128. Chapter 15 - Who Crucified Jesus?

Chapter 15 - Who Crucified Jesus? The Passion Play When the Passion Players of Freiburg, Germany, toured America some years ago, the acting of Adolf Fassnacht, who attempted to impersonate Jesus, and of his fellow-players received much publicity and aroused a variety of comments. The Freiburg drama claims to date from 1264, and hence to be older than the Oberammergau cycle. The Freiburg Company played in Cincinnati, and the Jews of the city made a heated protest against such a play being permitted. The protest was led by David Philipson, the distinguished rabbi who ministered to the great Rockdale Temple in Cincinnati. The agitation was part of the world-wide movement the Jews had started against the continuance of the Passion Play at Oberammergau.

Jewish Reaction An excerpt from David Philipson’s sermon at Rockdale Temple is quoted from the Cincinnati Times-Star, and illustrates the attitude and argument of the modern Jewish scholar:

Now, what is the real truth of the arrest and death of the Founder of Christianity? Jesus of Nazareth, a mighty spirit, a preacher of magnificent force, a prophet dwelling on the heights, incurred the opposition and hatred of the priestly class among the Jews. It was this class, and not the Jewish people, whose enmity Jesus aroused. In fact, we read in the New Testament story that the people heard Him gladly. His denunciations of corruption in high places infuriated the priest politicians who sat in those high places. It was they who delivered Him to those authorities for condemnation on the ground that He incited His hearers against the powers that were. And those powers were Roman, and not Jewish. The Roman was the political overlord. The Jewish state had lost its political independence and was a vassal of the Roman power. The Jewish courts had not the power to inflict capital punishment. That was the prerogative of the Roman ruler — in this case Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea. Furthermore, crucifixion was never a Jewish mode of punishment. It was the Roman method of putting the condemned to death.

...The entire result of the showing is to emphasize the guilt of the Jews as a whole, in place of the guilt of the party of priest politicians, and to minimize the part that the Roman governors and soldiers enacted in the tragedy.

Christian Reaction The Christian world has generally considered it a piece of irreverence bordering on blasphemy for any actor to attempt to represent Jesus. Hence “the unwritten law” that kept such efforts from the field of drama. The plays of the obscure German villagers were tolerated because they were little known and because of the peculiar circumstances out of which they arose. But many Christians naturally ask: Why should we need the futile efforts of an actor attempting the impossible, when we have the glorious accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? And there is a certain atmosphere of commercialism which is repulsive in the passion plays on the screen, in American theaters, and even in the Barnum and Bailey publicity which accompanies the Oberammergau performance nowadays and draws such a motley throng of the idle rich and curiosity-seekers.

Jewish Denial of Historic Jesus The above objections to the passion plays are, of course, on a different basis from that of Mr. Philipson, who argues that while it was too bad that a man named Jesus, who was a great preacher, should have been killed, yet it happened two thousand years ago and is now ancient history, and therefore should not be brought up today, because it stirs reproach against the Jews. His attitude, in turn, is in contrast with that of the Orthodox Jews of today who assailed Rabbi Wise of New York as a traitor because he declared that the Jews would have to change their views and admit that Jesus is a historical figure — that such a man as Jesus of Nazareth once actually lived. Rabbi Philipson represents the modernistic Jew who occupies a parallel position to the modernistic Christian in denying the unique inspiration and truth of both the Old and New Testaments, and in making God an idea and religion a matter of the inner conscience and of self-worship.

