A vote in the US Congress caused me to revisit an old subject, proving it is still very relevant today. The following is based on a lecture my father, Dr. Herbert Hillel Goldberg, presented in the 1980s on the crucifixion of Jesus.
The accusation that the Jews bear sole responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, often expressed as “the Jews killed Christ,” still elicits strong responses. The accusation (called “deicide” or murdering God) is typically applied to all Jews collectively, that is, the Jews bear guilt as a nation perpetually.
Throughout the centuries, it has been used by the Church to justify persecuting the Jews. Antisemitic outrages, such as the medieval Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, countless pogroms and expulsions of Jews throughout Christendom, were initiated or inspired by the Church based on this charge. Even during the Holocaust, some church leaders justified their inaction on behalf of the Jews due to their guilt for the crucifixion. Jews were “getting theirs.”
But what if a Christian who is pro-Jewish, pro-Israel contends the Jews killed Jesus? Does that make him antisemitic?
Several months ago, the US Congress voted on a bill (H.R. 6090) to accept a non-legally binding definition of antisemitism. It was first proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This working definition lists several examples of antisemitism, including the assertion the Jews killed Jesus. A few members of Congress voted against the bill, objecting to the definition, as it conflicted with their traditional reading of the New Testament account of Jesus’ death.
One such congressman, Matt Gaetz, felt the proposed definition was tantamount to denying the Gospel record, tarnishing it (and himself, a professing Christian) as antisemitic. But Gaetz has also denounced the evil of antisemitism. He has called for an end to US funding of the United Nations, suggesting the money would be better spent funding Israel. He also expressed hope that Israel would destroy Hamas. Not exactly the positions of an antisemite.
Millions of Christians are not antisemites just because they hold to the belief that the Jews killed Jesus, though how they apply that belief matters. Some are misinformed about what the New Testament says. Others are influenced by social and religious upbringing, not least the sermons they typically heard around Easter time. Yet many of these same Christians support the State of Israel and hold to pro-Jewish positions that mitigate an accusation of antisemitism. They may be pro-Jewish, but as believing Christians, they embrace the New Testament and its teachings as they understand them.
The notion that Jews are collectively and uniquely guilty is antisemitic and, in fact, is not supported by the New Testament. It is based on a historical fixation by the Church on a few verses, while ignoring many other relevant verses.
All the Gospels include narratives of the crucifixion of Jesus, often referred to as the Passion of Christ: The betrayal by Judas Iscariot; the involvement of Jewish leadership in the trial before Pilate the governor; the crowds calling for crucifixion. “His blood come upon us.” For some, that suffices to make all Jews guilty for all time. But does it?
Jews were not the only participants in the affair. Both Herod (of Idumean ancestry), and Pilate (the Roman prefect or governor), adjudicated the case against Jesus. He was scourged, mocked and ultimately crucified by Roman soldiers. These are not small matters. By this time, the authority to carry out death sentences had been lost by the Sanhedrin to the Roman overlords, confirmed by Pilate’s statement: “I have the power to crucify you and have the power to release you” (Jn. 19:10).
This may seem like quibbling or trying to pass the blame to others. It’s not. The Romans played a significant role in the crucifixion, but history has been kinder to them and their descendants. The Church has not emphasized the Romans’ critical role the way it has the Jews’. The Romans are not pejoratively called “Christ killers” as are Jews. No one accuses the Italians or other Roman descendants today of deicide committed two millennia ago. But singling out the Jews seems acceptable. That is a double standard. And that is antisemitic.
But listen to the New Testament on the crucifixion of Jesus: “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together against the Lord, and against his anointed. In truth, against your holy child Jesus, whom you have anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever your hand and your counsel predetermined to be done” (Acts 4:26-28; emphasis added). Though the people of Israel are mentioned, the gentiles are also mentioned–even first.
Yet historically, the gentiles have escaped the vitriol heaped upon the Jews from pulpits for two thousand years. Alternatively, outrageous as it may seem, based on Acts chapter 4, aren’t the gentiles “Christ killers” too?
I am not in favor of calling anyone a “Christ killer.” But the gentile Church has thrown this epithet at the Jews for centuries. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Unlike many Christians, the New Testament does not attribute sole guilt for the crucifixion to the Jews. Rather, it refers to everyone’s responsibility in the matter. Indeed, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).
Further, is the crux of the matter, as far as the New Testament is concerned, the fact that the Jews or gentiles or anyone killed Jesus? Is this the prime message it wants to transmit? Through antisemitic actions, that is the message the Church has unfortunately transmitted, making it understandably a very unappealing one for Jews.
The New Testament repeatedly refers to Jesus’ death as a gift of love from God for the purpose of salvation (Matt. 20:28; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 6:23; 2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 2:8). Certainly, most Christians would agree this is a common thread throughout the New Testament.
Additionally, Jesus’ death is repeatedly characterized as sacrificial, redemptive, atoning and necessary (Jn. 1:29; Rom. 3:23; 5:8-9; 6:23; 1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:22).
The accusation of “Christ killing” or deicide against Jews degrades those noble messages to a narrative about a murder. It suggests that what happened was wrong and it would have been better had it not occurred. Consider the theological implication: Besides denigrating the gift, it undermines core Christian doctrine. If Jesus’ sacrificial death should have been avoided, what purposeful, redemptive significance would it have?
Jesus could not die any other way. He could not simply die of old age, remembered for elderly wisdom and moral teachings. That was never the plan, as the New Testament clearly states. Recall, gentiles and Jews were gathered together to do what God had “predetermined to be done” (Acts 4:28). In other words, there was no choice for the Jews and gentiles in this matter. God’s plan was for the crucifixion to occur.
Quotes, such as “his blood come upon us,” are part of the New Testament record. There will be those who will insist, “They said it, and that’s it,” having read or heard it countless times in sermons. Fixating on those five words, while ignoring numerous other pertinent quotes, however, is a distortion, a man-made tradition. Are those words really the determining factor that trumps all other words? Read on.
What about the words of Jesus? Are they without effect? “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep…and I lay down my life for the sheep…I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man takes 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” (Jn. 10: 11, 15, 17-18; emphasis added). To repeat: “No man takes it [life] from me, but I lay it down of myself” (v. 18).
Then, at the moment of greatest suffering, while on the cross, Jesus said: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). “Forgive them.” Jesus forgave. That should end the debate.