Was every Jew responsible for the crucifixion?

[jfrog]

Was every single Jew of Christ's day directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion?

[mfblume]

In that day alone, yes. Not any Jews since then, though.

Mat 23:31-37 KJV Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. (33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

[jfrog]

In that day alone, yes. Not any Jews since then, though.

I fixed it for you :) So you can vote now.

[mfblume]

I fixed it for you :) So you can vote now.

By every Jew do you mean all jews alive in the day He died, or every day since then as well?

[jfrog]

By every Jew do you mean all jews alive in the day He died, or every day since then as well?

Read the first post. I couldn't make the poll question itself so long

[mfblume]

Was every single Jew of Christ's day directly responsible for Christ's crucifixion?

Yes.

[ILG]

No.

[jfrog]

No.

I couldn't make the poll question itself long enough. So I hope you read the first post for clarification on what it is about.

[mfblume]

Act 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

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


Mat 23:31-37 KJV Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. (33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Act 2:40 KJV And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

[ILG]

I couldn't make the poll question itself long enough. So I hope you read the first post for clarification on what it is about.

Still, no, I think it's crazy to think all Jews of that day were responsible. Jesus' disciples were Jews.

[jfrog]

Act 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Act 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

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


Mat 23:31-37 KJV Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. (33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!


Act 2:40 KJV And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Come on blume you should delete this so you don't corrupt the poll voters minds before they vote.

[jfrog]

Still, no, I think it's crazy to think all Jews of that day were responsible. Jesus' disciples were Jews.

I thought the same thing but apparently there's one among us who think all the Jew's of Christs day somehow are directly responsible.

[mfblume]

Pel agrees. We can let him remark, though, of course.

He then went on to advise them that the Messiah had come and gone and that this nation (Israel) has crucified the One that God had made "both Lord and Christ."

It was at that point that the question came up, "What must we do?"

...

To insert the word "saved" later does harm to Peter's who point about the nation of Israel and the corporate "guilt" concerning the death of this innocent man (Jesus).

From http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=946959&postcount=64

[jfrog]

Pel agrees. We can let him remark, though, of course.

I bet you that he does not :)

[mfblume]

I bet you that he does not :)

Does not agree? Or does not remark?

If you think he does not agree, then what did he mean in the quotes I made from him?

[mfblume]

I thought the same thing but apparently there's one among us who think all the Jew's of Christs day somehow are directly responsible.

Indeed there is.

Even the dispensationalists amongst us agree that God worked with Israel as a corporate body. They claim that idea to such an extent that they think all of Israel must be saved in one day in our future, since God simply works corporately with them. They even feel jews OF TODAY are the ones who are noted in Rev1:7 when it says those who pierced Him shall see Him, as though this is yet future:

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


I feel Jews of today and ever since the generation of the cross are not responsible. Just those of that generation at that day.

[Socialite]

Is all mankind responsible for the resurrection?

[mfblume]

Is all mankind responsible for the resurrection?
Indirectly, yes.

[Socialite]

Indirectly, yes.

I meant Crucifixion. I guess, only God is responsible for the Resurrection :)

[mfblume]

I meant Crucifixion.

Indirectly, yes.

I guess, only God is responsible for the Resurrection :)

Right. :)

[pelathais]

Jesus was a Jew. Was he "responsible" for His own crucifixion? In a way, I suppose, "yes." But not morally responsible as a member of a "generation of vipers." Was Jesus a "viper?"

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

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

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

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

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

[pelathais]

Pel agrees. We can let him remark, though, of course.



From http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=946959&postcount=64

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

Ezekiel 18.

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

[Scott Hutchinson]

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

[jfrog]

Jesus was a Jew. Was he "responsible" for His own crucifixion? In a way, I suppose, "yes." But not morally responsible as a member of a "generation of vipers." Was Jesus a "viper?"

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

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

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

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

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

:thumbsup I agree.

I have a question though.

Acts 2:22-23
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

What do you make of Peter saying (I'm paraphrasing) that the men of Israel crucified Jesus? I know I take it to mean that Israel in a corporate sense was responsible but not that every individual of Israel was individually responsible.

[jfrog]

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

Ezekiel 18.

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

I don't really like the notion that we are even indirectly responsible for Christ's death. I think it's just a way of putting guilt on those that it don't belong. The guilt of sin is already enough without added guilt for something a person didn't actually do. That's my opinion anyways.

