8 Ways to Avoid Ministry Burnout
Why Fellowship is Crucial to Your Faith
God Will Fight for You!
17 Ways to Empower Yourself
20 Ways to Bless Others
10 Negative Labels You Need to Remove
Going Coo-Coo for Coconut Oil
5 Ways to Stay Healthy This Summer
6 Steps to Healing Yourself
Christian Artists Who Offer Hope
7 Inspiring Lessons You Can Learn from Tom Hanks
10 Ways to Bring Summer Inside
10 Steps to Discipline
The 7 Habits of Stress-Free People
7 Secrets to Finding Fulfilling Work
10 Steps to Calmer Parenting
10 Questions to Ask Before Getting into a New Relationship
Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
Roman, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
Copyright © 2010 by Mark D. Roberts and Beliefnet
Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use, for use in a Christian ministry, or for use in an educational venture, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit to this website: http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.
Introduction
As we approach the season of Lent, and then Holy Week and Easter, I propose to consider the question: “Why did Jesus have to die?” At the outset, I must say that this isn’t an easy question to answer for several reasons. Let me mention three.
First, when it comes to the death of Jesus, we’re dealing with an historical event concerning which we have limited historical sources. We don’t have some of the sources that would make our task much easier, the diary of Pontius Pilate, for example, or notes from the proceedings of the Jewish council that examined Jesus prior to his crucifixion. Therefore, when I try to explain why Pilate or certain Jewish leaders believed that Jesus had to die, I’ll have to extrapolate from the evidence that is available to us. I do believe, however, that this evidence, both in the New Testament Gospels and in other ancient sources, is strong enough to allow us to formulate likely hypotheses concerning Roman and Jewish motivations for the crucifixion of Jesus.
Second, the question of why Jesus was put to death is a matter of considerable scholarly disagreement. For centuries it was common to put all the blame on “the Jews.” But the horror of the Holocaust combined with new historical insights has led scholars in almost completely the opposite direction. Many claim that “the Jews,” even Jewish leaders, had little or nothing to do with the death of Jesus. In my opinion, as you’ll see, the pendulum that had once swung way too far in the direction of “the Jews” has now swung too far back in the opposite “Romans only” direction. I’ll have more to say about this later.
I should add at this point that I am aware of the shameful history of anti-Semitism and the danger of anti-Semitism that is very much alive today. This does make it tricky to deal with the historical evidence in a straightforward way, because if one concludes that some Jews were somewhat responsible for the death of Jesus, this might fuel anti-Semitic attitudes and actions. So, I will say at the outset that nothing in the historical record justifies hatred of or mistreat of Jews, or any other people, for that matter.
Third, there is not one, simple, obvious answer to the question of why Jesus had to die. From a historical point of view, we have to deal with at least two perspectives, Roman and Jewish. In fact, I’ll show that there was more than one Jewish point of view on Jesus’ death. So it is really too simple to speak of “the Jewish perspective” on the necessity of Jesus’ death.
Furthermore, historical explanation doesn’t exhaust the realm of discourse when it comes to the reason for Jesus’ death. We also need to deal with the whole area of theology. We’ll want to know why, in light of his understanding of God, Jesus himself believed that he needed to die. Moreover, we must also examine early Christian thinking concerning why Jesus’ death was necessary for the salvation of the world. In the end, therefore, the answer to the simple question “Why did Jesus have to die?” will be anything but simple. It will have multiple layers and nuances.
Nevertheless, this is a task well worth the effort, both in the writing and in the reading. No matter what you think about Jesus, you will help yourself and your world if you’re able to discuss his death intelligently. This is especially true given the tendency of this conversation to become terribly anti-Semitic. In a world where hatred of Jews is on the increase, all thoughtful, compassionate human beings need to be informed about just who was responsible for the death of Jesus and why.
Finally, if, like me, you believe that the crucifixion of Jesus stands at the very center of history, then knowing why Jesus had to die is just about the most important bit of knowledge you can have.
In my next post I’ll lay out some basic parameters for the rest of this series: how I’m going to structure the series and some of the foundational facts upon which I’ll build the structure.
Where Do We Start When Considering the Death of Jesus? Some Basic Facts
Where should we start in our effort to discover why Jesus had to die? I propose to begin with some basic historical facts, facts that are affirmed by almost every historian and biblical scholar, even those who approach this question from a highly critical and skeptical starting point. So what are these facts:
Jesus was crucified. There were many ways in the first-century for a criminal to be put to death, including stoning, beheading, being torn apart by beasts, etc. Yet all the earliest sources attest to the crucifixion of Jesus. These sources include, in addition to the New Testament writings, the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.3, A.D. 95) and the Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15.44, A.D. 109)(Photo: Painting by El Greco, “The Crucifixion,” 1596-1600)Jesus was crucified during the governorship and under the authority of Pontius Pilate. Once again, this basic fact is confirmed in Josephus and Tacitus in addition to the New Testament.
Pilate placed a sign on Jesus’ cross that read “The King of the Jews.” This fact is found in all four New Testament Gospels and in some later non-canonical gospels as well. This “title” helps to explain the nature of the charges against Jesus.
Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem on or near the Jewish feast of Passover. Again, all New Testament Gospels agree on these basic facts, and there is every reason to believe that they are accurate (though the precise timing of Jesus’ death in relationship to Passover is hard to pin down).
These basic facts, though apparently obvious and unspectacular, will actually prove to be very helpful as we try to figure out the reasons for Jesus’ death.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the question “Why did Jesus have to die?” doesn’t have a simple answer. I propose to address this question from four different perspectives:
• Roman: Why did Pontius Pilate think Jesus had to die?• Jewish: Why did some Jewish leaders think Jesus had to die?
• Jesus: Why did Jesus himself think that he had to die?
• Early Christian: Why did early Christians think Jesus had to die?
In my next post I’ll begin with the Roman perspective.
Click here for an updated and complete version of this series.
The fact that Jesus was crucified rather than stoned, hanged, or killed in some other way means that the Romans were ultimately responsible for his death. Of course this is clear in the biblical gospels. But even if we lacked such primary sources, the simple fact that a man was crucified in Jerusalem around A.D. 30 implies that, for some reason or other, he was condemned by Roman authorities. Jews in the first-century A.D. didn’t crucify people. This horrible means of execution was the prerogative of the Romans, who used it with chilling effect.
The Roman Practice of Crucifixion
If we want to know why a Roman authority, in this case, the prefect Pontius Pilate, would choose to crucify someone, we might look first at the Roman practice of crucifixion in general. Although Rome didn’t invent this means of execution, the nation perfected it as one of the most horrible means of putting criminals to death. In fact, not all Roman convicts sentenced to death were crucified. Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low, and most of all for those who openly opposed Roman power. Commit a serious crime and Rome might cut off your head; rebel against Roman rule or upset Roman peace and you might be headed to a cross. I say “might be” because Roman citizens were protected from crucifixion, unless they happened to be treasonous soldiers. (Photo: The Via Appia in Rome. When the slave Spartacus led a rebellion against Rome in 73-71 B.C., the Romans finally prevailed. They crucified 6,000 men, stringing them along the Via Appia for 120 miles, from Rome to Capua.)
Why was crucifixion so horrible? For one thing, the victim experienced some of the most extreme pain that a person can experience and the duration of suffering often lasted several days. But, even beyond personal suffering, the crucified person experienced extreme shame in a world that valued honor supremely. Contrary to most portrayals of Jesus’ death, those sentenced to crucifixion were naked when attached to the cross, in full view of the masses.
The Romans made every effort to crucify people in public places, such as along major thoroughfares. The point was to augment the dishonor and suffering of the one being killed, not to mention his family and colleagues. (It seems, by the way, that the Romans did not crucify women.) As the Roman rhetorician Quintilian explained, “Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect” (Quintilian, Declamations 274). Thus the point of crucifixion was not only punishment, but also deterrence.
Not surprisingly, the Romans crucified Jews when they rebelled against imperial rule. I’ll examine a couple of telling instances in my next post.
In my last post I began to examine the Roman practice of crucifixion, arguing that if we want to understand why a Roman governor had Jesus crucified, we should first understand why Rome used crucifixion in general. What we discovered was that crucifixion, in addition to being an extremely horrific punishment of criminals, was thought to be an effective deterrent against sedition. “Watch someone get crucified for challenging our authority,” the Romans believed, “and you’ll be unlikely to challenge our authority yourself.” If you’ve seen The Passion of the Christ, you can certainly understand Roman logic here. Crucifixion was cruel beyond cruel.
