Any comments on the contents of this page? Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org
****
DID WE GET IT WRONG ABOUT
JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR?
We got the following email recently from a defender of (and indeed a
participator in) the musical "Jesus Christ Superstar." We reviewed this
musical here. The email is reproduced in full below - the writer's words being in black and my response in red.
It's too bad you didn't see fit to either check your facts, or at least talk to someone familiar with the musical.
Response: I downloaded
and read through the entire transcript of the musical. The words are
there for anyone to read. Therefore your opening charge that I failed
to check my facts are totally unwarranted.
I find it highly significant that you do
not find fault with my charge that "This production views the last few days of the life of Jesus Christ through the
eyes of demon possessed Judas Iscariot." Working from such a vile starting point, certainly gives us reason to suspect the worst from this show.
As a person who has played Jesus, let me show you some of the points you missed:
* That Jesus Christ fornicated with Mary Magdalene who is portrayed as a harlot.
Superstar didn't create that concept, it has been around since that
darling little book the Vatican put out about witches, which stripped
ALL power from ALL females.
Response: First of all, books from the Vatican, darling or otherwise, carry no weight with
me. As said above, I draw my conclusions on this musical from the transcript. As you are
probably aware, the following lines are attributed to Mary in this
play: (emphasis mine)
"He's just a man,
And I've had so many men before
In very many
ways, He's just one more."
Here, she is clearly confessing to an immoral lifestyle. She has had "many men before" and He (Christ) is just another one. But Mary goes on in her words: (emphasis mine)
"Don't you think it's rather funny, I should be in this position?
I'm the
one who's always been so calm, so cool
No lover's fool
Running every
show
He scares me so."
At best,
these lines are so full of that innuendo that puts the dots on the page
in a certain way, but protests its innocence when someone comes along
and joins them up. But this is more than mere innuendo. What saith Judas Iscariot whose wicked spirit energizes the whole production? I quote direct: (emphasis mine)
"It's a strange thing
Mystifying
That a man like you
Can waste his
time
With women of her kind
I can understand that she amuses you
But to
let her stroke you
Kiss your hair
Is hardly in your line
It's not that
I object
To her profession
But it doesn't seem to square
With what you
do or say
It doesn't help
If you're inconsistant
They only need a small
excuse
To put us all away"
Certainly the Scripture does not indict her with
immorality or harlotry. This is reserved for Rome and this grotty little musical that you are unfortunately seeking to defend.
* That Jesus Christ was only a man and not the Messiah He claimed to be.
Absolutely Untrue. Judas expresses doubt, and he is the only one who
does. [I suspect this is an artistically licensed nod to Thomas.]
Response: How
can it then be said to be absolutely untrue when you admit that Judas
(through whose wicked eyes these things are all to be interpreted)
"expresses doubt"? Again, from the actual words of the transcript
reveal Judas making actual statements (as opposed to asking questions):
I quote: (emphasis mine)
"He's a man. He's just a man. He's not a king. He's just the same, as
anyone I know. He scares me so!"
It has always been the Satanic plan to deny that Jesus is the Messiah. It
seems strange to me that any one can feel free to come to this musical
with all its artistic license (as you refer to it) and put their
interpretation upon it, but when I, after reading the transcript, put my interpretation upon it, I get an accusatory email to the effect that its "too bad [I] didn't see fit to check the facts." I am unsure what you mean when you say that "this is an artistically licensed nod to Thomas."
* That Jesus Christ confessed that He was mad.
How can I say this? THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THIS IN THE ENTIRE SHOW.
Response: Then words have no meaning. What else can you take from these words attributed to Christ: (emphasis mine)
"If you would remember me when you eat and drink . . .I must be mad thinking
I'll be remembered - yes, I must be out of my head!"
For someone who "played Jesus" these very words of blasphemy would have fallen from your own lips. Your
capitalizing of your denial means absolutely nothing in light of
the transcript. Perhaps I have an advantage here not going to see the
musical. I can study the transcript in the cold light of day, without
being distracted by catchy tunes etc.,
* That Jesus Christ was about to change His mind before going to the Cross.
True, now go read your Bible again, not the whole thing, just the part
in Gethsemane where Christ DOES INDEED ask that the cup be passed from
him. [right before he says: nevertheless not my will but THY will be
done.]
Response:
Several reasons are advanced as to why Christ asked that the cup might
pass away from Him, none of which, however, proceed with the
argument that He was ever going to bottle out. One reason
advanced is that to willingly seek, without words like these,
separation from God would be akin to apostasy. Another reason, going in
the opposite direction, suggests that the cup before Him came from the
hand of Satan who wanted to avoid this ultimate Passover offering and
that Christ sought His Father to remove it. The passage itself, is
admittedly difficult, but any interpretation must be in line with the
other Scriptures that tell us that He went willingly to the Cross
because of the joy that was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). His own
words were: "But I have a baptism
[of suffering] to be baptized with; and how am I straitened [pressed]
till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) At all times, He ever delighted to do the will of God (Psalm 40:7-8) A far cry from: (emphasis mine)
"Why then am I scared
To finish what I started
What you started
I didn't
start it
God thy will is hard
But you hold every card
I will drink your
cup of poison
Nail me to your cross and break me
Bleed me, beat me
Kill
me, take me now
Before I change my mind"
* That Jesus Christ confessed to being insufficient for those who sought Him.
NOPE, not in the show.