Attitude of Ancient Jews The position of Mr. Philipson is also in contrast with that of the Jews in the early centuries as reflected in the Talmud. They were not at all willing to admit that Jesus was “a mighty spirit, a preacher of magnificent force, a prophet dwelling on the heights,” but instead represented Him as so vile that in eternity He is to be condemned to be cast into boiling filth. Their hatred was so violent that they avoided even calling His name, but referred to Him by every epithet of contempt they could conjure up, such as “the one hung,” “the fool,” “son of the stake,” “such a one,” “that man,” “the Nazarene.” They went through the New Testament attempting to contradict every good or wonderful thing affirmed of Jesus, and instead to invent some foul thing as the actual fact in the case. They denied His birth of a virgin, and instead affirmed that He was born of the illicit union of Mary of Nazareth with a Roman soldier named “Panther.” (They invented this word “Panther” from the Greek noun for “virgin,” parthenos.) Much of their abuse is so violent that it is utter nonsense, as when they affirm that Jesus was “the worshipper of a brick” — a statement which even Klausner admits is silly and meaningless. Their desperate efforts to overcome the shameful manner in which Jesus was rushed through a series of trials and condemned to death led them to invent the following narrative : On the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth), and the herald went before him for forty days, saying, “Yeshu of Nazareth is going forth to be stoned in that he practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let every one knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him.” But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.

Here the malicious character of the hasty, farcical trials of Jesus is changed into a forty-day search by a herald for one person in all Israel who would say one thing favorable to Jesus! This Baraita from the Talmud holds that the death of Jesus was entirely justifiable, as in the case of any other criminal who has been properly tried and proved guilty. Mr. Philipson holds, on the contrary, that the death of Jesus was not deserved, and is to be charged against the Romans, with a modicum of blame resting upon the Sadducees.

Jesus Blamed by Modernists

Modernists, like Kirsopp Lake of Harvard occupy a position in contrast with Mr. Philipson. Professor Lake delivered a series of lectures in the Unitarian Church in Cincinnati some years ago. A large portion of his hearers were from the Rockdale Temple and the Hebrew Union Seminary. He made a continual effort to discard the New Testament and play to the Jewish section of his audience by rewriting the record in order to reflect great credit upon the enemies of Jesus and discredit upon Him. He discussed at great length the death of Jesus, and was as zealous as any Jew could be to remove all blame from them.

Mr. Philipson and Professor Lake are one in the persistent effort to shield the scholars of Israel (the Pharisees) from any blame, and to make out that it was purely a matter between the Sadducees and Jesus. Rabbi Philipson frankly admits “corruption” of “the priest politicians,” but Professor Lake defended the Sadducees warmly. He declared that their temple market was both legitimate and well managed and that Jesus’ death was “the result of His attempt to break up the meat trust of Jerusalem, which was making no more profit than a modern bank would expect.” His view, when simmered down, was simply that no one is to be blamed for the death of Jesus: He brought it on Himself and deserved it. The view of Professor Lake reverts to the Talmudic position that Jesus was responsible for His own death, although the malice which bursts forth in abusive epithets in the Talmud is carefully concealed by the modernist under delightfully delicate and courteous language. Such was the original difference between the methods of Judas in the garden and of the Sanhedrin in the courtroom.

Why Raise the Question?

Why should we discuss the problems as to who was responsible for the death of Jesus? Certainly not to stir up prejudice against the Jews of today. But the cross of Christ stands in the center of Christianity. The death of Jesus, joined with His resurrection, is the most important event in history. It is not a dead issue, but living “good news.” The Christian should be eager to study everything that is to be known about the death of Christ.

First Century Attacks

Jesus died because it was the will of God that He should give His life on the cross for the sins of the world. The effort to make out that those who put Him to death were not to blame constitutes as direct an attack upon His deity as could be made. The Epistle to the Hebrews indicates that through the early decades of the history of the early church the effect was being made to justify those who had put Jesus to death: A man that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, the Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:28-31). The marginal reading for “an unholy thing” is “a common thing.” The passage depicts the unspeakable shame of the Christian who turns his back upon Christ and tramples the Son of God under his feet by declaring that the death of Jesus means no more than the death of any other person who was put to death and deserved what he got. Such is the effort of the Talmud to justify the death of Jesus on the ground that He was an evil-doer or of the modernist on the ground that He was a meddler in the management of the temple, which was none of His business.

Motives

Human conduct seldom arises out of a single motive. One motive may predominate, but a variety of purposes is usually intertwined. Sometimes noble and base motives are combined in the most inexplicable fashion. The death of Jesus was the result of the devil’s campaign to destroy the Son of God, as it was the fulfillment of God’s program for the saving of a lost world. The human agencies which entered into the transaction were numerous and actuated by a diversity of motives.

Judas

Judas Iscariot bears part of the responsibility for the death of Christ. The strange view is sometimes expressed that Judas is not at all to blame for what he did, since he fulfilled prophecy and played an essential part in the divine program as Jesus freely predicted. This confuses the meaning of predestination and destroys the freedom of will. The Gospel writers clearly represent Judas as yielding to the wiles of the devil instead of the pleadings of Jesus and as being entirely responsible for the course he chose. Jesus tried to save him, but in vain. A father may predict the doom of his boy while toiling to save him from it. When the boy plunges on to destruction, in spite of all the prayers and warnings of his father, the boy, and not the father, is to blame. The fact that Jesus foreknew the end of Judas does not mean that He compelled him to pursue this course. Hear His solemn warning in the upper room on the night Judas betrayed Him: “He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:23, Matthew 26:24). This is the estimate of Jesus concerning Judas’ guilt. The testimony of Judas himself concerning his own guilt is as follows: “Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to it. And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away, and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:3-5). The motives of Judas have been the subject of much discussion. Some hold that Judas meant well by his action, and was only trying to force Jesus to come to blows with His enemies, destroy them, and proclaim Himself the material Messiah, which the apostle so ardently desired Him to be. But this is contrary to the repeated declarations of Scripture that the devil had taken possession of Judas: “The devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him” (John 13:2; Luke 22:3); “And after the sup, then entered Satan into him” (John 13:27); “Not one of them perished, but the son of perdition” (John 17:12). Judas did not mean well. If there were any confused ideas about forcing Jesus to become a material Messiah by this means, the Scriptures fail to reveal the fact. Judas is represented as falling before the overweening passion for gold. He became a thief and stole from the treasury of the little group (John 12:6). Stung by the rebuke of Jesus which uncovered to himself his infamy, he went out and plotted with Jesus’ enemies to betray Him (John 12:1-8; Matthew 26:6-16). It was not until he saw Jesus condemned to death that he realized the full enormity of his crime; and then, overcome by remorse, he hanged himself. One of the proofs of the unique inspiration of the Scriptures is the marvelous restraint which the Gospel writers show in their reference to Judas. They show no hatred, and the Scriptures are absolutely free from any sort of abuse of those who slew Jesus. Could any of us have told the story of Jesus’ death and not yielded to the desire to impress the character of Judas’ infamy by heaping epithets upon him?

Fiction

Typical of the modern Jewish attitude is the novel by Sholem Ash, The Nazarene, in which Judas is made the hero. Numerous other such novels have undertaken the defense of Judas. It is a clever and popular method of attacking the deity of Christ. The Roman Government The Jews were the most stubborn and turbulent people with whom the Romans dealt. They occupied a strategic output of the empire; they were a sort of buffer state against the barbarous Scythians to the east. Every effort was made not to offend the religious scruples of the Jews. The Roman standards were kept out of Jerusalem, the Holy City. The Romans refrained from unnecessary breach of the Sabbath-day regulations and did not place the effigy of the emperors on the coins in use in Judea. They allowed the Jews to try cases where Jews only were concerned, but did not permit them to exact the death penalty. The Roman procurator doubtless investigated the movements of John the Baptist and of Jesus and satisfied himself thoroughly that these campaigns were not militaristic, but purely spiritual; and, therefore, permitted them utter freedom. Herod Antipas beheaded John the Baptist and attempted to drive Jesus out of Galilee. He was given a bold reply by Jesus and did not push the matter further. But the Romans in no way interfered with the ministry of Jesus. A number of Roman officers appear in the New Testament account, and frequently in the most favorable light. The centurions of Capernaum and of Caesarea were particularly noble men; the former believed on Jesus, and his servant was healed by a miracle; the latter was the first Gentile to accept the gospel. The centurion who had charge of the crucifixion of Jesus seems to have indulged in no wanton cruelty and to have possessed extraordinary insight into the character of Jesus. The conduct of the soldiers at the cross is in contrast with the brutality of those in the barracks when Jesus was tortured. Lysias, the captain of the guard at Jerusalem, showed courage, fairness, and skill in his rescue of Paul. The centurion who had charge of the attempt to scourge him, and the two centurions who escorted him to Caesarea, also faithfully exercised their power. The centurion who escorted Paul to Rome also appears to have been a good man. The Roman governors — Pilate, Felix, and Festus — do not make so favorable an impression. But the Scripture makes absolutely clear that the move to destroy Jesus did not arise from the Roman Government.

Lynch Law

If the ministry of Jesus did not clash with the Roman authorities, why, then, did they put Him to death? A Roman governor condemned Jesus to death because the Jews demanded it. They did not possess the power to kill Jesus and demanded that Pilate execute Him. It is interesting to note that in the cases of the stoning of Stephen and the attempted assassination of Paul, the Jews did not hesitate to take the law into their own hands to override the Roman authorities, and to indulge in mob violence. Why did they not assassinate Jesus in like fashion? Evidently His personality was so tremendous and the character of His movement so widespread and powerful that they did not dare to kill Him without the consent of the Roman governor.

Jewish Charges The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death on the ground of blasphemy, because He claimed to be the Son of God, but they knew that they could not hope to procure conviction from Pilate on this ground. Luke states that the charges they made against Him before the governor were: “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Luke 23:2). The first charge was that Jesus was a revolutionary, which Pilate knew well enough to be untrue; the second was a deliberate falsification; the third sounded like a real charge, but Pilate soon saw that Jesus was no rival of Caesar’s. The Jews had tried desperately to bring Jesus into collision with Rome by attempting “to come and take him by force, to make him king” (John 6:15) and by demanding He pass on the question as to whether tribute should be paid to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22), but in each case they had met with signal failure. Pilate quickly saw the innocence of Jesus: “For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up” (Matthew 27:18). He struggled desperately to save Him. The Jews Controlled Pilate

Why, then, did Pilate yield and condemn Christ? Did the basin of water free him from guilt? Pilate condemned Jesus for the same reason that a man yields today when a pistol is suddenly pointed at him. Israel was a vassal of Rome, but the Jews had a way of compelling the conqueror to obey on occasion. They finally pointed at Pilate the double threat of starting a bloody riot and of placing charges against him at Rome that he was a traitor to the Roman interests. Pilate knew that they were compelling him to commit murder, but he also knew that his record in Palestine was so black that he did not dare risk stirring the Jews to appeal to Caesar against him. The basin of water could not make him “innocent of the blood of this righteous man,” for he counted his position as governor and his life as of more value than his character, and passed the death sentence on Jesus. He must answer for what he did. But Jesus Himself said that his guilt is not so great as that of the Jews. “Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin” (John 19:10, John 19:11). It is true that the particularly cruel method of execution by crucifixion was of Roman, and not of Jewish origin, but this is immaterial. Who was it that persistently cried: “Let him be crucified”?

