The Passion of the Christ—

Who Performed the Sacrifice

of the Lamb of God?

By Dr. Stephen E. Jones

Mel Gibson’s movie has aroused a controversy that many religious interfaith organizations in the past 60 years have tried to resolve. It centers around the question of who crucified Jesus. Everyone knows that the New Testament says specifically that the Jewish leaders of that time were responsible. And so the Jewish leaders of today have pushed to discredit the New Testament account, insisting that the Gospels were not written until long after the events had occurred, and even that the Apostles themselves did not write the Gospels themselves.

At the heart of this issue is whether or not the New Testament is part of the inspired word of God—or a book of blasphemy, as Judaism contends. I believe that it is inspired; but the Jewish leaders for the past 2,000 years do not.

To a Jew it is blasphemous to say that Yahweh could manifest in human flesh, either as a Messiah or not. To a Christian, the ultimate purpose of creation itself in the divine plan is to manifest the glory of God in human flesh. That is the meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles. That is the vow of God, that His glory would fill the whole earth (Num. 14:21). The Jews want a more earthly messiah, a great miracle-working military general who would conquer the non-Jewish nations and put all of them under the control of the Jewish leaders who would form His cabinet of advisors. Christianity recognizes the Prince of Peace ruling with love and equal justice for all men. That is the conflict.

In the 1940’s the Jews created “interfaith” religious organizations composed of so-called Christian theologians and Jews to reduce Christianity to just another religion that leads us to God in the end. It is all done under the spirit of “democracy,” where all religions are created equal. And, of course, the idea is being promoted that no one has the right to criticize another religion—unless, of course, that religion is Christianity. A Benedictine priest, Father Leonard Feeney wrote in The Point for October 1957,

“In 1949 there was held, in Switzerland, a World Brotherhood congress, sponsored by the International Conference of Christians and Jews (which includes the American group). The American Jewish Yearbook (Vol. 50) reports the outcome as follows: ‘The conference unanimously agreed on the necessity for a permanent organization and on a proposal to revise Christian religious teaching, particularly the story of the Crucifixion, in such a manner as to reduce the danger of implanting anti-semitism in the minds of the young’.”

Mel Gibson is now undoing 55 years’ work of discrediting the New Testament. These liberal theologians and Jews are no match for the powerful images of the movie screen—especially when presented so graphically. Yes, I can see why they are so upset.

Who wrote the Gospels? The liberals and Jewish leaders cannot prove their case that the Gospels were written by unknown people at the end of the first century. This is all conjecture based upon the assumption that they reflected the “bad blood” that the later Church held against the Jews. On the other hand, we know from historical writings that John lived until the early part of the reign of Trajan and did not die until about 100 A.D.

The Witness of John

The Gospel of John is the one Gospel that is particularly disturbing to modern Jewish interests, because he makes it very clear who was responsible. John 7:1 and 19 says,

¹ And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him…

¹⁹ Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you carries out the law? Why do you seek to kill me?

After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the priestly leaders met to decide what to do about this. They could not allow Jesus to continue doing miracles, because the people might then be persuaded that He was the Messiah! John 11:53 says, “So from that day on they planned together to kill Him [Jesus].” Not only Him, but they also wanted to kill Lazarus! John 12:9-11 says,

⁹ The great multitude therefore of the Jews learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. ¹⁰ But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus to death also; ¹¹ because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus.

In other words, they were willing to kill an innocent man for a political and personal reason. They later proved this by stoning Stephen and persecuting the early Church. They had no feelings of “religious tolerance” toward the early Christians. They only pushed for tolerance after they themselves fell from power and found themselves on the losing end of the conflict. But let it be perfectly clear that this persecution was NOT started by the early Christians. Jesus killed no one, nor did any of His disciples shed any blood. They were guilty only of a difference of opinion, which the Jews believed was blasphemous, but the Christians believed was godly.

Overcoming Evil with Good

The book of Acts makes it clear that the Jewish leaders persecuted the early Church. At the forefront of this persecution was Saul, who was later converted and became known by his Roman name, Paulus, or Paul. At first, the Church largely maintained an attitude of love, for they had the power of God on their side to work miracles. Though God sometimes saved them from prison and death (Acts 5:19) but sometimes allowed them to be killed (Acts 12:2), their faith was strong that God would work out all things for good. The accounts give no hint of any vengeful response.

It was only many years later after Christians had lost their first love that the Church treated the Jews like the Jews had treated them earlier. This was wrong—a sin—and I readily confess it on behalf of my fathers. Perhaps my confession of sin will encourage some Jewish leaders to do the same on behalf of their fathers.

If the Jews were their “enemies,” because of “persecution,” then the Church should have treated them as enemies, for Jesus said in Matthew 5:44, 45,

⁴⁴ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you ⁴⁵ in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

The Apostle Paul echoes this, even appealing to the divine law, in Rom. 12:17-21,

¹⁷ Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. ¹⁸ If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. ¹⁹ Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord. ²⁰ But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. ²¹ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The fact that they failed to respond with love in the face of the Jewish persecution indicated that they were not “sons of your Father who is in heaven.” It is most unfortunate that so many Christians adopted the same carnal response to persecution as do all the other religions and sects. Instead of returning good for evil, as Jesus did and as the Apostle Paul taught, they adopted the vengeance policy that is the way of all flesh. Thus, the B’nai B’rith Messenger for January, 1956, wrote:

“Despite its demand that evil be repaid with good, Christianity has for almost 2,000 years taught—and in former centuries backed up that teaching with action—that the Jews must bear the punishment for their ancestors’ rejection of Jesus . . . that the children of the Jews who crucified Jesus are visited for their fathers’ sin.” (The Point, May 1956)

Their complaint is partly justified. While it is true that we all pay for the sins of our fathers, whether we are Jews or not, it is not right that Christians help God to punish those who are under such judgment. That is the whole point behind the law, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” That law was written so that we would leave the judgment to God, rather than take the matter into our own carnal hands. Men have always been too quick to justify their vengeance by claiming that they are doing it for Jesus’ sake or for “defending His honor.”