Roman Crucifixion Among the Jews
Even the threat of crucifixion didn’t completely squelch attempts to overthrow Roman rule, however, least of all among the Jews. Shortly after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., thousands of Jews sought to toss the Romans out of Judea. Of course the Romans didn’t take kindly to this, sending an army to squash the rebellion. When the rebels fled into the country, the Roman general Varus pursued them. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus describes what happened next:
Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. (Antiquities 17.10.10)
Two thousand rebels crucified at one time! Now that would surely give restless Jews second thoughts before challenging Roman tyranny again. (Photo: The Arch of Titus in Rome, which celebrates the Roman victory over the Jews in A.D. 70.)
Seven decades later, thousands upon thousands of Jews revolted against Roman rule. For a short time they appeared to have prevailed. But, once again, Rome sent a superior military force to Judea. Soon the Jews were trapped in Jerusalem, surrounded by the Roman army besieging the city. Recognizing their hopeless condition, some Jews actually tried to escape, but to no avail. According to Josephus, when they were caught, “they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city” (Jewish War, 5.11.1). This happened to at least 500 people daily, according to Josephus. So disgusting was the mass torture of Jewish prisoners that even the Roman General Titus felt pity on them. But he let the brutality continue. Why? Josephus explains: “The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment” (Jewish War, 5.11.1).
To conclude what we have learned about Romans and crucifixion, Rome reserved crucifixion for the worst of criminals, especially for those who stirred up rebellion against the state. Because the point of crucifixion, beyond punishment, was deterrence, crosses were placed in public places so people would learn to fear the wrath of Rome. When Jews challenged Roman authority, they, like others rebels against Rome, were crucified if caught.
But is this relevant of the case of Jesus? Did Jesus challenge Roman authority such that Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea in the time of Jesus, believed he must be crucified? Does what we have learned about Roman crucifixion help to explain Jesus’ own death? To these questions I’ll turn in my next post.
Introduction to Pontius Pilate
If we’re going to understand the Roman perspective on the death of Jesus, we need to know something of the Roman man who was legally responsible for his crucifixion: Pontius Pilate. Traditionally, Pilate has been seen by Christians in relatively positive terms, as one who really didn’t want to crucify Jesus but who did so because he was compelled to by the Jewish leaders and crowds. This image of Pilate, that seems to emerge from the New Testament gospels, doesn’t fit with what we know about Pontius Pilate from historical sources, including the gospels themselves. Let me survey this evidence briefly.
Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea from 26-37 A.D. An inscription discovered in the ruins of a Roman theater in Caesarea reveals that Pilate’s official Roman title was “prefect” (Latin, praefectus). In this role he was ultimately responsible for all matters in Judea, including judicial and financial affairs. Pilate governed from the provincial capital of Judea, Caesarea (Maratima), a city on the Mediterranean coast, about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. He would make the trip to Jerusalem only when necessary. Pilate was accountable to the governor of Syria, through whom he was ultimately subservient to the Roman Emperor. (Photo: This inscription identifies Pontius Pilate as the [Praef]ectus Iuda[eae]).
Pilate does not figure prominently in first-century Roman histories, a fact that suggests that he was a relatively insignificant leader. Moreover, the assignment to govern Judea was no plum, and some of those who served in Pilate’s position were known to complain about it. Not only was it potentially a dead-end job, but also it was fraught with complications.
The complications had largely to do with what the Romans would see as the peculiarities and propensities of the Jews. The peculiarities were, by and large, Jewish religious sensibilities that put them at odds with Roman norms. Jews, for example, did not follow the Roman model in welcoming all sorts of gods into their pantheon. On the contrary, Jews would die for their belief in one and only one God. Jewish propensities had to do with general unrest and fairly regular attempts by some Jews to rebel against Roman rule. When one became prefect of Judea, one could expect trouble.
Pilate’s inability (or unwillingness) to respect Jewish sensibilities is seen in an event recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18.3.1). Unlike previous governors, when Pilate took charge, he brought images of Caesar into Jerusalem in order to display them. This enraged the Jewish population, who took this as a violation of their law and as an insult. Multitudes of people traveled to Caesarea in order to ask Pilate to remove the images. At first he refused and, when the petitioners persisted, he was prepared to kill them. But when they showed themselves willing to die rather than have their laws violated, Pilate finally relented. In another instance when he offended Jewish sensibilities, Pilate did not show mercy, and those who protested were slaughtered by soldiers under Pilate’s command (Antiquities, 18.3.2).
The New Testament actually confirms this picture of a cruel Pilate. In Luke 13:1 we read, “At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” We don’t know anything else about this incident. But it appears that, for some reason, Pilate killed some Galileans who had come to the Jerusalem temple in order to offer sacrifices to God. Yet, not only did Pilate have them killed, he also had their own blood mingled with the blood of the animals they had sacrificed. Talk about adding insult to injury!
The first-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria once wrote a letter to Caesar, in which, among other things, he complained about the harshness of Pontius Pilate. Philo blames Pilate explicitly for: “briberies, insults, robberies, outrages, wanton injustices, constantly repeated executions without trial, and ceaseless and grievous cruelty.” (Legatio ad Gaium, 301-302). Even granting Philo’s bias against Pilate, this text doesn’t reflect well upon Pilate’s governorship. In the end, he was removed from office by the Syrian governor, Vitellius, though we don’t know exactly why.
But what about the image of Pilate as the reflective leader who is reticent to kill Jesus, and who even converses with Jesus about the nature of truth? I’ll address this picture in greater detail later. But for now, I’d simply observe that the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial can be read as confirming the negative image of Pilate.
Pilate’s ultimate responsibility was to oversee Judean affairs, to squash outright rebellion, to keep the tax money flowing to Rome, and, in general, to preserve the fragile peace of the region. And it is this, which, above all, seemed to be at risk when Jesus came to Jerusalem around the feast of Passover. In my next post in this series I’ll examine the peculiar dynamics of Jerusalem in the time of the festival.
The Roman Perspective, Part 4
As I explained in my last post, Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea during the time of Jesus, governed his territory from Caesarea, a city on the Mediterranean sea about 75 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Immediate authority over Jerusalem itself he had delegated to Caiaphas, whom Pilate had appointed high priest of the Jewish temple.
Pilate and the Danger of Passover
But, each year during his tenure in Judea, Pilate journeyed to Jerusalem in the spring. He wanted to be in this city during the Jewish celebration of Passover. It’s not that he had any fondness for the Jews and their rituals. Rather, Pilate needed to be in Jerusalem at this time to preserve order. He didn’t trust Caiaphas with such an important task at such a volatile time.
The Passover was, after all, a festival in which Jews remembered how God had delivered them from foreign domination. During the celebration of the Passover meal they not only thanked God for his deliverance in the past, but also prayed for him to do so again. Thus the Passover itself could easily inspire anti-Roman feelings, if not outright rebellion.
Moreover, the population of Jerusalem swelled greatly during the festival. Though it’s difficult to determine precisely the population of Jerusalem during the time of Roman rule, 35,000 wouldn’t be too far off base. During the Passover, however, this number swelled by a figure of ten or more. Josephus reports that 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people gathered in the city for the festival (Jewish War, 2.14.3, 6.9.3). While most scholars believe that Josephus exaggerated, his estimates testify to the large number of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for Passover. A more conservative estimate would be in the 300,000-400,000 range. Pilate knew that crowds of Jews jammed together in a small area was a formula for disaster. (Photo: A picture of a crowd in Jerusalem, gathered by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1989.)
Given the themes of Passover and the massive temporary population of Jerusalem, it’s easy to see why Pilate felt it necessary to come to the city and why he would have done so with trepidation. Pilate was well aware of the fact that Jerusalem was a powder keg ready to blow during Passover. In fact, Josephus, talking about an earlier ruler who had tyrannized the Jews, mentions that “the nation of the Jews made an insurrection against him at a festival; for at those feasts seditions are generally begun” (Jewish War, 1.4.3, emphasis added).
Pilate didn’t come to Jerusalem unprepared. To help keep the peace, he brought with him a few thousand Roman soldiers from Syria. But, even then, the odds would not be in his favor if the Jews decided to stir up rebellion, since the soldiers were outnumbered by a factor of at least one hundred to one.
Given the tenuous peace of Jerusalem, Pilate must have been greatly distressed by early reports about Jesus’ actions in Jerusalem. This popular prophet from Nazareth had been welcomed into the city by a crowd of his followers who hailed him as a conquering king. Then, Jesus created a ruckus in the Jewish temple, even prohibiting sacrifices from being offered for several hours. So, while Pilate might have smirked to think of the distress this had given Caiaphas, nevertheless he’d be worried. What was Jesus’ agenda? What had he come to Jerusalem to do? Was he seditious? Was he fomenting rebellion against Rome? Pilate’s initial strategy was to watch and wait. Maybe, just maybe, he’d be lucky, and the Passover would conclude without incident. Then Jesus would go back to Galilee where he came from, and Pilate would return to Caesarea, where he could govern Judea a safe distance away from the time bomb of Jerusalem.
