David's Daily Diversions

Getting Ugly with the Truth

Mel Gibson has been forced to edit his film The Passion. It was shot as a word-for-word, scene-for-scene re-creation of the actual Passion as recorded in the Gospels and in the original languages. Nothing added, nothing taken away. It's just the Holy Scripture put on screen. Shouldn't be a problem, right?

Not so. Under intense pressure, Gibson has cut what World Net Daily reports is a scene in which Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, says, "his blood be on us and on our children." If this is an accurate description of the scene cut, then Gibson had already toned it down, because in the Scripture Caiaphas never says this. If it is Caiaphas saying it, then Caiaphas could be blamed for it and it doesn't necessarily reflect upon the Jewish people.

This demand, which is recorded in Matthew 27:25, was spoken by the people with one voice. If that was portrayed, it would result in four things:

1. History of the event, as recorded by eyewitnesses, would be accurately portrayed.

2. The Holy Apostle Peter would also be telling the truth in Acts 2:22-24: Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know. Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it, and in verse 36, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.''

3. The Proto-martyr Stephen would be telling the truth in Acts 7:52: Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers.

4. Mel Gibson would have been lynched. After all, he said of the scene he cut, "I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me."

How is it anti-Semitic (or anti anything for that matter) to accurately portray an historical event? Where has this idea developed that if anything portrayed in the news or arts media is critical of any Jewish people at any point in history or places them in a bad light (and admittedly Deicide is a shady business - thirty pieces of silver and all), this is an affront to the Jews?

All I can say is that Mel Gibson should take heart that he isn't the first person to be attacked for telling the truth. After all, Stephen was stoned to death for it. It happened to the Apostle Paul at Lystra, though with less permanent consequences (Acts 14).

Sometimes the truth isn't pleasant, but protesting against it - even forcing it onto the cutting room floor - doesn't change it. You can try to re-write the history books, but you can't re-write history. Or in this case, His story.