Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Paul the Apostle was a complex man, not to mention a brilliant salesman. Had he met Eskimos, he probably would have sold them some ice for their igloos. Paul’s concept of grafting the Gentile world to the Abrahamic blessing and the Jewish people was a stroke of marketing genius.

In the last article, we contrasted the views of Paul vs. James, the brother of Jesus and the purported author of this important NT work. It stands to reason if the NT is to be believed, James, arguably follows his brother Jesus on the subject of works vs. faith. Who would have known Jesus better? James or Paul?—I have to confess, I think James wins handily.

Let me share with you an old but still memorable anecdote.

In the controversial 1988 film, “The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ,” producer Martin Scorsese (a Catholic), took quite a bit of heat from the Christian world when he portrayed Jesus as a sensuous man, who marries Mary Magdalene, raises a huge family and lives a full life. When the film first came out, I had little interest in it until I started working on my doctorate at the San Francisco Seminary a few years later. Our class, which was made up of scholars from all over the world, watched this film and we had some marvelous debates about its literary message. Where was the heresy in the film? Most of my friends thought that the sensuous Jesus certainly really “crossed” the line (pardon my pun).

True to my contrarian nature, I argued that the real heresy is when Jesus in a vision (produced by Satan himself), hears Paul the Apostle preaching about the miracle of Jesus’ resurrection., and how he was the son of the Virgin Marry, the literal “son of God.” Jesus confronts Paul, and asks him, “Did you ever see this ‘Jesus of Nazareth?’ Paul sheepishly admits, all he saw was the blinding white light on his way to Damascus. Jesus then reveals his identity to Paul. Bluntly, Jesus asks, “Why are you promoting this nonsense about me ‘rising from the dead’ ? . . . I live a normal and happy life for the first time . . .” and he threatened to expose Paul for the fraud he was. Paul basically admits that he made up the story because people need someone to believe in and that he was willing to make up just about anything so that people would believe in something that would give purpose to their lives. Striking is Paul’s comment, “I will crucify you and resurrect you if I have to. . . The Jesus Christ I believe in is greater than you . . .”

The most shocking implication of the film seems to suggest that “Christianity” is really a misnomer; it really ought to be called “Paulanity” since Paul transformed the human Jesus into a mythical creature of infinite proportion. Yet for all of Paul’s flaws (which he himself admitted were many), God works through weak people to achieve His purpose.

Despite its heretical content, the film still finds a way to magically transform Jesus back into the familiar figure Christians all love. Judas-of all Jesus’ associates-brings the elderly Jesus to the realization that if he dies like an ordinary man, then Jesus’ story comes to an abrupt end. Satan then reappears not as the guardian angel that saved Jesus on the Cross, but as the demonic being he truly is-cajoling Jesus to accept his fate as an “ordinary man.” After coming to his senses, Jesus begs God to let his fate unfold the way God intended it to be. By the way, Judas definitely seems more likable than Paul in the film.

Personally, I must distinguish between the historical Jesus from the mythical Jesus advanced by Paul and the Early Church. Distinguishing between myth and a historical reality is always a daunting task. As Jews, we grapple with similar questions with respect to the historicity of the Exodus. Yet, even myth often has some basis in historical fact.

Although Jesus did not prove to be the Messiah, his existence personified the messianic yearnings that have existed throughout much of our history. As a man of messianic passion, the archetype of the messiah exists inside each of us-and it behooves us to redeem our world, one good deed at a time. If you read the famous “Parable about the Last Judgement” in Matthew 25:31-46, you will see that Jesus subscribed to an idea that later came to be known in Jewish mystical tradition as “Tikkun Olam” (“Bettering the world”).

“. . . for when I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did so to me.”

Far from being the great exception, the historical Jesus’ humanity makes him a wonderful model for people to emulate themselves after.

He lived as a pious Jew, he died as pious Jew and he will be remembered for his acts of kindness and wisdom-much like the other great teachers of 1st century Judaism, e.g., Hillel and Rabbi Yochann ben Zaccai.

While traditional-minded Christians will find this old movie offensive, the film does what all good Midrashic texts of Jewish history have done-they raise important questions about the nature of faith. Whether it is the “Jesus of Montreal,” or ‘The Life of Brian,” or “The Passion of the Christ,” films about famous people like Jesus, or for that matter-Moses, are artistic ventures that reweave the ancient stories of faith for a contemporary audience.