Pilate’s hopes for an uneventful Passover were dashed when, early on Friday morning, the problem posed by Jesus of Nazareth exploded in his face. In my next post, I’ll examine more closely Pilate’s interaction with Jesus and his accusers.
In my last two posts in this series on the death of Jesus, I offered a picture of Pontius Pilate and described the unique dangers he faced in Jerusalem during the Jewish celebration of Passover. In light of this background, today I’ll examine the biblical account of Pilate’s interaction with Jewish leaders.
Pilate’s Encounter with Jesus and the Jewish Leaders
Early on Friday morning, after Jesus of Nazareth had entered Jerusalem, Pontius Pilate was awakened by a group of Jewish leaders who had brought Jesus to him with the intention of having Jesus crucified. They accused Jesus of “perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). When Pilate questioned Jesus, the accused was strangely quiet. Finally the governor cut to the chase. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked. “You say so,” was all Jesus said in reply (Luke 23:3). When Pilate mentioned to the Jewish leaders that their charges against Jesus weren’t persuasive, they added, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). It’s likely that this was not news to Pilate, who had probably been following the unusual exploits of Jesus for some time. Roman governors kept an eye out for Jewish prophets who announced the coming of God’s kingdom. (Photo: Mihály Munkácsy, Christ in front of Pilate, 1881.)
Once the Jewish leaders had brought Jesus to Pilate, the question of his fate lay in the governor’s hands. Certainly he could follow the recommendation of the leaders, including the high priest, Caiaphas, whom he had appointed. But killing Jesus had a considerable downside. Pilate was surely aware of Jesus’ popularity among the people. He might even have known before Friday that the Jewish leaders were trying to do away with Jesus, but were reticent to do so because he was so popular with the people. Killing Jesus might well have incited the people to riot (Mark 14:2), something neither the Jewish officials nor Pilate would have wanted. If Pilate were perceived by the people as the one responsible for the death of their popular prophet, then he might end up causing a ruckus or even a revolt that could very well lead to his own downfall.
Yet Pilate would surely have preferred to get Jesus out of the way somehow. Though he was not seditious in the ordinary sense – Jesus carried no weapons, organized no army, and had not assaulted any Roman authorities – nevertheless the Nazarene was clearly a rabble-rouser from Pilate’s point of view. And even if he didn’t explicitly espouse the overthrow of Rome, he certainly flirted with the seditious language of kingship.
Two other factors contributed to Pilate’s reticence to execute Jesus. First, his interaction with Jesus convinced him that the Galilean was no ordinary insurrectionist. It’s hard to reconstruct from the Gospel accounts exactly what Pilate thought of Jesus. If he truly believed him to be innocent and no threat to Rome, then it’s unlikely that he would have had Jesus crucified. But, Pilate must have seen that Jesus was in a completely different league from the others he had crucified. (Of course I’m aware that Christian tradition paints Pilate as a truth-seeker who genuinely believes in Jesus’ innocence. But this image doesn’t fit what we know about Pilate from history, not to mention the indisputable fact that Pilate himself was, in the end, responsible for Jesus’ death. It’s very hard to imagine that Pilate was bullied, either by Jewish leaders or by the mob, into doing something that he really didn’t want to do. I believe that many of the statements in the gospels that seem to reflect the “noble Pilate” were in fact originally spoken by the governor in order to incite the Jews to accept greater responsibility for Jesus’ death, thus exonerating Pilate in the eyes of the people. Or, in other cases, I believe Pilate’s tone was ironic or sarcastic. When he asked Jesus, “What is truth?” Pilate wasn’t beginning a philosophical dialogue, but simply mocking Jesus, who had just spoken of “belonging to the truth” (John 18:37-38).
The second factor that contributed to Pilate’s reticence to execute Jesus was a recommendation from his wife that he should “have nothing to do with” Jesus. Pilate’s wife claimed to have “suffered a great deal because of a dream about him” (Matthew 27:19). Pilate, like most pagans, was in all likelihood quite superstitious, and his wife’s nightmare would have spooked him as well.
From Pilate’s perspective, what would have been the best outcome of this whole mess? Somehow get Jesus to stop causing trouble, but without inciting the people to riot. If silencing Jesus required his death, then so be it, but let it be someone else’s fault other than Pilate’s. If Jesus could be shut down by some other means – like flogging – then this would also be an acceptable option.
In my next post I’ll finish explaining the necessity of Jesus’ death from the Roman perspective of Pontius Pilate.
The Roman Perspective, Part 6
In my last post I began to describe Pontius Pilate’s predicament on the Friday morning after Jesus had entered Jerusalem. The problematic prophet had been brought to Pilate by several Jewish leaders who demanded that he be crucified. But, for reasons I outlined previously, Pilate was reticent. Most of all, he didn’t want to incite the crowds who had gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. Silencing Jesus was a fine idea, but, from Pilate’s perspective, it had to be done in a why that protected him from the wrath of the Jewish people.
Pilate’s Decision to Have Jesus Crucified
Pilate tried passing the buck. He told the Jewish leaders to judge Jesus themselves, but they averred that they couldn’t execute him (John 18:31-32). He said, perhaps sarcastically, that they should go ahead and crucify him themselves (John 19:6-7), even though Pilate knew that crucifixion was legal only under Roman authority. At one point during the “trial” of Jesus, Pilate tried to pass the buck to Herod Antipas, who, as Tetrarch over Galilee, had the legal right to put Jesus to death. But Herod didn’t grab the bait. Instead, he used his meeting with Jesus as an occasion to mock him (Luke 23:6-12). (Photo: Nicolaes Maes, “Christ Before Pilate,” c. 1670.)
When the responsibility for Jesus’ fate fell back upon Pilate’s shoulders, he preferred to take the course of least resistance: have Jesus flogged, which would surely silence him for a while, and which, Pilate hoped, would keep the people from going on a rampage. But many of the Jewish leaders, combined with a mob that gathered outside of Pilate’s headquarters, pressed for Jesus’ crucifixion. Three factors seemed to have persuaded Pilate that executing Jesus was the best course of action. First, his reticence to kill Jesus appeared to put his loyalty to the emperor in doubt (John 19:12). Even the slightest appearance of imperial disloyalty could have terminal implications for Pilate. Second, the Jews who had gathered in his courtyard, although a tiny percentage of the current population of Jerusalem, were fervent enough in their desire for Jesus’ death that Pilate believed he could convincingly lay the blame on them. Third, his reticence to crucify Jesus was itself starting to cause a riot, which was the very thing Pilate was attempting to avoid by not executing Jesus (Matt 27:24). So his primary motivation for keeping Jesus alive – maintenance of order – was no longer valid. Jesus had to die.
In sentencing Jesus to death, Pilate revealed himself to be devious, if not spineless. He sent Jesus to the cross. The responsibility for this decision was his – at least from a legal-historical point of view. Yet when announcing Jesus’ fate, Pilate tried to avoid taking responsibility for his action. Symbolically washing his hands in front of the crowd, he said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matthew 27:24). Of course this wasn’t true. No matter now much others might have urged Pilate to take Jesus’ life, in the end, he and he alone had the authority to make that fateful decision.
The fact that Pilate had Jesus crucified strongly suggests that he saw Jesus as a threat to Roman order. Though not your ordinary brigand or revolutionary, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God (not Caesar) and accepted adulation as a messianic (kingly) figure. Moreover, even if his answers to Pilate were minimal, Jesus didn’t reject the charge that he claimed to be king of the Jews. So, even though Jesus wasn’t your run-of-the-mill Zealot, he was still the sort of person who was dangerous to Rome, and was therefore worthy of death, at least from the Roman point of view.
Pilate’s legal justification for crucifying Jesus appeared on the sign attached to Jesus’ cross: “The King of the Jews.” The wording and placement of this sign tells us much about Pilate’s ultimate motivation for killing Jesus. On the one hand, Jesus was being crucified because he dared to make a claim to kingship. On the other, by identifying the crucified Jesus as “King of the Jews,” Pilate was mocking Jesus, the Jewish people, and their kingdom aspirations – all in one ironic statement. In a manner consistent with what we know about Pilate from other sources, he was saying, “Here you go, you Jews. Here is your king – beaten to a pulp, powerless, a victim of superior Roman power.” Furthermore, by crucifying Jesus, Pilate also held him up as a persuasive deterrent: “Next time you think about having someone other than Caesar as your king, remember the crucifixion of Jesus, the King of the Jews.”
Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Roman Perspective: Conclusion
From a Roman perspective, why did Jesus have to die?
• Because he disturbed Roman order.
• Because he spoke seditiously of a coming kingdom other than that of Caesar.
• Because he allowed himself to be called “King of the Jews.”
