Life and Teachings of Jesus Part 3, by William Haines

So I hope there was lots to think about yesterday. I'm sure there was a different way of understanding what Jesus was doing, really trying to understand the reality of the life in which he lived, the reality of the Roman occupation, and how he was trying to address that reality. It wasn't the way God wanted it to be; it wasn't the way he wanted it to be, but that was just the way that it was, and so he dealt with the reality that he found himself living in. We carry on looking at this, but first of all, some questions came up in the conversation at the end there about the Gospels and things. The first thing, if you go and study at the seminary or theology college, you find out that when you read the Gospels, they're not biographies of Jesus. They're not biographical accounts of Jesus; they're not objective in that way, and they don't even pretend to be objective in any way. They're very stylized theological accounts of the life of Jesus, which are written for a particular purpose, and the purpose is to convert people. That's why they're written: to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah or the Christ.

When we read them, we can't just read them naively, assuming that everything, just because it's written in the Gospels, must be true. We have to read it as if we were reading any piece of literature. We have to understand the context. For example, when were they written? Most of them were written in the late first century or second century, quite a long time after Jesus died. Then, who wrote them? We don't know exactly who wrote them, but when you look at them, you can see that many hands went into making them. It looks like some people tried to find original source material, but then this was edited and re-edited, and it was organized and arranged in a particular way. So there's an overall structure and framework for each of the Gospels, which is quite different. One needs to understand why they're written and also who they're written for. The Gospel of Matthew, particularly, is often called the most Jewish of the Gospels. It looks like it was written by Jews who believed in Jesus, particularly for other Jews who didn't believe in Jesus.

When you look at the Gospel of Luke, it looks like it was written for other people, and it's often assumed that it was written by someone from Paul's church who wanted a Gospel of the life of Jesus but found Matthew a bit too Jewish. In the Gospel of Luke, there are other Gentile interests which are more interesting for people who weren't Jews. Mark is also different again, and John is also a very different kind of Gospel, again written for a particular spiritual community. We need to know what the writer and the editor are trying to say, what message they were trying to convey through the Gospel. You have to recognize what the theology of the Gospel is or the angle of the editor. Why did they edit it in a particular way? We have to try and go behind the editing to see what was the raw material in that sense: what were the authentic sayings of Jesus, what were the authentic things that really happened, as opposed to things that were spun in a particular way.

Sometimes there is something that happens that doesn't really fit with what the Gospel writer wants to say, so sometimes they'll spin it in a particular way, just like a journalist will do, or just like politicians do. If there's some uncomfortable fact that doesn't really fit with their narrative, they try to spin it in a particular way, and the Gospel writers do just the same. We also need to understand the social context that the Gospels are written in and the arguments they reflect. Written very much as an argument, the Divine Principle is as well. How do you decide which are the authentic sayings? When you come across a verse or a passage that contradicts the traditional Christian narrative or theology, then biblical scholars say that's probably authentic because the editor wouldn't have made it up, as it doesn't fit with what he wants to say. If it's like that, then it's probably an authentic saying or probably an authentic event.

If you think about what the traditional Christian narrative is, well, it's that Jesus was born to die, he was rejected by the Jewish people, and he was God. So if you find passages or verses which contradict this, then you have to think, 'Oh, okay, that's interesting; that's probably authentic.' At the same time, if it supports traditional theology, then maybe this is an editorial addition. For example, many times you read the Gospel, and it says something like, 'He said this because he knew he was going to die.' That's the editor. Jesus says something, and then the editor puts it in a context: 'He said this because of this.' They're spinning it in a particular way. Anyway, there's lots of... I'm not going to go into how to read the Gospels critically.

Something else one needs to understand is why there are so many quotes from the prophets. Read the Gospel; the New Testament is full of quotes from the Old Testament, from the prophets. You might wonder why that is. That's because the New Testament is written by Jews who believed in Jesus. All the Gospels and all the letters were written by Jews who believed in Jesus, and so what they were trying to do is to persuade Jews who didn't believe in Jesus that Jesus was the Messiah. That's why they're constantly bringing up quotes from the prophets in the Old Testament, trying to persuade Jews who don't believe in Jesus that Jesus is the Messiah because Jesus fitted and fulfilled these prophecies. The reason why they chose the Old Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures is that that was the common source of authority. If they're going to argue about something and try to prove their point, both sides—the Jews who believed in Jesus and the Jews who didn't believe in Jesus—would be looking for texts in the Torah and in the prophets that would prove their point. They were always exchanging texts back and forth; it was like an argument.

