Persecution of Jews

Splendour

I'm reading Acts at the moment; only as far as chapter 5 and am struck by the amount of times Peter points the finger at the Jews for killing Jesus.

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go

Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.

Acts 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

In Acts 2:23 Peter at least mentions God's plan in it but obviously over the centuries this has been ignored and, in many quarters, the Jews are held solely responsible for Jesus' death.
It's almost like Peter used the Jews as a scapegoat and in turn made life worse for the Jews.

Splendour

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Peter was the same as Hitler then.

Thanks but I should have mentioned I'm more interested in Christian views on this-unless of course you have something more enlightening than the above one liner to add?

doctoremma

Didn't God need Jesus to die? So how can anyone (or a whole group) be 'blamed' for his death? Same for Judas, wasn't he simply a key part in a beautiful master plan - how can what he did be considered a 'betrayal'?

Did those condemning the Jews for killing Jesus think he shouldn't have been killed? Had the implications of his death not been revealed to them?

Splendour

doctoremma wrote: »

Didn't God need Jesus to die? So how can anyone (or a whole group) be 'blamed' for his death? Same for Judas, wasn't he simply a key part in a beautiful master plan - how can what he did be considered a 'betrayal'?

Did those condemning the Jews for killing Jesus think he shouldn't have been killed? Had the implications of his death not been revealed to them?

This is what I don't understand-Peter only mentions it once (could be more later on in NT but I don't remember) and then he goes on to leave God( and the rest of us) out of it and blame the Jews so I'm not sure if Peter grasped the extent of it all.

LeinsterDub

To carry on the above. Was the free will of pilot, judas and the crowd etc overruled by God's? Why didn't the devil appear and try to tempt these people in to what on the face of it would be an inherently good act?

Splendour

LeinsterDub wrote: »

To carry on the above. Was the free will of pilot, judas and the crowd etc overruled by God's? Why didn't the devil appear and try to tempt these people in to what on the face of it would be an inherently good act?

Free will is a different topic-of course the Jews had a choice with regards to handing Jesus over to be killed. I think the devil thought if Jesus was killed then that would be the end of God so he wasn't going to interfere with that.

I'm more concerned with why Peter feels the need to keep mentioning it and pointing the finger at the Jews.

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

I'm more concerned with why Peter feels the need to keep mentioning it and pointing the finger at the Jews.

Because the fact that they had rejected the Messiah was a key point in preaching the Gospel. Many Jews saw themselves as being God's covenant people by virtue of their Jewishness. The Gospel, when declared to Jews, was that they were sinners just like everyone else and so needed to accept Christ for salvation.

What is interesting is how later on in Acts, when Peter or Paul are preaching to Gentile audiences, that there is much less emphasis placed on the role of the Jews in Christ's death.

getz

PDN wrote: »

Because the fact that they had rejected the Messiah was a key point in preaching the Gospel. Many Jews saw themselves as being God's covenant people by virtue of their Jewishness. The Gospel, when declared to Jews, was that they were sinners just like everyone else and so needed to accept Christ for salvation.

What is interesting is how later on in Acts, when Peter or Paul are preaching to Gentile audiences, that there is much less emphasis placed on the role of the Jews in Christ's death.

sorry but i believe the church has it wrong,peter was apostle to the jews,paul was the apostle to the gentiles,peter began to make a practice of separating himself from gentile believers,and the rest o the jews joined him in hypocricy [2;13].unlike the belief of the catholic church i do not believe peter ever visited rome, in one of the letters from rome paul said ;only luke is with me;it was after the breakaway/split of the jewishchristian/gentilechristian groups that the gentilechristians started to blame jews for the crucifixion,

PDN

getz wrote: »

sorry but i believe the church has it wrong,peter was apostle to the jews,paul was the apostle to the gentiles,peter began to make a practice of separating himself from gentile believers,and the rest o the jews joined him in hypocricy [2;13].unlike the belief of the catholic church i do not believe peter ever visited rome, in one of the letters from rome paul said ;only luke is with me;it was after the breakaway/split of the jewishchristian/gentilechristian groups that the gentilechristians started to blame jews for the crucifixion,

I didn't mention Peter visiting Rome, so I'm not sure why you're trying to introduce that while quoting my post.

