|
|
|
The
Trials & Execution of Jesus Mel
Gibson's new movie, The Passion of Christ, has definitely stirred up a
great deal of interest and controversy, in addition to making Mr. Gibson
millions of dollars. As a result of
the controversy surrounding the film, a tremendous amount of free publicity has
been generated. This would not have
been possible if there had not already been a tremendous amount of interest.
The death of Jesus is clearly one of the most significant events in the
history of mankind because of the meanings attributed to it by some of the most
powerful religious institutions in the history of the world. Immediately
after the event took place, some of Jesus' followers do not appear to have an
inkling of how important the event they had just witnessed would become or what
it would mean to future generations. Luke
24 provides us with insight as to the reactions of two of Jesus' followers a few
days after the event. 9 When they
returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all
the rest. 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of
James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
11 And these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe
them. . . 13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named
Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14
And they were conversing with each other about all these things which had
taken place. 15
And it came about that while they were conversing and discussing, Jesus Himself
approached, and began traveling with them. 16 But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. 17
And He said to them, "What are these words that you are exchanging with one
another as you are walking?" And they stood still, looking sad. 18
And one of them, named Cleopas, answered and said to Him, "Are You the only
one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in
these days?" 19 And He said to
them, "What things?" What
comes next is very interesting and unexpected. And
they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet
mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, 20
and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of
death, and crucified Him. 21
"But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. .
. ." Did
you notice that they did not say -- "But we are happy that He had
saved us from eternal damnation and forgave all of our sins."
Their comment matches the expectations of many other first century Jewish
groups. They were not expecting a
universal savior who would forgive all their sins; they were looking for a
leader who would free Israel from the oppressive rule of the Roman Empire.
Next,
the author of Luke allows Jesus to reveal his post-crucifixion mission. 45 Then He
opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46
and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and
rise again from the dead the third day; 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be
proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Did
you notice that nothing was said about his blood being shed as the atonement for
all the sins of mankind -- past, present and future.
He did not say that people would have to "believe in him" in
order to receive the forgiveness of sins. We
see that in verse 47 Jesus simply repeats the message first preached by John the
Baptist -- forgiveness of sins comes as the result of repentance (TESHUVAH).
In Jesus' plan the sinner plays a significant role in the attainment of
divine forgiveness. Jesus' Jewish
audience would have clearly understood what TESHUVAH meant -- (1) stop
committing the sin; (2) be sorry for the harm that was caused by the sin; (3)
make restitution and repair the damage, if possible; and, (4) follow the
instructions of the Scriptures. Jesus
did not mention "Original Sin" or a universal sin that had placed man
in a "depraved state of being" in need of a universal savior.
Augustine's famous doctrine of Original Sin would not be formulated until
400 CE. Ultimately, the doctrine of
"Original Sin" created the requirement for a "universal
savior" and only one duly authorized "universal (catholic)
church." It would, however, be
three centuries after the execution of Jesus before Roman Emperor Constantine
would select one Christian group from among many to establish as the official
state religion of the Roman Empire. A
lot of things took place during the first three centuries of the Common Era that
people are never taught in their Sunday School classes. Considering
the Evidence When
it comes to discussions about the life of Jesus everyone has an opinion. Ultimately each opinion must be based on some evidence.
Therefore, the first task is to determine the accuracy of the evidence
being examined. The primary
evidence that most Christians offer to support their beliefs is the Christian
Bible. Many Christians today view
their Bible as a unified document in which all its component parts are divinely
related and linked together. During
the first three centuries of church history this was not the case.
This is one of those little facts that never make it into most sermons.
By the and of the first hundred years of Christian history there were
many writings being circulated by people who saw themselves as "true"
believers. For several centuries
some were considered just as authoritative as the books that would come to be
included in the future Roman Catholic canon.
Many of the books that didn't make it are unknown to modern believers,
even though they may contain very important and useful information.
When
we turn to the New Testament as our primary evidence we encounter the next
obstacle. The books that made it
into the New Testament canon were not placed in chronological order by the
canonizers. This has a significant
impact on how people understand the words of their Bibles.
When we open the New Testament the first books we encounter are called
the "Gospels," which scholars divide into two groups: (1)
Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke (2)
Gospel of John The
word "synoptic" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as -- "presenting
or taking the same or common view."