That's why the Gospels are the way they are; it's a result of a long argument the Jews who believed in Jesus had with the Jews who didn't believe in Jesus and how they were trying to convince them that Jesus is the Messiah. When you read it, then the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus's life is written to fulfill as many prophecies as possible—actually about 300. For example, you find things like, 'This is just as it was written in the Scripture.' So Jesus did something, and then the editor will say, 'This is as written in the Scripture,' and then there'll be the little quote from the prophets. For example, here, this is Jesus himself saying, 'But then how would the Scriptures come true? They say it must happen in this way.' That was again towards the end of his life; these words were in his mouth. This is what happened because it had to happen this way to fulfill the prophets. There is a sense that the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus was inevitable; it was prophesied, and it was what was supposed to happen.

What about the teachings of Jesus? As I mentioned yesterday, Jesus upheld the Mosaic law. He said very clearly in the Sermon on the Mount, 'Not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law.' So Jesus wasn't someone who was trying to abolish the law; he wasn't someone who tried to break the law or did break the law. He lived by the Jewish law, the Mosaic law. As I said yesterday, he was probably a Pharisee. All Jesus's teachings and practices were on the spectrum between these two rabbis: Rabbi Shammai, who was very strict, and Rabbi Hillel, who was much more liberal. Everything that Jesus taught and did was somewhere on the spectrum between these two poles. Often you'll find it says in the Gospels, 'The Pharisees said this,' or 'The Pharisees criticized Jesus about that.' It would have been much better if the Gospel writer had said 'some of the Pharisees' because Jesus himself was a Pharisee within that tradition.

So it would be better to say 'some Pharisees criticize Jesus because he did this,' whereas other Pharisees would have agreed with him. Unfortunately, it's written in that particular way, which I explained yesterday. Jesus told his disciples, 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, so you must be careful to do everything they say.' Moses held the teachings of the Pharisees in extremely high regard, and he certainly didn't teach his disciples that they should ignore them or break the teachings of the Pharisees. Their interpretations should be lived within that spectrum of understanding. The way Jesus taught, the use of parables, was typical of Pharisees. To be honest, he told far better parables than they did, really, when you compare them, but it was within that kind of tradition of teaching. Amongst the Pharisees, there is a large range of interpretations, so this freedom of interpretation meant that even if Jesus had original interpretations or different readings of the text, it would just be different. It wouldn't be an excuse or reason for him to be killed because there's no sense within Judaism that people should be killed just because they have a slightly different interpretation of the law.

In that sense, Jews are not Christians. Christians are really concerned about whether you believe the right thing. Historically, in Medieval Europe, if someone didn't sign up to the Nicene Creed or didn't do this or believe this or that, they were called a heretic and could be kicked out of the church, and worse. Jews are not like that; Jews argue endlessly about different ideas and different ways of interpreting the text. They're more concerned with how people live, whether you're observing the law or not observing the law. What you actually believe is up for grabs within that framework of how you should live a moral life. Again, when you read in the Gospel, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees very severely, but the criticisms he made of the Pharisees were typical of the criticisms the Pharisees made of each other and also made of themselves. There's not much difference there.

You know, I said Jesus was basically just a typical Jew. If you want to read more about this, this is a very good book: 'Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society.' It's important to understand. There are a few quotes I'm going to have from this professor. He said, 'A Jesus who taught like a Jew and an early Christian community that looked like a Jewish sect troubled many 19th-century German Lutheran scholars.' Most of the modern biblical scholarship started in Germany with Protestants, primarily people like Baur and Strauss, who analysed the Gospels very critically. That was the beginning of New Testament critical scholarship, which started there in Germany. But they had a problem: this is the problem that Jesus, who taught like a Jew, and an early Christian community that looked like a Jewish sect troubled many 19th-century German Lutheran scholars who preferred to envision a Jesus who taught a new and unique doctrine that overthrew the established tradition. Many of us have inherited that basic assumption.

Not just 19th-century German Lutheran scholars; this assumption and perspective permeated most Protestant churches to this day. Albrecht Ritschl, one of the greatest of the German New Testament scholars, solved the problem by attacking the Jews. For him, Jesus did not reform or transform Judaism; he condemned it. You can find many verses to justify that if you want to. Jesus the Jew, in Ritschl's view, transcended Judaism by purifying Christianity of its Jewish elements. From the middle of the 19th century until World War II, numerous German scholars, including Adolf von Harnack and Rudolf Bultmann, followed Ritschl's lead in one way or another. None were Nazis, but reading them after the Holocaust leaves us with an eerie sensation because that's what was going on. They didn't like the Jewishness of Jesus, and that's one of the reasons for the switch to claim that the Gospel of Mark was the oldest Gospel, whereas historically, Matthew was always regarded as the oldest Gospel, which is why he comes first among the four Gospels. The Catholic Church until very recently regarded Matthew as the oldest Gospel, but German New Testament scholarship didn't like that because Matthew is really Jewish. They claimed that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew copied Mark, and Mark is the least Jewish of the three Synoptic Gospels.

