Life and Teachings of Jesus - Part 3

Thank you for being here today. I hope there’s a lot to think about from yesterday's discussion. I want to explore a different way of understanding what Jesus was doing, particularly in the context of the Roman occupation. Jesus was addressing a reality that was not the way God wanted it to be, nor the way he wanted it to be, but it was the reality he found himself living in. We need to carry on looking at this, but first, I want to address some questions that came up about the Gospels.

When you study at a seminary or theology college, you find out that the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus. They are not objective accounts and do not pretend to be. They are stylized theological accounts of Jesus' life, written for a particular purpose: to convert people and convince them that Jesus is the Messiah or the Christ. Therefore, when we read them, we cannot do so naively, assuming that everything written in the Gospels must be true. We need to understand the context in which they were written, including when they were written and who wrote them.

Most of the Gospels were written in the late first or second century, quite a long time after Jesus died. We do not know exactly who wrote them, but it appears that many hands contributed to their creation. Some people tried to find original source material, but this was edited and re-edited, organized, and arranged in a particular way. Each Gospel has an overall structure and framework that is quite different. We also need to understand why they were written and for whom. For example, the Gospel of Matthew is often called the most Jewish of the Gospels, likely written by Jews who believed in Jesus for other Jews who did not. In contrast, the Gospel of Luke seems to have been written for a broader audience, possibly by someone from Paul's church who found Matthew too Jewish.

Mark is different again, and John presents a very different kind of Gospel, written for a particular spiritual community. We need to recognize the theology of each Gospel and the angle of the editor. Why did they edit it in a particular way? We must try to go behind the editing to see what the raw material was, what the authentic sayings of Jesus were, and what really happened, as opposed to things that were spun in a particular way. Sometimes, uncomfortable facts that do not fit with the Gospel writer's narrative are spun to align with their message, much like journalists or politicians do. We need to understand the social context in which the Gospels were written and the arguments they reflect.

When reading the Gospels critically, if you come across a verse or passage that contradicts traditional Christian narrative or theology, biblical scholars suggest that it is probably authentic because the editor would not have made it up. For instance, traditional Christian narrative holds that Jesus was born to die and was rejected by the Jewish people. If you find passages that contradict this, it may indicate authenticity. Conversely, if a passage supports traditional theology, it might be an editorial addition. For example, when the Gospel states, 'He said this because he knew he was going to die,' that is the editor's context, not Jesus' original words. There is much to consider regarding how to read the Gospels critically.

Another aspect to understand is why there are so many quotes from the prophets in the New Testament. The New Testament was written by Jews who believed in Jesus, and they aimed to persuade other Jews who did not believe in Jesus that he was the Messiah. This is why they frequently reference Old Testament prophecies, arguing that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies. The Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures served as a common source of authority for both sides in these debates. The Gospels reflect a long argument between Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not, as they sought to convince others of Jesus' messianic role.

When you read the Gospels, you will find that Jesus' life is often presented as fulfilling as many prophecies as possible, about 300 in total. For example, you might read, 'This is just as it was written in the scripture,' followed by a quote from the prophets. Jesus himself acknowledges that the scriptures must come true, indicating that certain events were prophesied and had to happen. Regarding the teachings of Jesus, he upheld the Mosaic Law, stating clearly in the Sermon on the Mount that not one letter or stroke of a letter would pass from the law. Jesus was not trying to abolish the law; he lived by it and likely identified as a Pharisee.

All of Jesus' teachings and practices fall somewhere on the spectrum between two major schools of Pharisees: Rabbi Shammai, who was very strict, and Rabbi Hillel, who was more liberal. Often, the Gospels mention that the Pharisees criticized Jesus, but it would be more accurate to say that some Pharisees criticized him, as he was a Pharisee within that tradition. Jesus taught that the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and he instructed his disciples to do everything they say. Moses held the teachings of the Pharisees in high regard, and Jesus did not teach his disciples to ignore them. The way Jesus used parables was typical of Pharisaic teaching, and he often told better parables than his contemporaries.

Among the Pharisees, there was a large range of interpretation, allowing for freedom of interpretation. Even if Jesus had original interpretations or different readings of the text, it would not have been a reason for him to be killed. In Judaism, there is no sense that people should be killed for having slightly different interpretations of the law. This contrasts with Christianity, which has historically been concerned with belief. In medieval Europe, if someone did not adhere to the Nicene Creed, they could be labeled a heretic and expelled from the church. Jews, on the other hand, argue endlessly about different ideas and interpretations of texts, focusing more on how people live rather than what they believe.