• Because he made a nuisance of himself at the wrong time (Passover), in the wrong
place (Jerusalem), in the presence of the wrong people (Pilate and the temple
leadership under his command).
• Because his crucifixion would be a powerful deterrent that might keep other Jews from
following in his footsteps.
In my next post I’ll begin to look at the death of Jesus from one Jewish perspective.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 1
Placing This Conversation in Context
Before I proceed to discuss one Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, I must say a bit about the contemporary context for this conversation. For centuries, many Christians hated Jews. Part of the Christians’ justification for their hatred was their belief that “the Jews killed Christ.” Even though Jesus himself had called his followers to love their enemies, somehow the belief that “the Jews killed Christ” justified a very un-Christ-like hatred of all Jews. This sort of twisted reasoning contributed to the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust, in which over six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.
The ugly history of anti-Semitism makes it difficult to talk objectively about Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. If one suggests that some Jews were in some way responsible for Jesus’ death, this person runs the risk of being labeled anti-Semitic. When I was in graduate school, I was encouraged to ask all sorts of creative and critical questions about early Christian history. But when it came to the death of Jesus, there was an unspoken rule that prohibited even discussing the possibility of some Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. The party line was that the Romans killed Jesus for their own reasons and that the early Christians made up the parts of the passion narrative that implicate Jews. The Christians did so, we were told, partly because they weren’t getting along with Jews during the latter half of the first-century A.D., and partly because they wanted to improve their relationship with the Roman Empire. This theory – filled with more holes than Swiss cheese – was something my colleagues and I were not welcome to examine critically. It was simply off limits. The painful history of anti-Semitism required that the history of early Christianity be told in a certain way, whether it actually happened that way or not. (Photo: Anti-Semitic graffiti in Lithuania in 2005.)
Therefore, before I discuss Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus, I must say three things quite clearly:
1. Anti-Semitism is wrong. From a Christian perspective, it is a sin. No matter who was actually responsible for the death of Jesus, there is no excuse for anti-Semitism. It’s something that Christians and all sensible people should oppose.
2. Even if “the Jews” were completely responsible for Jesus’ death (which I’ve already shown to be false, given the involvement of Pontius Pilate), this would in no way justify anti-Semitism today.
3. Even if a Christian considered “the Jews” to be his or her enemies, that Christian would be compelled by the very words of Jesus to love the Jews, not to hate them.
4. Anti-Semitism is alive and well today (or, alive and sick, perhaps). All moral people, including Christians, should reject and oppose it. Anti-Semitism is morally wrong, unjustifiable, and unchristian.
As you can infer from this introduction, I am going to argue that some Jews were involved in the crucifixion of Jesus, and that they believed that Jesus had to die. But, I think it’s historically incorrect to speak of “The Jewish Perspective” on the necessity of Jesus’ death. If we wish to be accurate, we must talk in terms of “One Jewish Perspective” on the question: “Why did Jesus have to die?” I’ll explain what I mean in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 2
Why “One” Jewish Perspective?
As a young Christian, I had a clear picture of what happened to Jesus in the last week of his life. This picture resulted from my knowledge of the Gospels, and, to a great extent, from images I had seen in Sunday School booklets and filmstrips. My mind had been impressed with scenes of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, of his “trial” before Pilate, and of his being assaulted by Jewish leaders. These images led me to believe that Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was a relatively small town inhabited by a relatively small number of Jews, and that the same Jews who had welcomed Jesus into town as a king on Sunday had turned against him on Friday. From my juvenile viewpoint, “the Jews” of Jerusalem had, as a single group, both hailed Jesus and then condemned him. Since only a few close disciples supported Jesus until the bitter end, it would have seemed appropriate to me to speak of “the” Jewish perspective on why Jesus had to die. (Photo: Jesus on Palm Sunday in a classic film version of his life. For the other side of the story, check out this video from Vintage 21 Church.)
I no longer believe that my youthful picture of Jesus’ last week was historically accurate, though I do believe that the New Testament Gospels provide historically reliable viewpoints on what really happened that week. For one thing, the actual scale of life in Jerusalem was far greater than anything I had imagined. As I explained earlier in this series, it’s likely that the normal population of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was around 35,000. But during the festival of Passover the population swelled to eight or ten times that number, perhaps even more.
This means, among other things, that a tiny percentage of the overall population of Jerusalem actually welcomed Jesus into the city on Palm Sunday or called for his crucifixion early on Good Friday. Since scholars cannot agree on the precise location of Pilate’s headquarters, we cannot say definitively how many people might have gathered in his courtyard to call for Jesus’ death. This number is probably less than 500, possibly quite a bit less. What this means, therefore, is that something like .2% of the Jews in Jerusalem were demonstrably eager to have Jesus crucified.
But, one might object, perhaps this tiny percentage represented the majority. This objection is unlikely for three reasons:
First, we know from the Gospels that Jesus was, for the most part, very popular among the masses (for example, Matt 4:25; 8:1; 9:8; 12:15; 13:2; 14:14; 15:30; 20:29; 21:8).Second, we also know that the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem who wanted to have Jesus killed hesitated precisely because Jesus was so popular among the masses there (Matt 21:46). Nothing in the Gospel records suggests that this popularity ended magically by Good Friday.
Third, in fact the Gospel records suggest that large numbers of Jews were deeply distressed by the death of Jesus. For example, as Jesus was walking along the Via Dolorosa, Luke tells us that “A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him” (Luke 23:27). Then, after Jesus was crucified, the crowds who “saw what had taken place, . . . returned home, beating their breasts” (Luke 24:48). In other words, vast numbers of Jews were horrified by the death of Jesus.
Thus it’s historically accurate to speak, not of “the” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, but of several diverse Jewish perspectives. It’s quite likely that the majority of Jews in Jerusalem did not want Jesus killed at all. But the perspective that had greatest impact on the fate of Jesus was that of Caiaphas and other principal leaders of Jerusalem. This is the “one” perspective I’ll begin to examine in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 3
The Perspective of Jewish Leaders in Jerusalem
Although the majority of Jews in Jerusalem may not have wanted Jesus to die, or may have had no opinion either way, some of the most influential Jews did see Jesus’ death as necessary. All four New Testament Gospels testify to the key role of the “chief priests” and other Jewish leaders in the effort to have Jesus crucified. The chief priests included the high priest Caiaphas, who was appointed by Pilate, and other priests who provided leadership, not only for the temple, but also for all religious and civic affairs in Jerusalem. Some other learned and powerful Jewish leaders joined with the chief priests in the effort to silence Jesus once and for all.
Although not providing specific names or titles, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus concurs with what we find in the New Testament. In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus devotes a short section to the antics of Pontius Pilate. In this context the historian writes that Pilate, “at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,” had Jesus “condemned to the cross” (Antiquities 18.3.3). Unfortunately Josephus does not explain why these “principal men,” presumably the chief priests and other leaders, had it in for Jesus.
Why did leading Jews in Jerusalem believe it was necessary for Jesus to die? Part of the answer to this question comes from the Gospel of John, in a scene where a group of Jewish leaders was debating the problem of Jesus’ problematic popularity. “If we let him go on like this,” they said, “everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation” (John 11:48). Jesus was stirring up the people with his message of God’s kingdom and with his mighty deeds, and he wasn’t the first to walk down this perilous road. Others had done so before him and the result hadn’t been good for the Jews. Inevitably the Romans swept into Judea with their armies, slaughtering some, crucifying others, and taking still others into slavery. They had no hesitation about destroying an entire city if only some its residents had challenged Roman authority. So it would be logical for Jewish leaders to fear that Jesus might indeed bring down Roman wrath upon both the temple and the nation. (Photo: The ruins of a theatre in Sepphoris in Galilee. Shortly after Jesus was born, a man named Judas led a makeshift militia in a successful assault against the royal palace. Of course Rome didn’t wink at Judas and his gang. Ultimately the Roman army recaptured Sepphoris, taking all of its residents as slaves and burning the city to the ground. (See my book Jesus Revealed, p. 104)
Ruins of the coliseum at Sepphoris
In the midst of this debate about the problem of Jesus, John records the counsel of the high priest, Caiaphas: “You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Since Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus fit the job description of God’s messiah, and since he shared with his colleagues the fear of Roman reprisals against the Jews, his argument made sense. Better that Jesus should die than the whole nation be destroyed.
When Caiaphas and his cohort finally captured Jesus and brought him to Pilate so that he might be crucified, their accusations touched upon several ways he was endangering the Jewish people. “We found this man perverting our nation,” they said, “forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). When Pilate was underwhelmed, they added, “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place” (Luke 23:5). In other words, Jesus was both undermining orderly Roman rule (forbidding taxes, claiming to be king, stirring up the people) and seducing the Jewish people to abandon their religious commitments (keeping the Sabbath, offering sacrifices in the temple, separating themselves from “sinners”).