To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teaching. Even Jesus's most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role. If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus's life and the history of Israel in favour of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God that has loved and protected Israel and the Church. There's a particular stream within early Christianity called Gnosticism, which sought to do that, and the Gospel of Mark is very much like this hypothetical Gospel of Marcion, trying to say Jesus wasn't a Jew; he was some kind of universal figure bringing spiritual salvation. In that way, they cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness, which is what people often do. As I mentioned yesterday, the dangers are obvious. If Christians violently wrench Jesus out of his natural ethnic and historical place within the people of Israel, they open the way to doing equal violence to Israel, the place and the people of Jesus. This is a lesson of history that haunts us all at the end of the 20th century and which is haunting us all much more 20 years later, to be honest, with the rise of anti-Semitism again. You might wonder, well, these are German Lutheran scholars; they're Lutherans. Where might they have got their basic prejudices from? You might wonder, well, who said this first: 'To set fire to their synagogues or schools, this is to be done in honour of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians.' That's how.

We prove a Christians by burning synagogues. Second, I advise that their houses also be raised and destroyed. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for Jews, for they have no business in the countryside. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasures, silver and gold, be taken from them. Seventh, I recommend putting a flag, a tail, an axe, a hoe, a spade, or a spindle into the hands of young strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow. But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., and object them from our country. That was Martin Luther; it runs really deep. This, of course, influenced the German Lutheran pastors and created a certain kind of atmosphere within Germany in the 20th century.

I want to pick up now a little bit from where we left off yesterday. We talked about Jesus and how he had been well received. Three years after he started his ministry, he goes into Jerusalem on a donkey, fulfilling prophecy. As he entered, he was followed by thousands of people who laid down palm branches and cried out, 'Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!' You can imagine the soldiers and policemen standing guard at the gates of Jerusalem, witnessing this huge crowd coming for Passover, proclaiming Jesus as the King of Israel. The high priest, upon hearing this, remarked, 'Look, how the whole world has gone after him.' Jesus was incredibly well received by his contemporaries, particularly among the Jewish people. While it is an exaggeration to say 'the whole world,' there were indeed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, who supported and followed him.

In the Gospel of John, it is noted that many leaders also believed in him. Some may think that only ordinary people supported Jesus, but the reality is that many Jewish leaders believed in him as well. Among these leaders was Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, which was the highest ruling court within Judaism, akin to the Senate in political terms or the College of Cardinals in the Catholic Church. Another was Nicodemus, also a member of the Sanhedrin and a Pharisee. It is believed that Gamaliel, the leader of all the Pharisees, was also a supporter of Jesus. This assumption is based on the early church's accounts, where after the crucifixion of Jesus, the disciples preached, and some religious leaders were upset. Gamaliel advised caution, suggesting that if this movement was from God, it could not be stopped, and if it was from man, it would fade away.

After three years of ministry, Jesus had religious leaders of significant quality following him. It raises the question: did he have cardinals or archbishops supporting him? No, but he was incredibly well supported by religious leaders among the Jewish people, particularly the Pharisees, not by the priests. This presents a big problem when Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, and his followers proclaim him as the King of Israel, a title he did not desire. The titles of King of Israel and Messiah were political and thus a threat to Roman authority. The Romans decided who the King of Israel was; they appointed Herod the Great and, after his death, his sons Herod Antipas and Philip to rule in his place. Therefore, when Jesus was proclaimed as King of Israel, it posed a direct threat to Roman rule.

When the high priest heard about this, one of his responsibilities was to report rebels. Jesus entered the temple and drove out the money changers, which was seen as a challenge to the authority of the chief priests and the priestly establishment. This act was significant, as it upset the religious establishment that controlled the temple. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that this incident functioned as the trigger for Jesus's death. The chief priests felt threatened by Jesus's actions, leading them to plot his arrest and execution. The question arises: why did Jesus do this? Some interpret this as Jesus orchestrating his own death, believing he needed to act in a certain way to fulfill his destiny.