On the other hand, we ought to keep in mind that, unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam are religions of mandated vengeance. It is their duty to take vengeance, for they believe that only in so doing can they restore divine order in the world. The idea of grace without vengeance is not normally practiced in Judaism and Islam. For this reason, the conflict over Palestine cannot be resolved short of a fight to the finish.

It is the responsibility of Christians to manifest the love and life of Christ—not to take vengeance upon Jews for crucifying Him. If Jesus desired vengeance, He would have had ample opportunity to do so in the 40 days after His resurrection. Certainly, He would have told His disciples to avenge His death by assassinating Caiaphas. But one can search the New Testament in vain for such instructions.

The Political Issues

Mel Gibson’s movie has greatly alarmed Jewish leaders today for two reasons: (1) they do not want Christians to hold Jews accountable for the crucifixion of Jesus; and (2) they do not want Christians to be angered into persecuting Jews. These are the issues. In fact, Jewish leaders are even now appealing to the “Patriot Act” to turn the movie into an act of terrorism. If they were to succeed, they would then seek to ban the New Testament itself as a terrorist book. No matter that the Talmud reeks with terrorism, racism, and the concept of Jewish racial supremacy. No matter that the Talmud says that non-Jews all have “satanic souls” just because they aren’t Jewish. If the New Testament promotes “terrorism,” much more the Talmud, which does not even pretend to teach love toward Christians or any other non-Jew.

The pot is clearly calling the kettle black. We might give more weight to Jewish complaints about the Church persecuting them, had not the Jews created the problem in the first place—not so much with their crucifixion of Jesus, but in their persecution of the Church in the years following the crucifixion. It was not until the time of Constantine that Christians were given civil power over the Jews and in 315 A.D. began to “fight back.”

At that point, Jews began to come under Christian persecution for about 1,500 years. The Church leaders considered it to be self-defense, to be sure, and justified it as such. They were determined not to allow Jews to regain power over them, because they believed that the Jews would then continue their persecution. I do not support their beliefs or actions, but the Zionists in the past century have proven themselves to be just as bloodthirsty as they were in the first century. Their zeal in stealing land from Palestinian people, their joy in displacing them or killing them, their persecution of anyone—even fellow Jews—who disagree with them, all show that their first-century persecution spirit is alive and well. This is all well-documented in my book, The Struggle for the Birthright.

Who Actually Did It?

As for the crucifixion itself and who did it, John 19:14-18 tells us clearly:

¹⁴ Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he [Pilate] said to the Jews, Behold, your King! ¹⁵ They [the Jews present] therefore cried out, Away with Him; crucify Him! Pilate said to them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. ¹⁶ So he [Pilate] delivered Him to them [the chief priests] to be crucified. ¹⁷ They [the chief priests] took Jesus therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha. ¹⁸ There they [the chief priests] crucified Him, and with Him two other men, one on either side, and Jesus in between.

John, then, makes it clear that it was the “chief priests” of the line of Aaron that crucified Jesus. This is a crucial point, as we will see shortly, on which hinges the messianic fulfillment of Jesus’ Sacrifice in Bible prophecy.

In the case of John’s Gospel, it is quite possible, as critics contend, that the account was written toward the end of the first century. So what? He was an eyewitness of the crucifixion, along with the two Marys. He was there. None of his modern critics were there. In any court of law, eyewitnesses must be believed before those who testify with second- or third-hand information.

Luke is as specific as John in his account of the crucifixion. Luke 23 says,

²³ But they [the Jews present] were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. ²⁴ And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand should be granted. ²⁵ And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will. ²⁶ And when they led Him away . . .

In each case, it is plain that “their” and “they” refer to the Jewish mob (who had been incited to violence by their priestly leaders), and not to Pilate or the Romans in general. Pilate wanted to release Jesus (Luke 23:14-16; Mark 15:9, 10; Matt. 27:24; Acts 3:13). Yes, Pilate was the one who succumbed to their political pressure in order to prevent a riot, but to blame Pilate as the prime guilty one shows very poor jurisprudence.

The book of Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul. Since Paul died around 64 A.D., it is unlikely that Luke would have written it much after that time. More than likely, he was keeping a historical record during all of the time he and Paul were making their missionary journeys. The book of Acts makes it very clear who was responsible. See Peter’s Pentecostal sermon in Acts 2:36,

³⁶ Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom YOU crucified.

See also Acts 3:13-15, where Peter again says,

¹³ The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom YOU delivered up and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. ¹⁴ But YOU disowned the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵ but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.

Peter then adds in verse 17,

¹⁷ And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.

Hence, we acknowledge that both the people and their leaders crucified Jesus “in ignorance.” The religious leaders knew that He was the Messiah (Matt. 21:38), but they were ignorant in that they thought that crucifying Him would solve their problem. They wanted to keep their jobs and their positions of power. They knew that a Messiah such as He would “fire” them immediately, if the people proclaimed Him to be the Messiah. As for the common people themselves, they too acted in ignorance, for they had been fooled by their leaders into thinking that He was a mere blasphemer and false messiah.

This ignorance was necessary, in fact, in the plan of God, for the law had already prophesied that the lamb had to be slain at Passover. If the people had known the law, they would never have crucified the Lamb of God. Hence, we stress the absolute necessity of His crucifixion as well as a certain amount of divine blindness. Nonetheless, verse 19 still calls upon the people to repent, saying,

¹⁹ Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

Regardless of blindness, one has to repent of sins—even those committed in ignorance. Leviticus 4:13, 14 says,

¹³ Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error, and the matter escapes the notice of the assembly, and they commit any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and they become guilty; ¹⁴ when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting.

Even sins done in ignorance incur guilt, although the liability for such sins is less than when committed with full knowledge of one’s actions. Most of the people crucified the Messiah in blind obedience to their leaders. Peter says that at least some of their leaders also did this in blindness. However, Jesus made it clear in John 9:41 that some of the leaders knew precisely what they were doing. This is also made clear in Matt. 21:38. They killed the Son because they recognized Him—not because they mistakenly identified Him as someone else.

In Acts 4:10, Peter said to the high priest in Jerusalem,

¹⁰ Let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom YOU crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health.

In Acts 4:25-28, it is also made clear that the responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion went beyond those who did the actual crucifying. It says,

²⁵ Who by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say, Why did the nations rage, and the peoples devise futile things? ²⁶ The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. ²⁷ For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the nations and the peoples of Israel.

This passage does not tell us that either Herod or Pilate crucified Jesus. It simply implicates them in His crucifixion, saying that they “were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ.” In other words, they were present, giving assent to it. This was necessary, because Christ was dying on behalf of the whole world, not just for one nation. He was taking upon Himself the sin of the whole world, not just the sin of one nation. They were, however, only accomplices, not the perpetrators of the crucifixion.

The Question of Blame

To say that the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day were the ones who crucified Christ is one issue; who is to “blame” is another issue completely.

Let’s put it this way. Suppose I had committed some serious crime—say, murder. Let’s say that I was duly convicted in a court of law. Then let’s suppose a friend stepped forward and offered to take my place before the firing squad. If the court accepted that substitute, executing this friend, who is to blame for his death? The firing squad? The court? My friend? Or me?

That’s the point. To blame the firing squad does not portray the whole picture. To blame the authorities (court) is also only the partial story. To make either I or my friend to blame is not the whole story either. One has to take the whole package into consideration in order to understand what is going on. Everyone in the process from beginning to end shares responsibility on some level, but no one alone is fully to blame.

But neither can we later come along and doctor the court records. It is dishonest to claim that the firing squad (Jewish mob) were only firing blanks, while the Romans standing behind them did a sniper attack. It is dishonest to maintain that the Jewish court (Sanhedrin) didn’t really sentence Jesus, just because there was a higher court to which they had to appeal to rubber stamp their death sentence. Especially when they essentially blackmailed Pilate into letting them carry out their sentence, and that Pilate acquiesced only because a riot may have cost him his job.

There are two levels in operation here. Looking at the crucifixion from the long-term, divine standpoint, Jesus was crucified because of the sins of all mankind. Those who carried it out were actually the agents of the greatest good ever done in the world. On the other hand, they had no idea that they were doing such a great job. Their personal motive was based upon hatred, injustice, and ignorance of the mind of God. Hence, God has judged them on that level (Matt. 21:40-43; 22:7).

To understand these two levels, one must know the biblical difference between God’s will and God’s plan. There are two Greek words to describe this difference. God’s “will” is thelema; God’s “plan” is boulema. This is explained more fully in my book, Creation’s Jubilee, chapter 11.

To illustrate, God sent Moses to Pharaoh to tell him God’s will: “Let My people go.” But God’s plan was to harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would NOT let the people go until the appointed time (Passover). Hence, the plan seems to contradict God’s will, but in fact it only postpones His will to the proper time. Pharaoh DID let Israel go, but only at the appointed time called Passover.

In Romans 2:18, God’s “will” (thelema) is defined in terms of the divine law. It is God’s will that we not steal, murder, or commit adultery. But in Romans 9:19, where God discusses the fact that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Paul asks, “Why does He still find fault (blame)? For who can resist His plan (boulema)?”

The fact is, God did judge Pharaoh for resisting God’s WILL. But on a higher level, God was responsible for hardening Pharaoh’s heart, as the Word clearly says. Pharaoh could resist the will, but not the plan of God. Hence, Pharaoh can be judged only on his own level, not on an ultimate level. God takes ultimate responsibility for Pharaoh and will save him in the end—after judging him for resisting His will. Jesus died for Pharaoh also, taking responsibility for his sin and the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

So it is with the Jewish responsibility for crucifying Christ. God blinded them and hardened their hearts in order that they would make the Supreme Sacrifice for which they as Aaronic priests were called to make. On that level, God takes full responsibility for their actions. However, on a more mundane level, their actions reflected a hatred for Jesus and a jealous ambition in regard to the right to rule Israel and the world. For that sinful motive, they will be judged every bit as much as Pharaoh was judged.

The Calling of the Aaronic Priests

In those days, when a man sinned, he was required to bring an animal to the priest and let the priest do the sacrifice. Only the descendants of Aaron were called to perform this service. Jesus was the Sacrifice that was being offered by Pilate (Roman Empire) and Herod (Judea). But neither the Romans nor the Judeans themselves were legally qualified to make the sacrifice. Only the priests of Aaron could do this.

If the crucifixion of Jesus had actually been performed by Roman soldiers, or even by non-priests among the Judeans, then the law would have been broken, the Scriptures would have been unfulfilled in Christ, and we would yet be dead in our sins.

This is the real issue at stake here. Was the Lamb of God sacrificed by pagan Romans or by Levitical Priests of the descent of Aaron? Did Jesus Christ fulfill the law or are we to look for another messiah?

The wolves have gotten in among the sheep in so-called Christian organizations. They have sought to nullify the Scriptures in order to lay the foundations for proving that Jesus was not really the Messiah. This is the heart of the problem.

The solution is NOT that we ought to hate Jews for “deicide.” The priests were called of God to offer the sacrifice—and they ultimately had no choice in the matter. It was written in the script before the foundations of the world.

The solution is NOT that we should blame the Romans for the crucifixion. Their sins were great, just as all men are sinners to one extent or the other. But the law forbids us to falsely accuse another. The penalty for false accusation is that we are to be given the penalty that we thought to put upon the one we falsely accuse. Deut. 19:16-19 says,

¹⁶ If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, ¹⁷ then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. ¹⁸ And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, ¹⁹ then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Since the Aaronic priests were responsible before God to make the sacrifices—all of which pointed to the final Sacrifice of the Lamb of God—it is imperative that we not falsely accuse the Romans of performing the act of crucifying Jesus. And it is equally important that we not put the full blame upon the Jews for this, because (1) they acted under a certain amount of blindness, and (2) their sins were only PART of the reason Jesus died on the cross. In fact, He died on their behalf as much as on behalf of the rest of the world. Though they often hate the Apostle John, he says in 1 John 2:1, 2,

¹ . . . And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; ² and He Himself is the propitiation [covering for sin] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

The day will come when they and everyone will recognize their sin as prophesied in the law in Leviticus 4:14 (quoted earlier). The day is coming when “every knee will bow” to the true Messiah that has been called to rule the world in the age to come.

But we are not called to force everyone to bow the knee to Him. Though the Roman Church has long taught that Jesus approves when men kill infidels, torture heretics into submission, or coerce Jews by holy oppression into joining the religion, this in no way reflects the true mind of Christ. I don’t care how many times the Popes declare themselves infallible, their words will never alter the love of Christ toward all creation, which is His inheritance.

Furthermore, just because the mob said, “His blood be upon us and our children,” does not mean that the Church has a responsibility to curse them or to oppress them. Christian people are responsible to reflect the mind of Christ and do what He did—not to be the self-appointed avengers of Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Law of Sacrifice

Leviticus 17:3, 4 tells us what one must do with the blood of the sacrifice for sin. One must bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation. The priest must sprinkle the blood on the altar of the Lord (17:6). If a sinner does not do this, he is guilty of bloodshed and was to be “cut off from among his people” (17:4). That is, a Jew would be exiled and no longer considered to be a member of his former tribe.

Jesus was the Sacrifice. The law makes it clear that the ones offering the sacrifice are guilty of bloodshed (murder) if they do not apply the blood of that sacrifice to the altar of God in the lawful manner. This used to be done in a tabernacle in the wilderness, then at Shiloh, and finally in the temple in Jerusalem. But when God left Solomon’s temple (Ez. 10:4, 18, 19 and 11:23) He returned in the Person of Jesus Christ. After His final ascension, the glory returned on the day of Pentecost to indwell a new type of temple—human flesh.

We are now the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), and He has placed His name on our foreheads (Rev. 22:4). The blood of the sacrifice must be applied to the altar of our hearts (Heb. 10:22). This is the only way now to fulfill the law. One must treat Jesus’ crucifixion as a sacrifice for sin and apply His blood to the heart. Everyone, including Jews, must come to this understanding in order to be saved. There is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved (Acts 4:12).

Anyone who does not sprinkle the blood of Jesus Christ upon the altar of his heart has violated the law of sacrifice. If a Jew is guilty of violating this law, he is “cut off from among his people.” That is, legally speaking, he is no longer a Jew (i.e., member of the tribe of Judah), regardless of his genealogy. This is why John speaks of “those who say they are Jews (men of Judah) and are not” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). This is also how Paul can tell us that a Jew is NOT one who has a mere outward circumcision, but ONLY one that has the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28, 29). Neither John nor Paul were speaking genealogically, but legally.

Needless to say, however, those who reject Jesus and His heart-circumcision have never recognized the definition of a Jew as seen in this light. For that reason, we commonly mis-identify Jews as being those who have rejected Christ, instead of those who have applied the blood of the Lamb of God to their heart-altars. This can be a source of confusion.

Forgiveness

Perhaps the more important question is how Christian people should have reacted to the crucifixion and the persecution that followed. Did they follow Jesus’ example when He said, “Father, forgive them”? They did at first. Stephen, the first Christian martyr after Jesus Himself, was stoned after laying the responsibility for the crucifixion at the feet of the Jewish leaders. Acts 7:52,

⁵² Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become.

It is hard to misunderstand his words here. Certainly, the people he addressed got the message, even if people today do not. They stoned him for his witness. But did Stephen speak these harsh words with malice in his heart—as some have accused him? No, for we read in verse 60,

⁶⁰ And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, Lord, do not hold this sin against them! And having said this, he fell asleep.

If Stephen forgave those who stoned him, how then could the Church later take up his cause to avenge his death? The problem is not in the New Testament. The problem is in men’s traditions—men’s interpretations and carnal, emotional reactions to it. The Bible merely speaks the truth. How men react to it is another matter entirely. The solution is not to discredit the biblical account, but to instill in them the mind of Christ—even if it runs contrary to dozens of papal bulls over the centuries.

Perspective on Responsible Parties

“But,” a traditional Roman Catholic will say, “the Jews are guilty of murder, and not just any murder, but deicide (God-killer)! And they have been under divine curse ever since.”

Really? Well, first of all, let us keep the sovereignty of God in perspective. Killing the sacrifice was a matter of divine calling. Thus, every time Aaron and his sons sacrificed an animal—which represented Christ—they were killing Christ in proxy. Are we to accuse Aaron and his sons of deicide? That is ridiculous.

If God had not called Aaron and his son to do this job, they never would have crucified Jesus. So the most responsible party in this is God Himself—whether we admit it or not. Secondly, Jesus willingly gave up His life, knowing that the only way to truly manifest the love of God was to be willing to die even for one’s enemies (Rom. 5:7-10).

Anyone can die for a good man or for a friend. It happens many times, and we honor them as heroes. But who would die for an enemy? I know of no pope who has ever done so. I know of no prophet who ever did so. Mohammed did not do so. Neither did Buddha, so far as I know. There have been at least fifty Jewish “messiahs” in the past 2,000 years, and not one of them was willing to die for his enemies. (See 50 Jewish Messiahs, by Jerry Rabow.)

So let’s be sure we keep Jesus’ crucifixion in its proper perspective. Look at Jesus’ own words to Pilate in John 19:11,

¹¹ Jesus answered, You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin.

In other words, the chief priests who had delivered Jesus to Pilate had “the greater sin.” This is directly contrary to what some are saying today when they try to make Pilate or the Roman government responsible for the crucifixion.

On an earthly level—and because it was necessary in the divine plan—the Jewish leaders of the day committed murder. Yes, it was murder insofar as their motives were concerned, for they certainly did not intend to make of Him a divine Sacrifice for sin. They murdered Jesus as much as they murdered all of their prophets. This is made plain in Jesus’ own parable in Matthew 22:6, 7, which says,

⁶ and the rest seized his slaves (the prophets) and mistreated them and killed them. ⁷ But the king was enraged and sent his armies (Roman armies), and destroyed those murderers, and set their city on fire (Jerusalem—70 A.D.).

This is strong language, but the charges must be made clear in the divine court of law in order to deal with the problem. It does NOT mean that Jews are doomed. It means simply that this is the sin they must deal with in a lawful manner.

Obeying God Rather than Man

It is better to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29), even if those men claim to be speaking for God. The first disciples faced that issue in the first century, coming against the priesthood that God Himself had established under Moses and Aaron. Caiaphas insisted upon being obeyed on pain of death. The disciples refused on the grounds that they had to obey God rather than men. In later centuries the Christians faced the same dilemma. Should they obey their high priest, the Roman Pontiff, when he told them to act in an unchristian manner? Most of them did, for fear of the consequences. The rest were persecuted in the same manner as the Jewish priests persecuted the early Christians.

Men always seem to assume that if God ordained the religion at the beginning, then it was going to remain the “true religion” for all time. Judaism made that mistake. Then the Roman Church made the same mistake. The Old Testament prophets denounced the religion of the Jerusalem temple and its corrupted priesthood, and they were killed for their witness. Likewise, there have been witnesses against the corruption of the Roman Church, and they have suffered the same fate.

When we stop to think about it, one thing remains clear: God has never had any intention of rubber-stamping the decisions of a corrupt priesthood. The Old Testament prophets prove this decisively. Neither should the Roman Church think of itself as infallible, nor should it expect Christians to obey the dictates of corrupted popes who were guilty of murder, lying, adultery, incest, and sodomy—all of which are duly recorded by a great many Catholic historians themselves.

In the Old Testament, the religious center was established first at Shiloh (Joshua 18:1). The priesthood of that lineage (from Phineas) became corrupted by the time of Eli the priest, and God sent a prophet to pose this very important question in 1 Sam. 2:27, 28,

²⁷ Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, Thus says the Lord, Did I not indeed reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt in bondage to Pharaoh’s house? ²⁸ And did I not choose them from all the tribes of Israel to be My priests, to go up to My altar, to burn incense, to carry an ephod before Me; and did I not give to the house of your father all the fire offerings of the sons of Israel?

The answer is YES, God did indeed choose Levi and specifically the family of Phineas to provide the family of high priests down to Eli himself. So what? Did this mean that they were infallible? Did this mean that God would overlook their corruption? Did this mean that they could do as they pleased with immunity? NO, a thousand times NO.

³⁰ Therefore the Lord God of Israel declares, I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever [olam, “for the age” (indefinite period of time)]; but now the Lord declares, Far be it from Me—for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed. ³¹ Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father’s house so that there will not be an old man in your house.

God said that He would replace Eli’s priesthood with a “faithful priest.” In the short-term, this referred to a new line of priests of the line of Zadok, who replaced the last of Eli’s line, Abiathar (1 Kings 2:27, 35). Not only that, but God also removed His presence (glory) from Shiloh in Ephraim and moved it to Jerusalem, where it came to rest in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:11). Psalm 78 tells us the story,

⁶⁰ So that He abandoned the dwelling place at Shiloh, the tent which He had pitched among men, ⁶¹ and gave up His strength [the Ark] to captivity, and His glory into the hand of the adversary. . . ⁶⁷ He also rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, ⁶⁸ but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loved; ⁶⁹ and He built His sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has founded forever.

Some centuries later, the priesthood in Jerusalem had corrupted itself as badly as the one in Shiloh had done. So God sent Jeremiah to tell that priesthood in Jer. 7:11-15,

¹¹ Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? . . . ¹² But go now to My place which was in Shiloh, where I made My name dwell at the first, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of My people Israel. . . ¹⁴ Therefore I will do to the house which is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place which I gave you and your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. ¹⁵ And I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast out all your brothers, all the offspring of Ephraim.

God forsook Jerusalem, the place where He had chosen to place His name. The glory departed like it did from Shiloh. See Ezekiel 10:4 to 11:23, where the prophet saw the glory depart as far as the Mount of Olives. The departure was not completed, however, until Jesus ascended from that spot (Acts 1:9-12), for He was the embodiment of the glory of God. This gives special meaning to Jesus’ statement in Matt. 21:13, where He repeated Jeremiah’s sentence upon that place, calling it “a den of robbers.”

The glory of God thus left not only Shiloh, but Jerusalem as well. It returned to indwell Christian believers on the day of Pentecost. The believers collectively are the temple of God (1 Cor. 6:19). They are the true Church. The Church is not an organization but a people. It is not the city of Rome but the people of God regardless of location. His name is on their foreheads (Rev. 22:4), not upon the Vatican or Jerusalem or Mecca.

But even if we were to concede for the moment that the Roman Church organization is the true Church, as it claims to be, all the precedents of Scripture prove that God is under no obligation to remain in any one location. If that location and that priesthood is corrupted, God most certainly says that He is under no obligation to remain there. This is proven by both Shiloh and Jerusalem. Hence, let no man say that one must be obedient to men in order to be real Christians. Jesus’ disciples dissented from the commands of the temple priests of their day. We dissent for the same reasons.

Christian Virtue—Roman Style

No pope or recognized prophet was ever willing to die for me, but many were willing to kill “for the glory of God.” They were willing to torture and kill Jews, infidels, and heretics “for the glory of God.” They were willing to go to war on crusades to recover some holy real estate, as if God cares more about territory than about people. As late as the 1950’s Father Leonard Feeney was glorying in the Inquisition and the Crusades in The Point for November 1952,

“On October 7, the Church commemorates in her liturgy the Battle of Lepanto. It was on this date, in the year 1571, that a small Christian fleet under the command of Don John of Austria halted and destroyed the powerful Turkish forces that were threatening to invade and overrun Europe. . .

“Lepanto was the last, late impulse of that great movement known as the Crusades, a movement which had begun in the final years of the eleventh century and which had as its purpose to rescue the Holy Sepulchre, the tomb in which the precious body of Christ had lain, from the hands of the infidels…

“But if a Catholic of our day [Feeney laments] were to suggest going off to the Holy Land to fight for possession of the Holy Sepulchre, he would be immediately labeled, by his pastor and everyone who heard of him, ‘out of his mind.’

“But it is not merely in their unwillingness to fight for the Holy Sepulchre that American Catholics show their estrangement from the Crusaders. For the Crusades were more than a particular war for a particular objective at a particular time. They were motivated by a spirit, and that spirit has been shared by all faithful Christians at all times. It is a spirit that thinks the salvation of one’s soul is the most important task one has to accomplish, and is ready to sacrifice any lesser good to that end. It is a spirit that thinks the kingdom of Heaven is taken by violence, and that only the violent bear it away. . .”

Here Father Feeney quotes Matthew 11:12, thinking that Jesus was proclaiming violence to be a virtue. In fact, as the context shows clearly, Jesus was referring to the violent tactics of King Herod, who had put John in prison. The Kingdom of God was indeed suffering violence, because there were violent men on a crusade even then to destroy the preaching of both John and Jesus. But Father Feeney can be forgiven for his ignorance of the Scripture, because he was only following the interpretation handed down to him by past popes who had called for the Crusades. Father Feeney continues,

“It is a spirit that is sensitive to blasphemy, zealous to defend holy things, and wrathful when it sees them profaned. It is a spirit that thinks the enemies of Jesus and Mary ought to be the enemies of all Christians. It is a spirit that looks on life itself as a continual warfare of right against wrong, of good against evil, of the seed of Our Lady against the seed of Satan. . .”

This “spirit” is not the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of violence and murder. It is an antichrist spirit, not the Spirit of Christ. When Jesus’ indignant disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven upon the city that rejected Jesus, He rebuked them in Luke 9:55 and 56, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

Father Feeney continues in The Point for November 1952,

“Every Catholic boy longs somehow for a crusade. He knows that that is what the Faith is meant to be—a glorious campaign for the love and honor of Jesus and Mary.”

When Jesus was being arrested on false charges, Peter carnally wanted to defend Jesus with his sword—much like Father Feeney would have done, no doubt. Luke 22:49-51 says of this,

⁴⁹ And when those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, Lord, shall we strike with the sword? ⁵⁰ And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. ⁵¹ But Jesus answered and said, Stop! No more of this. And He touched his ear and healed him.

John 18:10 identifies Jesus’ would-be defender as Peter. Nowhere does the Scripture commend Peter for his actions. Yet I find it interesting that the Roman Church would adopt Peter as their founding “Pope,” because they have also adopted his pre-Pentecostal carnal inclination toward zealous violence as their own virtue.

Though I honor Peter and all the Apostles, I am under no obligation to emulate their actions as they were still learning the mind of Christ as His disciples. I cannot condone what the Bible does not condone of their actions—no, not even the murder that Moses committed or the adultery that David committed. Great as Peter was, he did not die for my sin. Neither did Paul by his own admission (1 Cor. 1:13). I cannot sprinkle the blood of any pope or prophet upon the altar of my heart for my salvation, for not one of them died for me. Nor can I take the blood of other men that popes and “prophets” have been willing to shed “for the glory of God” and make it effective for my salvation.

In this matter of salvation, there is no difference between a Jew and a Greek. We all must be saved in the same manner, and it must be only through Jesus Christ, through whose blood we are saved. Yes, it is an exclusive manner of salvation. And it comes only through this narrow door.

But on the other hand, God has a way of bringing everyone through that narrow door in his own time, as we have shown in our other writings. I have no doubt that every Jew who has ever lived will one day rejoice in the truth and gladly acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. But it will not be because Christians have forced him to kiss the cross, or to pay special taxes unless he converts, or because he must wear an orange pointed hat. And it will certainly not be because he is threatened with torture or with hell-fire if he does not submit to Jesus. Such coercion is unlawful.

Because such carnal tactics were established by the Roman Popes and carried out by many of the priests and the people against the so-called ‘blasphemers of Christ,” they actually caused the name of Jesus to be blasphemed throughout the world.

Comparing Roman Catholic Traditions with the Talmudic Traditions

As Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” sweeps the nation and perhaps even the world, let us not justify Jewish fears of another wave of persecution in its wake. I honestly do not believe that this will take place, because today’s world is quite different from the Middle Ages. In centuries past, Christians often used to burn synagogues and kill Jews on Easter to avenge the name of Jesus. One might offer excuses by saying it was a brutal time, but this is not adequate. It was an age where the Roman Church ruled. To rule is to be held accountable before God. We can understand the brutality of pagan Rome that knew not the love of Jesus Christ. But how can we excuse the Church which was supposed to follow His example? Father Feeney writes in The Point for April 1957,

“Saint Bernard of Clairvaux had asked that world in the twelfth century, ‘The Living God has charged me to declare to you that He will punish them who will not avenge Him against His enemies’.”

Really? So maybe Peter was right after all in trying to defend Jesus against those who came to arrest him??? Sorry, Mr. Saint, but this is not the mind of Christ.

Father Feeney also glories in the torture chambers of the Inquisition that was established by papal decree in 1231 A.D. In fact, Feeney says in The Point for February 1957, “The thirteenth was a century of holiness.” In that same issue he gives many glorious and holy examples to show how the popes oppressed the Jews. One example:

“In July of 1267, Pope Clement IV issued the bull, Turbato Corde, extending the Inquisition begun by Gregory IX, so that it could deal not only with heretics, but also with Jews who had seduced Catholics from the Faith. The city of London was aroused in 1271 to prohibit Jews from acquiring any more property there. And, in 1274, occurred the death of the great Saint Thomas Aquinas, who in his De Regimine Judaeorum told Christian rulers, ‘Jews, in consequence of their sin, are or were destined to perpetual slavery; so that sovereigns of states may treat their goods as their own property; with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life.”

So how different is this “moral” system from that found in the Talmud? We read in the Talmudic summary, Shulhan Aruch, composed in the sixteenth century by Rabbi Yosef Karo,

“All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An Orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general.”

Dr. Israel Shahak was a more enlightened Jew before his recent death. He wrote of this Talmudic principle in his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, page 90,

“Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden, if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright, but only under certain circumstances such as ‘when the Gentiles are not under our rule’, but is permitted ‘when they are under our rule’. Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles, rather than with universal considerations of justice and humanity. This may explain why so few rabbis have protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel; it was backed by overwhelming Jewish power.”

It is plain that the “Saint” Thomas Aquinas was a reverse Talmudist in this matter of sanctified robbery. While the Jews at least have some excuse for their wrong sense of justice—in that it is based upon their sacred writings—what excuse does a Christian have? The fact is, both Judaism and Roman Catholicism are based upon human traditions of men, rather than upon the Bible. While both might object to this characterization, they both equally rely upon men’s interpretations of the Bible.

The only difference between them is that the Jews inadvertently reject Moses and Jesus (John 5:45-47), while the Roman Church openly rejects Jesus and the apostles as well. Pope Boniface VIII said in 1302 A.D. in his well-known Unum Sanctum,

“Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to change times and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter put up his sword, and admonishes His disciples not to use outward force in revenging themselves, do not I, Pope Nicolas, writing to the bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords? And whereas Christ was present Himself at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, do not I, Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present at marriage feasts, and also to marry? Moreover, where Christ biddeth us lend without hope of gain, do not I, Pope Martin, give dispensation to do the same? What should I speak of murder, making it to be no murder or homicide to slay them that be excommunicated?

