Posted on 02/13/2004 11:51:10 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
The cover of the latest NEWSWEEK magazine asks the right question: "Who killed Jesus?" This has been a raging debate for a year, since Mel Gibson started his remarkable film project THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. He immediately ran into a buzz saw of opposition from the liberal media and Jewish groups who were afraid the film would rekindle anti-Semitism.
Now, Jews have a legitimate concern about this. During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly. In Russia there were pogroms against the Jews. And of course some of the maniacs around Hitler professed that they were killing Jews to purify the Christian race.
But is this sensitivity today well-founded? If we would look at history alone, we would have to say that Pontius Pilate certainly was guilty. Legend has it that years after the crucifixion he was frantically washing his hands trying to cleanse himself from the blood of Christ. And, of course, Caiphus the High Priest certainly bears his share of responsibility. So do the crowds who yelled, "Crucify him." So was it the Romans or the Jews, the venality of Pontius Pilate or the passion of the mob?
It was both and neither. The Jews didn't cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed. He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross so that the sins of mankind might be forgiven. And those who take Scripture seriously have always known who killed Jesus: You and I and all other sinful human beings did so.
Mel Gibson understands this. In his movie, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, the hand holding the spike being nailed through Christ's wrist is Gibson's. Who killed Jesus? Mel Gibson knows. And he made the very point with his own hand that he was responsible, not the Jews.
Similarly the Dutch painter, Rembrandt painted THE RAISING OF THE CROSS as a self-portrait. As Christ hangs on the cross while it is being lifted into place, the soldier pulling it up is Rembrandt. Who killed Jesus? Rembrandt knew. He did. And I did. And you did. We're the ones who sent Jesus to the cross loaded down with our sins.
So enough of this foolish controversy. My advice to Christians is that you make it abundantly clear to your friends and neighbors that we are the ones responsible and then take them to see the film. Let them experience the passion and explain to them why it was necessary for Jesus to go to the cross. And be ready with a biblical answer for your Jewish friends who hear all of this propaganda, most of it stirred up by professional activists.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that it is not who is to blame that really has everybody up in arms. The media elite know that if people see this film, the right answer to the haunting question "Who Killed Jesus?" will be clear. What strikes terror into the hearts of the media elite is that people might once again be convicted of sin, repent, and come to faith in Christ.
So, three cheers for Mel Gibson. And thanks to NEWSWEEK for asking the right question, even if it does not have the right answer. But now it is up to us Christians to do our job to educate our neighbors and flood the movie theaters.
....then you are STILL committing an error. Most of The Jews 2000 years ago had little or no idea this stuff was going on.
and you think I'm talking about Jews today, you're the one who is saying something that is "assinine".
What I'm saying is that you're failing to specify that you're NOT talking about Jews today. And it would be ever so easy to do so, yet you don't, for some reason. Given the history, then, I can understand why people would take umbrage at your usage.
If I say "the Slaves" do you think I'm talking about modern day black people?
No, because modern day black people aren't slaves. (At least in the US; Sudan is a different story....) As a result, when you say "the slaves", there can be no confusion in that sense.
But when you say "The Jews", there CAN be. Unlike black (American) slaves, which no longer EXIST, Jews still exist today, right?
The Gospels, in MY OPPINION, state unequivocally that the "Jews", "as was their custom", made THE decision.
Where in "The Gospels" is this stated? What are you quoting "as was their custom" from?
One cannot just have "oppinions" about what words books contain (one can have opinions about what those words mean, but not what the words are). Text either exists in a book or it does not. To say that you "believe" that the Bible contains these words, if it doesn't, is nonsensical.
Do the Gospels contain these words? If so, where?
Did the "Jews" yell, "Give us Barrabas!"? No. They didn't speak English.
Right, they probably spoke Aramaic or perhaps old Hebrew.
Did "the Jews" yell "Give us Barrabas" in some other language such as Aramaic or Hebrew?
No. Some of them did, according to the story as I understand it.
But most of the Jews had no idea this stuff was taking place.
Do you understand that Jews are individuals?
Pilate took water in accordance with that, 'I will wash my hands in innocency', in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man .... Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us and on our children. This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews: the Lord's blood is not removed from them. [St Thomas Aquinas : Catena Aurea]
By this alone the Jews can receive pardon of their sins, if they wash away the blood of Christ slain, in His baptism, and, passing over into His Church, obey His precepts. In Isaiah the Lord says: 'Now I will not release your sins. When ye stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my face from you; and if ye multiply prayers, I will not hear you: for your hands are full of blood.' [St Cyprian: Against the Jews]
Therefore, let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. [Acts 2:36]
Be it known unto you all, even to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole. [Acts 4:10]
And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, 'Ye men of Israel .... Jesus, whom ye delivered up, and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.' [Acts 3:12-15]
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. [Acts 10:39]
Simple logic, geometry, geography, and demographics.
Unless there were less than about 1000 Jews at the time of these events, which I don't think is true, it is virtually impossible for all of Judea to have compressed themselves into the space required to be able to have heard Pilate's question.
As for who knew of the fact that a guy named "Jesus" had been arrested and was now being held by the Romans pending crucifixion, I will grant that more people probably knew of this fact by rumor than actually came to hear Pilate's question.
On the other hand, these events took place in a fairly short period of time. Since wired/wireless communication did not exist at this time, all news of these events (which took place in one city - Jerusalem) would have had to have been transferred by foot. Jerusalem was far from the only Jew-containing city even back then. It does not stand to reason, then, that even a majority of Judea knew of these events. It stands to reason that the first most Jews heard of these events was in the past tense ("Jesus was crucified").