There are also early Jewish and Christian traditions suggesting that Jesus not only drove the money changers from the temple but also entered the Holy of Holies. His brother James, one of his disciples, is said to have donned the breastplate of the high priest, while John the Beloved wore the miter of the high priest. This suggests that Jesus was attempting to overthrow the priestly establishment and take control of the temple. The next day, the authorities did not arrest him immediately, but he clashed with the chief priests. When they questioned him about his authority to cleanse the temple, Jesus posed a question in return regarding the authority of John the Baptist. The chief priests were caught in a dilemma, fearing the crowd's support for Jesus, which prevented them from acting against him.

Following this, Jesus told the parable of the tenants, which illustrated the relationship between God, Israel, and its leaders. In the parable, a landowner planted a vineyard and sent servants to collect the harvest, but the tenants mistreated them. Finally, he sent his son, whom they killed, believing they could claim the inheritance. Jesus concluded that the kingdom of God would be taken away from the current leaders and given to a people who would produce its fruits. The chief priests and Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking about them, which is why they sought to arrest him but feared the crowds who regarded him as a prophet. The parable draws from Isaiah, where the vineyard represents Israel, and the tenants symbolize the leaders. Jesus was not suggesting that the Jewish people would be replaced but rather that the chief priests would be replaced by those who believed in him.

The chief priests and elders gathered to plot Jesus's arrest, but they were cautious, knowing that the people supported him. They feared that if they allowed Jesus to continue, it would lead to an uprising against Roman authority, which could result in the destruction of the temple and the nation. Caiaphas, the high priest, made a utilitarian decision, suggesting that it was better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to perish. This reflects the complex political realities they faced, as they sought to maintain their power while navigating the threat posed by Jesus's growing influence.

To nip it in the bud and just kill Jesus seemed like a way to make the whole thing fizzle out, allowing them to keep the show on the road. If I were Caiaphas, would I have made a different decision? Knowing what he knew, it was a political decision he had to make. Based on the evidence and knowledge he had, he made what he thought was the right decision. In hindsight, and theologically, we know it was a wrong decision, but it wasn't that he was a bad man. He was trying to maintain peace in an incredibly intense situation during the Roman occupation, which was a very real and present danger. Forty years after the death of Jesus, there was the first Jewish Revolt, leading to the Roman army laying siege to Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. A second Jewish Revolt occurred sixty years later, resulting in the deaths of half a million Jews and the destruction of nearly a thousand villages. Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem, which was renamed Palestina, and they did not return for 2,000 years. This was the political reality of the time, one that both Jesus and Caiaphas understood and were trying to avert.

Caiaphas, as the high priest, was not merely a ceremonial official with jurisdiction over the temple; he was effectively a chief of police with his own armed force, police tribunal, and prisons for political offences. In cases of serious insurrection against Roman power, he would hand over offenders to the occupying Roman authority. He was appointed by the Romans, not elected as a religious leader to represent the Jewish people. His job was to maintain order in the temple and Jerusalem, and he had his own police force, akin to a secret police, keeping their ears to the ground for any disturbances or threats to peace. If he found someone causing trouble, he would have them arrested and tried in his own court, which is where Jesus was tried and imprisoned. If the situation was serious, he would hand the person over to the Roman authorities, such as Pontius Pilate. Any high priest who did not cooperate with the Romans would lose their job. Caiaphas had been in his position for 13 years, so he knew how to navigate the system to keep his job while maintaining order in Jerusalem.

The problem was that Caiaphas was acting based on the knowledge he had, but he did not truly understand who Jesus was or what he was teaching. He likely only heard rumours about Jesus's teachings, which may have included scandalous claims about overthrowing the temple. This lack of understanding created a significant problem, as there was no genuine communication between Jesus and Caiaphas. Ideally, John the Baptist should have been the bridge between them. As a son of a high priest, John would have grown up in the temple and known the chief priests personally. He could have approached Caiaphas and explained that Jesus was not a threat but rather had a plan to address the issues between Roman occupation and the Jewish people. John could have conveyed that Jesus was teaching the Jewish people not to hate the Romans or incite violent uprisings, but rather to turn the other cheek. If Caiaphas had understood Jesus's true intentions, he might have realised that Jesus was not a threat and that he needed to establish a working relationship with him.