The Synoptic Gospels contain many of the same events in the life of
Jesus. John, on the other hand,
writes about different events that are not found in the Synoptic Gospels.
John writes about a Jesus that is a very different from the Jesus
portrayed by the Synoptic Gospels. Even
within the Synoptic Gospels the same events are presented in different ways, and
many times, given different meanings. One
of causes for these differences is that each reflects the views of different
early "Christian" groups. They
allow us to see how different groups understood Jesus' mission and teachings.
The fact of the matter is that they had very different views on a variety of
subjects. These differences have
presented many significant challenges for those who try iron out their
differences and make them all fit into their group's theological box. Keeping
Things in Order The
first step to accurately understanding the events recorded in the Gospels is to place
the Gospels in chronological order, that is, in the order that they were
written. (1)
Mark - 72-80 CE (2)
Luke - 85-90 CE (3)
Matthew - 90-95 CE (4)
John - 95-100 CE When
you read them in chronological order you become aware of important changes that
probably reflect the changing doctrinal systems of their authors. Since the Gospels are the first four books of the New
Testament, most people assume that they are the first New Testament books that
were written and Matthew was the first Gospel.
As you saw above Mark is the oldest Gospel, so it appears that it should
be the place to begin our studies. Therefore,
you can understand how surprised people are when they discover that the Gospels
were not the earliest writings in the New Testament.
At least two decades before the Mark was written, Paul had already
completed all of his books and had been executed in Rome. Since
Paul's books were first, shouldn't we ask how Paul defined Jesus' mission and
his death? We should also try to
determine if the Gospel's writers were aware of Paul and his message? Below are a few verses from Paul's writings that relate to
the crucifixion of Jesus. I have
put them in the chronological order in which they were written.
Remember
the words from Luke 24 above -- "But we were hoping that it was He who
was going to redeem Israel. . . ." and "that repentance for
forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name."
The ideas expressed in Luke are conspicuously absent from Paul's account.
Was the author of Luke unfamiliar with Paul or did Paul make serious
errors that the later Gospel writers attempted to correct? The canonizers of
the New Testament do not hide the conflict that existed between Paul and the
original leaders of the Jesus Movement, including Jesus' brother Jacob (James)
and the apostle Peter. Paul's writings, however, do not provide very much
information about the historical Jesus' life, teachings or death. It
must also be kept in mind that Paul is the only Roman apostle, a fact that will
be discussed later in this article. He
is portrayed as being involved in an ongoing conflict with Jacob, the brother of
Jesus, and other apostles, especially Peter. Paul writes in Galatians 2: 11 But when
Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James,
he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to
withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13
And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even
Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the
gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live
like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the
Gentiles to live like Jews? Paul
also finds himself in sever conflicts with the different Jewish groups at the
synagogues he visits on his journeys. The
men, who walked with Jesus, were the students of Jesus, who were called
personally by Jesus -- are portrayed as men who do not understand the new
mission that has been revealed to the Roman apostle by Jesus in a vision.
The new mission is to open membership in the Jesus Movement to
non-Jewish. This is very problematic for the movement's Jewish leaders
because they were still under the impression that they weren't even supposed
to eat with non-Jews, much less allow them to become members.
Acts tells us that it took a vision from God to change Peter's mind about
eating with Gentiles. Paul's position ultimately becomes the orthodox doctrine of
the Roman Church. Now that we have
discussed the available evidence we can turn our attention to a very important
question. Who
killed Jesus? The
next place we look for primary evidence is the "Gospels." In addition
to the Gospel accounts we also have a few non-Christian references, such as
Flavius Josephus (81-96 CE) and Tacitus (55-115 CE). After examining the available evidence, we discover that it
all agrees -- the Roman government killed Jesus. There was not a single Jew involved in the process of
executing Jesus. The evidence all
proves that Pontius Pilate, the Roman Prefect, issued the decree to execute
Jesus by crucifixion, and then, Roman soldiers carried out his order.
Jesus
wasn't the only person scourged and crucified in ancient Israel.
His execution was exactly like hundreds, if not thousands of others.
Crucifixion was a Roman, not Jewish, method of execution. Even the
scourging of the criminal to be crucified corresponded to procedure prescribed
by Roman law. The verdict reads: Condemno.
