Was every Jew responsible for the crucifixion?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The corporate blessings and responsibilities are something quite different from the individual responsibility.

Ezekiel 18.

I suppose that there is a sense in which we could say "all were responsible" - but to be rigorously honest we'd have to admit that our own sins make each one of us responsible as well.

I already said everyone was responsible. But Israel was in a way the rest of the world was not. Peter said the HOUSE OF ISRAEL crucified Jesus. the bible dealt with Israel as a body. Corporate guilt was involved in the cross by Israel.

Israel, specifically Jerusalem, as a whole was considered the bride. Ezekiel 16. He came to his own and his own received him not. He came for ALL Israel, not just a few. His bread was for all the children of Israel, not just a few. The gospel was meant to be given to all Israel at first before the gentiles. Not just a few Jews. Jesus said the entire generation of Jews in that day would experience wrath heaped up from centuries of murders since Abel's death. Jerusalem would go down, not just the parts where a few lived who were at the cross crying for Him to be crucified.

The only way to get out of that corporate guilt was what Peter said when he told them to repent and save themselves from that generation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jesus was a Jew. Was he "responsible" for His own crucifixion?

Why even think of a question like that? Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Jews, and was their bridegroom, so to speak. He was their King.

Jesus commented on the entire generation who were like a demon-possessed man freed from the devil, only to see the devil come back and make the state of that man seven times worse with others more evil than itself. He actually said THAT GENERATION.

Mat 12:43-45 KJV When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. (44) Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. (45) Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Look whom he referred to in the words preceding this:

Mat 12:39-42 KJV But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: (40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (41) The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. (42) The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

IT WAS ABOUT PEOPLE NOT REPENTING, just as in Acts 2. And are you saying ONLY THE PHARISEES, YOUR "VIPERS", had to repent, and it was not for all Israel to repent?

In a way, I suppose, "yes." But not morally responsible as a member of a "generation of vipers." Was Jesus a "viper?"

Moot beyond moot. The whole point is there was a crime committed. And a people were accused of that crime in Acts 2. When one is amongst a people who are considered corporately one, and the one in question is the one who headed up the entire corporate group in the way Adam did in sorts, and that One is murdered, you cannot ask whether or not the one murdered is included in the guilt for His own murder by the rest of the corporate group.

Was Mary, in the garden on the morning of the Resurrection, a representative of a "generation of vipers?" Did she somehow hope to atone for the "role" she played in the crucifixion with the spices and aloes she bore?

Mary had already shown her departure from that generation by following the Lord which Peter was trying to get the rest of the people to do in Acts 2.

Peter's denial of Jesus merely saved Peter from suffering a crucifixion himself right then and there (at least it put off his own crucifixion for a couple of decades). But even Peter's curses had no bearing on whether Jesus would be crucified or not. The same can be said of the other disciples who all forsook Him and fled. They weren't "responsible" for Christ's death - and they were all Jews.

You are missing the forest for the trees. The untoward generation referred to ALL Jews who had not followed Christ and obeyed His ways.

Is that one problem with a fundamentalist approach to Preteristism? It seems that by forcing the events of 70 A.D. into the scope of "fulfilled eschatology" they end up having to paint First Century Israel in an overly harsh manner.

That entire generation of JEWS were the bride of Christ taken in by the devil and crucified the Lord. No Jew since then or before was responsbile as they were in that day.

But if you want to talk about a harsh manner, dispensationalism takes the cake. They claim the JEWS TODAY, 2000 years later, are the Jews noted in Rev 1:7 who shall look upon HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED. They say the ENTIRE JEWISH people ever since that day were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, since Rev 1:7 has not taken place yet. Do you believe Rev 1:7 took place yet? If not, why are Jews today considered those who pierced Christ?

Rev 1:7 KJV Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Notice Rev 1:7 speaks of those who pierced in contrast with the kindreds of the earth.

But the truth is the Jews of that generation alone sealed their own fate in calling his blood on them and their children. Did their children literally cause the crucifixion? Were the children vipers in your mind?

When Jesus said, "... this generation of vipers," did He really intend that "all Jews who are alive at this moment are 'vipers?'" Or, did He simply mean that there was a "brood" - a living spawn of "vipers" who were His intended target?

This all started when jfrog questioned the issue in Acts 2 as to who had to repent of what sin (in the weakest attempts to wrestle Acts 2:38 away from proper context that I have ever seen) . Peter preached to THAT CROWD standing there, of which jfrog claimed were some who were not directly responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. But even though there were some there who likely were not amongst the group whom you claim to be vipers, Peter told THEM they crucified the Lord, and THEY asked what should they therefore do.