Unfortunately, John the Baptist was not present, and there was no one else known to us who could have acted as a mediator. Some may wonder about the leaders of the Pharisees, like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, but the Pharisees and Sadducees were in conflict and did not get along. The Sadducees, being the high priestly class, would not have taken what the Pharisees said seriously. Thus, Caiaphas misunderstood who Jesus was and what his plans entailed, leading to a disastrous outcome. Both Jesus and Caiaphas were looking for a way out of their respective situations, but they had no means to communicate effectively. It is conceivable that one of the priests suggested to Caiaphas that he could set up a meeting with Jesus through one of his disciples, perhaps Judas Iscariot. This could have been a way to reach out to Jesus, as they did not know where he was staying.

During the Last Supper, Jesus indicated that one of his disciples would betray him. This suggests that Jesus had some awareness of the impending betrayal. If one believes that the crucifixion was part of God's will, then it makes sense. However, if one thinks it was not meant to happen, it raises questions. Jesus told Judas that what he was about to do should be done quickly. If Jesus believed Judas was going to betray him, it could be interpreted that he wanted to be arrested and crucified to fulfil God's will. Yet, if Jesus did not want to be crucified, one must wonder why he urged Judas to act quickly. Perhaps Judas had returned from a conversation with a priest, indicating that Caiaphas wanted to meet Jesus. This could have been seen as an opportunity for Jesus to explain himself to the high priest before the situation escalated.

The mention of Satan entering Judas is peculiar. If the crucifixion was indeed God's will, why would Satan be involved in Judas's actions? The disciples did not understand what Jesus meant when he spoke to Judas, suggesting that they were confused about the situation. Judas's motivations are complex; he was a good person and a disciple of Jesus. If he had fallen out with Jesus, he would have left. Instead, he remained close to Jesus, indicating his loyalty. However, things did not turn out as he expected. After the Last Supper, when Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, he was filled with remorse and returned the 30 pieces of silver, declaring that he had betrayed innocent blood. The chief priests dismissed his concerns, stating it was his responsibility. In despair, Judas hanged himself. This indicates that he did not intend for things to end this way; he had hoped for a different outcome.

Judas's actions were not driven by malice but rather by a misguided attempt to facilitate a meeting between Jesus and Caiaphas. He believed he was advancing God's providence, but the result was the arrest and death of Jesus. Filled with regret, he could not live with the consequences of his actions, leading to his tragic end. In hindsight, while Judas's actions led to Jesus's death, his intentions were not to betray him. He was deceived and manipulated, which ultimately resulted in a profound tragedy for all involved.

Because he felt betrayed, Judas felt betrayed by his friend. The next morning, very early in the morning, Jesus is tried by the high priest. Pilate is woken up and is really annoyed. He asks Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" This is a political charge; Jesus has been charged with a political crime for proclaiming himself the King of the Jews, thereby challenging Roman authority and rule. Jesus responds, "You have said so." When accused by the chief priests, he made no answer, not even a single word. This situation is intense, as it says in the Prince of Jesus, who was killed after being branded a heretic by religious leaders and a rebel by the Roman Empire. In reality, Jesus wasn't a heretic; he was on the spectrum of the beliefs of the Pharisees and was brought before Pilate on a political charge because that was the job of the high priest.

So who is Pilate? He was a Roman governor for ten years who disrespected Jewish traditions. He was chastised by the emperor on several occasions, took money from the temple for his own purposes, slaughtered Samaritans, and eventually caused so many problems in Palestine that he was withdrawn by Rome. Phil of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus and Pilate, wrote that Pilate's tenure was associated with briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, injustices, constant executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty. Pilate was a very harsh ruler, as seen when he brought the standard into Jerusalem and was willing to put to death all those Jewish people who wouldn't cooperate and humiliate themselves.

Now we have the notorious incident during the festival when the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. Several gospels mention this as a custom, but scholars have found no evidence of such a custom of releasing a prisoner on Passover. This event is likely a fabrication. Allegedly, while Pilate was sitting on his judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that innocent man, for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him." How likely is that? Helen B., a professor of Christian Origins from Edinburgh, wrote extensively about Pontius Pilate. She suggested that if history was causing trouble at the gathering during Passover when the city was overcrowded, Pilate would not have spent much time worrying about what to do with Jesus. It was entirely up to the governor how he dealt with the case, and after hearing the evidence, he likely thought that getting rid of Jesus was the best course of action.

When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, as a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." The people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children." This is a notorious blood curse. Pilate is saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see it yourselves." When he washes his hands, he is indicating that the Roman Empire is not responsible for the death of Jesus. The impression given is that the people as a whole voted for Jesus to be put to death, which absolves Pilate and Rome of responsibility for the crucifixion. Instead, the responsibility was transferred to the Jewish people as a whole and their descendants. This incident led to what has been called in Christianity the culture of contempt, where for 2,000 years, Christians have treated Jews with contempt because they rejected and killed their Messiah.

