We suppose that all of our readers are well acquainted with the fact that anti-Semitism is not condoned in Scripture, and that Christians, of all people, should remember that the Jewish people are beloved of God "for the fathers' sakes." Any anti-Jewish feeling in a Christian is wrong, basically wrong. But our attention has been called to some remarks of Dr. John C. Bennett, dean of faculty at the Union Theological Seminary, to the effect that Christian teaching prepares people for a negative attitude toward Jews. When he was asked to comment further on this, he spoke of the " 'misuse of the Crucifixion story' when it is implied 'that all Jews-even contemporary Jews -share responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ.' "-B'nai B'rith Messenger, Los Angeles, April 15, 1960.
That such a deduction might be made by some people who read or hear of the account of the crucifixion of Christ, is possible, but not justifiable. Facts of history should not create bias and prejudice. Teaching the elementary truth of the death of the Lord Jesus is not, as the B'nai B'rith headlines its article, per se, "teaching 'Hate' in Sunday Schools."
The Bible certainly is not "anti-Semitic" or, more properly, "anti-Jewish" in any way. The Word of God gives a faithful account of man's sin, be he Jew or Gentile. It also tells of God's special favor to the Jews -from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob on down through their history. They were God's chosen earthly people, and in them God tested a choice sample of the human race to see if the race were reclaimable by His special culture; but, alas, they failed at every turn, and all the world is guilty before God (Rom. 3:19). He gave Israel promises, great leaders, His holy law, also statutes and judgments to regulate their lives, the priesthood, prophets, and kings; they, however, turned to idolatry; and later, when God sent His Son to them, they rejected Him. Now the Bible that records their failure, also promises future great blessings for them. The Old Testament abounds in descriptions of their future glory, and this is borne out in the New Testament; they are in perfect accord. But all the future blessing awaits their looking "on Him whom they pierced," and repenting of this deed.
But can the Gentile lift up his proud head and point the finger at the Jew for the crucifixion of Christ? Definitely no! Is he not also involved in the casting of God's Son out of this world? Yes, for all classes were arrayed against the Lord Jesus. The Jewish nation was surely guilty-the leaders and the people; the Pharisees with the Herodians and the Sadducees with one consent sought to get rid of Him. But what of the Gentiles? They have guilt in the same matter. In them we see the common people as expressed by the soldiers. They not only fulfilled the orders of their superiors in crucifying Jesus, but they expressed the enmity of their hearts toward Him and, consequently, toward the Father who had sent Him. It was no part of their duty as soldiers to strip Him of His robes and array Him in robes of mock royalty, to place the crown of thorns upon His head, to put a reed into His hand in imitation of a royal scepter, and to bow the knee in mockery. They also expressed their utter contempt for the lowly Jesus by spitting in His face. (Matt. 27:27-36.) The heads of the Roman government in that area displayed their hearts too: witness Herod the king- he was glad to see Jesus when He was sent to him by Pilate. He wanted to have his curiosity satisfied regarding Him, but failing in this, "Herod with his men of war set Him at naught, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate." (Luke 23:7-12.) Then take Pilate the governor: several times he rendered a verdict of acquittal because of His innocence, but under pressure he reversed his decision and ordered a confessedly innocent man cruelly scourged and then crucified, and that without even the semblance of new evidence against Him. Pilate might disclaim responsibility on the one hand, but confess it on the other; for he said, "I have power to crucify Thee, and have power to release Thee." John 19:10. The enmity of man's heart toward God stands revealed-Jew or Gentile, ruled or ruler, orthodox or infidel, pagan or Jew. All, all had their sad part in the rejection of the "Lord of glory."
There were degrees of guilt, it is true. As the Lord Himself said unto Pilate, "Therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin." The Jews had the light of the Old Testament, which light availed them not. But the Jewish people of that day went even further in their desire to get rid of Him who had come to shepherd them, for when Pilate wavered as he thought of condemning Him whom he publicly acknowledged to be innocent, they were urgent in their demands, and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Matt. 27:25. Does not that augment their guilt? But while the Jews of today generally still reject Him, they are adverse to being charged with the special guilt which they at the time of His death readily accepted.
