Who Killed Jesus?: Setting the Record Straight

BreakPoint ^ | 12 Feb 04 | Charles Colson

[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.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I know only what i've read.

Then you should know that some Jews participated in the death of Jesus; but not "The Jews". Unless of course you can't tell the difference between the two concepts, which would be sad.

And generations after generations have concluded along with me that it was "the Jews" who turned Jesus over to Pilate and it was "the Jews" who chose to have him crucified.

That's true. And those same generations proceeded to persecute "The Jews" for it. Which is why the error is worth correcting. (And why I can understand modern-day Jews being testy about interpretation of Mel Gibson's movie.)

Some Jews, not "The Jews". Do you understand the difference or not?

When the high priests or elders "pursuaded" the crowd I assume it was a Jewish crowd. You assume there were "others" present.

Well, of course the vast majority of the people in that crowd were probably Jews, yes. I'm not claiming otherwise.

But we're STILL only talking about a few hundred Jews, at most. Some Jews, not "The Jews". Get it yet?

No, sir, the crowds were there for the feast, their holiday, a holiday celebrated by the Jews. Their leaders sent a group of them for Jesus. That group turned him over to the high priests where they falsely accused him. They then turn him over to the governor and he gave them a choice. The simple fact is the Jews killed Jesus.

Argh. Even if everything you say in these first four sentences is 100% true, that means that SOME Jews killed Jesus. NOT "THE" JEWS!!!

Why can't you tell the difference between "some Jews" and "the Jews"? Why is that so difficult for you?

I'll assume you're an American. So was Jeffrey Dahmer. Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate several people. If I say "The Americans" killed and ate those people, would you get annoyed? If so, why? Jeffrey Dahmer was an American!!

Do you see the logical problem here or don't you?

The Jews who walked with Christ did it.

Huh? What about his disciples. They didn't do it (except Judas of course). What about some random Jews in some faraway town. They didn't do it. How about his mother Mary?

You're way off.

SOME Jews, not THE Jews.

So, I ask you a simple question: Who killed Christ, the Romans or the Jews?

Neither. Some Romans crucified him, with at least some prompting from some Jews. Most of "The Romans" and most of "The Jews" presumably had nothing to do with it.

Who killed Custer? Will your answer be "Some Indians".

Yes, of course. Those Sioux he fought at Little Bighorn, in particular, killed him.

Ask me and I'll say "The Jews" and "The Indians".

I know, and you'll be wrong. Jesus's own mother was a Jew and she didn't kill him. As for Custer, I'm sure there'd have been many Indians (like say some Seminoles in Florida or whatever) who would have been surprised to learn that even though they were nowhere near the place, they actually helped kill Custer at Little Bighorn; and the Sioux who actually *did* fight him there would probably resent you trying to give other Indians credit :)

And there's one other question: Who killed "The Jews" during the holocaust?

The Nazis and any who helped them TRIED to kill "The Jews" (but "only" killed some lesser number of them). The Nazis actually were trying to kill ALL Jews, you see, which is why a phrasing like "The Jews" here actually makes sense.

Or do you think I should ask it: Who killed "some" Jews during the holocaust since not all of them were killed.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "some", I'd use the word "many", since six million represented a huge chunk of European Jews... but otherwise, yeah, you have the right idea here. Although he tried his best, Hitler didn't kill "The Jews" during the Holocaust, technically, because if he had, there'd be no more Jews left today. He "only" killed lots of 'em.

[Terry Mross]

Obviously you like to argue. I have never said all Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. You either know what I'm saying or you can't read. Again, when asked, "Who killed Custer?" the only generic answer that most people would give is "The Indians." It wasn't his own men. It wasn't the Buffalo Soldiers. It wasn't French fur trappers. It was "The Indians". Only an idiot would blame the modern day American Indian. If asked who killed the Indians at Wounded Knee the only possible answer is "The U.S. Army." Only and idiot would blame the 4th I.D. now serving in the war on terror. And bringing Jeffrey Dalmer into this is assinine.