For 2,000 years, Christians have not felt guilty but instead justified mistreating Jews as a way of punishing them for what they were supposed to have done to Jesus. This raises the question: does that work anywhere else in the world? Look at the Greeks; they sentenced Socrates to be executed. Does anyone say, "We need to punish the Greeks for what they did to Socrates two and a half thousand years ago?" How does that work? How do you justify mistreating people today because their ancestors killed an innocent person 2,000 years ago? It's shocking when you consider the moral consequences and the morality behind this whole situation. It's deeply and profoundly shocking.

This incident has been described by Rick Lutz, a professor of New Testament and one of the greatest scholars on the Gospel of Matthew, as redactional fiction invented by the author of Matthew's Gospel. Matthew, the editor, invented this; it's a fabrication. Helen Bon noted that while the Romans carried out the deed, the Jews were made responsible, a line of argument that has had disastrous consequences ever since. You might wonder why the editor of Matthew did this. The reality is that Christians were witnessing in the Roman Empire and facing persecution. Forty years after the crucifixion, the Jews revolted against Roman authority. They didn't want Jesus to come across as a political subversive and rebel against Roman authority. They transferred the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans onto the Jews, deflecting the persecution they were receiving onto the Jews. This slight of hand changed the tone of the Gospels, which were very supportive of Jesus, and now the Jews are accused of rejecting Jesus and demanding his death.

The portrayal of Romans in the Gospels is favourable; Pilate is presented as a nice, fair, just person who does not want to have Jesus put to death. The Roman Centurion is praised for his faith, while the Pharisees are depicted in a dark way. Jesus was turned into a spiritual Messiah, with all political content removed from his teachings. The focus shifted to forgiveness of sins and being born again, rather than establishing the Kingdom of Heaven in this world and challenging injustice. Sadly, the church in many countries sided with the establishment and injustice. We will take a break now and then look at how this developed within the Christian church and its attitude towards Judaism.

This is a particular person I studied when I was at Cambridge: Melito of Sardis. He was the most influential bishop in Asia during the second century, very early in the Christian church. Jerome, one of the greatest church fathers, testified that Melito was seen as a prophet due to his work on the first Old Testament canon. He did a lot of work on creating the Old Testament canon, which contained the same books as the Hebrew Bible but organised in a different order. Polycrates, another very famous early Christian, said Melito's whole walk was in the Holy Spirit. He was Jewish by birth but became a Christian Jew, believing in Jesus. He authored the 'Peri Pascha,' which is on the Passover. I will read a few paragraphs from this powerful sermon and piece of writing.

Having worked his way through all the Old Testament, the prophets, and the history of the Old Testament, Melito comes to Jesus and discusses how he was treated 2,000 years ago. He states, "One Jesus was murdered. Where was he murdered? In the very centre of Jerusalem. Why? Because he healed their lame, cleansed their lepers, guided their blind with light, and raised up their dead. He was murdered because of all the good things he did for them. So why, O Israel, did you do this strange injustice? You dishonoured the one who had honoured you. You held in contempt the one who held you in esteem. You denied the one who publicly acknowledged you. You announced the one who proclaimed you his own. You killed the one who made you live. Why did you do this, O Israel? The one who hung the Earth in space is himself hanged. The one who fixed the heavens in place is himself impaled. The one who firmly fixed all things is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted; God has been murdered; the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel." This powerful and shocking accusation has resonated for 2,000 years of Jewish history, that the Jews rejected and murdered God. This accusation is found throughout Christian history and echoes in our own spiritual community as well, that the Jews rejected and murdered the Messiah. We can see many illustrations of this, such as typical depictions of Jesus being crucified by Jews. However, the reality is that who actually killed Jesus? Paul Winter, a well-known scholar, wrote in the 1960s about the trials of Jesus. He stated that in the tangled mass of evangelical accounts of Jesus's trial, one point stands out with clarity: he was arrested as a rebel. Roman soldiers arrested him under the command of a cohort of Roman soldiers, an important Roman official. He was accused before Pilate as the King of the Jews and found guilty as such, executed as such, which is why above the cross was the inscription, 'The King of the Jews.' None of the later additions in the Gospels can disguise the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was arrested, accused, tried, sentenced, and executed on a charge of insurrection against Roman rule in Judea. This is the plain fact of it. However, there has been a lot of spin added to present Jesus not as someone trying to overthrow the Romans but to transfer the blame for what happened onto the Jews.