Although we Christians may want to argue that these accusations were false, it’s easy to see how, from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, they appeared to be true, dangerously true. Moreover, we find in Jewish sources basic confirmation of what Luke puts upon the lips of the leaders. In the Babylonian Talmud (a fifth-century collection of earlier Jewish oral traditions), we read the following:
There is a tradition: They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), “Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and led them astray from God”. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)
Although the details don’t fit perfectly with the New Testament accounts, the charges against Jesus confirm what we have already seen. Jesus was said to “practice sorcery,” which is how his miracles would have appeared to his opponents, and which explains his ability to arouse the people. He also “seduced Israel and led them astray from God.” How similar this is to the charges in Luke 23, where Jesus was said to have perverted the nation and stirred up the people.
The concerns of Jewish leaders and their desire to get rid of him would probably not have come to fruition except for something Jesus did to provoke their concerted effort to have him crucified. I’ll examine this action in my next post.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 4
The “Crime” of Jesus
My last post in this series focused on the reasons why some Jewish leaders in Jerusalem believed that it was necessary for Jesus to die. The bottom line? He was a threat to their conception of faith and national life, indeed, to the very existence of the Jewish people. If left unchecked, Jesus would either pervert the Jewish nation with his peculiar notions of the kingdom of God, or he would bring down the wrath of Rome upon Judea, leading to its destruction. Either way, Jesus needed to be taken out of the game – permanently.
The concerns of the Jewish leaders, however pressing they might have been, would probably not have been enough to bring about Jesus’ execution except for something Jesus himself did, something shocking, unexpected, and utterly unacceptable from the perspective of the Jewish leaders. I’m speaking of his activity in the temple, that which Christians call “the cleansing of the temple.” Here’s Mark’s account of this scandalous action:
Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” (Mark 11:15-17)
How did the Jewish leaders respond to Jesus’ action? “And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him” (Mark 11:18).
Why was Jesus’ behavior in the temple worthy of death?
First of all, he was suggesting that the current state of the temple was unacceptable and that the temple leadership – the chief priests – were unworthy of respect. They were like a bunch of robbers.
Model of the temple in Jerusalem. Photo with permission of holylandphotos.org.
Second, Jesus actually prohibited the crucial function of the temple: the offering of sacrifices. From the point of view of the priests, he was keeping the Jewish people from worshipping God in the way God had prescribed – a serious if not a capital offense.
Third, Jesus’ activity in the temple was consistent with his earlier actions, whereby he implied that the temple was no longer necessary. If Jesus himself could forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12), then why bother with the temple? Thus Jesus was saying to a temple-centered religion: The very center of your relationship with God is wrong. Such a critique would not be taken lightly by those who embraced a temple-centered Judaism.
But it wasn’t only what Jesus did in the temple that provoked a negative response from the leaders, but also what he said. You see, by referring to the temple as a “den of robbers,” Jesus was doing far more than insulting the chief priests. He was actually quoting from the prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 7, the prophet condemned the tendency of Israel to put their faith in the existence of the temple. Many in Jeremiah’s day believed that they could do all sorts of evil deeds without fear of punishment because God’s temple was in their midst. The temple was their spiritual safety net, so to speak. But God was neither fooled nor pleased. So, through Jeremiah the Lord prophesied,
Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, “We are safe!” – only to go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? . . . And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, . . . therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name . . . just what I did to Shiloh. (Jer 7:8-14)
And what did the Lord do to Shiloh? He destroyed it and the tabernacle it once housed (Psalm 78:60).
In the day of Jeremiah, the people had turned the temple into a “den of robbers,” a place of supposed safety for those who did evil deeds out in the world. For this reason, God promised to destroy the temple, which he did in 586 B.C. Similarly, by quoting from Jeremiah 7 as he overturned the tables in the temple, Jesus implied that the same judgment applied in his day. Those who took refuge in the temple could not presume to be safe. God was about to destroy the temple because of the sin of the people, even as he had done to Shiloh and to the first temple in Jerusalem.
Thus Jesus’ action in the temple, combined with his words, not only insulted and upset the chief priests, but also conveyed God’s judgment upon the temple itself. This crime against the temple could not be tolerated, as far as its leaders were concerned. Jesus, the blasphemous criminal, deserved, not only to be silenced, but also to die. In my next post I’ll examine two fascinating parallels that will help us to see that the Jewish leaders who condemned Jesus were acting in ways fully consistent with their predecessors and successors. Right or wrong, they were doing exactly what Jewish leaders in their position had done and would do again. They thought they were defending God’s temple and, indeed, God himself.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 5
Jewish Leaders Respond to Offenses Against the Temple
In my last post, I suggested that one of the major causes of Jesus’ death was his “cleansing” of the temple. By interrupting the sacrificial system and by quoting Jeremiah’s own condemnation of the temple, Jesus was threatening the very core of Judaism in his day. In the perspective of the Jewish leaders, this would have been blasphemy – speaking against God himself.
For those whose experience and viewpoint is far removed from that of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, it may seem that their intended punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime. But, if we look for historical parallels, we find two incidents in which other leaders acted much as did Caiaphas and his associates when dealing with Jesus.
Rembrandt van Rijn, "Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalam," 1630
The first example comes from the ministry of Jeremiah, some 600 years before Jesus. The Lord told Jeremiah to stand in the Jerusalem temple and speak the following:
“If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you, and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently – though you have not heeded – then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth” (Jeremiah 26:4-6).
What response did this prophecy spark in the Jewish leaders and others? Sorrow? Repentance? Hardly! In fact, here’s what happened:
And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, “You shall die!” (Jeremiah 26:8)
There it is, the same pattern we see in the last days of Jesus: Speak judgment on the temple and the leaders will believe that you need to die. In the case of Jeremiah, however, he insisted that he was only passing on God’s own message, so the people spared his life (Jer 26:12-16).
Now jump forward in history more than six centuries, to an incident that occurred about thirty years after the death of Jesus. Curiously enough, this incident involved another man named Jesus, son of Ananus (Hananiah), who came to Jerusalem during a feast an began to cry out “against Jerusalem and the holy house.” According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Jesus’ persistent proclamation of judgment on the temple and city offended “certain of the most eminent among the populace,” which is to say, the leaders of Jerusalem. So, at first they beat Jesus severely. But when this didn’t shut him up, they brought Jesus to the Roman procurator “where he was whipped [flogged] till his bones were laid bare.” When even this didn’t silence Jesus, the procurator dismissed this Jesus as a madman and a nuisance. (The story of this Jesus can be found in Josephus’s Jewish War, 6.5.3.)
In this case of Jesus ben Hananiah, the Jewish leaders seem not to have pressed for his crucifixion. Of course, this Jesus didn’t pose the same threat as Jesus of Nazareth once did, nor did he do anything resembling the cleansing of the temple. Yet, merely by proclaiming God’s judgment on the temple, Jesus son of Ananus earned several beatings, including what must have been an almost fatal Roman flogging. And, like Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish leaders dealt with him, first on their own and then by handing him over to the Roman governor.
The experiences of Jeremiah and Jesus ben Hananiah, though different in detail and time period, nevertheless illustrate how Jewish leaders were apt to deal with those who spoke against the temple. They were worthy of severe punishment, if not death. And when the Jewish leaders no longer had the authority to execute someone, they would turn him over to the Roman governor. Thus the actions of Caiaphas and his associates in response to the problem of Jesus of Nazareth reflect the same commitments and tendencies of similar leaders in similar positions. This greatly increases the likelihood that the historical scenario I have been proposing with respect to Jesus of Nazareth is, in fact, accurate.
In my next post I’ll sum up what we have learned about “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death.
One Jewish Perspective, Part 6
Summing Up One Jewish Perspective
In the last five posts I’ve been examining “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death. Let me briefly summarize my findings, adding some observations along the way.
1. It’s more accurate to speak of “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death than to speak of “the” Jewish perspective because not all Jews agreed with the viewpoint of those who conspired to have Jesus crucified. Only a tiny percentage of Jews in Jerusalem were actually involved in the effort to persuade Pilate to execute Jesus. Moreover, the New Testament Gospels attest to the widespread popularity of Jesus among his Jewish contemporaries. “A great number” of those in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death were horrified by what had happened to him (Luke 23:27). Thus, if anything, the numerically dominant Jewish perspective would have supported Jesus. But those who held power in Jerusalem we able to do what the masses would not have wanted.
2. Some of the leading Jews in Jerusalem, including Caiaphas, the High Priest, sought to have Jesus crucified. Evidence for this comes not only from all four New Testament Gospels, but also from the Jewish historian Josephus.
