Killing Jesus: Which Jesus? How Much of Jesus?

Rembrandt painted himself into his “The Raising of the Cross”.  Because Jesus’ crucifixion is so often seen as exclusively an act of substitutionary atonement, many people see themselves as responsible for killing Jesus because they are sinners, and Jesus died for them.  I wonder if there is another way to think about our role in killing Jesus, however, that might be less atonement-based and much more practical?

What does my wife’s favorite Disneyland ride, Splash Mountain, and Academy Award-winning movie Fletch Lives have in common?  They both feature a song written and performed in ignorant innocence in the late 1940’s from a Disney film that actually did win an Academy Award for best song – Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah.  But you cannot find Song of the South for sale at any Disney store or resort.  They pulled it out of the market because of it’s racist overtones.

Most likely, when people were creating the film, they had no intention of such a thing.  In their time, in their culture, they just told the story in a creative, entertaining way.  While we can applaud Disney for pulling the film from the market, it’s easy-ish to excuse an innocent foul of a previous generation.  How would we feel about Disney, however, if they were fully aware of the racist language and deliberately and strategically created the film the way they did to actually knowing they were making such racist statements?  We’d likely be less tolerant.

Disney didn’t do that with Song of the South.  But the Gospel writers may have done that with Jesus’ story.  What if their fingerprints impacted much more than their world?  What if it has significantly impacted ours?

The stories of Jesus’ life and teachings certainly were in circulation during and after his life – up until today!  But the written collection we most often use – the Bible – didn’t get compiled until at least 30 years after Jesus’ death.  There is debate regarding when, exactly, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were finally in print.  Probably the earliest date for Mark – the first biblical Gospel to come together – is the early 60’s CE.  Some place the date toward the end of the first century, with Matthew and Luke coming after it, and John some years later.  What we generally don’t appreciate from our vantage point is what was happening in Israel in the 60’s.  In short, the Jewish people had reached their boiling point.  As they had done in the past, they repeated – they rose up and let their voice be heard, eventually taking Jerusalem back into their control.  Rome responded.  They showed up with plenty of troops, surrounded the city, and waited.  The people inside the walls began to starve.  Some were released, only to be publicly slain while the Jews behind the city watched in terror as their loved ones were left to rot outside the walls.  Then, in 70 CE, the Roman Empire retook Jerusalem.  This time, however, they made sure the Jewish people wouldn’t recapture it – they completely destroyed the city and the people in it.  There was no Jerusalem to retake.

By the time the Gospels were written, the early church was increasingly non-Jewish.  By the end of the first century, there were hardly any Jewish Christians among their number.  Paul’s influence in beginning new faith communities was powerful among the Gentiles, while most Jewish followers were sticking with Judaism.  James, the brother of Jesus, resided in Jerusalem until he himself was killed.  He was highly respected by the Jewish authorities, as he was committed to honoring Jewish practices.  He was likely the most powerful figure in the early church until he died.  But once he was killed, and as Roman intolerance of Judaism grew, the church very naturally distanced itself from the mother ship.  Jewish authorities had thrown the Christians under the bus in myriad ways since Jesus walked the earth.  As tensions grew between Rome and Jewish people, the Christians – with little allegiance to Jerusalem – returned the favor.  As the story of Jesus’ life was put together in what we call the Gospels, a clear bias against Jews emerged.  The Christians did not want to be associated with Judaism because they were offended by the persecution they received, and because Rome identified them as an enemy to eliminate.  Want to stay alive?  Distance yourself from the enemy!

The Bible has a mystique about it.  Many Christians have become comfortable with the idea that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.  The idea is this: God may not have put pen to paper, literally, but the Spirit’s work was so strong that when the sacred text is read, it should be received as God’s direct word.  In short, then, even though we may say that human beings were the ones holding the pen on the parchment, practically speaking, God wrote the Bible.  This, however, is not how Jesus would have thought about the Hebrew scriptures.  Our insistence on a soft dictation from God is a new idea that would not be affirmed by the very founders of our faith.  The authors of the 66 books making up our Bible were more interested in theology than history.  It’s not that they cared nothing for historical accuracy – it’s just that they believed that theological clarity was primary.  They were comfortable shaping the story’s details to suit their theological goals – which was normal for that time in history, and in some instances still is today.  This is extremely difficult for modern readers to understand, appreciate, and embrace.  Yet, shockingly, this is not new information.  Even scholars from conservative traditions know that the Bible reflects the bias of the author – their worldview – and shapes the details of the story they tell accordingly.  This does not mean that the Bible is now to be rendered unreliable since the historical accuracy needs to be questioned.  Actually, the Bible gains strength, credibility, and authority when we allow it to speak from it’s own time instead of treating it with kid gloves because we might offend God. 