Jesus criticizes the Pharisees severely, but these criticisms reflect typical disputes among Pharisees themselves. Essentially, Jesus was a typical Jew. If you want to read more about this, I recommend the book 'Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society.' A quote from a professor states that a Jesus who taught like a Jew and an early Christian community that resembled a Jewish sect troubled many 19th-century German Lutheran scholars. Most modern biblical scholarship began in Germany, primarily among Protestants, but these scholars faced a dilemma. They preferred to envision Jesus as someone who taught a new doctrine that overthrew established traditions, and many of us have inherited this assumption.

This perspective has permeated most Protestant churches to this day. One of the greatest German New Testament scholars, Albrecht Ritschl, solved the problem by attacking Judaism, claiming that Jesus did not reform or transform Judaism but condemned it. Many verses can be found to justify this view. Ritschl's interpretation suggested that Jesus transcended Judaism by purifying Christianity of its Jewish elements. From the mid-19th century until World War II, numerous German scholars followed this lead, and while none were Nazis, reading their work after the Holocaust leaves an unsettling feeling. They did not like the Jewishness of Jesus, which contributed to the claim that the Gospel of Mark was the oldest Gospel, despite Matthew historically being regarded as the first.

The Catholic Church also considered Matthew the oldest Gospel until recently. German New Testament scholarship preferred Mark, as it is the least Jewish of the synoptic Gospels. This effort to wrench Jesus from his Jewish context ultimately destroys both Jesus and Christianity, the religion that grew from his teachings. Even Jesus' role as Christ is inherently Jewish. If Christians abandon the concrete realities of Jesus' life and the history of Israel for a mythic, universal spiritual Jesus, they deny their origins in Israel and the God who has loved and protected Israel. This is a lesson from history that haunts us, especially as we see the rise of anti-Semitism again today. You might wonder about the origins of these prejudices among German Lutheran scholars. Who first said to set fire to synagogues or schools in honor of our Lord and Christendom? They believed that this was how they proved their Christianity.

Burning synagogues is a historical reference that highlights the extreme measures some have advised against Jewish communities. This includes the destruction of their houses, the confiscation of their prayer books and Talmudic writings, and the prohibition of their rabbis from teaching. Such sentiments reflect a deep-seated animosity and a desire to eradicate Jewish influence. The advice extends to abolishing safe conduct for Jews on highways and prohibiting usury, suggesting a complete removal of their presence from society. This perspective, rooted in historical figures like Martin Luther, has had lasting implications, influencing attitudes towards Jews in various contexts, particularly in 20th-century Germany.

Continuing from where we left off yesterday, we discussed Jesus and his reception. Three years into his ministry, he enters Jerusalem on a donkey, fulfilling prophecy. As he arrives, he is met by crowds who proclaim him as the King of Israel, shouting 'Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' This moment is significant, as Jesus did not seek to be made king or proclaimed the Messiah, yet the people did so nonetheless. The presence of soldiers and police at the gates would have heightened the tension, as they reported back to their authorities about this growing movement.

The high priests, upon hearing of this, remarked that 'the whole world has gone after him.' While this is an exaggeration, it indicates that many Jewish people were indeed supportive of Jesus. The Gospels mention that even some leaders believed in him, contradicting the notion that only ordinary people followed him. Notable figures like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both members of the Sanhedrin, were among those who supported Jesus. This shows that Jesus had significant backing from influential religious leaders, which is noteworthy given the political and religious climate of the time.

When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, the implications of his followers proclaiming him as king posed a threat to Roman authority. The Romans decided who would be king, and any challenge to that authority was met with swift repercussions. Jesus's actions in the temple, where he drove out the money changers, were seen as a direct challenge to the religious establishment and their authority. This act was pivotal, as it upset the chief priests and led to their desire to arrest him, ultimately resulting in his death.

The question arises as to why Jesus acted in such a manner. Some interpretations suggest that he was aware of his impending death and orchestrated events to provoke the religious authorities. This notion of 'suicide by cop' reflects a belief that Jesus's actions were deliberate, aimed at fulfilling a greater purpose. Additionally, there are early traditions suggesting that Jesus's actions in the temple included attempts to seize control of the priestly establishment, further complicating the narrative surrounding his motivations.

Following the cleansing of the temple, Jesus faced immediate confrontation from the chief priests and elders. They questioned his authority, to which he responded with a counter-question about John the Baptist's authority. This exchange highlights the tension between Jesus and the religious leaders, who feared the crowd's support for him. The parable of the tenants that Jesus shared further illustrated his critique of the religious leaders, using familiar imagery to convey his message about their failure to produce the fruits of God's kingdom.

The parable depicted a landowner who sent servants to collect fruit from tenant farmers, only to have them mistreated and ultimately killed. This allegory served as a metaphor for the relationship between God, Israel, and its leaders. The chief priests understood that Jesus was speaking about them, which heightened their anger and desire to arrest him. They recognised the risk of losing their power and influence, especially given the support Jesus had among the people and even some leaders within the Pharisees.

As the chief priests deliberated on how to handle the situation, they feared that allowing Jesus to continue would lead to an uprising against Roman rule, which could result in the destruction of their nation. Caiaphas, the high priest, proposed that it would be better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. This pragmatic, albeit ruthless, decision reflects the political realities of the time and the lengths to which the religious authorities were willing to go to maintain control.

If I read this and thought, 'Oh, if I was Caiaphas, would I have made a different decision?' you'd have to say that's a political decision he had to make. Based on the evidence and the knowledge he had, he made the right decision. Of course, in hindsight and theologically, it's a totally wrong decision, but it's not that he was a bad man. He was trying to keep the show on the road, trying to maintain peace in an incredibly intense situation of Roman occupation. It was a very real and present danger. Forty years after the death of Jesus, there was a first Jewish revolt, which led to the Roman army's seizure of Jerusalem, and the temple was destroyed. Jerusalem was destroyed, and there was a second Jewish revolt sixty years later, where half a million Jews were killed, nearly a thousand villages were destroyed, and Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem. Judea was renamed Palestine, and they didn't come back for two thousand years. That was the political reality of the time, and that was the political reality that Jesus understood and was trying to solve, but also that Caiaphas understood as he was trying to avert this kind of disaster. Both Jesus and Caiaphas were trying to avert this disaster.

So, who is the high priest? This is from Maccabees, who wrote about these things. He was a Jewish scholar of first-century Judaism and Christianity. He said that as an appointee of the Romans, the high priest was not just a ceremonial official with jurisdiction over the temple; he was, in effect, a chief of police with his own armed force, his own police tribunal, and prisons for political offences. In the case of serious insurrection against the power of Rome, he would hand over the offender to the occupying Roman power. He wasn't elected as a religious leader to represent the Jewish people; he was appointed by the Romans to do a job. His job was to maintain order in the temple and in Jerusalem, and he had his own police force, like a secret police force. They kept their ears to the ground to find out if anyone was going to cause a disturbance or a threat to the peace, or if anyone was going to try and lead an uprising. If he found someone, he would have them arrested and tried in his own court, which is where Jesus was tried and put in prison. If it was a really serious matter, he would hand that person over to the Roman authorities, in the time of Jesus, Pontius Pilate.

Now, any high priest who wouldn't go along and cooperate with the Romans would be fired; they would lose their job. Caiaphas had been the high priest for thirteen years, so he knew how to work the system to keep his job while also maintaining order in Jerusalem. The problem here is that the high priest is acting based on the knowledge he has, but he doesn't actually know who Jesus is, nor does he really understand what he is teaching. He would have probably just heard rumours about Jesus teaching this and that, and that Jesus says he'll overthrow the temple. You can imagine the high priest heard all kinds of scandalous things and sound bites about what Jesus was teaching, and so he probably got completely the wrong end of the stick. That was a problem; the high priest didn't know Jesus or his teaching, and there was no mediator between the two.

So, who should have been the bridge between Jesus and the high priest? Obviously, it should have been John the Baptist. John the Baptist was the son of the high priest; he would have grown up in the temple. Even though he left the temple to do his ministry by the River Jordan, he would have known the chief priests and probably knew Caiaphas personally. He could have approached Caiaphas and said, 'Hi, Uncle Caiaphas, I want to tell you about Jesus. You think he's a real problem, a threat, but actually, he's got a plan to try and solve this problem between the Roman occupation and the Jews. He's trying to teach the Jewish people not to hate the Romans, not to have a violent uprising, but to turn the other cheek.' If the high priest had understood what Jesus was really about, he would have realised that Jesus was safe and that he didn't need to have Jesus arrested. He would have needed to find a working relationship with Jesus. But the problem was that John the Baptist was not there, and there was nobody else that we know of who could have been that kind of mediator and approached Caiaphas to explain all this to the high priests.

Sometimes people ask about the leaders of the Pharisees, like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, but the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't like each other and didn't get on well at all. There was a lot of conflict between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and since Jesus was basically a Pharisee, the Sadducees, including the high priest, wouldn't have taken what they said seriously. So, the high priest, in my reading of it, misunderstood who Jesus was and what his plans were, and that was a disaster. The problem is that Jesus has no way to explain to the high priest what he is about, and the high priest has no way to get his hands on Jesus. Both of them are looking for some way out for different reasons, of course. You can imagine that maybe one of the priests said, 'Oh, Caiaphas, I went to school with one of Jesus' disciples. I know where he lives; maybe I can go and set up a meeting so that we can get our hands on Jesus.' They didn't know where Jesus was staying, which motel or hotel or campsite, so maybe one of the priests got in touch with Judas. Perhaps Judas was thinking about how Jesus and his disciples could find a way to reach the high priest so he could understand what they were really about.

So, maybe this priest approached Judas Iscariot and said, 'Hi, Judas, do you want to have a coffee?' They talked and caught up, and the priest said to Judas, 'Look, Caiaphas is really interested in meeting Jesus. He'd like to know what Jesus' message is, what he's teaching. Maybe Jesus can do a miracle or something.' Judas might have thought, 'That's interesting; I'll go back and talk to Jesus about that.' Then he asked, 'What will you give me if I have to deliver him to you?' Instead of 'deliver,' maybe you could just say 'introduce him to you.' They paid him thirty pieces of silver. If you want to meet an important politician, you need to find a mediator, and in order for the mediator to set up the meeting, you've got to pay them some money. So, maybe it wasn't about delivering Jesus; it was just about introducing him.

The question then is, how much did Jesus know about what was going on? During the Last Supper, Jesus is supposed to say, 'One of you is going to hand me over to my enemies.' Jesus seems to know something terrible is going to happen. If you believe that the crucifixion is supposed to be God's will, then that's okay. But if you think the crucifixion is not supposed to be God's will, then obviously that's not okay. Jesus said, 'It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread. I will give it to him after I have dipped it in the dish.' He dipped the piece of bread and gave it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus told him, 'What you are about to do, do quickly.' But no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him, since Judas had charge of the money; some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the festival or to give something to the poor.

Let's analyse this. Jesus said to Judas, 'What you are about to do, do quickly.' If Jesus thought Judas was going to betray him, leading to his arrest and death, you'd have to say that this is what Jesus wants. Jesus wants to be arrested and put to death, and he tells Judas to go and do it quickly because that's the way he will fulfil God's will and be crucified for the sins of the world. That's the normal way of reading it. But at the same time, if Jesus didn't want to be crucified, you'd have to think, 'Well, why did he tell Judas to do it quickly?' Why is Jesus telling Judas to set up this meeting quickly? Maybe Judas came back from this conversation with the priests and explained to Jesus, 'An old school friend of mine met me, and he knows a high priest. He said the high priest would like to meet you, and he asked me if I could set up a meeting. What do you think?' Maybe Jesus thought, 'Wow, this is a great opportunity for me to meet the high priest.' So, when he said, 'What you are about to do, go and do it quickly,' he might have meant that he needed to meet the high priest quickly before the whole situation got out of hand.

Then you've got this peculiar thing where Satan entered into him. Obviously, nobody can see it, so this is an editorial gloss. But if this is supposed to be God's will that Jesus should be arrested and put to death, why would Satan be entering into Judas to do God's will? The disciples knew that the crucifixion wasn't supposed to happen; they didn't know what Judas and Jesus were planning. They didn't understand what Jesus said to him, so they were speculating about what happened. They speculated that Judas deliberately wanted to betray Jesus in some way. It's kind of confusing trying to make sense of this. You have to ask yourself, 'Why would Judas want to betray Jesus?' Was Judas a good person? I would say yes, he was a good person. He was a disciple of Jesus. Without being a good person, he never would have been one of Jesus' closest and most trusted disciples. If he had fallen out with Jesus or disliked what Jesus was teaching or doing, he would have packed it in and left. But actually, he was going with Jesus into Jerusalem, obviously very close to Jesus, explaining all this stuff to him. So, I think he was a very good person; I just think things didn't turn out the way he expected. In hindsight, people think he was bad for betraying Jesus.

After the Last Supper, they all went into the Garden of Gethsemane, where they were staying, and Jesus prayed this very desperate prayer, hoping to be able to see the night through to the morning when they could all go home to Nazareth. Then, in the night, Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests. Jesus asked, 'Am I leading a rebellion that you come with swords and clubs?' The soldiers were the ones with swords, while the officials, the Jewish police from the high priest, would have just had clubs or wooden sticks. Jesus was arrested by the Roman authorities. He was taken to the high priest's house, and the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for something to use against Jesus; they wanted to put him to death but did not find any proof, even though many false witnesses came forward.

This trial is supposed to have happened at night, which is not possible because the Sanhedrin, by law, cannot meet at night. The Jews are great sticklers for keeping the law, so this is not a meeting of the Sanhedrin. This is the meeting of the high priest's police tribunal, his police court. They were looking for something to put Jesus away, but they couldn't find anything. There was no reason for him to be put to death, and since it was at night, there was no proper procedure. Certainly, it wasn't the whole Sanhedrin; there were just some officials, probably from the chief priests. There was no valid charge, no real evidence, and they were trying to frame him anyway. When Jesus was put on trial in front of the high priest, when Judas saw that Jesus was condemned by the high priest, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I betrayed innocent blood.' They replied, 'What is that to us? That's your responsibility.' So, Judas threw the money into the temple and left, then he went away and hanged himself.

From this, we can try to unpack what was going on. We know as a historical fact, because it's not just in Matthew but in other gospels, that Judas hanged himself. He also tried to give the money back and was filled with remorse. The way things turned out is not what Judas expected or wanted. If he had sold Jesus because he wanted the money, he would have put the money in his pocket and gone home. Obviously, what happened wasn't what he expected or wanted. He took the money back because he said, 'This isn't what we arranged. It was just supposed to be a nice coffee after dinner between Jesus and the high priest.' He realised he had been tricked; he had been taken for a ride. He realised that by what he had done, by his naivety, he had caused the death of Jesus, and he could no longer live with himself. He was filled with so much remorse and regret that he thought he was doing something good to advance God's providence by connecting Jesus and the high priest, but the result was the arrest and death of Jesus, and he couldn't live with the consequences of what he had done. So, he killed himself; he hanged himself. When you look at this, you have to say that Judas didn't intend to betray Jesus. In hindsight, you can say that as a consequence of what Judas did, Jesus was killed, but that wasn't what Judas intended. I think Judas had a good motivation for what he was doing; unfortunately, he was taken for a ride, tricked, and deceived by his friend, which is why he went back and wanted to give the money back because he felt betrayed.

Jesus was betrayed by his friend. The next morning, early in the morning, he was tried by the high priest at night. Pilate, having woken up, was really annoyed. When Jesus was brought before Pilate, he asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" This was a political charge, as Jesus had been accused of proclaiming himself the King of the Jews, thereby challenging Roman authority and rule. Jesus replied, "You've said so," but when accused by the chief priests, he made no answer, not even a single word. The Divine Principle states that Jesus was killed after being branded a heretic by religious leaders and reviled by the Roman Empire. In reality, Jesus wasn't a heretic; he was on the spectrum of beliefs of the Pharisees and was brought before Pilate on a political charge because that was the job of the high priest.

Who was Pilate? He was a Roman governor for ten years who disrespected Jewish traditions and was chastised by the emperor on several occasions. He 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. Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus and Pilate, wrote that Pilate's tenure was associated with briberies, insults, robberies, and constant executions without trial. Pilate was a very harsh ruler, as evidenced by his willingness to put to death Jewish people who would not cooperate and humiliate themselves. This brings us to the notorious incident during the festival when the governor was accustomed to releasing a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. However, scholars have found no evidence of such a custom of releasing a prisoner on Passover; it simply did not happen. Pilate was certainly not the kind of person who would do that.

While Pilate was sitting on his judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, advising him to have nothing to do with that innocent man, as she had suffered greatly because of a dream about him. How likely was that? Helen Bond, a professor of Christian origins from Edinburgh, noted that if history was causing trouble at 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. Pilate typically would have done that, according to the historical record. However, there was a crowd cheering for Barabbas, and when Pilate asked whether they wanted Jesus or Barabbas, the crowd supported Barabbas. When Pilate realised he could do nothing without inciting a riot, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, declaring himself innocent of this man's blood.

The people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children." This is a notorious blood curse. Pilate was saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." When he washed his hands, he was indicating that the Roman Empire was not responsible for the death of Jesus. The impression given is that the people as a whole held a referendum, and all the people in Israel voted for Jesus to be put to death. This incident absolved Pilate, Rome, and the empire of responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, transferring that responsibility to the Jewish people as a whole and to all their descendants. This led to what has been called the culture of contempt in Christianity, where for 2000 years, Christians have treated Jews with contempt for rejecting and killing their Messiah. Christians have not felt guilty but rather justified in mistreating Jews as a way of punishing them for what they were supposed to have done to Jesus.

This raises a question about how such a mindset works in human history. For example, when the Greeks sentenced Socrates to execution, does anyone say we need to punish the Greeks for what they did to Socrates two and a half thousand years ago? It is shocking to consider the moral consequences of this thinking. Ulrich Lutz, a professor of the New Testament and a prominent scholar on the Gospel of Matthew, described this incident as a redactional fiction invented by the author of Matthew's Gospel. Matthew, the editor, fabricated this whole account of what happened with Pilate, Jesus, and Barabbas. Helen Bond noted that while the Romans carried out the deed, the Jews were portrayed as responsible, a line of argument that has had disastrous consequences ever since.

You might wonder why the Gospel 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 did not want Jesus to be seen as a political subversive or rebel against Roman authority, nor did they want the blame for his death to fall on Pilate and the Romans. Thus, they transferred the blame for the crucifixion from the Romans onto the Jews, allowing them to deflect the persecution they were receiving onto the Jews. This sleight of hand changed the entire tone of the Gospels, which were otherwise supportive of Jesus. The Jews were now accused of rejecting Jesus as a whole and demanding his death, even of killing him. This is why the portrayal of the Romans in the Gospels is so favourable; Pilate is presented as a fair and just person who does not want to have Jesus put to death.

In contrast, the Pharisees are depicted in a very dark way. Jesus was transformed 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 has sided with the establishment and injustice. I will take a break now and then we will look at how this attitude developed within the Christian Church. One influential figure during the second century was Melito of Sardis, the most influential bishop in Asia at that time. Jerome, one of the greatest Church Fathers, testified that Tertullian, one of the earliest Christian theologians, saw him as a prophet due to his work on the Old Testament canon.

Melito, who was Jewish by birth and a Christian Jew, authored a powerful sermon on the Passover. He reflected on how Jesus was treated 2000 years ago, stating that Jesus was murdered in the very centre of Jerusalem. He was executed by the Romans on a political charge, accused of being a rebel. Melito questioned why Israel committed this strange injustice, dishonouring the one who had honoured them. He accused them of killing the one who made them live, stating that the Lord was insulted and God had been murdered. This powerful accusation has resonated throughout Jewish history, asserting that the Jews rejected and murdered God. This narrative has persisted in Christian history and echoes in our own spiritual community, portraying the Jews as responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Paul Winter, a well-known scholar, pointed out that in the tangled accounts of Jesus's trial, one point stands out: he was arrested as a rebel. The Roman soldiers arrested him, and he was found guilty and executed on a charge of insurrection against Roman rule. The original account of Jesus's trial cannot be disguised by later editorial modifications. It is a historical record that has taken Christians a long time to come to terms with, especially since the Holocaust. Recently, the Church of England concluded that the Jews did not reject Jesus and did not kill him. A prominent scholar from Oxford stated that Christianity started out as a heretical movement within Judaism, acknowledging the hostility in the Gospels towards the Jewish establishment and the shifting of blame for Jesus's death from the Romans to the Jewish authorities.

Christians are finally beginning to take responsibility for the lies that have permeated two thousand years of Christianity. By an accident of history, some people say by God's providence, Christians gained established status in the Roman Empire. Powerful Christianity then used earlier rhetoric against the Jews to marginalise them, and that is what happened for the next two thousand years. As we know, Jesus was put on the cross and mocked. His last words were a profound re-establishment of the foundation of faith and substance: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Some people think he should not have said that, believing it demonstrates a lack of faith in God. However, he was quoting the first verse of the 22nd Psalm, which describes everything he was going through—someone who feels completely abandoned by God yet reaffirms his absolute faith and determination to proclaim God's justice and goodness. This is a true demonstration of faith.

Jesus did not say to God, 'I didn't expect it to turn out like this; this wasn't what I was promised.' Instead, he forgave his enemies, saying, 'Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' He also committed his spirit into God's hands. If Jesus had cursed the people and the Romans, there would have been no resurrection. His actions on the cross restored the foundation of faith and substance necessary for his own resurrection. After he was killed, he went down into hell and proclaimed the good news to all the spirits there. Satan was not pleased to find him emptying hell. The principle of compensation states that while Satan exercised maximum power in killing Jesus, God exercised maximum power in resurrecting him. Thus, we have the empty tomb and the missing body.

