|
' |
|
The "Who killed Jesus?" Controversy A Bible Study on the question everybody's
talking about. by Michael Spencer
Listening to all the gyrations and gymnastics going on these days over "Who killed Jesus?" it's easy to forget that the Bible is completely plain and understandable on this topic. Far from being a mystery, the New Testament takes it for granted that evil men, some Jewish, some Roman, but all evil, conspired to kill Jesus. Christians have been repeating the story of Jesus for two thousand years, and the death of Jesus is the center of that story. The part of the Jewish religious leadership and the Roman government is unmistakable. Why is anyone confused? Perhaps because we live in a time when finding alternative explanations to avoid responsibility is the business of millions of people. Maybe because the memory of the Holocaust has rendered any discussion of Jewish crimes difficult, if not impossible, in some circles. Is it because any issue involving race and culture sets whole groups on fire to make everyone equally guilty or innocent? Or have modern Biblical studies become useless; making us so dependent on the esoteric theories of the likes of the Jesus Seminar that we can no longer say what the Bible says? Players in the gameLet's start with a survey of what the earliest Gospel actually says. My specialty is the Gospel of Mark, so I'll stay close to home. The death of Jesus dawns slowly in Mark. For the first two chapters, there is much action aimed at identifying Jesus as the Messiah, the one bringing God's Kingdom into history. Then in chapter 3, on the heels of a confrontation over healing on the Sabbath, Mark tells us this:
These two groups, who normally would have very little common interest about anything, find themselves conspiring to kill Jesus early in his ministry. The Pharisees were
the party within Judaism who believed the key to Israel's life and
future depended on a thorough devotion to the law. Founded on the
enthusiasm of the post-exilic revival described in Ezra, the Pharisees
had constructed a canon of traditions that would guide a law-keeping
Jew in every area of life. Though often portrayed as the bad guys, and
more zealous for minutia than the average Jew, the Pharisees
loved Israel, loved Yahweh, loved the scriptures and were very
interested in Jesus. Some Pharisees supported Jesus, right to the end
and beyond. Some are probably within the early Jesus movement. Paul was
Pharisee. Jesus' conflict with
the Pharisees grows out of his contradiction of the "traditions" they
insisted were necessary in keeping the law, and his criticism of the
abuses of the law Jesus saw among the Pharisees. The Pharisees would
have seen Jesus as a radical; a liberal who was bent on removing the
one kind of devotion to the law that had allowed the Jews to survive as
a people in the midst of many different cultures that could have
assimilated them. When we see Jesus
confrontations with the Pharisees, they are about things like healing
on the Sabbath, or ritual washings or interpretations of the Holiness
code. Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees are scattered throughout the
Gospels, but Matthew 23 provides a collection of Jesus' fearsome
critiques of their approach to Judaism. The Herodians were
simply supporters of the Herod dynasty, and would have been drawn into
the game by any talk of a Messiah--a "King of the Jews"--that might
replace the
unpopular Herods. Herod the Great's attempts to kill Jesus are recorded
in Matthew, and Herod Antipas' interest in Jesus is recorded in all the
Gospels. In Mark 6, there is
an extended description of the death of John the Baptist at the hands
of a manipulated King Herod Antipas. In Mark's narrative, this story
functions as a foreshadowing of the death of Jesus. God's servant and
messenger is killed by a Gentile ruler with a conscience, who was
manipulated in front of a crowd into doing what he did not particularly
want to do. Things get far more
specific in chapter 8 and beyond. Following increasing controversy with
the Pharisees, Jesus begins plainly telling his disciples that he will
be killed. In each of these predictions, he is explicit about who is
responsible. Mark
8:31 And he began to teach them that the
Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and
the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days
rise again.
Mark 9:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 10:33 saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.” In each of these passages, Jesus makes it clear that his death will be the intentional result of hostility against him. In all three he makes it plain that the religious leadership of Israel will arrest him and condemn him to death. In the last prediction, he states that the "Gentiles," meaning the Romans, will torment, torture and kill him. In Mark 10, Jesus states, for the first time, that his death has a meaning and purpose. Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” This is a window into the saving purpose of the death of Jesus, something Mark's Gospel doesn't dwell on directly, but a subject that Mark certainly wanted to convey to his readers. The death of Jesus was not a condemnation of a criminal, or even a tragic, evil act at the hands of evil men. It was a saving, rescuing, ransoming act. In Mark 11, Jesus enters Jerusalem and is acclaimed as Messiah and as a likely king by a crowd. Some of these were likely Galileans who had come to Jerusalem with Jesus, while others were supports in the royal city. This action will eventually provide the Romans with the justification to crucify Jesus, as the sign on the cross will proclaim: "The King of the Jews." While the religious leaders would have certainly been disturbed at this sight, they were more directly affected by Jesus' actions in clearing out the money changers and animal sellers from the temple courts, and taking over a portion of the temple itself. Mark 11:15 And they
came to Jerusalem. And he
entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who
bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the
money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to
carry anything through the temple. 17 And
he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not
written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the
nations?' But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And
the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to
destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished
at his teaching.