And I'll say it one more time then put you on ignore. Nobody had a choice in the matter. He could turn water into wine and raise the dead. I don't think He would have had a problem avoiding His own execution. The problem the Rabbis have that I see on TV everyday is simple. They don't believe the New Testament to begin with so, naturally, they're not going to like this movie.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Again, when asked, "Who killed Custer?" the only generic answer that most people would give is "The Indians." It wasn't his own men. [etc...]

What's interesting is that, even if I accept your loose language usage, you *should* be saying "The Jews AND The Romans killed Jesus". After all, it's a bit ridiculous to leave the role of "The Romans" out of it entirely.

Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, The Romans were occupying this land, and nothing like this would have occurred without the say-so (and, in this case, active efforts - according to the Biblical accounts themselves) of The Romans.

So why is it you say "the Jews killed Jesus" [post #178] and not "The Jews and The Romans killed Jesus", if this is all just a matter of speaking in "generic" language? Generic language is one thing but accuracy is another.

Didn't The Romans have anything to do with it?

[jwh_Denver]

For the life of me I can't understand why a Christian would have the humility to refer to the Almighty wisdom as "unfathomable," seeing as how they had Him completely figured out just about from day one.

Then I ask you where did the phrase "God works in mysterious ways" come from?

[Terry Mross]

Did you see the post about the book detailing how "THE" Jews built Hollywood? I wonder if the author meant "ALL" Jews.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Did you see the post about the book detailing how "THE" Jews built Hollywood?

No.

Still wondering why, based on your loose way of speaking, you don't appear to think that The Romans had anything whatsoever to do with the CRUCIFIXION of Jesus. Odd, that.

[Hacksaw]

What's interesting is that, even if I accept your loose language usage, you *should* be saying "The Jews AND The Romans killed Jesus". After all, it's a bit ridiculous to leave the role of "The Romans" out of it entirely.

According to Scripture, the Romans reluctantly executed him under pressure from a Jewish mob over trumped up charges.

[Dr. Frank fan]

According to Scripture, the Romans reluctantly executed him under pressure from a Jewish mob over trumped up charges.

Ok, so by this account, and accepting Terry Mross's casual usage of language, I would think the only conclusion would be: "The Romans and The Jews killed Jesus."

Yet, that's not what Terry Mross said. He said "The Jews killed Jesus" (post #178). Weird, huh?

[Terry Mross]

If you'll go back you'll see I said "The Romans", "The Jews", Judas, none of them were "responsible". They didn't have a choice. God wanted it done and all those who had a part in it were destined to do so. That is not an oppinion. That is MY belief. But, technically, it was "The Jews" who made the decision. And that was because God assigned them that task. But He assigned the actual task of the crucifiction to "The Romans". Not all of them, mind you. I want to be sure you understand that I'm not saying "all" of "The Romans" crucified Him. Only a few of "The Roman" soldiers. Is it clear now?

[Dr. Frank fan]

So we've established I think that Jesus was killed through the actions of some Romans, and some Jews, some 2000 years ago. I assume that this is precisely what Mel Gibson's movie will portray. And if so, I don't see the problem.

[biblewonk]

His Father offered Him to Himself through the Holy Spirit.

[kimber]

By his blood on the cross, the worlds sins have been attoned for. By design, planned by his father (God) before time.

[InvisibleChurch]

It was a vast Right-Wing conspiracy!

According to my system of beliefs, I killed Jesus.

Haliburton!

Some folks never learn. "It's not the crime, but the coverup".

just thot i'd let you know that my pastor used these quotes in his sermon tonight

[InvisibleChurch]

... in his sermon titled "Who killed Jesus?"

[Rightly Biased]

We have to understand that this all has to do with Liberals/Hollywood accepting who they are. If the elites accept this movie and allow Gibson this expression then they accept the fact that there is sin and that they have sinned and then need something to right their wrong.

And to accept that they need a wrong righter is to give Christianity some authenticity and that will not happen.
Liberals/Hollywood's "intellectually consistency" will always end with true Christianity. Hence the calls of Anti Semitism because they needed something to pull this movie down because of the fore noted.Anti Semitism is just a catch phrase.