[Pressing-On]

Come on blume you should delete this so you don't corrupt the poll voters minds before they vote.

Are you pulling a Nancy Pelosi? "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." LOL!

Of course mfblume is going to back up his vote with scripture! LOL!

[jfrog]

Are you pulling a Nancy Pelosi? "We have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." LOL!

Of course mfblume is going to back up his vote with scripture! LOL!

He should have done it later :)

[Pressing-On]

He should have done it later :)

LOL!

[Michael]

No, the bible says He laid down his life....Calvery was not for the sins of Israel, but for the sins of the world...

[Michael]

Jesus was a Jew. Was he "responsible" for His own crucifixion? In a way, I suppose, "yes." But not morally responsible as a member of a "generation of vipers." Was Jesus a "viper?"

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

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

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

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

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

:thumbsup

[mfblume]

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

Ezekiel 18.

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

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

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

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

[mfblume]

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

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

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

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


Look whom he referred to in the words preceding this:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mfblume]

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

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

[Jermyn Davidson]

Have all sinned-- jew and gentile alike?

[Jermyn Davidson]

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

I vote yes.

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

[DividedThigh]

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

[mfblume]

Have all sinned-- jew and gentile alike?

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

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

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

[mfblume]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


ADAM CLARKE:

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

JOHN GILL

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

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

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

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

[jfrog]

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

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

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

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

[mfblume]

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

I always believed in corporate guilt.

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

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

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

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

And yet there is no repentance required for corporate guilt?

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

[Scott Hutchinson]

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

I do understand what you are saying and the disciples did preach to the Jews and they rejected their Messiah,yes the vast majority did.I do understand the House of Israel was addressed on the day of Pentecost.Still though if Adam would not have sinned,then atonement would not have been needed.
I am in more agreement with your train of thought though.

[mfblume]

I do understand what you are saying and the disciples did preach to the Jews and they rejected their Messiah,yes the vast majority did.I do understand the House of Israel was addressed on the day of Pentecost.Still though if Adam would not have sinned,then atonement would not have been needed.
I am in more agreement with your train of thought though.

The point I was attempting to make in this thread was that in Acts 2 Peter accused every Jews of that day of crucifying Jesus in a way apart from the guilt of humanity, dead, born or unborn. God bless!

[Scott Hutchinson]

The house of Israel was held responsible for the crucifixion of JESUS.

[mfblume]

The house of Israel was held responsible for the crucifixion of JESUS.

Which meant every Jew at that time, right, since they were each part of the House of Israel?

[jfrog]

I always believed in corporate guilt.

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

I am saying that Israel was responsible but not that all Jews were.

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

Yes, Israel was guilty for Christ's death.

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

No, I do not believe that.

And yet there is no repentance required for corporate guilt?

None. You can only repent or turn from the things you yourself do.

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

The truth is that Peter offered them salvation by turning toward Jesus and being baptized. They could not repent for crucifying Christ because as individuals they didn't cause it. They could turn toward Jesus though. That is the repentance that Peter spoke of.

[jfrog]

Blume, was every Iraqi responsible for the crimes of Iraq under the leadership of Sadaam Hussein? Was every German responsible for the atrocities of Germany under the leadership of Hitler? Is every American responsible for the wrongs of America? I don't think so, do you?

[Michael]

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


He was???? I thought he was a Christian?!?!?!:ursofunny:ursofunny

[mfblume]

I always believed in corporate guilt.

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

I am saying that Israel was responsible but not that all Jews were.

So all Jews did not comprise Israel?

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

Yes, Israel was guilty for Christ's death.

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

No, I do not believe that.

The fact is that GENERATION refers to the corporate people at that day. If not, what does it refer to? In effect, you leave the individual Jew of that day without escape from Israel who was guilty of the cross, leaving Jews unable to be saved then.

And yet there is no repentance required for corporate guilt?

None. You can only repent or turn from the things you yourself do.

I think that is extremely wrong. Corporate guilt means individuals have guilt they share with other individuals. And you are saying the blood of Jesus cannot expiate that guilt.

The truth is Peter offered them escape from corporate guilt by repentance. Their guilt was for sin. Individual or not, the individual escaped the corporate guilt by repentance.The truth is that Peter offered them salvation by turning toward Jesus and being baptized. They could not repent for crucifying Christ because as individuals they didn't cause it. They could turn toward Jesus though. That is the repentance that Peter spoke of.

