Italy/UK, 1977
Jesus: "Love your enemies. Forgive those who use and persecute you. The day of forgiveness is at hand."
Barabbas: "Forgive Herod? Forgive the Romans?"
Jesus: "Forgive them all."
Barabbas: "But the Romans have butchered hundreds of innocent people - young people, old people - lives ended, without mercy, without trial. Surely you can't mean to forgive that, master. We must meet the sword with the sword!"
Jesus: "All who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Your zeal blinds you to the truth. The New Jerusalem will not be built by murder and uprising … there'll be no more killing or destroying, and the voice of the weeping will be heard no more."
Barabbas: "While we wait for that day to come, our people live in mourning and lamentation."
Jesus: "Barabbas, you wish to follow me. I have come to take on my shoulders the sins of the world - he who would follow me must do the same."
Part Three
If "Jesus of Nazareth" is vague on certain points, the nature of Christ's message isn't one of them. Watching the film, you won't find definite answers regarding his origin, his divinity, or the chances of his coming back - but you can't miss what he says.
The political divisions in first century Palestine cannot be overstated. The fact that Israel had not known real freedom for eight centuries cannot be overlooked. Zeffirelli brings all of this into full view. The tense alliance between Herod and Rome is well portrayed (it reminded me of the Vichy/Nazi scenes in Casablanca), and the political connections of every character (from Peter to Matthew to John the Baptist to Christ himself) are made clear.
Ever since the Assyrian invasions in the eighth century B.C., Palestine functioned as little more than a province, snatched in turn by alternating empires. Under the Babylonians, the Israelites could not rebel, because they were exported. The Persians appeased them by rebuilding Jerusalem, stifling uprising with good will. When Alexander divided his massive empire among his inheritors, the Jews fought back, with minimal success. By the time Rome extended her arm to Palestine, occupation was simply a way of life.
Roman occupation itself was unique. Caeser's forces could be as brutal as the Assyrians (the film references Pilate's exploits - he was responsible for the murder of thousands of Jewish and Samaritan subjects, many innocent of any wrongdoing). On the other hand, Rome was far more liberal in offering citizenship than any previous empire had been...and those subjects who did not receive citizenship still benefited from Roman highways, sewer systems, and other Western technologies.
In short, inciting rebellion against Rome was not an easy task for your run-of-the-mill Zealot. He must convince an oppressed people, who have not known real freedom for eight centuries, to rise up against the most powerful empire in the world had ever seen, an empire toward which the Jewish public has only mild animosity (most of which was shown toward tax-collectors, Jews who benefited from Roman occupation).
Modern Islamic terrorism gives us a unique perspective on the how the Zealots operated. Against the overwhelming threat of imperial and cultural imposition, they sought to rouse their countrymen into battle with a blend of nationalism and religious unity. In this vein, they sought a leader who could rally the people behind him, a man of both political and religious authority. These aims renewed interest in the Messianic prophecies, and a whole slew of so-called Messiahs began to appear across Palestine. In this sense, Jesus was one of many.
No other film about Christ pays such scrupulous attention to the political intricacies of Jesus' time and place…his "context," if you will. I believe many conservative Christians are afraid of such details (and films about Christ are usually made with Ohio Republicans in mind). Many believe that historians seek to invalidate Christ's divinity by revealing his political and religious context. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If history shows us anything, it is that Jesus was either the worst politician of all time, or he was truly unique among his fellow "Messiahs." Even those who don't take the Gospels literally cannot deny that Christ had a powerful and immediate effect on thousands of people who would have seen him and heard him during his lifetime. That none of these individuals led an uprising, or any real political display, in the name of Christ (no matter how modest) is telling.
What did result from Christ's teachings was a religious movement of momentum and resilience. One must look to Islam to find another religion that spread so quickly, and Islam had an army to its credit - Christianity spread despite intense persecution, first from other religions, and eventually from the state. If Christ had political affiliations, they would have been expressed eventually (either before or after his death). They also (more than likely) would have been squashed.