3. The Jewish leaders who sought to have Jesus crucified believed that his death was necessary for the following reasons:
a. By stirring up the people, Jesus was threatening the peace and life of the Jewish people, thus increasing the likelihood that Rome would destroy both Jerusalem and the temple. The death of Jesus would be preferable to the destruction of the nation.
b. Jesus “seduced Israel and led them astray from God” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a). His message and ministry lessened the people’s commitment to living out their Judaism in the way approved of by the Jewish leaders (priests, Pharisees).
c. Jesus interrupted the orderly system of sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, speaking against the temple and its leaders, thus opposing not only the core of Judaism, but God himself. Jesus’ quotation from Jeremiah 7 (“den of robbers”) combined with other things he had said during his ministry clarified his condemnation of the temple – a blasphemous offense. Moreover, he insisted that God was on his side, thus adding blasphemy to blasphemy.
d. Jesus presented himself as the Messiah, the one anointed by God to bring divine salvation to Israel. But he failed to do what the Messiah was supposed to do, notably, lead a successful revolt against Rome. Instead, Jesus turned his judgment against God’s own temple. Thus Jesus was a false messiah. This fact alone might not have warranted his crucifixion. But, when combined with his other offenses, his false claim to messiahship increased further the chances that his actions would bring devastation upon Judea.
4. The efforts of Jewish leaders to silence Jesus by physical violence were consistent with what other Jewish leaders did in similar situations (vs. the prophet Jeremiah in Jer 26 and vs. Jesus ben Hananiah in Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.3). This consistency greatly increases the probability that the Gospel accounts accurately portray the role of Jewish leaders. Caiaphas and company did exactly what Jewish leaders in their position thought they had to do when someone insulted or threatened the temple.
Implications for the Current Debate
Given this picture of “one” Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, I want to draw out two implications.
First, it is historically irresponsible to say, “The Jews killed Christ.” Yes, I’m aware that the Gospel of John uses “the Jews” in a way that seems to lay blame for Jesus’ death upon “the Jews.” But, when read in context, “the Jews” means “some Jewish leaders.” Ultimate and legal blame for Jesus’ death fell upon the shoulders of Pontius Pilate, no matter how he might have tried to wriggle out of it. Moreover, many, and quite probably the vast majority of Jews in the time of Jesus, did not want him killed, and were horrified when it happened. Given the tragic history of Christian anti-Semitism, we Christians must speak carefully and accurately about Jewish involvement in his death. The truth: some influential Jews believed Jesus had to die and sought to convince Pilate to crucify him.
Second, it is historically irresponsible to deny all Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. Some scholars, no doubt responding to the horrors of anti-Semitism, have applied their critical scalpels to the New Testament records, cutting from them any implication of Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. In their surgery, however, they bleed historical probability to death. In fact two ancient Jewish sources, Josephus and the Talmud, indicate that some Jews were involved in the death of Jesus and help us to understand why they would have been. Plus, the picture of Caiaphas and his associates in the Gospels makes historical and logical sense. These leaders were protecting that which they believed to be essential, including both the temple and their own civic/religious position. The actions of other leaders in similar situations confirm the conclusion that the New Testament Gospels paint an historical reliable picture of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus.
Finally, there was another Jewish perspective on the necessity of Jesus’ death, a perspective I haven’t yet mentioned. It was the most important Jewish perspective of all, that of Jesus himself. To the question of why Jesus believed he had to die I’ll turn in my next post in this series.
I
In
I
posted June 21, 2010 at 10:50 am
Mr. Roberts – I came to your blog recently because Hugh Hewitt (who arguably has the best show on radio) made special mention specifically of your insights on what should be the Christian perspective toward the immigration issue. I was already familiar with you from your debate on Hugh’s show with Christopher Hitchens – certainly a courageous undertaking – and I really looked forward to reading your isights to one of the most important issues facing our nation today. After reading your final installment, all I can say is: What. A. Disappointment.
.
You’re kidding, right? It took you 10 fairly good-length posts to say: “Jesus wants us to treat these people in our midst as our neighbors – kindly, with charity, seeking to serve their needs as we hope to win them to Christ.” No kidding. I really thought you might come down on the other side of the Christian argument where the Lord calls us “to beat these intruders with sticks, and steal their lunch money”. What a shock. Well, unless you just really enjoy typing, you could have saved yourself some time, or written on a completely different topic, because there is NO LEGITIMATE CHRISTIAN LEADER that would teach anything different on this subject. OF COURSE we are to treat all people with kindness and love, hoping to lead some to him. And even those who will never come to the Lord, as the people of God, we just treat them well because that’s how the Spirit who resides in us operates.
.
It appears you got cold feet on the subject, because what you purported to deal with initially was “A Christian Perspective on Illegal Immigration”, and it morphed into “How Should Christians Treat the Illegal Immigrants in our Midst” – two very different issues, the latter being about as difficult and controversial as the question “Should we pray frequently to God?” It is a case of “bait and switch”, because your first entries on the subject pertained to the macro question, and it seemed that you were going to apply your thoughtful analysis to what the Christian Perspective should be about the flow of illegal immigrants into this country in the first place. Did you really need 10 posts and copious research to come to the conclusion that a) These people are Humans(!) – made in Christ’s image, and b)He would have us treat these folks well?
.
It’s your blog, and I’ll let you return to your regularly scheduled programming without my further 2 cents. But at this stage of the game, it just seems that folks (me included) are looking for wise, insightful, courageous leaders and teachers who will confront the *difficult* issues from a truly biblical perspective, and help us to shape our worldview from a Godly perspective. The easy stuff, well, I think we’ve already got that down. But, just so you know, I will be putting away my beating sticks, and will try to do a better job of treating my neighbors – both legal and illegal – with great kindness and charity.
.
I look forward to your next cutting-edge topic: “Christian Perspectives on Littering – WWJD?”
posted June 21, 2010 at 11:39 am
Mark, With all due respect to Joe M.’s remarks…
The truly courageous thing to “do” will always be to ask WWJD—then actually do it. It is not “Bait and Switch” to stay true to an answer your are compelled to give. We are not about to soon fix something as complicated as illegal immigration, but meanwhile we can actually “trust God and love people,” as LJO used to say.
BTW—I look forward to any wisdom you might have on Christians and littering. I believe, in fact, by the very nature of your calling, you will again have to ask WWJD—and good for you!
posted June 21, 2010 at 11:50 am
If you “cherry pick” excerpts from the Bible to justify what you want people to believe while ignoring verses that make statements to the contrary is that not creating a falsehood in the mind of the readers?
In Matthew 21:11-13, Mark 11:15-16, and John 2:14-16 did Jesus kiss the Money Changers and Sellers in the temple and say love thy neighbor? No, he called then thieves and drove them from the temple.
In Luke 10 did the Good Samaritan by-pass the man lying beaten by the side of the road and travel on to minister to the Robbers who beat him? If a person robs someone else is it not because they need money and are thus poor? And if a person has money to rob, does that not mean that that person is comparably rich?
In Luke 20 in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants Jesus even went so far as to compare Teachers of the Law and the Chief Priests to wicked Tenants and say “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
In Luke 6:41-45 he said “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.”
Illegal Entry, Illegal Presence, Identity Fraud, Identity Theft, coveting what one’s neighbor owns, and bearing false witness are the life bread of Illegal Immigration. None can be considered the fruit of the good tree. Or does the bad tree now produce good fruit?
And when asked about forgiveness Jesus’ response in Luke 17:3 was “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” Jesus was fantastic about putting his words into practice for as is said above “Jesus associated with people who were on the outs, those who were marginalized because of their behavior as well as their physical condition.” But note that Jesus did so because those people were approaching him and asking for forgiveness. At no point in the Bible does it ever say that Jesus associate with people WHILE THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW.
Luke 20:45-47 Then, in the hearing of all the people, He said to His disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts, who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”
posted June 21, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Norski, take a look in the mirror; you wrote:
If you “cherry pick” excerpts from the Bible to justify what you want people to believe while ignoring verses that make statements to the contrary is that not creating a falsehood in the mind of the readers?
Get the beam out of your eye.
