Anti-Semitism in John

Many people believe that the Gospel of John is strongly anti-Semitic because of how the gospel writer portrays the Jews. Anti-Semitic translations of John have been the basis of many horrific deeds, including the attempted extermination of all Jews in the Holocaust. [1] Despite its anti-Semitic implications, however, careful research of John makes it clear that the gospel writer never intended to attack Jews. His treatment of Jews stems from a desire to reveal truths to his readers on many different levels, just as he strives to do with the rest of the subjects contained within his gospel. Though the writer of John often casts the Jews in a negative light, upon careful study it becomes clear that he was not anti-Semitic. Rather, his antagonism is directed towards those Jews who hear the word of Christ and still refuse to believe in him.

It is necessary to look at the Gospel of John as a whole in order to understand who exactly the Jews are and to reveal that the gospel writer is not antagonistic towards all Jews. For many years, the majority of scholars believed that "the Jews" referred solely to the Jewish authority figures. Eventually, however, scholars began to realize that this definition does not fit every occasion upon which the term "the Jews," or ιοÏ...δαιοι in Greek, is used. [2] For example, the Jews who go to the Lazarus' tomb with Mary in John 11:45 cannot be religious authorities because in the next verse they go to the Pharisees and tell them that Jesus has resurrected Lazarus. On the other hand, the Jews who call for the parents of the blind man, the same Jews that the blind man's parents are afraid of, are almost certainly religious authorities (Jn. 9:18; 9:22). The people who take Jesus to Pilate to be tried are continually referred to both as Jews and as chief priests (Jn. 19). In some passages the Jews do not believe in Jesus' words and try to kill him, but in a few cases the Jews are identified as believers. These variations seem to suggest that ιοÏ...δαιοι is not meant to refer to a particular type of Jew. Instead, ιοÏ...δαιοι is a general term with connotations that are based solely upon the passage in which it is placed; each time it is used, the term has a different role to play. [3] In many cases, ιοÏ...δαιοι refers to the Jews who do not believe in Jesus' words, and whose function in the gospel is to act as a symbol of unbelief. [4]

Though the Jews who take Jesus to Pilate to be condemned and who are present at his crucifixion are portrayed negatively, the gospel writer's intention is to criticize the chief priests who condemn Jesus, not to criticize the Jewish race as a whole (Jn. 18:12-19:42). The gospel writer does not refer to the Jewish police who come to arrest Jesus as Jewish in a desire to slander the Jewish race, but in an attempt to distinguish them from the Roman soldiers who come with them (Jn. 18:12). [5] When Pilate tells Jesus that he is not a Jew, he is not slandering the Jews; he is merely stating that he has no interest in Jewish claims of royalty. [6] This method of showing ethnical differentiation between the Jews and the Romans is used throughout the passion narrative not in order to suggest that it was the Jews' fault that Jesus was killed, but in order to show the reader who was involved in the scenario and what their motivations were. [7] Many readers who assume that the gospel writer uses the term "the Jews" with malicious intentions also believe that "King of the Jews" is meant to be a derogatory title. [8] However, this belief is not true; "King of the Jews" is actually a title that implies that Jesus is the Messiah, which is why the chief priests protest its placement on Jesus' cross (Jn. 19:21). [9] This scene, as well as many others throughout the Gospel, serves to reveal the hostility of the Jewish authorities towards Jesus. [10] The Jews who put Jesus on illegal trial and those who delivered Jesus to Pilate were almost certainly chief priests. The gospel writer tells his readers that Joseph of Arimathea feared the Jews, most likely the Jewish authorities (Jn. 19:38); since Joseph himself was a Jew, this statement reveals that the gospel writer differentiated between different types of Jews. This closure to the passion narrative, as well as Jesus' words to his loved ones on the cross, show that the gospel writer did not regard all Jews negatively. Although the writer of John does not hide the fact that the Jewish leaders persecuted Jesus to the point of his crucifixion, it is clear that his purpose is not to blame the Jews for Jesus' death.