The plot to kill
Jesus now swings into high gear, as Jesus has taken the conflict
directly to the religious leadership, using his popularity with the
crowds to confront the profiteering of the Sadducees. It is that same
popularity with the crowds that shields Jesus from immediate arrest by
these religious leaders. The Sadducees were
the minority party in first century Judaism, but their influence
outweighed their numbers. In the post-Maccabean era, they controlled
the temple, the priesthood, and the Sanhedrin. They were wealthy,
Hellenized, and politically pragmatic. They worked with the Romans and
Herod, and feared Zealots, prophets, and messiahs who could upset the
boat. These men would have seen Jesus as their worst nightmare. A man
with power and popularity, and nothing to stop him from riding the wave
of public support as far as it would take him. By coming to the temple
and upsetting the Sadducee-approved- and profitable- temple
price-gouging operation, Jesus
had challenged an already unpopular group that was dangerously paranoid
for
their own power, and pragmatically willing to do anything to stop an
uprising
that might remove them. Mark's Gospel shows
the Sadducees engaging Jesus in dialog once he is in the temple. The
controversies they seek to draw him into are issues that could severely
affect Jesus' popularity and influence. Some are meant to offend the
Zealots. Others are simply meant to make Jesus look stupid and
uneducated. It is their hope to turn the crowds against him. The extent
to which they are successful may be hard to determine if all four
Gospels are consulted, but in Mark they are totally unsuccessful, and
soon this
attempt at discrediting Jesus ends. Two things are worth
noting at this point. One is that Mark mentions nothing about the
Romans and their thoughts about Jesus. Surely they were considering
what Jesus' actions meant for the civil peace, but we have no evidence.
It is safe to say, however, that there is no Roman plot to kill Jesus
in place at this point. The second point is
important. In Mark, there is never an anti-Jesus crowd until his trial
before Pilate. Aside from the rejection he experiences in his hometown,
Jesus is acclaimed and liked by everyone in Mark, except for the
religious leadership. In fact, Jesus' main problem in Mark is his
popularity and the crowds that follow him. This is not the case in
John's Gospel, where
Jesus' words frequently divide crowds, and he seems to be in constant
danger of being stoned to death by opponents in the general public as
well as in the religious leadership. Which is accurate? I believe both are
correct, to this extent. In his early ministry in Galilee and
surrounding areas, Jesus is warmly received and embraced. But when he
journeys to Judea--which is more frequently than we would assume just
from Mark--there is hostility among the religious leaders, their
supporters, and more traditional Jews. This is probably why the
Pharisees come down from Jerusalem to check on Jesus. It shows that he
had created animosity and interest in Judea. In Galilee, where support
for the religious leaders in Jerusalem was weak, Jesus is popular. In
Jerusalem, he is more controversial. (This also may explain why John
places the cleansing of the temple so early in his Gospel. It
establishes this hostility with the religious leaders early on in the
story.) Jesus' first reaction
to this plot comes in a parable in Mark 12. Mark
12:7 But those tenants said to one
another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance
will be ours.’ 8 And they took him and killed him and threw him out of the
vineyard. 9 What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and
destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not
read this Scripture:
“‘The stone that
the builders rejected 12 And
they were seeking to
arrest him but feared the people, for they perceived that he had told
the parable against them. So they left him and went away. As the Passover
approaches, the plot
begins to come to fruition. The religious leaders realize that they
cannot arrest Jesus in the open, but must take him at night, and carry
out their plan to kill him as secretly as possible. Again, please note
that the persons responsible for this are plainly identified. Mark
14:1 It was now two days before the
Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and
the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, 2 for they said, “Not during the feast,
lest there be an uproar from the people.”