Christ advocated no movements, no organization of persons, nor any philosophy of men. His message was to individuals - he told the rich young ruler to sell all he owned, while Nicodemus was told of being "born again." The disciples were told to follow him, the adulteress was to go and sin no more. When he preached to the multitudes, he advocated characteristics of people, and not the people themselves (e.g., "the meek," "the peacemakers," "those who thirst after righteousness"). Like all great religious teachers, Christ never once promoted the dead rigidity advocated by so many fundamentalists under the guise of "holiness" - a relationship with God does not consist of rules. There are things God values more than displays of religiosity. Such a message would confuse anyone in a fundamentalist society, which is what first century Palestine was. When trying to explain the Kingdom of God, Jesus somewhat desperately says to his bewildered audience, "I'm not trying to make this hard for you!"
But it is hard. That's the point - the sort of devotion Christ asks of us is more difficult than following the letters of the law. It is easier to overthrow Rome than to carry the sins of humankind on your shoulders. And for these hardships, his followers do not receive sympathy or good repute, or any other such "treasures on earth."
Zeffirelli understands this all too well - that's why his film is so political. For even if Christ was neutral in regard to the immediate politics of his time, he was anything but neutral in the realm of human relations, the realm under which all human politics is governed. The views Christ expresses, both in the film and in the Gospels, are radical because they offer permanent solutions to the human condition. Political solutions solve nothing…they are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound; with time, they become useless and dissolve in the gushing blood. Christ advocates the radical internal change that leads to external change - he didn't come to change nations, but to change individuals, and only by changing individuals can nations be changed.Many Christians use this philosophy as an excuse, rationalizing why the church has been so ineffective in changing the world. They claim that Christianity is apolitical, and that Christ is more interested in individuals than in nations. Such a view is profoundly ignorant, for a nation is nothing more than a mass of individuals. Christianity does not ignore the world's problems - it is supposed to fix them. If, in 2,000 years, we have not been able to make the world a safer, freer, more peaceful place, it is not because Christianity is a religion of the individual - it is because the church has failed. The church has not followed Christ's command, and has not made disciples of all humankind - instead, it has made warlords and thieves, liars and hypocrites. Within Christendom, the "brood of vipers" has always outnumbered those faithful to Christ's teachings.
What then of Christ? If his followers abandon his instructions, what power or validity does he have? If his much-touted Kingdom is forsaken, how then is he a king?
These a troubling questions - they have caused many frustrated Christians to simply give up...and with good reason. Few can deny that the church, both presently and historically, is a vile misrepresentation of its founder. As Nietzsche said, "The last true Christian died on the cross." Gandhi: "If not for Christians, I'd be a Christian." Even when true followers of Christ attempt to obey his teachings, it is rarely enough in the eyes of the world.
But God's does not look at the things man looks at - His thoughts are not our thoughts. In Part Two of this column, I referred to Jonah. God sent Jonah to Nineveh to condemn it…and at the last minute, decided to save it. Afterwards, Nineveh would ravage much of the known world and completely wipe out ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. The missions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel were failures from the beginning. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, God sent prophets to prophesy on deaf ears - He warned many of his prophets in advance that they would not be successful in their mission. This is one of God's quirks, His affinity for supporting lost causes, missions doomed to failure - and not even bothering to save these missions at the last minute.
Why does He do this?
I don't know. But I do know this - there is almost always a second purpose, something important that needs to be done or said, underneath each of these failed ministries. Moses never actually led the people into the Promised Land - his life is a mixture of failure and accomplishment. He failed his immediate mission, and yet he accomplished something remarkable for humankind, and did things no other man could have done.
So it is with Christ - his body (the church) has failed, but he did not. He had a second purpose, more important than establishing a Kingdom or making disciples. This underlying purpose in this world was to carry the sins of humankind on his broken shoulders, and on this point he was very clear - those who wish to follow him must do likewise.
Return to Part Two
Return to Part One