France’s Puppet Pilate

Anatole France in his novel, The Procurator of Judaea, attempts to attack Christ by means of fanciful inventions concerning Pilate’s later life. Josephus relates how Pilate was deposed as procurator of Judaea because of his bloody suppression of a gathering of Samaritans on Mount Gerizim in a.d. 36. Tradition declares that Pilate was banished to Vienne, France and finally ended his life by suicide. The crux of Anatole France’s fiction is a scene where Pilate in his exile, old age, and ill-health is bemoaning his fate. A friend questions him as to a certain man, Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had executed by crucifixion during his governorship of Judaea. But Pilate can remember not a thing about such an event. It must have taken place, of course, but he was always executing political prisoners, and this had just been a day’s work for him — nothing more. Thus Anatole France undertakes to deny not only that Jesus is the Son of God, but to deny that He was even a man of more than ordinary stature. His trial and crucifixion had made no more impression upon Pilate than any other of the many criminals and political prisoners he had executed. With a wave of the hand of fiction Anatole France would deny the historic testimony of the awe and terror of Pilate and of his wife, of the repeated declarations of Pilate as to the innocence of Jesus and the heinous nature of the murder he was being compelled to commit. The enormous impact of the Son of God upon the hardened Roman governor during the trials is shrewdly blotted out by Anatole France. But infidelity always tends to overreach itself and destroy its own product. Such an attack upon Christ by means of fiction is as if one would destroy a powerful fortress by splattering its wall with a hand-full of mud. The People

It is useless for the modern Jewish scholar to attempt to shift the blame for the death of Jesus upon the Romans and a clique of priest politicians. “The chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes,” and “they all say, Let him be crucified.” “And all the people answered and said, His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:20, Matthew 27:22, Matthew 27:25). It is doubtful if a greater piece of hypocrisy has ever been perpetrated than the pious protest of the Sanhedrin a few weeks later against the preaching of the apostles: “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name: and behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:28, Acts 5:29). The contention that not all the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus has, of course, some merit. The eleven apostles were not to blame, nor were the faithful disciples and women who had supported Jesus in His campaign and followed Him to Jerusalem. The Jewish people who were not in Palestine at the time knew nothing of the entire transaction. But Jesus was crucified at the Passover, and the city was thronged with the multitudes of worshippers from all over Judaea and the Roman Empire. The statement that the chief blame rests with the corrupt leaders who misled the people is quite true. This is always true. Whenever a nation pursues a false, wicked course, there are always some people with enough wisdom and virtue to regret and oppose the prevailing policy. But the majority of the people think but little, and follow their leadership blindly. This is even true in a democracy with modern means of education and communication. The greatest blame for World Wars I and II does not rest with the German people, who are a liberty-loving people, but with the atheistic philosophers of Germany who poisoned their thinking and the militaristic clique who filled them with wicked ambitions. Thus, in the time of Christ, Israel was cursed with a vicious leadership which lured the nation with false teaching and imperialistic designs of worldwide dominion under a material Messiah. But the people were responsible for following such leadership when they beheld the very light of heaven in the person of the Son of God.

Condemnation by Jesus When Jesus condemned the populous cities of Galilee for their unbelief, He did not say: “Woe unto the little group of intellectual leaders of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum!” He said: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And thou Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee” (Matthew 11:21-24). It is hard to see how the condemnation of the people as a whole could have been more explicit or terrific. Jesus did not predict the downfall of the little group of leaders who had misled these great cities, but the doom and utter desolation of the cities as a whole. The people had seen the light and had deliberately shut their eyes. The Destruction of Jerusalem

Jesus also condemned the Holy City itself and, with a breaking heart, pronounced its doom. He paused on the brow of the Mount of Olives in the midst of His triumphal entry, and, instead of inveighing against the Sanhedrin, He included the city and the nation in the sweep of His tremendous denunciation: “And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee around, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation” (Luke 19:41-44).

It adds to the dramatic intensity of this denunciation and prediction of destruction that it came at the very moment that the excited multitudes were indulging in the wild enthusiasm of their triumphal reception of Him as the Christ. Jesus understood the fickle character of their praise and the false premises on which they thought that He was the Messiah. In Galilee when they tried to take Him by force and make Him king, being impatient with His spiritual ministry, and He refused, they turned away and rejected Him. So here at last they led Him in triumph into the city when they saw Him boldly facing His enemies and declaring by His manner of entrance that He was the Messiah, for they were sure He would now use His power to destroy His enemies and start on the long expected campaign of world dominion. When they saw Him refuse to do this, they turned against Him with all the suddenness and blindness of an unreasoning mob.

Jesus’ lament over the city, as recorded in Matthew, comes at the close of His fiery denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, and shows how clearly He included the city and nation as a whole in His denunciation, even as they were about to become one in their rejection and crucifixion of Him: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:37, Matthew 23:38).

Sermons of Apostles The apostles took the same position in the sermons recorded in the early chapters of Acts; they charged both the rulers and the people with the death of Jesus. At Pentecost Peter boldly charged the whole multitude with the crucifixion: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know; him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay” (Acts 2:22, Acts 2:23). It would he impossible to improve upon this statement. It includes the elements of God’s foreknowledge and plan to save the world through the death of Christ, the cruel part of the Romans in the crucifixion, and the fact that the persons who really did the deed were the Jews who forced the Romans to kill Jesus. This was directed at the Jews who thronged Jerusalem at the Pentecost feast, and not at the Sanhedrin. The people frankly admitted their guilt and cried for pardon: “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). Peter repeated this charge in his second sermon: “...Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of life...” (Acts 3:13-15). But he adds the declaration that neither the people nor the rulers had realized the enormity of their crime: “And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17). When the apostles were arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin, Peter cast the same charge in the teeth of the Sadducees and Pharisees: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified” (Acts 4:10). The thrilling prayer offered by the church upon the release of the apostles quotes the second Psalm and its fulfillment: “Why did the Gentiles rage, And the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array and the rulers were gathered together, Against the Lord and against his Anointed: for of a truth in this city against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel foreordained to come to pass” (Acts 4:25-28). When the Sanhedrin arrested the apostles again and charged, “Behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us,” Peter boldly repeated his indictment: “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree” (Acts 5:28-30). Stephen fiercely assailed the Jews for the death of Christ: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers” (Acts 7:51, Acts 7:52). His Friends

There must have been many people in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified who viewed His death with a breaking heart. The disciples beheld it from afar, with the exception of the little group standing by the cross. Surely there were many who had been healed and blessed by Jesus who loved Him still as He was led forth to die as a common criminal. But the fact that Jesus refused to use His miraculous power to defend Himself and even refused to speak in His own defense led these friends to remain silent. The Zealots The Jews had a two-party system in the time of Christ: Sadducees and Pharisees There were three minor sects: Herodians, Zealots and Essenes. The Essenes were a communistic sect localized west of the Dead Sea. They do not seem to have had any contact with Jesus and do not enter the New Testament account. The Zealots were the extremist party demanding insistently rebellion against Rome to free Israel. They were particularly strong in Galilee. They seem to have played a larger part in influencing the locale and method of Jesus’ earlier ministry than is generally understood. They doubtless shared most enthusiastically in the triumphal entry, as they had in the effort to force Jesus to become a material Messiah after the feeding of the five thousand. They were the dangerous element in the national complex from the viewpoint of the Jerusalem hierarchy, who dreaded to put Jesus to death during the feast while the hosts of Galileans were at the capital. They seem to have become indifferent to Jesus or to have turned against Him in disgust and assisted in demanding His crucifixion, when He refused to use violence in self-defense and to declare Himself a material Messiah. Their activities are not mentioned by name in the Gospels, but their influence constantly underlies its movement. The Herodians The Herodians enter but twice into the Gospel narrative and each time they are represented as joining in the malicious plots to destroy Jesus (Mark 3:6; Mark 12:13; Matthew 22:16; Luke 20:20). The Pharisees, in their desperate eagerness to kill Jesus, were even willing to forget their natural hatred of the Herodians and to invite the assistance of these wily politicians in carrying out their plots.