Ibis in crucem, lictor conliga manus Verberetur. "I
sentence thee: thou shalt go on the cross.
Lictor, Bind his hands. Let him be flogged." How
Many Trials? Matthew,
Mark and Luke (Synoptic Gospels) contain the account of the trial before the
Jewish Supreme Council, under whose authority Jesus was sent to the Romans.
John, on the other hand, never reports that a Jewish court found
Jesus guilty; he completely omits it. This
is all the more remarkable since that trial is no trivial incident and is
considered an event of central importance.
Why
Didn't the Jewish Leaders Execute Jesus? Mark
and Matthew agree that the Jewish leaders agreed that Jesus was guilty of
"blasphemy." Jewish law
is very specific about the punishment for blasphemy: Moreover, the one
who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death; all the
congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native,
when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death (Leviticus 24:16). It
is clear that there was a large angry mob present, so getting a group together
to stone Jesus doesn't appear to have been a problem. According to Jewish Law the Jewish leaders had the power to
condemn a person to death and then carry out the execution.
The Hebrew Bible even specifies the manner of execution for specific
violations of Jewish Law. Their options were limited to four specific methods of
execution: (1)
stoning (2)
burning (3)
decapitation (4)
strangulation Nowhere
in the Hebrew Bible will you find crucifixion listed as a lawful means of
execution. Crucifixion was
something done to Jews by Romans, not to Jews by other Jews. So why didn't the Jewish leaders simply execute Jesus
themselves? If you ask most people
that question the usual response is -- the Romans would not allow the Jews to
put anyone to death. Why do
they believe this? It is because of
a lone verse in John, which demonstrates how one verse can come to dominate
beliefs, even when there is contrary evidence in other verses. The lone verse referred to above is John 18:31: Pilate therefore
said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your
law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to
death." If
Jewish leaders had come to any Roman official and asked him to execute Jesus
because a Jewish court found him guilty of blasphemy, it is very unlikely that
any action would have been taken. Nonintervention
in civil and criminal proceedings was part and parcel of the general Roman
policy of nonintervention in the internal affairs of occupied territories,
especially in their religious controversies.
Pilate could have cared less whether Jesus blasphemed according to Jewish
law; however, he would have been very interested in any Jew claiming to be the
"King of the Jews" and attempting to establish an unauthorized kingdom
within the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire.
The Gospels make it clear that the appropriate political charge was
levied against Jesus. Interestingly,
the charge that led to the execution of Jesus reflected the beliefs about the
person that many of the Jewish people were anxiously awaiting -- the Mashiach. John's
version of the Jewish response -- "We are not permitted to put anyone to
death."
-- is very
problematic contextually, if not an out right fabrication.
A few years before, Herod, the Jewish king, executed John the Baptist by
having him beheaded, an authorized manner of execution under Jewish Law, and he
did it without Roman approval. Then,
a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus, Jewish leaders condemned Stephen to
death and carried out the sentence by stoning him, once again in an authorized
manner of execution under Jewish Law. Josephus
Flavius also re-enforces the conclusion that the Jewish Sanhedrin had legal
authority under Roman rule to pronounce and execute death sentences: "… our law, which hath forbidden to slay any
man, even though he were a wicked man, unless he had been first condemned to
suffer death by the Sanhedrin" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book xlv,
ix:3). Archaeological
evidence supports Josephus and the accounts in the New Testament.
We now know that the Jews claimed the right to even mete out the death
penalty over Roman citizens under certain conditions. A marble block inscribed
with a warning has been found that originally rested in front of the Temple in
Jerusalem. A translation of the
Greek inscription reads: "Foreigners are forbidden to enter the
sanctuary; violators will be punished by death." Pilate
also seems to be fully aware of the fact that the Jewish leaders had the power
to execute Jesus themselves. Notice
the words attributed to Pilate in the verse from John: Pilate therefore
said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law."
The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death." Did
the Jewish leaders have the legal authority to execute Jesus themselves?
The New Testament, non-Christian documents and archaeological evidence
all support the position that they could have executed Jesus themselves.