We are told by the Liberals/Hollywood to embrace the Muslims whose sole mantra is to march the Jews into the Mediterranean.But hate this movie for its Anti Semite over tones "intellectual consistency" how bout just some consistency other than a hate for Christian Values and Morals

[rmlew]

A yes, the theological anti-Judaism of many Christians.
I think I am beginning to understand you.

[Prodigal Daughter]

God clearly puts the blame on the then living Jews... WRONG Go back and read where the answer to the question in this thread is given.

Acts 4:24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

[Prodigal Daughter]

Augustine and Chrystostom wrote something that goes against what the Lord God of Israel said. The Lord God of Israel says in the New Testament that the Jews are to be BELOVED by us; enemies for the Gospel's sake, but BELOVED for the Father's sake. Beloved: Concordance: 1) beloved, esteemed, dear, favourite, worthy of love. You should read the Bible and clear up your confusion.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And Christians are commanded in the New Testament to "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:" 1 Cor: 10:32 Romans Chapter 11

[jwh_Denver]

Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

My argrument is not with the Scriptures. I found posts here with some excellent Scriptures and understanding by Francisco #164,167.

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]

Were you there? No. Then how do you know "most" of the Jews didn't know this was taking place? Where is your text to prove that "most" of the Jews didn't know this was taking place?

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".

I said it's my oppinion. It is my belief. Now I'll give you the chapter and verses showing why it is my belief.

Jesus was a Jew. Jesus was speaking to "His" people. Therefore, Jesus was preaching to the Jews.

Matthew 26:(3) and I quote "Then the chief priests (plural) AND the elders of THE PEOPLE assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 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. It sure wasn't the Romans "assembled in the palace".)

Next, Matthew 26:(14) and I quote "Then one of the twelve, the one called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and asked, 'What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?' So THEY counted out for him thirty silver coins." (Again, were these Roman priests?)

Next, concerning Judas, Matthew 26:(47) "With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, SENT from the chief priests and the elders of THE PEOPLE."

Matthew 26:(59) "The chief priests and the WHOLE Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many came forward." (This tells me the Sanhedrin, all Jews, were the ones falsely testifying against Him.)

Matthew 26:(66) 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.)

Matthew 27:(12) "When He was accused by the chief priests and elders He gave no answer. (13) 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. No Romans or Samaritans, et al are mentioned.)

Finally Matthew 27:(15) "Now it was the governor's CUSTOM at the Feast to release a prisoner CHOSEN by the crowd." (This Feast was a Jewish holiday. I have no reason to think that those present were of anything but the Jewish faith.) (16) "At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas."

(17) "So, when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, 'Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?' (18) For he knew it was out of envy that THEY had handed Jesus over to him."

(19) "While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: 'Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.'"

(20) "But the chief priests (plural) and the elders PERSUADED the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed."

(21)"'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' asked the governor. 'Barabbas, they answered."

(22) "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?' Pilate asked. They ALL answered, 'Crucify him!'"

Verse 24 Pilate says, "It is your responsibility". (Since they had ALL answered "Crucify him", I see no reason to believe the "all" who answered were of anything but the Jewish faith?)

(25) "ALL the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children.'" (This is the verse many quote as the reason for the Jews continual persecution. I don't think this is true because my God forgives and they didn't have a choice.)

So, there you have it. Not my oppinion but my belief based on scripture. The "Jews" of that day were responsible for Christ's crucifiction. For some reason the Jews of today don't want to accept that. Like I said, if I was still of the Jewish faith I would say, "Don't blame me. First of all, I wasn't there. Second, those who were there didn't have a choice."

I apologize for incorrect spellings or typos that may appear. For instance, I know Pilate is not Pilot. Then again, he didn't speak English, either so I really don't know what his name was or how it was spelled.

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 when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, 'Ye men of Israel"

Prodigal Daughter, I will peacefully debate the Scriptures but I'm not going to engage in warfare. Period. You accept the Scriptures or you don't. I looked at the Scriture you quoted and I have some doubts about it being appropiate. Grace and peace to you from God the Father and that Lord Jesus Christ.

[#3Fan]

Some of the men of Israel were guilty of being persuaded to go along with it but the Kenites directly murdered Jesus, not the sons of Judah.