superstaremail1

Dear Sir: After reading your accusations of the rock-opera "Jesus Christ Superstar" I must protest.
Thank you for taking the time to read my review of Jesus Christ Superstar and for writing to me. I appreciate feedback on this website, even if we do not always see eye to eye with the correspondent.
You state many things that would appear to be true to someone who only read the lyrics, not seen the accompanying show.
Surely the lyrics are ultimately what matters in this issue? Brilliant choreography and great singing and acting etc., can never undo what appears in the script? If the words are blasphemeous, then putting them to catchy music or having them accompanied by breath taking theatrics will not lessen the charge any. Indeed, they only heighten the charge because they cause these same blasphemeous words to be remembered. It is significant that you have allowed my comments based on having read the lyrics to stand, since this is ultimately what matters. Whilst my charge re: the Apostles being drunk (See #6 below) is not merely script based, but (just as importantly) based on Tom Rice's own interpretation of the Script.

For example:

1. That Mary Magdalene was a harlot:
This has yet to be seen. The lyrics merely suggest that she has had many lovers before, not necessarily sexual encounters. This is typical of some women. The lyrics in "Strange Thing Mystifying" do not say everyone knew she was guilty of harlotry, just say that Judas had his suspicions.
Nowhere in either my original review, letter to the two Cork newspapers nor previous email to an objector, do I say that Mary was an harlot. I do point out that JCS portrays her as such. I do so on the basis of the line: "It's not that I object to her profession" which, to me, is very suggestive that she was more than a mere love forlorn woman. Since there is no official commentary or explanation for these lines (as far as I am aware) then my interpretation of these lines have as much right to stand as any other. They are a reasonable conclusion to make. In cases like these, I tend to give the culprit the benefit of the doubt if I reasonably can (rather than "pile it on" as they say) hence my careful use of the word portrayed rather than stated.

2.That Jesus was not a Messiah he claimed to be.
This is also untrue. The supposed evidence in the lyrics was said shortly before Judas hung himself. It is possible that he was simply trying to reassure himself that he really had done nothing wrong, even though he knew he had.
With all due respect, you contradict yourself here. First of all, you deny, in the first sentence, the charge as untrue. Then in the second and third sentences, you try to justify or at least explain why Judas did what you said he didn't do. You cannot have it both ways.

3.That Jesus confessed to madness:
I'll admit that the line "I must be mad, thinking I'll be remembered, yes, I must be out of my head!" is in the show, but it is not a full confession. It is simply artistic interpretation, there had to be a way to get to his next point and it does not need to be thought of as an accusation, more like a transition to our next lyric. It is meant to show that Jesus was afraid of the crucifixion the next day, as even though he was god [sic] he was also a human, and had emotions. One cannot feel love without other emotions such as fear and sadness.
To say that this confession is "not a full confession" almost beggars belief. What constitutes a "full confession?" The words, quite simply, are blasphemeous. To dismiss such as "simply artistic interpretation" reveals to me someone who has a very low opinion of the authority of God's word and of the Saviour's Deity and worth. We are not at liberty, in the name of art or anything else, to detract from the truth of God.

4.That Jesus was going to change his mind about crucifixion.
No, if you will look at the Bible parable he does ask that the cup be passed from him. The best way to interpret the Bible is exactly what is written. If Jesus was asking it with any other meaning, then it would not be included in any Gospels. The line of changing his mind could just be to make it more powerful and get the point across better.
There was nothing parabolic about the Lord asking for the cup to pass from before Him. It appears in the narratives of the gospels. 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)

5. That Jesus confessed insufficiency to those who sought him:
In many productions, this scene where lepers swarm Jesus is often revealed to be just a nightmare, as he wakes up by Mary Magdalene, who comforts him. Not to mean that he fornicated with her, she was just there. Also, it could be meant to show that he was tired just like any other person, no matter how Divine he is.
When the Bible portrays the humanity of Christ (as it does on several occasions) it reveals him as being tired (John 4:6) hungry (Matthew 21:14) etc., In none of these occasions, does the inspired writer suggest that Christ is too little to do what He came to do. Christ is never portrayed in the Bible as having nightmares or waking up with an immoral woman lying beside Him. I can't help but notice that theatrical license employed in this musical is to the detriment of Christ. Even the real Judas (through whose eyes this production claims to portray Christ) admitted in the end that he had betrayed the innocent blood. Of this I will say more below.

6.That the Apostles where drunk when they partook in the Lord's supper:
I don't know what gave you that idea. There is nothing in the musical to suggest that.
This is easily answered. The script includes the Apostles singing these words:

"Look at all my trials and tribulations
Sinking in a pool of wine,
Don't disturb me now I can see the answers
Till this morning is this evening life fine."

Tom Rice, the author of the lines, wrote in answer to a specific question: "It is intended to imply drunkeness at the last supper but only amongst the Apostles, not so far as Christ was concerned ... The lines 'Till this morning is the evening' are nonsensical because they are drunk." (Quoted in 'Jesus Christ - Superstar or Saviour and Lord' by John A. Coleman, Evangelical Press 1971)

7.That Judas accused God of murdering him:
This goes back to the premise that Judas was chosen by god [sic] to betray Jesus, otherwise he might not have died for our sins. He kills himself feeling remorse that he was part of a bigger plan, that he had no choice. The screaming of, "You have murdered me!" simply states that he was chosen for this part in the passion, causing his actions.
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.

8.The lack of a resurrection:
The point could not have been brought better by an emailer: It would take away the drama of the Crucifixion. Though it never states that it would be alright then because he came back, this is what would be thought by many people, like it or not. This musical taught me the story of Christ, resurrection and all. To go deeper into the meaning of Christ, God in human form, with emotions and human needs, is not a sin.
To latch such a noble thing as going"deeper into the meaning of Christ etc.," to this blasphemeous play again beggars belief. This play serves to take people away from the true and only Christ and leads them to "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4) who is a Satanic counterfeit. If you want to go deeper into the things of God, then the Bible itself is sufficient. Study the things that the Holy Spirit has revealed to us on the sacred page, rather than run to the glitter world of Hollywood whose god is their belly and their end destruction.

If you truly believe that we have done wrong, the best you can do now is pray for us.
I agree. Of course, I can do more than pray. I can actively warn and urge folk to avoid this blasphemeous play which this page obviously does.

Thank you.
Thank you for writing.

FREE PRESBYTERIAN ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE