The Jews and the Crucifixion

[_L]

I have been under some confusion for some time over how we understand the jews in relation to Christ’s crucifixion. The Catechism states:

Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388

And I agree with this, that you can’t blame a Jewish person today for Christ’s crucifixion nor can you say with certainty that every Jew in Jerusalem at the time was responsible, and still more we can never know how God judged the souls of Pilate or the Pharisees etc. But how do we reconcile this with the blatantly obvious prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem because of Christ being crucified. Was God punishing the city itself? was He punishing the Jewish authorities who handed Jesus over to Pilate? was the punishment the destruction of the temple as a symbol? The Early Church fathers seem to suggest the obvious that the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was divine justice for what was done to Christ, Eusebius in his Church History writes:

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

So how do we reconcile this early church view on the destruction of Jerusalem with the Church teaching on who is responsible for Christ’s death? Eusebius doesn’t say every Jew was impious and responsible for Christ’s death, but he implies the judgement on Jerusalem was for all of those impious men who were responsible at that time for the actual trial and execution of Jesus whether they be pharisees or those in the crowd that chose Barabas instead of Jesus to be freed. Would this view on the destruction of Jerusalem coincide with the Church teaching on responsibility for Christ’s death in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem?

And I think it is also important to note that since there were obviously innocent people killed during the siege of Jerusalem, its important to differentiate between what we perceive as God’s judgment vs. the political conflict between the romans and jews which extended beyond the scope of Jerusalem.

 

[rcjones]

But how do we reconcile this with the blatantly obvious prophecy of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem because of Christ being crucified. Was God punishing the city itself? was He punishing the Jewish authorities who handed Jesus over to Pilate? was the punishment the destruction of the temple as a symbol?

Israel was dissolved as nation because God had divorced them and severed the covenant relationship. Those going to the marriage supper of the lamb come individually, not as a result of the original national invitation.

The temple had to be destroyed because those things which were done as a promise of the cross, if they were continued to be done would be an abomination, since it would be a sign of rejection of the cross.

And I think it is also important to note that since there were obviously innocent people killed during the siege of Jerusalem, its important to differentiate between what we perceive as God’s judgment vs. the political conflict between the romans and jews which extended beyond the scope of Jerusalem.

We all are responsible. Our sin nailed him to the dross and drove the spear in his side. Yet he also laid down his life willingly.

 

[steve53]

We look at those times through modern lenses.

Today, the individual is lionized. Individuals had “rights”.

No such things as rights back then. It was the nation. The individual served the king, who had been given his position by God.

So there we no such things as Good Jews and Bad Jews. There were just Jews. God’s punishment was shared by all those who were “under” the High Priest. Caiaphas was though to be the link between man/the Jews and not only God, but the entire universe. God’s wrath against Caiaphas was shared by the Jews.

Make sense?

 

[Crumpy]

I can’t get excited about what Eusebius said, personally. There is no principle that what any individual says becomes the statement of the entire church, in such a matter of historical interpretation.

It’s good to bring out hypotheses into the open and test them, which the Church has done over the centuries.

Another place to look for a 21st century statement on this issue, in the document library on the EWTN website, lookup and download a copy of “The Jewish People and Their Scriptures” issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, with an introduction by Benedict XVI.

This document goes way out of its way, makes a special point of saying that there is no Biblical validation for assigning blame to the Jews for the death of Christ. There’s no Biblical validation or justification for any prejudice against Judaism.

The main thrust of this document is the connection and progression from the Old Testament (Hebrew Scripture) to the New Testament.

I heard a re-iteration of this recently. Maybe it’s in Benedict’s sequel volume of Jesus of Nazareth. This was reported as “news” which it wasn’t. The Church has tried to defuse any negative animus against the Jews for at least decades, especially after the massacre of Jews in the Second World War, condemning any hatred or retaliation against the Jews for any reason.

 

[Verbum]

Hi L,

God s relationship with the Jews was special. He made a deal with them. You observe my commandments, listen to my prophets and I will protect you. You don t, I punish you. The Jews, as a nation, rejected God messenger. It is especially obvious in the leadership of the Jews at that time. In last Sunday s gospel, the man cured from blindness tells the leaders that Jesus could not have cured him if he were not from God. They throw him out on his ear. They wilfully blind themselves to the truth. They are just as as hard headed as their fathers, and this is why they were punished like their fathers.

So God did not punish the whole Jewish nation because they killed Jesus; He punished them because they had been unfaithful to the convenant.

Verbum