Actually the first most Jews probably heard of these events, it probably went like this: "Jesus was crucified, and then rose three days later", and was told to them by a Christian, because Christians would have been the most active and eager people seeking to spread this information.
You didn't agree with my comparison of "slaves" to "Jews" of 2000 years ago. Modern day Jews don't have anyone coming around that's supposed to be the Messiah, either. So, for someone as simple minded as I, it's very clear who I'm talking about when I say "The Jews".
Again, there's no possible confusion that when you say "slaves" you could be talking about modern day black Americans, because those are different things, and signified by different words.
But "The Jews" and "The Jews" are the same exact terms, and try as I might I cannot see a way to distinguish between the two. When I write "The Jews" & "The Jews", you're a better man than I if you can figure out which of these two terms refers to the kind that had someone claiming to be the messiah amongst them, and the kind that didn't.
Jesus was a Jew. Jesus was speaking to "His" people. Therefore, Jesus was preaching to the Jews.
Some of them, anyway. It was physically impossible for Jesus ever to have preached to all of the Jews at the same time. But, go on.
the elders of THE PEOPLE
You can capitalize "the people" if you want but this doesn't change the fact that here Matthew is talking about only a small number of people (the elders).
and THEY plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him." (I can't see how anyone can read this and not see the "they" and not think it is Jesus' own people.
Actually here it's quite clear that "they" refers to "the elders".
We're talking about probably a few dozen people here, at most. Anything else?
So THEY counted out for him thirty silver coins." (Again, were these Roman priests?)
No, they were Jewish. And the "they" refers, again, to a small number of individual people. Not "The Jews", but some Jews. Like I've been saying numerous times now.
the elders of THE PEOPLE."
You keep doing this, capitalizing "the people". But the noun phrase here is "the elders of the people". In other words, the elders. A small number of men.
Here's an analogy to help you understand. George W Bush is the leader of the Americans. Suppose George W Bush scratches his nose. Does this mean that "The Americans" scratched "their" nose?
Even if I write it like this, "George W Bush is the leader of THE AMERICANS"?
This tells me the Sanhedrin, all Jews, were the ones falsely testifying against Him.
Right. No one's disputing that. The fact that all of the Sanhedrin were Jews does not mean that all Jews were Sanhedrin. Simple logic here really.
The high priest asked "What do you think? 'He is worthy of death', THEY answered." (Now, where you get the idea that there was anyone present other than the Jewish people is beyond me.)
Again, "they" = members of the crowd = a few hundred a most.
The reason I think that non-Jews could have been present is that non-Jews could have been present. The fact taht the Bible doesn't mention the presence of non-Jews in that throng of people does not mean there were no non-Jews in that throng of people. (The Bible doesn't mention any of this throng wearing sandals either but that doesn't mean none of them were wearing sandals.)
Then Pilate asked him, 'Don't you hear how many things they are accusing you of?'" (Again, who is THEY? According to this scripture THEY are the priests and elders.
Exactly, priests and elders. Not "The Jews", but some Jews. glad we agree.
For he knew it was out of envy that THEY had handed Jesus over to him."
Again, "THEY" = the Sanhedrin. Capitalizing "they" doesn't magically turn the Sanhedrin into all of Israel.
(Since they had ALL answered "Crucify him", I see no reason to believe the "all" who answered were of anything but the Jewish faith?)
Why, couldn't a non-Jew have cried out for Jesus's crucifixion?
Not my oppinion but my belief based on scripture. The "Jews" of that day were responsible for Christ's crucifiction.
But BASED ON SCRIPTURE that you've just quoted to me, it's INCORRECT to say "the Jews of that day were responsible for Christ's crucifixion".
BASED ON SCRIPTURE, it's quite clear that SOME Jews (=the Sanhedrin (a couple dozen Jews, probably) + some people in some crowd on a certain day (a few hundred, at most)) were responsible.
What you're saying actually goes AGAINST scripture. Scripture makes it quite clear that the number of Jews involved in or indirectly responsible for Jesus's death is quite small (in relation to the known population of Judea/Palestine at the time).
...if I was still of the Jewish faith I would say, "Don't blame me. First of all, I wasn't there.
And actually, you could stop right there. That's enough.
I did! You will find me standing right next to Mel in the culpability line. I did it, and I am ashamed, and I am not worthy of his love; but I have his love and his promise. I HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN!
The non-believers, the atheists question the gospel. They now ask the question, 'who killed Jesus'. They asked that question because they will never get the answer. I smile quietly and I know the answer to the question. If you notice that 'they' never say the word GOD. I, nor any man, can ever answer the question. "He who believes in me, thought he be dead, shall live forever". There is a statement from the Lord that has been analyzed for the past 2000 years. It's simple, take it at it's meaning. God is so much more simple that the 'elitist' give Him credit for. He gave His only Son to this earth to save the souls that he loved, He knew what would happen, but He did it anyway. He gave us the gift of eternal salvation, and a code to live up to. He gave His only son to die for our sins and start all over again.
The people that can't believe just don't get it, and they never will. The miracle of Jesus Christ is lost on them.
I have only responded to a couple of comments in this thread, but I really love it and have visited it several times since I posted it. Yours is just the latest of so many beautiful posts by Christians humbly acknowledging His greatness, our evil, and His grace.
Dutch Sheets wrote a great article (not online anymore) called How To Pray For The Lost that did a great job presenting the Greek in the NT references to those who are lost. He made the case that they are not just non-believing, but blinded to the point that they are non compis mentis in spiritual matters and need to be prayed into a state where they can understand the Gospel. Powerful stuff, but probably lost in the translation of my retelling here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.