John's
Version John
tells things differently from the Synoptic Gospels. In John's account the Roman commander of the fortress led the
bound Jesus first to the house of the former high priest Annas -- not to the
reigning high priest Caiaphas. Annas
no longer had any competence in such matters, a historical fact of which John
does not seem to be aware. He had been deposed in 15 CE by the Roman
authorities. Caiaphas, the new high
priest, was his son-in-law. The
designation "high priest," however, would have been applied to both
Annas and Caiaphas alike, since the former high priest retained his title and
also had a seat and vote in the Sanhedrin.
However, only Caiaphas was in charge of the Jewish Council. In
John's account, after the Roman commander brought Jesus before Annas, he then
led him in chains to the correct official, Caiaphas. Neither official made any disposition, so the prisoner was
taken to the Roman Praetorium (John 18:12-14, 19-21, 24). This is where the participation of the Jewish authorities
ends. Obviously John's implication
is that Jesus had been a prisoner of the Roman military unit from the time of
his arrest. John
implicitly refutes the idea that there was any formal charges or trial by Jewish
authorities. The Romans never requested the Jewish leaders to provide legal
assistance. In substance, the arrest and sentencing remain an exclusively
Roman affair. Even after his
death, Jesus still remained under Roman jurisdiction.
Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Sanhedrin, presented
himself to Pilate in the late afternoon of the day of the execution to ask him
for the release of his corpse so that he could bury it according to Jewish
rites. John makes it very clear
that the Romans were completely in charge of the entire event. The
unhistorical character of this Johannine account is evident on many counts.
First, it should be noted that if it were true, Pilate would seriously
have violated trial procedure. Roman
criminal law prescribed that the presiding judge must make the parties involved
confront each other; he could not deal with them separately.
Secondly, we must ask ourselves who could have overheard the alleged
private conversation between Pilate and Jesus inside the Praetorium and then
reported it. It is also very
doubtful that Pilate would have let himself be drawn into a philosophical
dialogue by any Jew that had been charged with instigating an uprising against
Rome. This becomes obvious when we
know more about Pilate. The
Compassionate, Loving, Absent Minded & Compromising Roman Prefect The
most important Roman official in ancient Israel during the time of Jesus was
Pilate. The Gospel writers cast him
in the role of a compassionate ruler of the Jews. Their version portrays him as a man who goes out of his way
to save the life of a rebel Jew named Jesus from wicked Jewish leaders and their
angry mob. As we follow the Gospel
accounts in chronological order, Pilate is exonerated more and more from Gospel
to Gospel.
But,
what does history tell us about Pilate; is he seen as such a good guy?
Pilate was appointed by either Emperor Tiberius or his highest government
official Sejanus as procurator (or more correctly, prefect) of Judea in 26 CE.
The origin of his name is shrouded in speculation.
One theory is that he was the son of an officer who was honorarily
entitled to carry a javelin (pilum).
He is even said to be the son of Marcus Pontius, who had commanded the
army under Augustus during the crusade against the Cantabrians (26-19 BCE).
In any case Pilate, like all the procurators in Judea, belonged to an
aristocratic stratum, just below the senatorial order in rank. Our knowledge of the careers of other men of his rank permits
the assumption that Pilate was already active in the military sphere before he
came to Judea. Within
his province, Pilate had life and death power over his subjects.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports the position that
the Roman governor had a despot's authority to pursue, judge, and execute
whomever he wished: "His power was not limited by any court or legal
trial proceedings including execution immediately following his judgment without
further appeal" (Josephus Flavius, The Jewish War, Book ii, 8:1).
"But no law, legal convention, or practical case
is known where a Roman military governor in Judea approved or carried out death
sentences that had been handed down against a Jew by a Jewish court.