Benny_Cake

The polemic should be seen in the context of when it was written, and because it essentially relates to a "family feud" between Jews who followed Jesus and Jews who didn't. And there is nothing more bitter than a family feud.

What is truly disturbing is that there are those who will use this to try and stir up hatred towards the Jewish people today. Happily, Jewish-Christian relations have never been better.

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

Because the fact that they had rejected the Messiah was a key point in preaching the Gospel. Many Jews saw themselves as being God's covenant people by virtue of their Jewishness. The Gospel, when declared to Jews, was that they were sinners just like everyone else and so needed to accept Christ for salvation.

What is interesting is how later on in Acts, when Peter or Paul are preaching to Gentile audiences, that there is much less emphasis placed on the role of the Jews in Christ's death.

But it seems to me that Peter went about it the wrong way and in fact by accusing the Jews constantly he in fact may have turned many against Christianity and turned Christians against Jews. Finger pointing really isn't very Christian. Reminds me a bit of Jesus' sermon about planks and splinters.

LeinsterDub

Splendour wrote: »

Free will is a different topic-of course the Jews had a choice with regards to handing Jesus over to be killed. I think the devil thought if Jesus was killed then that would be the end of God so he wasn't going to interfere with that.

So the entire 4,000 year/12.5 bl year plan to save us could of be derailed by the Jews saying "awe he's not a bad auld skin"?

Was the devil not aware the Jesus was the messiah sent here by God to die for our sins? He really took his eye off the ball there

prinz

Splendour wrote: »

But it seems to me that Peter went about it the wrong way and in fact by accusing the Jews constantly he in fact may have turned many against Christianity and turned Christians against Jews. Finger pointing really isn't very Christian. Reminds me a bit of Jesus' sermon about planks and splinters.

He was probably bitter about his own rejection of Jesus after the arrest. I think it's also a shrewd political move, as rather than the early community perhaps being absorbed back into mainstream Judaism, he sets out to create a clear distinction and sense of us versus them that would potentially dissuade early Christians from going back to the fold.

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

Finger pointing really isn't very Christian. Reminds me a bit of Jesus' sermon about planks and splinters.

Is this the same Jesus who told the Pharisees they were a brood of vipers?

totus tuus

PDN wrote: »

Is this the same Jesus who told the Pharisees they were a brood of vipers?

I believe it was John the Baptist who said it! (Luke 3:7)

Fanny Cradock

Something similar can be seen in John's Gospel. Given that the Gospels are accounts about Jews written by Jews then I think something else is going one here. Language such as "The Jews" seems to be referring exclusively to those who stood against the Jesus and early Christianity based upon religious reasons.

If these people were willing to kill for their belief then I think that the fires had already been stoked. In this regard, the Jews that were being persecuted were the early followers of Christ.

PDN

totus tuus wrote: »

I believe it was John the Baptist who said it! (Luke 3:7)

Then I'm glad to have furthered your knowledge by pointing out that Jesus said it too (Matthew 12:34)

Snappy Smurf

Pope BXVI in his book JESUS OF NAZARETH Part 2 said that it was the Temple Aristrocracy Jews who had Jesus killed and it is they who are responsible. TO say 'the Jews killed Jesus' ignores the fact that many of the Jews were followers of Jesus and didn't want to see Him killed. Of course, the Temple authorities were the killers as such, but our sin killed Jesus too.

philologos

Splendour - the Jews of Jesus' day were responsible for Jesus' death, but it must be remembered that the death and resurrection of Jesus were preordained by God for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. It is also important to remember that the first Christians were largely Jewish and many Christians are today.

To claim it is anti-Semetic to tell the truth about what happened seems a little off though?

Splendour

philologos wrote: »

Splendour - the Jews of Jesus' day were responsible for Jesus' death, but it must be remembered that the death and resurrection of Jesus were preordained by God for the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles. It is also important to remember that the first Christians were largely Jewish and many Christians are today.*

To claim it is anti-Semetic to tell the truth about what happened seems a little off though?

Think I must be on a different level of thinking to everyone else here! My thinking is that by Peter blaming Jews (the Jews-whichever) he set them up for years of antisemitism. I'm not necessarily saying that Peter was antisemitic but he really didn't help the Jewish people by his constant reference to them being responsible for Jesus death.