That makes nonsense out of Peter's intention of preaching Israel's sin, then. Sorry, your thoughts do not make sense, j. Saving themselves from that generation was individual escape from corporate guilt.

Why did God destroy ALL JERUSALEM 40 years later? In history, the church fled the city due to Matt 24's instructions. Some of those jews who crucified the Lord corporately were later saved and escaped. All other Jews were left to face the havoc. WHY?

[mfblume]

Blume, was every Iraqi responsible for the crimes of Iraq under the leadership of Sadaam Hussein? Was every German responsible for the atrocities of Germany under the leadership of Hitler? Is every American responsible for the wrongs of America? I don't think so, do you?

You cannot consider those outside Israel, God's bride and covenant people, and see the same viewpoints that God had of corporate Israel in those other nations. Israel was UNIQUE.

[jfrog]

You cannot consider those outside Israel, God's bride and covenant people, and see the same viewpoints that God had of corporate Israel in those other nations. Israel was UNIQUE.

Israel was unique. However, it was not unique in the way that every individual of Israel is held responsible for the actions of Israel while every individual of every other country is not held responsible for the actions of their country.

Israel is unique is the poorest argument one could make when confronted with a comparison to other nations. In fact, you even attempting to use the argument that Israel is unique shows just how good my comparisons were and how much sense they made.

[jfrog]

So all Jews did not comprise Israel?



The fact is that GENERATION refers to the corporate people at that day. If not, what does it refer to? In effect, you leave the individual Jew of that day without escape from Israel who was guilty of the cross, leaving Jews unable to be saved then.

Jews are saved the same way gentiles are. The gentiles didn't have to be responsible for the death of Christ to receive salvation and neither did the jews.

I think that is extremely wrong. Corporate guilt means individuals have guilt they share with other individuals. And you are saying the blood of Jesus cannot expiate that guilt.

I am saying that Israel as a nation was guilty of the crucifixion and that some individual jews were guilty of it too. This is the same as saying Germany as a nation was guilty of the Holocaust and that some individual germans were guilty of it too.

That makes nonsense out of Peter's intention of preaching Israel's sin, then. Sorry, your thoughts do not make sense, j. Saving themselves from that generation was individual escape from corporate guilt.

Being saved from that generation was not a way to save them from bearing the guilt of that generation. Saving themselves from that generation was about saving themselves from the fate of that generation both in the immediate context of the destruction of Jerusalem and in the eternal context.

Why did God destroy ALL JERUSALEM 40 years later? In history, the church fled the city due to Matt 24's instructions. Some of those jews who crucified the Lord corporately were later saved and escaped. All other Jews were left to face the havoc. WHY?

God didn't destroy every Jew. God destroyed Jerusalem and probly not even all of it. If God destroyed every Jew in the destruction of Jerusalem then there wouldn't be any left today. Some escaped that judgment by believing on Christ and some escaped it without believing on Christ. If the descrtuction of Jerusalem had been punishment for individual guilt then all the Jews that were guilty of Christ's crucifixion would have been judged. Therefore, if your paradigm was correct then all Jews would have died in the destruction of Jerusalem.

To answer your first question. All Jews comprise Israel but the actions of any nation are not necessarily the actions of all the people of that nation. Therefore, the nation crucified him but it was only some individuals of Israel instead of all individuals of Israel that crucified him.

[RevDWW]

Ever sinner is responsible, so that would include all Jews. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God..........

[jfrog]

Ever sinner is responsible, so that would include all Jews. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God..........

Maybe, but every sinner is not directly responsible for the crucifixion and that is what we are discussing. Were the jews, each and every one that was alive in Jesus day directly responsible for the crucifixion?

[DAII]

But were all of the Jews at Pentecost necessarily part of a political and geographical Israel? How can they all have been dispersed as a consequence if many who heard and understood the xenolalic tongues were from "every nation under heaven" who had come to worship for Passover and Pentecost, - some emigrants, some residents of other nations and some proselytes who were visitors.

"And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven."

“And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

Acts 2:5, 9-11

[mfblume]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]God didn't destroy every Jew. God destroyed Jerusalem and probly not even all of it.