On the contrary, it is well known that the Romans did not want to
interfere in conflicts among Jews, much less in their religious
controversies" (Court-Martial of Jesus, p. 115). Josephus
Flavius noted that Pilate never troubled himself about the religious feelings
of the Jews. Lev Navrozov wrote
in his article, Did Pontius Pilate Wash His Hands of the Crucifixion of Christ?: Finally, it is absurd to suppose that "the
Jews" could tell Pilate what to do. Pilate would have declared this a riot,
a rebellion, an uprising, and made mincemeat out of "the Jews." Let us
remember that ere long the Roman Empire killed more than a million Jews and
threw the others out of Judea. Also, Pilate was recalled to Rome for his
excessive mass cruelty, not for his kindness, righteousness, liberalism,
conscience, saintliness, nobility and obedience to "the Jews". . . . The
Gospel writers, on the contrary, portray Pilate as a compassionate Roman
presiding judge who does his best to protect Jesus from the bloodthirsty Jewish
leaders and mob. As a lone fighter
for the right, it appears that Pilate wages a hopeless battle against the vox
populi. He ignores the
Sanhedrin's charges that Jesus is a rabble-rouser, a tax dodger, and a traitor
without comment. Then, when he
deals with the charge that Jesus claims to be king of the Jews, he dismisses it
as of no consequence. Pilate tells
the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no case against this man.'"
The "Jews" are presented as pigheaded people who respect no
reasoned argument, ignore the pleas of the most powerful Roman official and
demand that Jesus be executed. John
makes it appear that the highest Roman official in the land of Israel was a
confused and forgetful man who had forgotten Roman law.
The author wants the readers to believe that apparently it slipped
Pilate's mind that the Jews were not permitted to put anyone to death and he
needed to be reminded by them. It is very doubtful that the historical Pilate or any of his
Roman associates would forget such an important Roman law -- if it ever existed.
I also seriously doubt that any first century Jew would publicly correct
a Roman official, especially when that official was a cruel Jew hating man named
Pontius Pilate. What
happened to Pilate after the execution of Jesus? Does history support John's version of a loving and kind
ruler? History verifies the fact
that Pilate was deposed by Emperor Tiberius in 36 CE, at the instigation of his
superior Vitellius, the governor of Syria.
The reason for his removal was that he had allowed a protest
demonstration by Samaritans to be crushed especially brutally.
His notorious hatred of Jews, his total lack of empathy, and his lack
of consideration toward the subject peoples had become an unbearable burden
for Rome. Nothing more is know
concerning his fate. It
is absurd to believe that a man known for his stubbornness and who looked down
on the Jews with utter contempt like a colonialist master, would have let
himself be influenced by, of all things, a mob in front of his residence, or
would have felt compelled to pronounce a death sentence against his will.
The fact of the matter is that the last thing Jewish leaders wanted was
an angry mob confronting the Jew hating Roman prefect.
If such an event had taken place it is likely that the Jewish leaders
would have been doing everything in their power to disburse the mob in order to
keep Pilate from punishing them. The
Romans Wore the White Hats The
portrayal of the Romans as the "good guys" is clearly an important
part of the agenda of the original authors of the New Testament books and/or
later scribes who copied and edited them. Notice
how the Romans are presented to the readers. (1)
Pilate does his best to save the life of Jesus. (2)
Pilate's wife asks her husband to spare Jesus. (3)
A Roman soldier is the first to declare that Jesus was truly the "Son of
God" after the crucifixion. (4)
Cornelius, a Roman centurion, is one of the first non-Jews to join the movement. (5)
The first and only recognized "apostle" called by the resurrected
Jesus is Paul, a Roman citizen. "The
Jews," on the other hand, are presented in very poor light, especially in
the Gospel of John. Jewish leaders
and crowds are presented as "bloodthirsty" mobs.
References to "crowds" become "the entire Jewish
people" as we move from Mark to John.
Jesus' brother, whose name is Jacob, is transformed into a non-Jewish in
the minds of many Bible readers because English translators call him
"James." I don't know what it sounds like to you, but Abraham, Isaac
and James sounds very different from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
James just doesn't fit into my Jewish model.
The
portrayal of the Romans as the "good guys" and the Jews as the
"bad guys" is one of the most suspect characteristics of New Testament
documents. It must be kept in mind
that the entire Jesus story is a Jewish story. It takes place in the land of Israel. It is the story of one Jewish movement among many.
The issues involved in the stories were Jewish issues that most likely
wouldn't even have been understood by non-Jews.
The New Testament writers call the opponents of Jesus "the
Jews;" however, they somehow forget to also label all of his followers and
supporters as "the Jews," too. Everyone
involved in the story is a Jew, except for a couple of Romans who are never
labeled "the oppressive Romans." Who
was Jesus and why did he die? If
you ask any Christian the above question you will receive a quick and decisive
response; there is absolutely no doubt as to what their answer will be.