The B'nai B'rith article seems to take special exception to the thought that "contemporary Jews" share responsibility for Christ's death. What they fail to realize is that contemporary Gentiles share the same grave charge. It is axiomatic that those who are born and grow up among a band of thieves and remain a part of it are guilty of the acts of the band unless they separate themselves from it. When God looks down on this world, He sees the whole race as guilty of casting His Son out of it. It is not possible for mankind today to absolve themselves from this guilt by Pilate's ineffective mode of washing his hands and saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person." The whole human race stands guilty of the death of the Lord Jesus. It is utterly impossible to effect neutrality in this matter. It is only by an individual's confessing his sins before God in true repentance, and accepting that blessed One as his own personal Savior, that he can extricate himself from the judgment to come on Christ rejecters. One must change sides and come out for the One whom the world crucified. It is useless to plead that "I was not born then, hence am not guilty," for the whole world is ranged into two camps- those FOR and those AGAINST Christ. Reader, on which side are you?
In the Old Testament, God provided for the Israelites that there should be cities of refuge for those who became guilty of manslaughter, but were not guilty of premeditated murder. He also gave them statutes which showed He could under certain circumstances pardon sins of ignorance, but not presumptuous, or willful, sins. In line with this, when the Lord Jesus was on that cruel cross, He "made intercession for the transgressors," saying, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." In substance, He was making their sin of rejecting Him, who came to them in full compliance with their own Scriptures, a sin of ignorance, so that there might be forgiveness for them if they took God's provision for it-the city of refuge.
The Apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecost, after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, preached to the assembled throng of Jews in Jerusalem and charged their guilt home to their consciences. Many of his hearers were stricken with the sense of what they had done and cried out in a measure of consternation, "What shall we do?" They were then told what they should do; that is, "repent and be baptized." They were to come out from among the people and confess their own sins and take His side. They were also told, "Save yourselves from this untoward [or, perverse] generation." They could separate themselves from them and the fate awaiting the nation; they could in that manner save themselves.
Thus, fifty days after the Lord's resurrection, the offer of pardon was made to them who according to the Lord's petition were guilty of manslaughter. In substance, Peter that day flung the gates of the "city of refuge" wide open to the very ones who had clamored for His death and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."
And what is the city of refuge? The same chapter (Acts 2) tells us; namely, the Church of this age. Note the last verse of the chapter: "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," at that time believing Jews. They were added by faith in His Person, and confession and repentance—the latter made evident by their baptism. These were the ones who were to be saved from the fate awaiting the nation. The Apostle Paul makes use of the same truth when he classes himself with the other believing Jews as those “who have fled for refuge" (Heb. 6:18).
And how long does a Jew have to by faith remain in the Church to be safe? The Word of God answers this: "Unto the death of the high priest" (Numb. 35:25). This is indeed an odd provision, but one full of meaning if its typical significance is noted. The manslayer might have to remain in the "city of refuge" a year, ten years, or many more years, all depending on the continuance in office of that particular high priest. Now the meaning of this is plain; the Lord Jesus has gone on high as the "high priest over the house of God," and is to continue there from the time of His ascension until He calls the Church home. Thus in type, it was indicated that the Jews' only safety would be in accepting Him during this entire period of time. If a Jew professed Christianity and then gave it up and apostatized, he would be back where he was before, but in a worse plight, for he is then beyond hope. See Heb. 6:4-8 and 10:26, but remember that it is only profession and not reality that could apostatize; reality is proved by continuance.
But for the Gentiles to cry, "Christ killers," at the Jews is like one criminal who is awaiting execution taunting another who is in like case with the very charge of which he himself is guilty. May both Jew and Gentile awaken to the seriousness of their condition and repent and believe the gospel "while it is called today"; for the Scripture says, "Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts." Heb. 3:15.