Jesus appeared not only to his own disciples but also to five hundred followers in Galilee. He appeared in a locked room and even ate food, demonstrating a special kind of resurrected body. The Shroud of Turin, believed by some to be the original burial shroud of Jesus, adds to the mystery. The question arises: why do Christians believe the crucifixion was God's will? After the crucifixion, two of Jesus' followers were walking to the village of Emmaus, deep in conversation about the recent events. Jesus joined them, but 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 one to deliver Israel.

They did not expect the crucifixion; they wanted the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven. On the third day since his death, some women reported that they had seen a vision of angels who said he was alive. When Jesus spoke to them, he chastised them for their lack of belief and explained that these events had to happen for the Messiah to enter into his glory. He began with the Book of Moses and went through all the prophets, pointing out everything in the scriptures that referred to him. When they reached their destination, they invited him to stay for supper. As he broke the bread, their eyes were opened, and they recognised him before he vanished. They reflected on how they felt on fire as he conversed with them and opened the scriptures.

This leads to an understanding of why Christians believe the crucifixion was God's will. After the resurrection, Jesus explained that it was indeed God's will. I recall when Father went to Danbury; he stated it was God's will for him to go to prison, believing that amazing things would happen as a result. He embraced his situation as God's will, just as he did during his time in Hong Nam, where he found purpose in his suffering. This perspective allowed him to invest meaning into every action he took. Jesus, after the resurrection, did not blame his disciples for their failures but instead provided them opportunities to restore their mistakes. Peter, who had denied him three times, was given three chances to reaffirm his love for Jesus.

Over forty days following the resurrection, Jesus rebuilt the faith and love of his disciples, culminating in the ascension and Pentecost. He sent the Holy Spirit, who became the spiritual true parents, bringing spiritual rebirth. However, this was not what Jesus originally intended when he set out on his mission. The Jewish people expected the Messiah to establish peace and justice in the world. I believe Jesus would not have gone to Jerusalem if he had known he would be arrested and killed. He likely would have taken more time to build relationships with the political and religious authorities. During that week, he realised he could not achieve what he had hoped, and events spiralled out of control, leading to his death.

As stated in the beginning of the Gospel of John, to all who believed in his name, he gave power to become the children of God, born not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. This signifies spiritual salvation and a change of blood lineage. After the crucifixion, about forty years later, there was a Jewish revolt, and Jerusalem was destroyed, along with the temple. The Arch of Titus in Rome commemorates this destruction, showcasing the looted treasures from the temple. The money taken from the temple was used to rebuild Rome, including the Colosseum, where gladiators fought and Christians were martyred. This history highlights the complex relationship between Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not.

For many years, Christianity was regarded as a Jewish sect, as all of Jesus' disciples and early followers were Jews. The conflict arose between the Jews who believed in Jesus and those who did not. The latter questioned how Jesus could be the Messiah if he was killed, as the Messiah was expected to establish peace and justice. This is why many Jews today assert that Jesus was not the Messiah; he did not fulfil the messianic role. However, the disciples believed he was the Messiah because they encountered the resurrected Jesus. They argued that Jesus was supposed to die, and everything he did fulfilled prophecy. The Gospels present an argument to persuade others that Jesus is the Messiah because he fulfilled over three hundred prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. This leads to the question of whether the Gospel writers presented Jesus' life in a way that fit these prophecies to convince other Jews, despite knowing he should not have been killed. This contradiction lies at the heart of the Christian message, as the Jews argue that these prophecies have been misinterpreted and used as proof texts, similar to how Christians might interpret the Bible to support their views. After the first Jewish-Roman war, the Christian Jews, being pacifists, chose not to participate in the rebellion and left Jerusalem for Pella, leading to accusations of betrayal from the Jews who did not believe in Jesus. The relationship between these two groups became increasingly strained, especially following the trauma of the temple's destruction.

The longer any sacrifice that Sadducees disappear from history, the Jewish lament was on account of our sins. The Jewish attitude is that because we sinned, the temple was destroyed and we were exiled. So, the Jews' amen was on account of our sins; we were exiled from our land. The diaspora, which has gone on for two thousand years, was turned by Christian Jews into words of accusation: on account of your sins, you were exiled from your land. Here, the Jews have become 'other'. The Jews who believed in Jesus were now speaking to the Jews who didn't believe in Jesus as 'other', othering them, no longer sharing their sense of identity. Today, still, the Jews who fail to accept Jesus have failed to do so. Again, there's this accusation in the first and second centuries where Christians witnessing to Jews say, 'You failed to accept Jesus, just like your ancestors failed to accept Jesus then.'