It has taken Christians a long time to come to terms with this. Only recently, since the Holocaust, have Christians started to examine their responsibility for what happened to Jews in the 20th century. Last year, there was a lot of controversy in the UK about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. The Church of England decided to write a paper about anti-Semitism and concluded that the Jews did not reject Jesus and did not kill Jesus. About a week after that was published, a prominent Oxford professor, known for his appearances on television, wrote a letter to The Times stating that Christianity started out as a heretical movement within Judaism. The Christian Jews who believed in Jesus contained unmistakable elements of hostility towards what was then the Jewish establishment, including shifting the blame for Jesus's death from the Romans to the Jewish authorities. This is now a scholarly conclusion.

Beginning to take responsibility for the lies that have permeated 2,000 years of Christianity is a significant task. Some people might say it was by God's Providence that Christians gained established status in the Roman Empire. Powerful Christianity then used earlier rhetoric against the Jews to marginalise them, which continued for the next 2,000 years. As we know, Jesus was put on the cross and mocked. His last words were a cry of despair, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Some might think this shows a lack of faith, but he was quoting the first verse of the 22nd Psalm, which describes his desolation while reaffirming his faith in God and his determination to proclaim God's justice and goodness. This demonstrates a profound faith; he trusted God even in his darkest hour.

Jesus did not express disappointment or disbelief in God's plan. Instead, he forgave his enemies, saying, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' He committed his spirit into God's hands. If Jesus had cursed those who crucified him, there would have been no Resurrection. His actions on the cross restored the foundation of faith and substance necessary for his own resurrection. After his death, he went down into hell and proclaimed the good news to all the spirits there. Satan, unhappy with Jesus emptying hell, exercised maximum power in killing him, while God exercised maximum power in resurrecting him. Thus, we have the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and to 500 followers in Galilee.

The question arises: why do Christians believe the crucifixion was God's will? After the crucifixion, two disciples were walking to the village of Emmaus, discussing the events that had transpired. Jesus approached them, though they did not recognise him. He asked what they were discussing, and they expressed their despair over the death of Jesus, whom they had believed to be the Messiah. They recounted how some women had found the tomb empty and claimed to have seen angels who said he was alive. Jesus responded by explaining that the Messiah had to suffer before entering his glory, referencing the scriptures that foretold these events.

This belief in the crucifixion as God's will is echoed in the experiences of Father Moon. When he faced imprisonment, he embraced it as God's will, believing that great things would come from it. He likened his suffering to carrying the burdens of many people, investing meaning into every step he took. Similarly, after the resurrection, Jesus did not blame his disciples for their failures but instead provided them with opportunities to restore their mistakes. He reaffirmed Peter's love for him three times, allowing Peter to overcome his denial. Over 40 days, Jesus rebuilt the faith of his disciples, culminating in the Ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which brought spiritual rebirth.

However, this was not what Jesus initially intended. The Jewish people expected the Messiah to establish peace and justice, and many believe that Jesus would not have gone to Jerusalem if he had known he would be arrested and killed. He likely would have sought to build stronger relationships with the political and religious authorities. Yet, during that week, he realised he could not achieve what he had hoped, and events spiralled out of control. The Gospel of John states that to all who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, indicating a spiritual salvation and change of blood lineage.

After the crucifixion, 40 years later, a Jewish revolt led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The Arch of Titus in Rome commemorates this destruction, showcasing the looting of the temple's treasures. The funds from these treasures were used to build monumental structures in Rome, such as the Coliseum, where Christians were persecuted. For many years, Christianity was regarded as a Jewish sect, as all of Jesus's disciples were Jews. This created a conflict between Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not, particularly regarding the Messianic expectations.

For Jews who did not believe in Jesus, the idea that he could be the Messiah was unfathomable, as the Messiah was expected to establish peace and justice, not be killed. Conversely, the disciples believed in Jesus as the Messiah because they encountered the resurrected Jesus. They argued that Jesus was supposed to die, fulfilling prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. The gospels present an argument to persuade others that Jesus is the Messiah, despite the apparent contradictions in his mission and death. This dynamic reflects the ongoing tension between the two groups of Jews, as the early Christians sought to convince others of Jesus's Messianic role.