Now Judas enters the
picture. Mark has no comments at all on the motivations of Judas. The
other Gospel writers have more to say, but in keeping with his
abbreviated and fast-paced style, Mark gives us "just the facts." Mark 14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. 11 And when they heard it, they were glad and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him. It is interesting to
me that Judas does not appear to ask for money, but is given money as a
reward. I am also quite convinced, by Matthew's account particularly,
that the remorse Judas felt came about because something had gone
terribly wrong. I am personally inclined to believe that Judas did not
believe Jesus was going to die as a result of his actions. Perhaps I have been
watching too many Jesus movies, but consider Judas in Jesus Christ
Superstar. In a complex scenario of broken friendship, jealousy,
concern for the outcome of Jesus' mission, and despair, Judas betrays
Jesus to stop the train wreck before it happens. He exemplifies the
chief priest's suggestion that it is better for one man to die than the
whole nation be destroyed. Eventually, his grief and humiliation over
his personal betrayal of his friend drives him to death. In the 1979 movie, Jesus
of Nazareth, Judas is a political manipulator who believes that
Jesus should be king of Israel, and will be proclaimed as king if the
Sanhedrin can ever get a look at the "real" Jesus. Disturbed by Jesus'
refusal to play along, Judas actions with the religious leaders are a
ploy to turn Jesus over so he can have a secret meeting with the
Sanhedrin and show off his miraculous powers and loving, tolerant
message.
When the religious leaders "play" Judas in order to arrest and condemn
Jesus, Judas is crushed in despair. These movie plot
lines suggest that Judas may have arranged for the arrest of Jesus--a
clear betrayal and evil act--from any number of motives. We may never
know the entire complicated story, but one thing is clear: Jesus holds
Judas responsible
for an evil act. It is not an accident. Judas' betrayal, according to
Jesus, is part of the plot to kill him. Mark
14:17 And when it was
evening, he came with the twelve. 18 And
as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who
is eating with me.” 19 They
began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” 20 He said to them, “It
is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.
21 For
the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by
whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man
if he had not been born.”
The story now becomes quite familiar, and the point is made plainly. When Jesus is arrested, it is not the Romans who come to arrest him, but a mob from the religious leadership.1 Mark
14:43 And immediately, while he was still
speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with
swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the
elders.
At the end of his
trial before the Jesus leaders, when he has been condemned for
blasphemy, Mark is unmistakable about two things: their total agreement
that Jesus is worthy of death, and their decision to take him to the
Romans to carry out the sentence rather than to show mercy and release
Jesus. Mark 14:64 You have
heard his blasphemy.
What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. Mark 15:1 And as soon
as it was morning,
the
chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the
whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him
over to Pilate. Pilate
and the Mob Now the focus becomes
the interaction
between Pilate and the religious leaders, and eventually, a crowd. It
is good to get some background at this point. Pilate was the Roman governor of the province, sent by Tiberius to keep a strong Roman presence in a troubled area. This was not a plum position in the Roman empire, and anyone sent to Palestine would hope to be out as soon as possible. According to what we know in and out of the Bible, Pilate was a ruthless, brutal and particularly greedy ruler, who did not hesitate to kill, steal, and crucify in order to do his job. With tens of thousands of politically charged pilgrims in the city for a holiday celebrating deliverance from Pharaoh, a crowd that included many Zealots eager for violence, and a strong Messianic buzz on the streets about Jesus, Pilate would have been aware that anything he did to Jesus might result in a riot that could quickly overwhelm the small contingent of troops assigned to Jerusalem. Pilate was easily
aware of what the
religious leaders were doing. These men were Sadducees who cooperated
with the Roman regime, but they were also Jews who wanted Rome blamed
for any unpopular actions. If Jesus were to be dead, the religious
leaders wanted Pilate's name in the headlines, not their own. Mark
notes that Pilate observes the religious leaders are "envious" of
Jesus, (15:10) and he can already imagine their biased explanations of
the death of Jesus. So Pilate
determines that he will not be manipulated into something that could
cause a riot or a war, which would end his career or even his life. He
decides to offer the crowd a choice. But it is this crowd
that will be Pilate's undoing. And here is the second piece of
background we need to consider. Jesus was arrested around midnight.
The cock is crowing when the trial is over, so Jesus is taken to Pilate
in the early morning hours. The religious leaders want Jesus dead by
mid-morning, when the city is just waking up. So if there is a crowd of
Jews outside Pilate's window at 7 a.m., who are they? Evidence is clear.
