matthew, written some five decades after the crucifixion of Jesus and clearly attempting to white-wash Pontius Pilate and the Romans (whom the early Christians were trying to win over to the Jesus faith) and to vilify the Pharisee Jewish establishment (who had largely denied Jesus as divine Messiah).

Hence Matthew presents a non-historical account of a trial in front of the High Priest (the Talmud as well as Josephus record that the Jews at that time were not permitted by the Romans to hold such a trial) as well as a non-existent right of the Jews to free one condemned convict before Passover. When the Roman Governor asks the Jews to free Jesus and the mob screams for Jesus’ blood, Matthew makes Pontius Pilate an unwilling executioner (all historical accounts portray him as cruelly bloodthirsty) and sets the stage for anti-Semitic riots throughout history by having the Jews cry out, “Let his blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25).

If any thing, Mel Gibson mitigates Matthew’s message by deleting this last exclamation of the Jews from the English sub-titles, by emphasizing the heinous sadism of the Roman captors throughout the “passion”, and by depicting the very Jewish origins of Christianity; in the film, Jesus and all of the Jews speak Aramaic-Hebrew (Jesus calls G-d Abba), the “Last Supper” is clearly a Passover Seder replete with matzot, wine and ritual washing of the hands, and Jesus is often referred to by his followers as “Rabbi”.

My objections to the movie - which I found indescribably difficult to sit through -was from a Christian theological and universalistic perspective, especially within the context of present-day world events. The film depicted almost unmitigated blood and gore from beginning to end, even to the extent of the fluids spurting from all the pores of Jesus’ wracked body, including the whites of his eyes. I do not believe the intent had anything to do with sado-masochism, as some reviewers have charged; I do believe that it had everything to do with a glorification of martyrdom, almost a celebration of every whip-lash and each spurt of blood. Jesus’ bloodied and gapingly wounded body embraces the cross as a lover would embrace his beloved, seemingly oblivious to the blows and the blood searing his flesh.

Gibson has Jesus cry out, “There is no greater joy than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” He refuses to answer the charges against him because he chooses to be a martyr; he willingly desires the pain in order to expiate not his - but all of humanity’s - sins. In a flash-back to the “Last Supper-Seder,” Gibson has Jesus say, “Take the (bread-matzah) and eat; this is my body. Drink (the wine); this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out... for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 25:26,27).

If Gibson was consistent with the letter of the Gospel of Matthew, he was not consistent with its spirit. Twenty-five chapters of the Gospel deal with Jesus’ teachings of love and compassion; only in the last two chapters does Matthew describe the Passion, the suffering, and in a far more constrained manner than does Gibson. Is the main message of Christianity one of vicarious atonement, Jesus’ acceptance of pain in order to remove guilt and responsibility from all of us humans? Does Christianity teach us to emulate Jesus by courting martyrdom, by reveling in suffering and dying in this world in order to enjoy the world to come and the Kingdom of heaven? Was Jesus martyred principally for his theological beliefs, because he called himself the Messiah and only son of G-d, because he “is the way, the truth, and the life - no one can reach the Father, only through him ”, as Gibson would have us believe in his Passion Movie?!

I respect and understand that all of these are aspects of Christian belief and doctrine. My question is one of emphasis. After all, in today’s terror ridden world fundamentalist Moslems are fanatically inspiring their youth to court martyrdom for the sake of a sumptuous paradise. Post-modernistic liberals in America and Europe are removing responsibility from “victims of occupation” for taking innocent human lives in acts of homicide. Given the outstretched hand of the Vatican to Brother Israel, post Pope John the 23rd as well as magnificent relationship between Evangelical Christians and the State of Israel, would it not better serve our Christian siblings to emphasize the absolute morality of “Thou shall not murder” rather than a frenzied and ecstatic celebration of the martyr whose excruciating death grants automatic expiation and seemingly absolves the individual of responsibility? And at a time when fundamentalist Islam is preaching conquest by the sword, would it not behoove Christianity to stress the possibility of many peaceful paths to our Parent-in-Heaven while not compromising the necessary Christian belief in Jesus? As a good Christian named Darren remarked to me as we left the movie theater, “There was too little compassion and too much passion (suffering)”.

Shabbat Shalom.