Read history. ALL OF THE CITY was destroyed. Ezekiel 5 foretold of THREE fates of the people of Jerusalem. They would be killed, burned and scattered to the wind. EVERY PERSON in the city experienced one of those three fates. I never said all WOULD DIE. I said all there would be met with judgment for their corporate guilt.

So again, WHY did every single Jew in Jerusalem receive this judgment?

WHY did Jesus say the women and their children would cry for the rocks and mountains to cover them?


To answer your first question. All Jews comprise Israel but the actions of any nation are not necessarily the actions of all the people of that nation.

Not in Israel's case in that day.

[missourimary]

Acts 2:22-23
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

What do you make of Peter saying (I'm paraphrasing) that the men of Israel crucified Jesus?

The point I was attempting to make in this thread was that in Acts 2 Peter accused every Jews of that day of crucifying Jesus in a way apart from the guilt of humanity, dead, born or unborn. God bless!


Peter could have directed these comments to the ones who were asking questions, or to every onlooker. I can teach a class and in the middle of the lesson look directly at a student and say "You need to sit down," without indicating that everyone in the room was standing. Just sayin'...


Read history. ALL OF THE CITY was destroyed. Ezekiel 5 foretold of THREE fates of the people of Jerusalem. They would be killed, burned and scattered to the wind. EVERY PERSON in the city experienced one of those three fates. I never said all WOULD DIE. I said all there would be met with judgment for their corporate guilt.

So again, WHY did every single Jew in Jerusalem receive this judgment?

WHY did Jesus say the women and their children would cry for the rocks and mountains to cover them?

In Ezekiel 5 there is no mention of the rejection of the Messiah, much less of Jesus' crucifixion or their responsibility for it.
5“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. 6Yet in her wickedness she has rebelled against my laws and decrees more than the nations and countries around her. She has rejected my laws and has not followed my decrees.
7“Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: You have been more unruly than the nations around you and have not followed my decrees or kept my laws. You have not evena conformed to the standards of the nations around you.

[mfblume]

Peter could have directed these comments to the ones who were asking questions, or to every onlooker. I can teach a class and in the middle of the lesson look directly at a student and say "You need to sit down," without indicating that everyone in the room was standing. Just sayin'...

When Peter told the HOUSE OF ISRAEL they were guilty, it is pretty plain.

Act 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

In Ezekiel 5 there is no mention of the rejection of the Messiah, much less of Jesus' crucifixion or their responsibility for it.

Why was this fulfilled to the "t" in AD70? History shows this is precisely what happened when Rome razed the city. I can provide to documentation if you wish. Do you believe AD70 and Jerusalem's destruction had nothing to do with Jesus being rejected?

Mat 23:35-38 KJV That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (38) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.


And your response does not answer why Jesus told women that they and their children would cry for the mountains and rocks to hide them.

[mfblume]

But were all of the Jews at Pentecost necessarily part of a political and geographical Israel? How can they all have been dispersed as a consequence if many who heard and understood the xenolalic tongues were from "every nation under heaven" who had come to worship for Passover and Pentecost, - some emigrants, some residents of other nations and some proselytes who were visitors.

"And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven."

“And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

Acts 2:5, 9-11

Very good points.

Peter was addressing all Israel's house, including proselytes. He claimed Israel as a covenant people were guilty, whether they were there in Jerusalem when Jesus died or not.. Jesus came to the entire nation as King. The entire nation alive at that day was responsible for the cross. Jerusalem's destruction was not just people dying and enslaved, but the TEMPLE was gone forever. It was the NATION's TEMPLE. Every Jew everywhere was thereby judged.

[missourimary]

When Peter told the HOUSE OF ISRAEL they were guilty, it is pretty plain.

Act 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


It could be read, at least in the English, to mean either, "let all of you know that God has made this same Jesus whom all of you have crucified" or "let all of you know that God has make this same Jesus who [you and you and you, who were in the crowd yelling 'crucify' or were among those who plotted with Judas] both Lord and Christ. In English it would depend totally on body language to determine which sense of you was indicated. In the Greek, I believe there is a verb tense variation, but I don't read Greek.

As to the other, there are several prophecies that could be understood to represent several things. But I wasn't debating whether or not the prophecy in Ezekiel was intended to describe the events in 70 AD, but rather that Ezekiel 5 is talking about destruction coming as a result of the Jews disobedience to God's laws and commands, not their rejection of Christ. :thumbsup