This is a crowd collected and paid for by the religious leaders. Note
that Mark says, Mark 15:11 But the chief
priests stirred up
the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, “Then
what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 And they cried out again, “Crucify
him.” 14 And Pilate said to them,
“Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify
him.” 15 So Pilate, wishing to
satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged
Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. This is a very
unusual crowd, to say the least. In a Gospel (Mark) without an
anti-Jesus mob anywhere, they stick out like a sore thumb. They line up
better
with John's Gospel, but this still does not remove the oddities of
their
enthusiasm for Roman rule! They are in favor of
one of their own being crucified by the Romans. It is hard to imagine
any crowd of Jews wanting one of their own to be crucified--a Roman
terror tactic aimed at the Jews--unless he was a collaborator with the
Romans. Further, note what the other Gospels say about this crowd: Matthew
27: 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the
crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The
governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to
release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate
said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said, “Let him be crucified!” 23 And
he said, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more,
“Let him be crucified!” 24 So when
Pilate saw that he was
gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water
and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this
man's blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 And all the people answered, “His
blood be on us and on our children!”
Luke
23:18 But they all
cried out together, “Away with this man,
and release to us Barabbas”— 19 a
man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the
city and for murder. 20 Pilate
addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, 21 but they kept shouting, “Crucify,
crucify him!” 22 A
third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found
in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release
him.” 23 But they were urgent,
demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices
prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided
that their demand should be granted. 25 He
released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and
murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will.
John 19:12 From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.” 13 So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!” 15 They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified. "We have no King but
Caesar." Is there ever a group of Jews in history who would have said
such a thing? "You are no friend of Caesar if you release him?" "His
blood be on us and on our children?" It is somewhat easy to see why
many critics believe this is an impossible situation to imagine in
first century Palestine. But the text gives the answer. This is a crowd
bought and paid for by the Jewish religious leaders. The people who
paid Judas to betray Jesus have found everyone in Jerusalem willing to
show up at 7 a.m. and shout for the crucifixion of Jesus and the
release of Barabbas. This crowd has been "persuaded" as Matthew says,
to demand Jesus' death. Many are criticizing
Gibson's script for showing "evil" Jews manipulating a weak Pilate.
Let's
be clear. What Pilate did, he did not do out of weakness. John makes it
plain that Pilate flogged Jesus in hopes that would satisfy the
religious leaders and the crowd, and he could release Jesus. This isn't
weakness. It is dealing with political reality. Aside from whatever
insight Pilate may have had into who Jesus really was, Pilate was
looking at a crucifixion that could send the whole country into a war.
Only when it became plain from hearing the crowd that the Zealot
sympathizers were not Jesus supporters did Pilate approve the
crucifixion, and then with symbolism and an announcement that it was
the decision of the crowd--and the religious leaders--to kill him.
Pilate wants the religious leaders to have no way to blame him for any
subsequent disasters. Though Jesus is charged and killed for
proclaiming himself king, Jesus
dies not because Pilate or Rome are threatened by him, but because
political reality and personal ambition brought Pilate to the point of
being willing to sacrifice Jesus. In any subsequent questioning,
Pilate
would be the "peacekeeper," and the religious leaders and the mob would
be responsible for whatever happened. In the book of Acts,
Peter says, Acts 2:22 “Men of
Israel, hear these
words:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and
wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you
yourselves know— 23 this Jesus,
delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,
you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs
of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. Acts
3:12 And when Peter saw it he addressed
the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you
stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk?