Note: what follows may flip you out, especially if you grew up in a church that essentially teaches the dictation idea (expressed in various ways).  As you experience cognitive dissonance, I ask you: is it because of your bias to read the Bible as God’s Word or because those who study these things way more than we do(who love and follow God via the teachings of Jesus) are wrong?

The stories about Jesus’ last day when he went through the process that led him to crucifixion is an excellent case study on this theology-trumps-history phenomenon.  Remember that Pilate – who was in charge of the region we know as Israel – was infamous for not caring about the indigenous people of the land he governed.  He crucified those he deemed guilty of insurrection without much thought at all, let alone a trial.  From a purely historical perspective, it would be extremely unlikely that Pilate gave a hoot about Jesus, or that he gave any time or consideration to Jesus at all.  It is also questionable whether or not the Jewish leadership would have been so lax in their own process – which they treated with great respect – let alone some of the words that came out of their mouths during the trial.  Read the texts for yourselves, of course, but ask yourself if some of the details are reasonable.  What is incredibly likely is that an anti-Judaism bias is appearing in the text, on purpose, because the early Christians were distancing themselves from their Jewish roots because of a lack of association with Judaism among non-Jewish Christians, Roman opposition to Jews, and no practical reason to remain connected to Judaism.

So what?  If the early authors wanted to distance themselves from the Jewish mother ship, why did it matter, and why does it matter now?  Or, if what we read is historical fact, why does it matter now?

What may have begun as common sense for a new faith movement turned into something much worse over time as people read and reread the Gospels.  Especially if they were not wondering about the historical context that shaped the authors’ perspective.  What began as anti-Judaism easily and quickly turned to anti-Semitism (a relatively new term that singles out the race from the religion).  Centuries later, Jewish people would be beaten during services that remembered Jesus’ torture and death.  In 1096, as part of what became the First Crusade, Jewish people by the thousands were killed in the Rhineland Massacre.  When the Black Plague hit the world, one popular theory held that Jewish people poisoned the wells.  In the colony called New Amsterdam, Governor Peter Stuyvesant wrote to the Amsterdam Chamber of the Dutch West India Company in 1654 that he hoped that "the deceitful race, — such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ, — be not allowed to further infect and trouble this new colony.“  He referred to Jews as a "repugnant race" and "usurers", and was concerned that "Jewish settlers should not be granted the same liberties enjoyed by Jews in Holland, lest members of other persecuted minority groups, such as Roman Catholics, be attracted to the colony.“  He was Christian, from the Dutch Reformed tradition.  And, of course, you’ve probably heard about the holocaust.  Today, roughly 15% of “more educated” people in the United States hold Anti-Semitic views, while approximately 30% hold such views among those less educated.  Ignorance kills, and would have killed Jesus…

Sometimes what seems like a minor academic issue can lead even to genocide.

Could there be aspects of our faith that actually lead you to destructive biases?  Could we be holding onto some stuff – out of ignorance – that is not at all what Jesus would affirm?  The only way you can know is to pursue understanding with the help of others – academics as well as peers.

Wondering about the story of Jesus and all that was happening beneath the surface is more than intellectual fun.  This venture really is about coming to grips with what we believe at our core and why.  Only through asking and answering the questions posed here (and many more) can we get to a place where we can shape our faith more or less free from the biases of our past.  A faith that is truly reasonable, holds up to common sense and academic scrutiny, and yet still has plenty of room for the mystery of God.  It is a faith that affirms what James believed about his brother Jesus, as well as the out-of-the-box insights from Paul, who didn’t know Jesus – only the resurrected Christ.  It is a faith that follows the ethic of Jesus that seeks to save the whole world, respecting the theological heritage which informed him (Judaism!), yet having plenty of room for the mystery of the Spirit of God to work wonders in our midst.  This matters to the world we are trying to restore.  It matters to your very individual life.

James Brown put “funk” on the musical map.  Recently, my kids’ high school jazz band were competing in a Jazz Festival in Reno, NV.  One of the songs they played was in the “funk” genre.  When one of the professional musicians debriefed their performance with them, he asked them who they were listening to.  He pushed them to listen to artists who helped shape the genre of the music they play.  In their case, they needed to listen to James Brown in order to play funk well.  He went on to say that if we don’t understand the root, we’ll come off as fake, imposters, posers playing the notes but lacking soul.


When we simply try to put on Jesus without really giving our faith serious thought, we come off like posers.  People listening and watching hear the notes, but something is missing.  If we want to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus, we have to know Jesus, which requires time like any other relationship.  And if we should dare follow him as redemptive agents in the world, we must get out “funk” on, less we be written off as uninformed posers.  Amen.