While the gospel writer's intention to portray the Jews truthfully can be seen clearly in the passion narrative, it is more difficult to understand his attitude towards the Jews when Jesus calls them the children of the devil (Jn. 8:44). In an attempt to understand what the gospel writer means by this statement, scholars have debated for years about whether the Jews to whom Jesus speaks in this passage are believers or not. Hunn believes that they are true followers of Jesus, given the fact that the gospel writer calls the Jews those "who had believed in him" (Jn. 8:31). [11] However, Hunn's viewpoint seems improbable given the reaction of the Jews to Jesus' words in the rest of the passage, and given the fact that later on Jesus tells the Jews that they do not believe in him (Jn. 8:45). It is more likely that the Jews had believed in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, but never believed in him as the Son of God. Jesus' statement that the Jews are "from [their] father the devil" is an observation that the Jews to whom he is speaking follow in the devil's footsteps. The Jews' decision to hate Jesus shows that they are children of the devil, since children act like their parents and the devil has always hated Jesus. [12] If the Jews were children of God, as they claim, they would love Jesus as God loves him (Jn. 8:42). Jesus is not saying that the Jews are evil by nature, but that their behavior is evil. Because they have purposely chosen to be like the devil, when judgment day comes they will share in his fate of damnation. [13] While Jesus' words are shocking in their bluntness, the reader must take care to understand exactly how Jesus meant his words to be taken. Jesus is specifically condemning the Jews to whom he is speaking, not Jews in general. The Jews who are listening to Jesus do not believe in him as their savior; their lack of belief will result in the exact same punishment that any unbeliever will receive.

The unbelief of the Jews is a central part of the Gospel of John, but the gospel writer certainly did not think poorly of all things Jewish. For one thing, his extensive use of scripture in the Gospel makes it clear that he had no dislike of the Jewish faith. In fact, his use of Jewish scripture and its clear influence on his writing has led some scholars to believe that the writer was a Jew who lived in a Palestinian Diaspora community after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. [14] If this assumption is correct, it means that he was writing the Gospel of John at a time when tensions were high between Jews and Jewish Christians. At that time, Jewish rabbis were accusing Jewish Christians of being heretics and were blocking them from worshiping in the synagogues, so the gospel writer may have incorporated some of his anger with the Jews of his own time into the gospel that he wrote. The Jews' antagonism towards Jesus in the Gospel of John may have been intensified by the gospel writer's frustration with the Jews, but it is important to remember that he never accused the Jews of killing Jesus. The teachings in the Gospel of John reveal that the gospel writer was not antagonistic towards Jews in general, but solely towards those Jews who refused to believe in the God who came to save them.

[1] R.A. Bondi, "John 8:39-47: Children of Abraham or of the Devil?" JournEcumStud 34 (1997) 473-498.

[2] G.W. Bromily, "Jews," ISBE, vol. 3: 1675-1676.

[3] G. Caron, "Exploring a Religious Dimension: The Johannine Jews," StudRel/SciRel 24 (1995) 159-171.

[4] T.D. Lea, "Who Killed the Lord? A Defense against the Charge of Anti-Semitism in John's Gospel," CriswellTheoRev 7 (1994) 103-123.

[5] T.D. Lea, "Who Killed the Lord? A Defense against the Charge of Anti-Semitism in John's Gospel," CriswellTheoRev 7 (1994) 103-123.

[6] T.D. Lea, "Who Killed the Lord? A Defense against the Charge of Anti-Semitism in John's Gospel," CriswellTheoRev 7 (1994) 103-123.

[7] See Jn. 18:35; 19:21; 19:40; 19:42

[8] See Jn. 18:33; 18:39; 19:3; 19:19; 19:21

[9] T.D. Lea, "Who Killed the Lord? A Defense against the Charge of Anti-Semitism in John's Gospel," CriswellTheoRev 7 (1994) 103-123.

[10] See Jn. 18:14; 18:31; 18:36; 18:38; 19:7; 19:12; 19:14; 19:31; 19:38

[11] D. Hunn, "Who Are 'They' in John 8:33?" CathBibQuart 66 (2004) 387-399. 307.

[12] Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John Vol. 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 352-368.

[13] R.A. Bondi, "John 8:39-47: Children of Abraham or of the Devil?" JournEcumStud 34 (1997) 473-498.

[14] Glenn Balfour, "Is John's Gospel Anti-Semitic," Tyndale Bulletin 48 (2, 1997) 369-372.

Bibliography

Balfour, Glenn. "Is John's Gospel Anti-Semitic." Tyndale Bulletin 48 (2, 1997) 369-372.

Bondi, R.A. "John 8:39-47: Children of Abraham or of the Devil?" JournEcumStud 34 (1997) 473-498.

Bromily, G.W. "Jews." ISBE vol. 3: 1675-1676.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. Vol. 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; 1966.

Caron, G. "Exploring a Religious Dimension: The Johannine Jews." StudRel/SciRel 24 (1995) 159-171.

Hunn, D. "Who Are 'They' in John 8:33?" CathBibQuart 66 (2004) 387-399. 307.

Lea, T.D. "Who Killed the Lord? A Defense against the Charge of Anti-Semitism in John's Gospel." CriswellTheoRev 7 (1994) 103-123.

New Revised Standard Version Annotated Bible.

Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (1881).