Modernists (both Jewish and Christian in their leanings) try to shield the Pharisees from any blame for the death of Jesus. It seems to make them feel uneasy to hear of such pious scholars being held responsible for crucifying Jesus. They would rather shift the burden to the Sadducees, who were politicians more than scholars. But the New Testament repeatedly affirms that both of these sects led in the innumerable plots against the life of Jesus and finally compassed His death. The Sadducees The bitter struggle of the Sadducees and Pharisees with Jesus really began before Jesus entered upon His ministry. The scorn with which they viewed John the Baptist and his message and the scathing indictment which he, in turn, made against them showed how inimical they were to such a spiritual movement. A deadly struggle was inevitable. When Jesus began His ministry by throwing down the gauntlet to the Jerusalem hierarchy in cleansing the temple, it was like casting a lighted match into tinder. It was a direct challenge to the Sadducees’ management of the temple, but it was also an affront to the Pharisees. Because they had been in harmony with the chief priests in this matter, the Pharisees were jointly responsible for it. The Sadducees had actual control of the temple and were centralized in Jerusalem so that the clashes with them were limited almost completely to Jesus’ visits to the capital. But the Pharisees were the school-teachers of the nation, and every town and village saw the bitter struggle with them over the fundamental principles of the traditions of the elders versus God’s word, love versus legalism, humility versus pride and conceit, the search for the lost versus exclusive self-righteousness, Jesus as God’s Son and the divine program for saving the world versus the religious system of Judaism. It became immediately evident that if Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, then they must yield the leadership of the nation to Him. This they refused to do and, instead, began to plot His death. The first definite plot to destroy Jesus arose, not from the Sadducees, but from the Pharisees in combination with the Herodians (Mark 3:6). The Sadducees rejection of the doctrine of the resurrection was at the heart of their bitter persecution of Jesus and the church. The Pharisees The facts that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death and that the Pharisees had the majority in the Sanhedrin also show that the responsibility for the death of Christ cannot be placed solely on the Romans and the Sadducees When Herod the Great became king, he immediately executed forty-five leading members of the Sanhedrin who were Sadducees and put Pharisees in their place. The Sadducees had been supporting the Maccabean family which Herod supplanted, and the blow also shattered the power of the council. The high priest still presided, but the Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin. The New Testament shows that some of the Pharisees were noble and friendly to Jesus, but the party as a whole was encompassed by prejudice and full of bitter hatred that led them to join with their natural enemies, the Sadducees and Herodians, to bring about His death. The Pharisees led in the attempts to brow-beat and silence John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7; Matthew 21:23, Matthew 21:32; John 1:24). Early in the ministry of Jesus, the Pharisees plotted His death (Mark 2:6; Mark 3:6). They repeatedly sought to stone Him (John 5:18; John 7:19; John 8:59; John 10:31; John 11:8, John 11:57; Mark 11:18). Nicodemus was a notable exception (John 3:1-9). His protest against the wicked plots of the Pharisees brought from them a bitter, sarcastic reply (John 7:45-52). The horrible torture of Jesus by the members of the Sanhedrin when they passed the death sentence reveals the venom of the Pharisees as well as the Sadducees (Matthew 26:67, Matthew 26:68). Both the Sadducees and the Pharisees joined in taunting Jesus as He hung upon the cross (Matthew 27:41; Mark 15:31; Luke 23:35). The Present Situation

What should be our attitude toward the Jews of today in the light of these facts? Should we hold them in contempt because of what their ancestors did? Most certainly not. But the modern Jew must answer for his crucifixion of the Son of God in the year 1962. He is directly responsible for his present rejection of Jesus and for his malicious attacks upon Him and upon God’s final message to the world. But, in spite of this, our constant effort should be to imitate the attitude of Jesus on the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” This, however, does not mean that our regard for their feelings should silence our proclamation of the message of Christ. If their protest against the passion plays be valid, then our brotherly obligation would be not to remind them of the cross of Christ in any way. Our love for the Jewish people should be expressed in the same way as toward every other non-Christian in the world: A passionate proclamation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. A Christian cannot contemplate this topic without some very solemn and humbling reflections on his own guilt. Inasmuch as it was for our sins that He went to the cross, then we must share the universal guilt of His crucifixion. Poignant is the appeal of the moving hymn: “Once I crucified my Saviour, Shall I crucify again?”