The certainty of their answer and lack of questions are the dominant
characteristics of modern Christianity. This,
however, was no the case in the early history of Christianity. Before the 4th century it is misleading to
refer to Christian "heresy" because there was no dominant orthodoxy
before this time. It is also
misleading to use the terms apocryphal and canonical because the NT canon was
not closed until the 4th century at the earliest. (Christianity
and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 315 [Biblical Archaeological Society]) Our
work on the MRI (Major Religions Index) has clearly shown that Jesus as an
individual, or as the "Christ" found his way into a number of
different religious movements. Many
of these were later called Gnostic, Mysteries, Judaizing or simply heretical
after the advent of the new Roman state religion of the Roman Catholic Church by
Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. The
people who were members of those movements never saw themselves as anything
other than legitimate followers of Jesus. There
is a wide gap in the historical record of Christianity that begins just prior to
the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE and last until about 150 CE.
This is an extremely important period because of the number and variety
of groups -- Jewish, Gentile, Gentile-Jewish -- that all have Jesus as a central
figure in their belief systems. One
of the major topics of debate among them was Jesus.
There were extreme positions concerning who he was?
Some thought he was a Jewish political leader (remember Mark's words?);
others taught that he was an angel; while others viewed him as a lesser deity,
while others argued that he just a "vision" and not real at all, as
well as many other positions. They
also argued about what his mission was. Did
he come just to redeem the land of Israel? By 135 CE this position vanished as a result of total Roman
domination and the destruction of the Temple and renaming of Jerusalem.
Was he a "Savior" that would bring the gift of eternal life?
Was he the God of the Jews, who abandoned his people and replaced them
with Gentiles? Was he the God of
the Roman Empire and its soldiers? Questions
raised during this period would continue to be debated for over three hundred
years. The ultimate answers came
not as a result of divine revelation, but when one of the groups secured the
backing of the Roman emperor. With
access to the wealth, political influence and military power connected to the
office of the emperor one group could now use deadly force to demand that their
views become the "true and orthodox" beliefs of the church.
Debates that had been going on for centuries ended as Christians tortured
and executed their fellow Christians who held opposing beliefs.
It was from this new form of Roman Christianity that the Christian Bible
came into being. According to
church records, one of the most important factors as to whether a particular
book would be included in the new "Scriptures" was that it conformed
to the group's "authorized doctrines." Maybe
the fact that our oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were copied at this
point in time, by scribes who were well aware of the power of the Roman Church,
will help us understand why Pilate and the other Romans are portrayed as the
"good guys" and the Jews as the "bad guys."
The Roman bishop had become the supreme leader of the Catholic Church.
Many of the leaders of the Roman Church also held powerful political
offices in Roman government. I
seriously doubt that any scribe would portray first century Roman government
officials or soldiers as villains in the new "Scriptures."
Why are modern Jews still
concerned about the deicide charge?
A Jewish response to Mel Gibsons "THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST." "The deicide charge the idea that the Jewish people bear collective guilt for the crime of killing Jesus Christ has been a common theme in Christian teaching for 2,000 years. The charge, false though it may be, is among the most durable of myths. It is also one that has had particularly tragic consequences, serving as it did as the principal theological motif inspiring anti-Jewish attitudes and actions over the centuries. This painful aspect of Jewish-Christian relations is again brought to light today by the release of the movie, The Passion of the Christ, filmmaker Mel Gibson's account of the last twelve hours of Jesus' life. . . . "Jews are concerned because they have historical reason to be concerned. For centuries, Christians alleged that "the Jews" as a "nation" not only rejected and crucified Jesus, but also assumed collective responsibility for his death, vowing, "His blood be on us and our children." (Matthew 27:25) Throughout the troubled history of Jewish-Christian relations, this charge has been used to justify all manner of oppression of Jews and has formed the theological context within which Christians understood all Jewish suffering. As Catholic thinker Edward Flannery pointed out in his book The Anguish of the Jews, "The deicide accusation...was (the) theological construct that provided the cornerstone of Christian anti-Semitism and laid the foundation upon which all subsequent anti-Semitism would one way or another build" (pp. 288). "While recent decades have seen much progress in Jewish-Christian relations, the deicide charge periodically rears its ugly head, and not just in the Arab press, where anti-Semitic utterances are daily occurrences. For instance, an infamous cartoon in the Italian newspaper La Stampa depicted a tank emblazoned with the Star of David approaching Jesus in the manger, who cries out, "Do you want to kill me once more?" Given the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in the world today, it is no wonder that Jews and, indeed, all decent people remain vigilantly on guard against the re-emergence of the insidious myth that has caused such harm and persecution to Jews over the centuries. . . .