13 The God of Abraham, the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified
his servant Jesus, whom you delivered
over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to
release him. 14 But you denied the
Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life,
whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
The conclusion of the Gospels is perhaps best stated this way: Jesus would not have died at the hands of the Roman government if the religious leaders of Israel had not orchestrated and pursued his death down to the final detail. The "Jews" did not kill Jesus any more than the "South" killed Lincoln or the "Whites" killed Martin Luther King, Jr. It was those most threatened by Jesus as teacher and leader, those most likely to lose influence and power, who decided Jesus must die, and saw that it happened. They happened to be Jews. But that is inconsequential to the reason for Jesus' death. He was a Jew. The crowds and disciples were Jews. It was a Jewish nation, a Jewish capital city and a Jewish holiday. They were evil men, and they carried out an evil plan. Even the fact that God's Gospel had sent Jesus to the world for this very purpose does not negate their responsibility. Is the Record Correct? Current liberal New Testament scholars are virtually united in saying that the New Testament is reflecting Christian prejudice against Jews. They contend that the Jews are given too much blame and the Romans too little. In this contention they say that the New Testament is not accurate, and especially cannot be the basis of a movie about Jesus. To follow the New Testament, according to many scholars, is to automatically be presenting anti-Semitic views. There are some factual matters that we have to see if we are going to be clear. The New Testament is written in an atmosphere of painful separation between Christianity and Judaism. Christians are being put out of synagogues. Churches are being harassed and persecuted in many places by Jews. Anyone reading the Gospel of John or the Book of Revelation would have to be blind to not feel the pain that the Christian community is experiencing as it is forcefully torn out of its Jewish "nest." Yet, as often as conspiring Jewish leaders, Jewish persecution, Judaizers and Jewish legalism are mentioned within the New Testament, there is no doubt that the New Testament is not anti-Semitic. Any scholar that makes this claim is almost certainly proving himself incompetent. A primary piece of evidence is the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here is a Jewish/Christian community being admonished to move on from Judaism and to not go back to Judaism. Here is theological polemic and rhetoric. But anti-Semitism? Calling epistles like Hebrews anti-Semitic is like calling an adult child who moves out of the house "anti-parent." It is not a painless process, but it is not a hate-filled condemnation of all people in a group. In the Gospel of John that shows such extreme conflict between Christians and Jews, Jesus plainly says in John 4:22 " You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." The same Gospel of Matthew that says Jews would put Christians out of the synagogues goes to great lengths to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of everything in Judaism. This may not be a response that makes Jews happy, but it is far from anti-Semitism. It is the belief that all of Judaism pointed to something beyond itself: Christ and the Gospel. The Apostle Paul repeatedly shows his Jewish credentials. In Romans 9-11, he gives a detailed exposition of the relationship of the Gospel to Israel, savoring the promise that all of Israel will be saved. Even in that most polemical epistle, Galatians, there is no anti-Semitism or blaming of Jews for the death of Jesus. The contention that the New Testament is anti-Semitic is a race card from the modern academy, where group think and racial politics must pervade anything to have credibility among the elites. The record of Christian anti-Semitism does not grow out of the Bible, but out of the Medieval church's errors and sins. Such a record stands in stark contrast to the New Testament: Romans
9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my
conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that
I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were
accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They
are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To
them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the
flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Why did Jesus die? Christians have
always been clear that the ultimate reason Jesus died was that he was
put forward by the Father as a sacrifice for the sins of sinners. "Herein
is love, not that we loved God, but
that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our
sins." (1 John 4:10
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." (1 John 4:9). "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God." (I Peter 3:18) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) These are the basics
of Christianity. The Gospel is utterly free from all hints of
anti-Semitism because Christ came from God to bear the wrath of God in
loving substitution for sinners. Christianity is not the establishment
of one group over another. It is God creating one new race, one house,
one community in the body of Christ. What kind of perverse reading of
the Bible can reduce the grand vision of God's purposes in Ephesians 2
to anti-Semitism? Ephesians
2:11 Therefore remember that at one time
you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is
called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember
that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,
having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But
now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by
the blood of Christ. 14 For he
himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in
his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by
abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create
in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in
one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you
who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access
in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So
then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but
you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of
God, 20 built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being
joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built
together into a dwelling place for God by the
Spirit.
I am sure I will find many flaws with Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." But I am fairly certain I will agree with the thousands who have already seen the movie and walk out convinced they have watched something that brings all people together. They have seen themselves in the mob, in the religious leaders, in Pilate, in the thieves, the mockers, and the tormentors. And in Christ, they have seen the love of God, the amazing love that we can not fathom with all our intelligence or with all emotions or even in all of time. Christ died because God loves sinners and saves them by His grace. Such is the Gospel. I Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy
the wisdom of the
wise, 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Michael@internetmonk.com
Comment at The IM Forum 1John 18:3 So Judas, having procured a
band of
soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees,
went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. This passage uses a greek word usually
used for a large group of Roman soldiers. Many commentators (Carson,
Witherington) speculate that some Roman soldiers were assigned to the
temple authorities use at Passover to prevent any riots or uprisings.
Craig Keener, whose commentary is an encyclopedia of background sources
and word usage in correlating documents, says that the Roman military
terms are used in Jewish writings, and certainly were used by Jewish
writers in the time of John. He concludes from several lines of
evidence that it is highly unlikely the Romans were involved at all in
the arrest of Jesus. |
”…for truly in this
city there were gathered together against your holy
servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along
with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand
and your plan had predestined to take place.” Acts 4:27-28