“Likewise against the law of nature, item against the apostles, also against the canons of the apostles, I can and do dispense; for where they in their canon command a priest for fornication to be deposed, I through the authority of Sylvester, do alter the rigour of their constitution, considering the minds and bodies also of men to be weaker than they were then.” (H. Gratton Guiness, Rome and Romanism, pp. 27, 28)

I personally oppose both Judaism and Roman Catholicism for the same reason. Both make void the law of God by their traditions. Neither religion as a whole really understands the art of forgiveness. The difference is that the Jews do not believe they are doing so, while Pope Boniface VIII openly admitted it by a decree that, in 1870, was cemented in Church doctrine by the declaration of infallibility.

God’s View in the Scripture

Contrary to both Jewish and Roman “traditions of men,” the divine law says in Leviticus 19:33, 34,

³³ When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. ³⁴ The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.

Again, in Numbers 15:16 says,

¹⁶ There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.

Again, in Exodus 23:2-9 we read,

² You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; ³ nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute… ⁶ You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute. ⁷ Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. ⁸ And you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just. ⁹ And you shall not oppress a stranger [alien], since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One thing that forms the foundation of biblical law is that God and His judgments are impartial. Men have reinterpreted these words to justify their own desire to oppress foreigners (aliens). They pervert the word “stranger,” limiting its meaning to one who is of our race or religion who happens to live elsewhere. In that way, they are justified in oppressing those who are not “one of us.” But the passage above makes its meaning clear by saying, “for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

In other words, Israel was a “stranger” to the Egyptians in the same sense that the foreigners in Israel were “strangers.” Israel did not appreciate being oppressed by the Egyptians just because they were aliens. So Israel should treat the aliens among them like they would have wanted the Egyptians to treat them in former times.

Likewise, today, we ought to treat foreigners in our midst with the same love and consideration that we would want to be treated in their homelands. But both Judaism and traditional Roman Catholicism made void the law through their traditions. Theologians of both Judaism and Catholicism can hem and haw about how this does not really refer to non-Jews or to non-Catholics, but the word speaks for itself. God has no privileged people to whom God has given the property of others by virtue of their race or religion.

All of this is to say that Jews have some justification for being fearful at “The Passion.” They are afraid of a revival of old, traditional Roman Catholic ideas. By the same token, the Roman Catholics had some justification for being afraid of Jewish power over them, for Talmudic law would allow Jews to steal from Catholics as well.

I am glad that these are not the only choices available to us.

We have a third choice—the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

The Effects of “The Passion” Today

So what effect will “The Passion” have upon us today? Since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has maintained the strange double-minded standard of claiming infallibility, while at the same time renouncing past papal policies. If they can do so with a straight face, I’ll play along, because in many ways it is a huge improvement. Thus, I do not believe that in today’s world that Catholics in America would ever revert back to the old traditional view that oppressing Jews and heretics is a virtue.

While many old-line traditional Catholics see these new views as a betrayal of Catholicism—and they are correct—it is better than the alternative. In fact, Vatican II was a new Protestant movement in the sense that Catholics successfully protested against old papal policies. It is precisely this issue that caused a number of traditional Catholics to break away in protest from the Roman organization and form their own groups. Mel Gibson belongs to one such group, and this is what disturbs Jewish leaders about his movie. They see the movie as a ploy to re-introduce the old-style persecutions. They are hamstrung, however, because the more they make persecution and discrimination an issue, the more attention they draw to their own support for Palestinian persecution by the hard-line Israeli state. Hence, they are caught on the horns of the bull.

The movie brings to a head the question of New Testament accuracy and inspiration. This is a foundational belief of the very evangelicals who have long been Zionism’s main political support. The more the Jewish leaders expose their anti-New Testament views, the more evangelical Christians will open their eyes to the evils of political Zionism.

In fact, I believe that the Jewish leaders will expose themselves and their deplorably racist record. They will prove to evangelicals that the Israeli state is NOT the regathered House of Israel as prophesied in the Bible. They will prove that if they were ever to gain political power over Christians (as they had in the first century), they will once again persecute evangelical Christians for believing that Jesus is the Messiah, that the Jewish leaders crucified Him, and that He rose again. The only ones who would NOT be persecuted would be those liberal elements that agree with the Jews that the New Testament is not really the inspired word of God but is inaccurate, uninspired, and libelous in its portrayal of Caiaphas and his mob.

A Final Word

John 12:31-33 prophesies,

³¹ Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. ³² And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself. ³³ But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

“The Passion” has the potential of manifesting to the world the kind of death He died in living color. The realism is almost too much to watch in a movie. But with the modern technology employed in this movie, Jesus Christ and His Love for mankind will be presented in a way never before seen by so many people. He is indeed being “lifted up” on the Cross for all to see. And all will turn to Him, not by constraint, but by the bonds of love.

I believe that this is what God has in mind behind the scenes. Mel Gibson really was inspired to make this movie. Evangelical leaders are calling it the greatest tool of evangelism that the world has ever seen. They are right. But it will also mark the beginning of a welcome change in evangelical attitudes toward Zionism. It will, in fact, make Christians a bit more like Christ in their treatment of non-Jews.

That is the good news of the Kingdom.