These conflicts in the first and second centuries are read back and projected into the time of Jesus. A new centre was started for Judaism, marking the beginnings of Judaism as we know today. There was a curse on heretics, and Jews who didn't believe in Jesus were very upset with the 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. There were many arguments about the person of Jesus, with some people rejecting or accepting his divinity. Arguments about observing or not observing Jewish law led to rival claims of traditional Jews and Christian Jews inheriting the blessing of Abraham. They adopted the name 'Israel', and the Christians, particularly the Christian Jews, claimed, 'We are the new Israel; you are the old Israel; you failed, we are the new Israel; we've inherited the blessing of Abraham.' The relationship became increasingly intense.

Then there was a second Jewish-Roman war, six years later. This time, Bar Kokhba, a Jewish general, was proclaimed as a messiah by Rabbi Akiva. To Christians, however, he was a false messiah, the antichrist, because they claimed the true messiah is Jesus. Therefore, Rabbi Bar Kokhba is seen as a false messiah. The church gradually began separating itself from Judaism, establishing its own identity as a separate religion. The changing identity of the next generations saw the children of Jews who believed in Jesus no longer thinking 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 believe they did not want to belong to a failed religion.

The children of the Jews who believed in Jesus decided, 'We're not Jews; we're Christians.' We see the same in our own spiritual community. The church increasingly became gentile as non-Jews entered, leading to the idea of dispensational replacement theology: the Old Testament, New Testament, old Israel, new Israel. Christians replaced the old Israel, which failed, and Judaism rejected the churches of the new Israel. Consequently, the blame for the crucifixion was placed on the Jews, an accusation that continues to this day: 'You killed Jesus.' It is not unusual for a Jewish child to go to school, where they meet a Christian child who says, 'You killed Jesus.' The Jewish child then goes home and asks their parents, 'Why was I told that I killed Jesus?' This shocking narrative has been passed on.

My personal conclusion is that if Jesus had been rejected by his Jewish contemporaries, he would have faded into obscurity. If the Jews had rejected Jesus, he would have been standing on the street corner preaching with nobody paying any attention to him whatsoever. He certainly wouldn't have been seen as a threat to the authorities and arrested and crucified. Jesus wasn't crucified because he was rejected by the Jewish people at all; if he had been, we would have never heard of him. The reason Jesus was killed was that he was so well received by the Jewish people as a whole, and many of the religious leaders, apart from the high priest and chief priests who were collaborators with the Roman authorities, received him well. He was perceived to be a threat by the establishment and was executed by the Romans on a political charge.

If things had gone differently, I think he would have mediated a peaceful resolution to the relationship and fulfilled the messianic task. Yesterday, I explained what Jesus's plan was: how to resolve the intense hatred the Jews had for the Romans and the contempt the Romans had for the Jews. He aimed to show the Jews how to win the love and respect of the Romans to try to resolve this incredibly intense situation. If things had worked out differently, I believe he would have been appointed king of the Jews by the Romans. The Romans, as the occupiers, would have recognised that Jesus could win the love and respect of the Jewish people and resolve the situation with the Roman occupation. The high priest and chief priests were not held in much respect by the Jewish people; they sided with Jesus against the high priest and chief priests.

The Romans would have known that if Jesus could mediate this relationship, they would have realised, 'Oh, he's our man; he's the one who can sort out this problem with these troublesome Jews.' They would have appointed him to become king of Israel. As king of Israel, he would have travelled to Rome, met the Roman emperor, and done whatever he wanted to do there. He also would have travelled east to Parthia. Some people think it was a good thing that Israel was part of the Roman Empire; on the contrary, it wasn't. If Israel had not been part of the Roman Empire, I have no doubt that, based on how Jesus was received, he would have become king of the Jews by the Jewish people themselves. However, due to political realities, it was complicated because of the Roman occupation.

There was another empire to the east called the Parthian Empire, which was just as big and technologically advanced as the Roman Empire. The reason the Romans couldn't move further east to reoccupy the territory Alexander had conquered was that the Parthian Empire was there. They defeated the Romans several times and were just as militarily strong. However, they had a very different policy towards the peoples in their empire; they gave nations and religious groups more space. They wanted taxes but didn't interfere and micromanage as the Romans did. If Israel had become part of the Parthian Empire, I believe they wouldn't have had the same political complications that arose with the Romans. The Babylonians, Persians, and Parthians did not try to destroy Judaism; the Greeks and Romans did. All the nations of the world would have come to worship God in Jerusalem, as it says 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 shall be raised above the hills, and all nations shall flow to it.' Many people would 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.' 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. Nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.