Really? You think the U.S. is the temple of God? You think the focus of Jesus’ parable (“THE GOOD SAMARITAN”) is the robber?
posted June 21, 2010 at 1:20 pm
This weekend, our housekeeper, who is already one of my favorite people, sprayed my oven with oven-off and then I accidentally turned the oven on before she could clean it out. It was time for her to go home so I said I would clean it myself when it cooled down. It took me an hour + to clean my oven and, while on my knees, I was reminded of what Julia (not her real name) does for our family. She is in this country illegally AND she fulfills a service that others will not AND she works painstaking hours for not that much money AND she returns the favor by renting an apartment, paying for a car and insurance (yes, she has car insurance) AND shops at her neighborhood stores and malls. Often when she is here, her daughter plays with my daughter, which has been wonderful for both girls. It is economically inefficient for me to clean my own house. I work for money, volunteer or spend time with my family and friends. This is a choice I could not make without Julia’s help. I am not unaware of the strain that too many people puts on a society. However, I think that most of these people are giving back as much as they are taking. I know this is not a black and white issue and my story is NOT the only piece. But, it is A piece and I wish for it to be considered in the conversation.
posted June 21, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Hispanic immigration actually helps Christian numbers in America whereas in about 100 years at Europe will be primarily muslim based on their current immigration rates.
posted June 21, 2010 at 5:04 pm
After Jesus’ encounter with the leper he sent him to the priest, in accordance with that society’s rule, so that he could 1) be certified as clean and 2) become a productive member of that society. I think Jesus just told us to play by the rules.
posted June 22, 2010 at 8:57 am
Mark,
I agree with Joe M. — my reaction to this piece was, “Well, duh!” When our pastor told us of seven Hispanic families living in trailers on a farm in Southwest Arizona who had been burned out by a wildfire, our mostly Anglo church gathered a truckload of food, clothes, and household goods to send, along with monetary donations. No questions asked, of course — human beings were in distress and we were called to help. Your writing does not address the real questions: how to deal in a Christian way with the violence, crime, ecological damage, wildfires in environmentally sensitive areas, free flow of illegal drugs, and recreational areas too dangerous to enter due to criminal activity. Or with Christian leaders who say that because Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas were once under Spanish and/or Mexican rule, all Americans not of Hispanic descent are usurpers who have stolen the land. Or with government officials who openly disregard the law of the land which is meant to protect us.
posted June 22, 2010 at 2:23 pm
To Rodney
Luke 10:29-37 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Today there are over 21 million Americans looking for work while 7.5 million Illegal Immigrants are working in the USA Illegally. And according to the Pew Center and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, those working in the USA illegally are ALL working in jobs Americans used to do. Who is the victim of law breaking behavior and who is the law breaker? I get the impression that those who support the law breaking behavior that is illegal immigration would rewrite the story of the Good Samaritan as follows:
But when the Samaritan came upon the man lying by the side of the road who had been beaten and robbed, he approached the man and said on to him that he must surely be a rich man to have been robbed and beaten as he has. Therefore, as a rich man, he has earned what he has received. His greed and avarice, his lack of sharing his riches with the poor has led to his demise. And so the Samaritan passed by the beaten and robbed man and traveled down the road until he found those who had beaten and robbed him. He then set about ministering to the Robbers and paid for their stay in an Inn. They were obviously driven to rob and beat because they were poor, needed help, and were not getting it. And thus the beaten and robbed man learned that to the Samaritan and others so like minded, loving and respecting your neighbor as yourself only applies if your neighbor is poor and breaking the law.
Remember Leviticus 19:15 – “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”
posted June 23, 2010 at 10:12 am
Norski,
How do you make sense of the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus says “you have heard it said, . . but I say to you”? Isn’t he taking the old covenant (passages like Lev. 19:15) and telling his disciples what the new covenant requires, e.g., “love your enemies”?
It seems to me (by quoting texts like Lev. 19:15) you’re trying to make the U.S. = Israel, which leads to disastrous interpretations for Christ followers.
Remember, the way God does justice is that he shows us mercy–the cross proves it. In the new covenant, we don’t get what we deserve. Try looking at this issue through new covenant eyes rather than through American eyes.
posted June 23, 2010 at 10:36 am
This is an old thread but I feel compelled to respond to Jenny’s post. Jenny, I would love to come home from work to a clean house and well-cooked meals. And if I had kids still at home it would be great to have a loving live-in babysitter. However, I can’t afford the $8 (approximately) legal minimum wage, plus overtime, plus 25% worker’s comp, social security tax, and Medicare tax.
What? You’re not paying $400/wk for her services? You’re not submitting withholding to the Federal and State governments? So your housekeeper doesn’t pay any taxes on what you pay her? Well. Sounds like to me you and your family are profiting big time from your collusion in the criminal enterprise of traffic in human lives. The crime syndicates which smuggle illegal immigrants across our borders profit from using them as drug mules and from kidnapping and extortion. As an Arizonan, I would like to thank you and your family for your complicity in the chaos in our state.
posted June 23, 2010 at 7:55 pm
To Rodney
James 2:8-10 “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Are these New Testament verses “New Covenant” enough? Remember that each time that it says in the Bible that Jesus was teaching, the text implies that he was teaching about the Law and the Commandments. And the quote from Matthew above says it explicitly. Since the New Testament did not exist back then the Law and Commandments so referenced were what we now call the “Old Testament”. What you claim is “Old Covenant” and thus not worth taking into consideration was in fact the core of Jesus’ message.
Too many people today want variable morality. They think that if you claim to love your neighbor that makes everything all right. And if you repent for those you hurt on the day before you die everything is absolved, because the ends justified the means. But you cannot build justice for some on the backs of injustice to others. You cannot decide that those who break the law at the expense of those who keep the law are more just without maintaining the delusion that it is good for one person to enrich themselves at the expense of another. And Illegal Immigration is just that. For truly it can be said that it is impossible to maintain the covenant of the Bible by lying, cheating, and refusing to acknowledge the hurt illegal immigration does to others.
posted June 24, 2010 at 10:25 am
Norski,
Again, what prompted me to respond to your first post was the accusation that Mark was merely “cherry-picking” verses, weaving an interpretive cloth, then misleading people into thinking that his approach was “biblical.”
You’re doing the same thing. You seem to ignore biblical context, e.g., James was taking on the wealthy land-owners (read Ja. 5) who were exploiting the poor, and even worse Christians were showing favoritism by giving honor to the wealthy when then visited their “synagogues.” Do you see how this text could be applied to illegal immigration? Those who have endured “injustice” (in broader terms than what is defined by the American legal system) because wealthy land-owners are taking advantage of the poor–think in terms of global economics–may have a legitimate complaint before God Almighty who is the Creator of all things. In other words, your perspective seems to be more informed by your/our American context than by biblical context.
Would you mind trying a little exercise? (It may not be helpful, but I’ll give it a try.) Think about this issue in first-century Judean terms. Rome ruled Judea. Roman law was the rule of law for this imperial province. What if a Jewish man broke the law according to Roman standards and was punished for the same. Would we take Rome’s side or the Judean’s side in this political context?
posted June 24, 2010 at 11:47 am
To Rodney
Somehow you seem to think that when I point out Bible verses that contradict the conclusions that you or this article have come to by “cherry picking” somehow means I am cherry picking as well. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, the Chinese have a wonderful concept that describes the true nature of the Bible. It is Yin and Yang. For every exhortation to love and respect your neighbor there is an equal and opposite exhortation for your neighbor to love and respect you back. You want the Yin, but you do not want to acknowledge the Yang.
The Bible does not just say that the Rich should not steal from the Poor. It also says that the Poor should not steal from the Rich. And it does not only say that if someone repents and asks for forgiveness, you should grant it. It also says you should rebuke those who do not repentant. And the Bible may say that the rich should share their blessings. But it also says that the Poor should not covet what the Rich have and should not try to take it from them. Thou shalt not steal.
But the single largest corruption of the Bible in today’s popular culture is to assume that because Jesus preached against what is popularly called the “Eye for an Eye” section of the Old Testament that it also means Jesus was in support of foregoing punishment for breaking the Laws of Society. Jesus’ point was simply that those who wish to execute justice should no do so as an act of vengeance. For truly it is written in Romans 12:19 “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
In the story that is called “Render onto Caesar” Jesus clearly separated adherence to Secular Law from adherence to God’s Law. And later on, both Peter and Paul reiterated the need for Christians to respect Secular Law.
In the Illegal Immigration debate there are really good reasons why we limit Immigration and regard those who enter or stay in the USA without permission as breaking the law and thus deportable. The most important reason being that it is a proven fact many times over that Jobs in the USA do not grow based on population. They grow based on available Capital. And it is a proven fact many times over that immigration in excess of our reasonably established caps only destines an equal number of people, be they the Immigrants or our fellow Citizens, to the unemployment line. Thus restricting people from staying in the USA without permission is an act of protection to the American Citizens who would otherwise loose their job. And considering that the jobs so protected are those held by people who are mostly Poor, this is truly a case of loving thy neighbor.