Act 2:22-23 KJV Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) in the midst of you (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) , as ye yourselves (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) also know: (23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) have taken, and by wicked hands (THE ROMANS THEY USED) have crucified and slain:

Act 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye (THOSE MEN OF ISRAEL TO WHOM HE SPAKE) have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Was Peter speaking to a select HANDFUL in the crowd, who stood out from all the others that day, and meant for the vast majority of the crowd to ignore his words and forget repenting? Why did 3,000 of them recognize his words as applicable to themselves, and repent that day?

Why did not the vast majority walk away and leave the small handful of men who may or may not have been there, to hear Peter's words to those WHO CRUCIFIED THE LORD, since the sermon did not refer to them at all?

When AD70 rolled around, did women, children who were not even born at the time of the cross, die or were they marvelously protected from the Roman siege and destruction? Why did the city experience destruction in AD70? Was it not associated with the rejection and death of Jesus 40 years earlier? Why did God send the armies against her to raze her to the ground when there were people alive in that city who were not even born with the cross occurred?

What about the flood of Noah's day? Was every single man and woman and child who lived on the earth at that time, aside from Noah's family, drowned or not?

Ask God why He does what He does. I am not God. But I do know what the bible says. And anyone without bias can read Acts 2 and see Peter talking to Men of Israel and the House of Israel, and say they crucified the Lord. You yourself admitted CORPORATE GUILT. But are you now reneging on that and saying it was not the HOUSE OF ISRAEL but rather the Pharisees and Saducees and scribes and lawyers to whom Peter was talking?

Or is it like John Hagee said, Jesus was not crucified as a rejected Messiah by all Israel, but as an insurrectionist whom only the POLITICAL LEADERS felt threatened by?

Was the Jewish child that Jesus picked up and placed on his knee and of whom He said, "Of such are the Kingdom of God," a viper? Was this child "responsible" for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? If so, then "of such are the Kingdom of God."

That is one good thought taken out of context, if there are any. The child, who showed the state of a heart that is humble and obedient and wide open for direction, was not itself indicated to be one in the Kingdom, so as to indicate that those who crucifiy Jesus are thereby in the Kingdom.

The conclusion is that our emotions get in the way and we cannot perceive wrath of God and His severity sometimes as in cases where every Canaanite was meant to die, women and children included, and every person on earth aside from Noah died, women and children included. But the very scenario you are trying to ridicule and show to be ridiculous by riding on emotive reactions has been exactly the same situation in the bible in many, many cases.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

In my opinion,no because while a vast majority of Jews rejected Christ,some believed on Him.It was the sin of fallen Adam's race that nailed Christ to the tree.

Why do you think Peter told the crowd standing there that they crucified the Lord in Acts 2:23, 36, my good brother? The ones who followed Jesus were never part of that group in God's mind who crucified the Lord, anyway. So I believe your reason for your decision fails.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Have all sinned-- jew and gentile alike?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Maybe the question should read, "Is every Jew...."

I vote yes.

Of course a strong argument can be made that ULTIMATELY it was GOD that allowed the crucifixion and given HIS OMNIPOTENCE....

[DividedThigh]

no jew has the right to speak for all jews, the ones that spoke that day to let it be on their heads, spoke for themselves, dt

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Have all sinned-- jew and gentile alike?

Sure! We all know EVERY PERSON is responsible ore the cross in the sense that our sins required the cross. But to reject Jesus when He came to His own people, and being one of those people who refuse to obey His words, put one in a unique category the rest of the world did not experience. Hence, there was not only hell for anyone who disagrees to follow Jesus as with people today and then, but there was a destruction of Jerusalem for years after the cross to boot their rejection? Why give them hellfire in the afterlife as well as destruction in forty years later?

But the point everyone is missing as they emotionally decry the point I believe Peter made in Acts 2, was that God showed the VERY ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CROSS, the Jews and Romans, the way of grace first! Acts 2 was for Jews who crucified Jesus, and Acts 10 was for Gentiles, namely a ROMAN SOLDIER, who was used by Jerusalem to slay the Lord.

The fact remains, that the same JERUSALEM in which Peter preached Acts 2's message to men of Israel was later razed to the ground, men, women and children included, 4o years later., If Peter did not mean all of them in the city that day, then the wrath should not have come on the entire city 40 years later. Or are we to think the destruction, enslavement and so on of everyone in the city of Jerusalem, women and children included, forty years later had nothing to do with the cross either?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by DividedThigh

no jew has the right to speak for all jews, the ones that spoke that day to let it be on their heads, spoke for themselves, dt

Too bad the Lord made all Jerusalem suffer forty years later.

The fact is that their words about the blood being on them and their children was mirrored by Christ's own words concerning wrath:

Mat 27:25 KJV Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Luk 23:27-30 KJV And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. (28) But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. (29) For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. (30) Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

So the Lord used their same statement and agreed with it.