Response: YEP. It's there. I quote from the lips of your Superstar Christ: (Emphasis mine)
"Oh, there's too many of you, don't push me - Oh, there's too little of me,
don't crowd me"
Where
did He ever say that in the Bible? Did He not rather invite all men to
come to Him and drink? (John 7:37) Did He not assure that none who came
to Him would be cast out? (John 6:37) Perhaps there is an allusion here
to the healing that He effected of the woman with the issue of blood.
He asked afterwards as to who had touched Him. The disciples alluded to
the fact that many thronged Him and He desired to know who touched
Him. The issue here is not that Christ could not heal them. This woman
had touched Him in faith and so was healed. The rest but thronged Him
out of curiosity etc., The mischief is in these carefully crafted words
"There is too little of me" complete with its exclamation "Oh!" So it is there, despite your emphatic denial.
* That Jesus Christ told those who sought healing to heal themselves.
Happened once when too many were pressing him, look it up.
Response: It is significant that in your spirited defence that you fail to give us a reference to substantiate that it "happened once."
Why should I go off on a wild goose chase after a text of Scripture
that I do not believe exists? Surely the obligation is on you to
provide proof for your own statements?
* That the Apostles were drunk when they partook of the Lord's Supper.
NO, they were drunk AFTER drinking too much wine. Don't you remember
when Peter woke up and grabbed his sword? How about the ear he cut off?
Response:
Where does the Bible say that they were drunk? Yes, I do remember that
Peter woke up, grabbed a sword and cut of the ear of one of the
attackers. But I have never once, until now, heard or read of this
being attributed to a state of drunkeness. This is an unwarranted
adding to what is written in the word of God. It is akin to the charge
that we laid against the Apostles in Acts 2 - a charge which Peter
strenuously denied.
* That Judas Iscariot accused God of murdering him.
That does happen in the show, and as far as I know DIDN'T happen in the
Bible. However, given the slightest bit of artistic license, one might
well imagine thinking such things just before hanging oneself.
Response: You are right. It didn't happen in the Bible. What you indulgently allow as "artistic license" lashed on to what "one might well imagine" goes
against the whole grain of the Scripture. There is a pattern in the
word of God concerning erring sinners who come face to face with their
awful deeds. While in calmer days they might argue and say; "For
who has resisted His will?" (Romans 9:20), yet (as said) when face to
face with Divine Justice, they refrain from indicting God for their
deeds. The parting words of Judas are those of self induced
guilt. He repented (if only remorse) and wrote his own charge sheet: "I have betrayed the innocent blood" (Matthew 27:3-4) This later led Peter to conclude that "Judas by transgression fell" (Acts 1:25) This
is the comment of the Holy Spirit upon the treacherous deed. This
musical by its invention, under the colours of artistic license,
contradicts the dying confession of Iscariot and (worse still)
blasphemously portrays God as a murderer, instead of the righteous and
Holy God of Heaven who can not look favourably upon iniquity.
* The ending of this supposed story of Jesus - no resurrection from the dead.
This is an unfortunate misinterpretation, which I assure you, has been
made by a LOT of people over the years. You could ask Andrew Lloyd
Webber, or Tim Rice, but here is what I think, for what it's worth.
Telling someone that a person died for them is somewhat lessened in
impact if you immediately tell them "but it's OK, because He came back
to life".
I like the idea of letting the audience sit in sadness and appreciation
for what Christ did for them. Anyway, the ending doesn't say there is
no resurrection, it just ends before it. People of faith would do well
to remember how revolutionary and accepting Jesus was. He never
rejected ANYONE.
First
of all, I do not say that the musical denies the resurrection of
Christ, although I notice that the transcript hints at it when the
Superstar Christ says:
"Look at your blank faces! My name will mean nothing
Ten minutes after I'm
dead!"
I don't know of any Evangelical who would state that the death of Christ was "OK" and then give the reason: "because He came back to life." This
comment of yours all fits in with the whole ethos of the play i.e. that
Christ - that mere weak specimen of humanity who confesses to being mad
in the head - is betrayed by Judas (who claimed to be murdered by God)
and dies upon the Cross. However, with no reference to the fact
that He wanted to die upon the Cross, the story has a happy ending
after all. He rose again! How far removed from the reality of the
One who said: "Therefore doth my
Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it
again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This
commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:17-18)
People of faith would do well to remember how revolutionary and accepting Jesus was. He never rejected ANYONE.
Yes, Christ accepted people but it was only
on His own terms. If I remember right, He rejected the Pharisees
and all those who sought to portray Him as someone other than the
Messiah prophesied in the Bible. Furthermore, He rejected Judas
Iscariot, proclaiming a "woe" against him. (Luke 22:22).
And one last thing: Superstar has brought young people to Jesus. So far
as I have heard in all the years since 1970, nobody has blamed it for
causing them to reject their faith. If IT is bearing fruit, but you are
not, what does that say to you?
DS, Dallas, Texas
The question must be asked; "To what Jesus?" The "too little Jesus" of "Jesus Christ Superstar" is categorically not the "Jesus" of the New Testament. The self confessed madman of "Jesus Christ Superstar"
- customer of a harlot called "Mary Magdalene"and beloved son of the
murderous god who took out Judas Iscariot - is what the Apostle Paul
called: "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). That this musical
may be "bearing fruit" is not
disputed. But what kind of fruit can lies and misrepresentation bear?
No lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21) and it is the truth that sets men
free (John 8:32) Even if your argument held water, it is the darling
argument of the Jesuit that "the end justifies the means."
Whilst I appreciate you taking time to write, yet I must strenuously
defend my own charges while refuting your allegation and arguments.
They simply do not measure up to the judgment of Scripture, by which
every spirit is to be carefully weighed.