*Don't get the Jewish/Christian thing-as far as I'm concerned yer either Jewish or Christian. I used to be a Catholic but I don't now refer to myself as a Catholic Christian.

JimiTime

Splendour wrote: »

Think I must be on a different level of thinking to everyone else here! My thinking is that by Peter blaming Jews (the Jews-whichever) he set them up for years of antisemitism. I'm not necessarily saying that Peter was antisemitic but he really didn't help the Jewish people by his constant reference to them being responsible for Jesus death.

*Don't get the Jewish/Christian thing-as far as I'm concerned yer either Jewish or Christian. I used to be a Catholic but I don't now refer to myself as a Catholic Christian.

By Peter blaming the Jews? Peter witnessed what the Jews had done to their messiah, and in addressing them, he told it as it was. Are you saying that he should have kept his mouth shut so that the wicked in the future could not twist things to fit their anti-semetism? Using that logic, Moses should have said nothing about men sleeping with men because it indirectly led to The Phelps.

The truth is the truth. That hateful people exist who spin the truth into a lie is no reason to hold back on the truth. Peter told his own people what they had done, and many of his people came to Christ through his ministry. I think you overestimate Peters influence on Jew hatred, and underestimate the Jew hatred that existed organically.

As for a 'Jewish Christian', well thats a perfectly valid description. They are ethnically Jewish people who follow Christ. Whats the issue?

philologos

Splendour - I don't agree. The people who are responsible are those who don't realise that Jesus' death was God's sovereign will and that His death was the best thing that ever happened insofar as it atoned for sin. I.E they don't understand the substitution that happened on the cross (1 Peter 3:18)

Splendour

JimiTime wrote: »

By Peter blaming the Jews? Peter witnessed what the Jews had done to their messiah, and in addressing them, he told it as it was. Are you saying that he should have kept his mouth shut so that the wicked in the future could not twist things to fit their anti-semetism? Using that logic, Moses should have said nothing about men sleeping with men because it indirectly led to The Phelps.

The truth is the truth. That hateful people exist who spin the truth into a lie is no reason to hold back on the truth. Peter told his own people what they had done, and many of his people came to Christ through his ministry. I think you overestimate Peters influence on Jew hatred, and underestimate the Jew hatred that existed organically.

As for a 'Jewish Christian', well thats a perfectly valid description. They are ethnically Jewish people who follow Christ. Whats the issue?

Why didn't Peter point out when addressing the Jews that is ALL OF OUR FAULT that Jesus had to die?

I don't lose sleep over the Jewish/Christian thing-don't understand it is all, especially if practicing Jewish traditions/feasts.

JimiTime

Splendour wrote: »

Why didn't Peter point out when addressing the Jews that is ALL OF OUR FAULT that Jesus had to die?

Its our fault that Jesus HAD to die is different to saying that it was you that actually sent him to his death. You think it would have been better for Peter to say, 'the messiah came, and you sent him to be pierced, but don't fret it had to be done'. At the end of the day, it was still a great sin that the Jews perpetrated against Jesus, and Peter was not going to moddy coddle them. Just as we should not be moddy coddled in terms of our sin. We should not be told, 'Don't worry about your sin, Jesus died for us.' Our sin should be laid out, and our shame provoke us to repentance. Why should The Jews of Jesus' day be different? They stood around shouting for Barabas to be freed, so why should they not realise their shame? Remember, Peter wasn't just telling them off or calling them wicked, he told them all this in the context of offering them salvation. IMO, only someone looking to hate the Jews will find Peters words defending their hatred, and lets face it, if they didn't find it there, they'd find it elsewhere.

I don't lose sleep over the Jewish/Christian thing-don't understand it is all, especially if practicing Jewish traditions/feasts.

Ah, so you are not talking about the term 'Jewish Christians', but rather Jewish Christians who continue to observe Jewish feasts etc? I can understand that point.

LeinsterDub

JimiTime wrote: »

At the end of the day, it was still a great sin that the Jews perpetrated against Jesus

How is it a sin if they had no choice but to do it, was it not preordained by God ? If anything the only one who sinned was God by setting in motion a plan which he knew would result in the murder of his son.

the mer

totus tuus wrote: »

I believe it was John the Baptist who said it! (Luke 3:7)

yes our true lord and messiah