If you feel for those people who want to come to the USA but are not high enough on the admissions list to get in, I would suggest that you go help them. Gather your flock and lift them out of poverty. Since over 50% of those people illegally in the USA are from Mexico you should have no trouble finding a place where people need help. Try Mexico. But instead of doing this, you support people who ignore the law, lie about their legal status as they live in the USA, commit document fraud or identity theft in order to work in the USA, and when not doing all that, march in the streets demanding they be given all that they have illegally acquired even though they know full well it is at the expense of other people in whose territory they have chosen to illegally enter. All the while carefully remaining intentionally ignorant of the hurt caused to Poor Americans out of work because of the disregard for the law. But instead too many people have rationalized away the law breaking behavior with the non-Biblical concept of “the end justifies the means”. But the road to Hades is paved with rationalizations and good intentions. And “the end justifies the means” is just selling your soul to the Devil for a Saintly outcome. When Jesus was offered the rule all of the cities of the earth did he say “if I run them I could do wonderful works” and accept the job? Or did he just decline?
posted June 24, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Norski, Rodney: Please read the foregoing post in this section, and the post on “Illegal Immigration – A Helpful Resource”. They both point us to what constitutes a “Christian” response vs. what is anti-biblical………don’t they?
It seems as if Mr. Roberts and the author of the book certainly know what a Christian would do, because they make such great distinction of how we need to think biblically, and respond as “Christians” toward the illegal immigration issue. It’s absolutely crystal clear.
Isn’t it?
posted June 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Good discussion, but again, going in circles. My impression, having lived and worked amongst illegals in CA for 20 years, there is a missing element to the discussion, that is Justice.
Frontline has a couple good shows about the illegal experience from Central and South Americans into and through Mexico. There is no justice for illegals in Mexico. The second is a Cuban exile working with the ‘Minutemen’ in AZ who lived with a family of illegals and even accompanyed them to their home town in Mexico. Actually three now that I think about it, the Vietnam Vet who didn’t get his paperwork filled out after he come home is now deported to his ‘hometown.’
There needs to be discussion of justice FOR ALL. No one has accounted in any detail for lost tax revenue, housing bubble, rent, educational expenses, and cost of living in general on all sides – illegals and Americans. Re: education, the Anaheim Union School District sued Mexico to recover expenses to educate their fellow countrymen. About three or four years ago, a US Senator from San Diego found out his child, who had lived and graduated HS in VA was now going to pay out-of-state tuition in CA his ‘real home state’ while the illegal Hispanic was paying in-state and getting (read your tax dollars and mine) grants just because they are Hispanic. My classmate, Rudy, bragged about that one day when he was talking about Reconquista. I told him that if Mexico took back CA then his education would be doubtful much less paid for by someone else. His response,’Oh?’
I’ve only heard one t.v. commentator say that Mexico is the root of the problem because they didn’t get their country up to speed as the NAFTA legislation progressed. Speaking of Mexico, and Central and South America, how do they treat their poor, indigenious population. Why aren’t Christians expressing the injustices that ‘force’ people to migrate. Lastly, illegals are migrating to stay, not sojourning. The illegals that pick the apples in the orchards around my rural Missouri town migrate to KS and TX then back, it’s said they rarely return to Mexico or points south.
Keep thinking about all the people involved, the governments, the employeers of illegals, the charities insisting illegals should get at American tax payer expense and America is evil towards illegals and how their home country treats them.
posted June 24, 2010 at 1:45 pm
To Joe M. – if you fool yourself into believing a six inch ruler is a foot long, every measurement you take will be subject to the same misperception.
posted June 24, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Norski – I’m with you; I was being a bit facetious with my post, because I believe we, so far, have yet to see clear, reliable guidelines on how a Christian should act in relation to Illegal Immigration from anything written here. And I do believe that even though they might be difficult at times to adhere to, most believers will want to follow truly biblical guidelines in order to please the Lord and be the servants we’ve been called to be.
.
Clearly, there are a handful of guidelines in daily life that most of us already try to follow. Unless I’m hiding a Jew in my house and am confronted by an SS officer at my door, I really try to avoid lying as much as possible. Woe is me if my wife asks “does this make me look fat”, because I’ll go out of my way to compliment her hair, praise the color of the dress, or tell her what good taste she has in clothes. But if she presses the point, I’ll tactfully tell her the truth rather than lie – and it would be so much easier. If I’m given too much change at the local store, even after I’ve left the premises, I can’t just justify not returning the overage by saying “I’ll give it to a poor person”, or “they charge too much anyway”. Some Christian guidelines are pretty clear – at least in my reading of the Word.
.
That’s why I eagerly look forward to Mr. Roberts clarifying his statement when he says “The activity of Jesus in demonstrating the presence of the kingdom……..surely guides Christians when it comes to how we relate to those who are in this country illegally, as well as to their families.” Really? How so? Do we really need to chalk it up to “serving the Kingdom” when confronted with all costs, crime, and cultural issues that un-assimilated and illegal immigrants bring? I’d really like to know what those guidelines are, because so far, details and biblical rationale have been lacking.
posted June 24, 2010 at 11:10 pm
And speaking of Biblical Guidelines:
I know that the Bible tells us to pray for our leaders, but this bumper sticker may not have been in guite the spirit the admonition was intended:
Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8
As Norski has pointed out repeatedly, context is important.
posted June 25, 2010 at 10:11 am
To Joe M.
Your questions are good ones that all people should be asking themselves. But rather than look at the totality of what the Bible says they only look just far enough to justify what they want the answer to be. And the same applies to life. Too many people look only at what they want to see in order to make their conclusions and ignore the rest. This rationalization process allows people to commit unspeakable sins in the name of what they believe is right. That is why, in an earlier post I said “the road to Hades is paved with rationalizations and good intentions”.
Unless you look at the totality of Illegal Immigration you can successfully convince yourself that it is really and only about Poor People searching for a better life, blocked by a bunch of people who do not care. But in fact Illegal Immigration is really about raw exploitation. About bringing people to the USA and keeping their home countries poor so that the exploitation never has to stop. When you look at the larger picture you see the exploitation at work behind the scenes and begin to see that this is truly a time for tough love.
Few people ask themselves the questions “Why should people have to move to were the economic expansion is?” and “Why shouldn’t the economic expansion come to them?” and “Why must we force millions of people to relocate just to satisfy an outmoded belief that only economic expansion in the USA is good and all economic expansion elsewhere in the world is bad?” People forget that economies cooperate. It is Business that competes. Are we competing against the Japanese economy? No! You cannot trade with another country unless that country has something to trade. Our companies compete against Japanese companies. Do you buy a Toyota or a Ford because one is better than the other for what you want? Or do you buy the Ford because it is made by an American company and skip the Toyota? Most people do not realize that both cars are manufactured in the U.S. employing American Workers. Yet both companies compete. When it comes to international trade, balance is what is important, not outselling the competition.
Economic development elsewhere is not bad for the USA. In the past, when the USA had more jobs than there were workers, excess jobs were exported to other countries. A few decades ago that resulted in the economic development of Korea, Taiwan, and the other economic powers of the Pacific called the Four Tigers. Remember the Marshall Plan? Did either destroy the US Economy? No! Today those who want to exploit poorer countries to import cheap labor into the USA incorrectly brand foreign expansion as “outsourcing” and use it as the universal boogeyman for all that ails us. But in fact, when we are at Full Employment, foreign expansion (which is not outsourcing) is no threat to US Workers. Because all US Workers are working. That is why they call it Full Employment.
If you truly believe that we reached full employment back in 2007, then we spent the last decade wasting a tremendous opportunity. We spent the decade importing 7.5 million Illegal Immigrants. Why did we not instead place those 7.5 million jobs to where those people lived? Would we have overbuilt the domestic housing market into oblivion if we had done this? Let’s look at Mexico as an example of what could have been had Illegal Immigrants never entered the USA and we had reached full employment. Per the Pew Hispanic Center six million Mexicans have illegally immigrated to the USA, over three million of which are working. Per the CIA World Fact Book the 2006 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of Mexico was $741.5 billion and the Labor Force numbered 38 million. That means that the average GDP per working person was $19,513. If the USA had exported three million jobs to Mexico and paid the average GDP rate (a mere $9.38/hr.) and the six million illegal immigrants would have stayed home, we would have pumped $59 billion in wages into the Mexican economy. In the USA economy approximately 57% of our GDP is made up of wages. Wages generate business, which in turn generates more wages, which in turn generate more business. Assuming this same job multiplier for Mexico means an additional $59 billion in wages added to the Mexican economy that would increase the GDP of Mexico by more that $103 billion or 14%. And the GDP of the USA would increase by as much a $5 billion with repatriated profits.
This is a win-win situation. Why is it that both Legal and Illegal Immigration are never looked at in the context of what both cost the Immigrant’s home countries in lost economic and development opportunities? Is it that greedy people want a continued source of cheap labor and like true misers they what to keep economic development in their own backyard while denying it to other countries? This is a recipe for keeping the lesser developed counties of the world in perpetual servitude, rather than a fulfillment of the American Dream. And by keeping countries south of the border poor the exploitation can go on forever.