The Sadducees disappeared from history, and the Jewish lament was on account of their sins. The Jewish attitude is that because they sinned, the temple was destroyed, and they were exiled. The diaspora, which has lasted for 2,000 years, was turned by Christian Jews into words of accusation: on account of your sins, you were exiled from your land. Here, the Jews who believed in Jesus began to speak of those who did not believe in Jesus as 'other', no longer sharing a sense of identity. Today, the Jews who failed to accept Jesus are still seen as outsiders. In the first and second centuries, Christians witnessing to Jews would say, 'You failed to accept Jesus', just as your ancestors did. These conflicts from the first and second centuries are projected back into the time of Jesus.

A new centre for Judaism began to emerge, marking the beginnings of Judaism as we know it today. There was a curse on heretics, and Jews who did not believe in Jesus were upset with Christian Jews, primarily on theological grounds, because they claimed Jesus was God. This idea was anathema to Jews; the notion that a human being could be God was unacceptable, as it implied two Gods. Consequently, there were many arguments about the person of Jesus, with some accepting his divinity while others rejected it. There were rival claims from traditional Jews and Christian Jews regarding the inheritance of the blessing of Abraham, leading to the designation of 'Israel'. The Christians claimed, 'We are the new Israel; you are the old Israel; you failed, and we have inherited the blessing of Abraham.' This relationship became increasingly intense.

Then, there was a second Jewish-Roman War about 50 to 60 years later. This time, Bar Kokhba, a Jewish general, was proclaimed as the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva. To Christians, however, he was a false Messiah, labelled as the Antichrist, because they believed the true Messiah was Jesus. Thus, the church gradually began to separate itself from Judaism, establishing its own identity as a distinct religion. The next generations of Jews who believed in Jesus no longer thought of themselves as Jews but as Christians, inheriting the anti-Jewish sentiments of their parents. All they heard from their parents was the accusation that Jews had rejected Jesus, leading them to distance themselves from Judaism. The church increasingly became Gentile as non-Jews entered, and this idea of replacement theology emerged: the Old Testament versus the New Testament, old Israel versus new Israel, with Christians claiming to have replaced the old Israel that had failed.

The blame for the crucifixion was placed on the Jews, an accusation that continues to this day. It is not unusual for a Jewish child in a Christian school to hear from a Christian peer, 'You killed Jesus.' This leads to confusion and distress, as the Jewish child may go home and ask their parents why they were told they killed Jesus. My personal conclusion is that if Jesus had been rejected by his Jewish contemporaries, he would have faded into obscurity. Had the Jews rejected Jesus, he would have been preaching on a street corner with no one paying attention to him. He certainly would not have been seen as a threat to the authorities, nor would he have been arrested and crucified. Thus, Jesus was not crucified because he was rejected by the Jewish people; rather, he was killed because he was well received by them, perceived as a threat by the establishment, and executed by the Romans on political charges.

If circumstances had been different, I believe Jesus could have mediated a peaceful resolution to the intense hatred the Jews had for the Romans and the contempt the Romans held for the Jews. He could have shown the Jews how to win the love and respect of the Romans. If he had succeeded, I think he would have been appointed King of the Jews by the Romans, who were the occupiers. They would have recognised that Jesus could win the respect of the Jewish people and resolve the situation with Roman occupation. The high priests were not held in much respect by the Jewish people; they sided with Jesus against the high priests. If Jesus had been able to mediate this relationship, the Romans would have realised he was the one who could sort out the problem with the troublesome Jews and would have appointed him as king of Israel.

As king of Israel, Jesus would have travelled to Rome and met the Roman Emperor, doing whatever he wanted there. He would also have travelled east to the Parthian Empire. Some may think it was beneficial for Israel to be part of the Roman Empire, but I believe it was not. Had Israel been an independent state, I have no doubt that, based on how Jesus was received, he would have been made king of the Jews by the Jewish people themselves. The political realities were complicated due to Roman occupation. There was another empire to the east, the Parthian Empire, which was just as large and technologically advanced as the Roman Empire. The Romans could not move further east because the Parthians had defeated them several times and were militarily strong. The Parthians had a different policy towards the peoples in their empire; they allowed nations and religious groups more autonomy and simply sought taxes without micromanaging.

If Israel had become part of the Parthian Empire, I believe they would not have faced the same political complications that arose with the Romans. The Babylonians, Persians, and Parthians did not seek to destroy Judaism as the Greeks and Romans did. Instead, they would have allowed the nations of the world to come to worship God in Jerusalem, as prophesied in Isaiah. It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established at the highest of the mountains, and it shall be raised above the hills. All nations shall flow to it, and many people shall come and say, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations and shall decide for many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.