And the same PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN were also given GRACE:

Act 2:39 KJV For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

ADAM CLARKE:

Mat 27:25
His blood be on us and on our children - If this man be innocent, and we put him to death as a guilty person, may the punishment due to such a crime be visited upon us, and upon our children after us! What a dreadful imprecation! and how literally fulfilled! The notes on chap. 24, will show how they fell victims to their own imprecation, being visited with a series of calamities unexampled in the history of the world. They were visited with the same kind of punishment; for the Romans crucified them in such numbers when Jerusalem was taken, that there was found a deficiency of crosses for the condemned, and of places for the crosses. Their children or descendants have had the same curse entailed upon them, and continue to this day a proof of the innocence of Christ, the truth of his religion, and of the justice of God.

JOHN GILL

Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people,.... They were as unanimous in their imprecations upon themselves, as in desiring the crucifixion of Christ:

and said, his blood be on us, and on our children; not for the cleansing of them from sin, which virtue that blood has, but if there were any stain, blot, or pollution, through the shedding of it, they wished it might be on them and theirs: not for the forgiveness of sins, which that blood was shed for; but on the contrary, if there was any sin and guilt in it, they desired it might be imputed to them: nor for their justification before God, and security from wrath to come, both which are by his blood; but all the reverse of this, that if there were any punishment, and condemnation, and death, due for the shedding of it, they imprecated it all upon themselves, and their posterity: so this phrase is used in Jos_2:19, and in other places, and in the Talmud (s): and it is a notion of the Jews, that the guilt of innocent blood, and the blood of that innocent man's children, lie not only upon the persons immediately concerned, but upon their children to the end of the world: and so the judges used to address the witnesses upon a trial, after this manner (t);

"know ye, that capital causes, are not as pecuniary ones: in pecuniary causes, a man gives his money, and it atones for him; but in capital causes, דמו ודם זרעו תלויין בו, "his blood, and the blood of his seed, hang upon him", to the end of the whole world: for lo! of Cain it is said, "the voice of the blood of thy brother cryeth", &c. his blood, and the blood of his seed.''

And this imprecation of theirs, has been notoriously verified in them; for though this blood was shed for many of them, and Christ prayed for the forgiveness of them, and they had the Gospel, and the doctrine of remission of sins first preached among them, which was made the power of God unto salvation to some of them, even of those who were concerned in the crucifixion of Christ; yet, on the generality of them, his blood was in the sense they wished it; and for the shedding of it, wrath came upon them to the uttermost, in the entire destruction of their nation, city, and temple, and very remarkable it is, that great numbers of them were put to death by crucifixion; and very likely some of those very persons, that were so clamorous for the crucifying of Christ; and if not, at least their children; five hundred of the Jews and more, were sometimes crucified in a day, whilst Titus was besieging the city; till at length there wanted "room for crosses", και σταυροι τοις σωμασι "and crosses for bodies", as Josephus (u) says, who was an eyewitness of it: and to this day, this dreadful wish of the blood of Christ upon them, is to be seen in their miserable, abject, and captive state; and will be, until such time that they look to him whom they have pierced, and mourn.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already said everyone was responsible. But Israel was in a way the rest of the world was not. Peter said the HOUSE OF ISRAEL crucified Jesus. the bible dealt with Israel as a body. Corporate guilt was involved in the cross by Israel.

Israel, specifically Jerusalem, as a whole was considered the bride. Ezekiel 16. He came to his own and his own received him not. He came for ALL Israel, not just a few. His bread was for all the children of Israel, not just a few. The gospel was meant to be given to all Israel at first before the gentiles. Not just a few Jews. Jesus said the entire generation of Jews in that day would experience wrath heaped up from centuries of murders since Abel's death. Jerusalem would go down, not just the parts where a few lived who were at the cross crying for Him to be crucified.

The only way to get out of that corporate guilt was what Peter said when he told them to repent and save themselves from that generation.

Since when have you been arguing for corporate guilt. I have no problem with that. It is individual guilt that I have been arguing against. It is sin guilt that must be repented of and not corporate guilt.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Since when have you been arguing for corporate guilt. I have no problem with that.

I always believed in corporate guilt.

So you are saying that all Jews in that day were responsible corporately for the cross as Peter said?

It is individual guilt that I have been arguing against. It is sin guilt that must be repented of and not corporate guilt.

Wait. Let me get your point straight. You believe Peter spoke of Corporate guilt in Acts 2:23, 36, right?

Do you believe that when Peter referred to them saving themselves from that untoward GENERATION, it was a reference to corporate guilt?

And yet there is no repentance required for corporate guilt?

The truth is Peter offered them escape from corporate guilt by repentance. Their guilt was for sin. Individual or not, the individual escaped the corporate guilt by repentance.