" Just as the release of The Passion of the Christ is viewed by many Christians as a singular opportunity to spread their gospel of salvation to the world, so it presents an opportunity for enemies of the Jewish people around the world to spread their doctrine of hatred by reviving the age-old canard of Jews as "Christ-killers." We need to be very sensitive to the anti-Semitic possibilities such a movie can trigger, particularly in areas of the world where anti-Semitic sentiment and behavior already exist. Christians have a special responsibility to ensure that Jesus' death upon the cross the very act that Christians believe to be evidence of God's ultimate love for his creation (John 3:16) is not twisted to evil purposes, or used by the very diabolical forces they profess to oppose."
Be
Aware of the Questions The
limited amount of space that is available for this article requires that I brush
lightly over a great deal of very important information.
I hope that you will be aware of the great number of questions that
surround the central event for modern Christianity -- the crucifixion of Jesus.
(1)
How did the early "Christian" groups understand Jesus and his mission? (2)
How did their views change into modern doctrines? (3)
Why would the God of the Hebrew Bible, who went out of his way to condemn human
sacrifice, then reverse his position and use it as an act for universal
salvation? (4)
If the entire creation is held together by the power of God, as many groups
teach, why wasn't everything destroyed when God died? As a matter of fact, how could the monotheistic Jewish God,
who had no beginning and no end, die? Wouldn't
that be an end? (5)
Since the doctrine of "Original Sin" didn't exist during the first
three centuries, what sins did the early believers believe that Jesus saved them
from? It
has not been my intention to belittle anyone's beliefs.
However, I feel that in a world full of conflicting beliefs -- all
attributed to a divine source -- the time has come to use our best scientific
methods to attempt to resolve the conflicts.
I sincerely hope that one of the primary factors that comes out of Mel
Gibson's movie is that Christian and Jews will be motivated to examine their
biblical texts and discuss issues like those raised in this article. Every
believer should be motivated to and compare what he or she is being told by
their religious leaders and institutions about Jesus, his mission, his death and
the institutions in which he plays a central role.
I
also hope that people from diverse institutional and religious backgrounds will
move beyond their prejudices as discuss things with each other -- with a central
goal of working together, not against each other.
After helping people learn how to use our linguistic method to study
their Bible, I have witnessed miracles as people freed themselves from the
shackles of "fear" and "guilt" imposed upon them by the
authoritarian institutional religions. In
closing I would like to return to the Gospel of Matthew and the words attributed
to Jesus concerning the destiny of his followers after their deaths.
This is the only Gospel account in which Jesus discusses what is required
to avoid eternal punishment and participate in the divine rewards.
Keep in mind, as you read these words, that they were written over four
decades after Paul's writings -- and seem to be unknown by the Christian Mystery
religion of Paul. Jesus' words are
found in Mathew 25: 31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels
with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 "And
all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one
another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33
and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed
of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world. 35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was
thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36
naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and
you came to Me.' 37
"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You
hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? 38
'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe
You? 39
'And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40
"And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the
extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of
them, you did it to Me.' 41
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed
ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his
angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty,
and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe
Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me. ' 44 "Then they themselves also will answer, saying,
'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick,
or in prison, and did not take care of You?' 45
"Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that
you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into
eternal life." Please share your comments, criticisms, questions and suggestions with us. Take time to write a letter or e-mail us at bhc@hyperusa.com. Also, please support our work by sending regular and generous contributions. Help BHC achieve its mission of making our world a better, happier and safer place by providing this generation with accurate information about the past. Our work is completely funded by financial gifts from individuals -- you are invited to participate -- click here to make an online donation. Sources
For This Article |
Thank you for visiting
our site! | |||||||||
