Spiritual Instruction for Those Called to Restore Israel
For those who are not familiar with the outreach clip released by Jews for Jesus last year (2/apr/14), entitled “That Jew Died for You”, or TJDFY, please take three minutes and watch it now. It’s best to watch it several times. This video is the cause of the storm documented in this article. Or is it? But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Somehow I missed the fact that this short artistic/evangelistic piece had become controversial in the Jewish Body of Messiah. I saw the clip when it first came out; then I moved on and forgot about it. It was only recently (june/2015) that I accidentally came upon a wave of protests that had erupted during the peak of its popularity (the video topped 1 million hits in the first month). The criticism was not limited to the clip itself, but extended to condemnations of the organization, calls for apologies and resignations, even charges that J4J had desecrated God’s name in creating the clip. (Reminder: this was Messianic Jewish feedback.)
How this report can build up the Body of Messiah
Finding that the controversy had pulled in old friends and leaders who interact with the Israeli believers, I decided to see if these charges were justified. Doing it a year after the fact was actually an advantage. With the dust long settled, I could get a complete picture of the Messianic (and non-Messianic) commentary on the issue. More specifically, I could test the repeated MJ claims of widespread Jewish backlash from the clip – which at the time were mostly confident predictions rather than reported events.
Besides its value as a reality check, I present this assessment as a case study for those MJs who aspire to the office of elder or judge. This is an honorable function, and we are expected to have competent leaders performing judgment services (1 Cor.6:1-11). But from my experience and observation, rendering judgments in disputes between brothers has one of the highest rates of malpractice (compared to the Scriptural instructions) out of any process in the Messianic Body. When it comes to weighing the merits of accusations against leaders in particular, we have seen extremes of condemnation and pardon that have caused untold damage.
This report will hopefully bring attention to the need to restore MJ integrity in at least two judgment skills that were lacking in the J4J controversy: a thorough examination of what happened, as opposed to what was said to have happened; and an attempt to see what it all added up to, in comparison to conclusions prematurely fired off and then forgotten.
My personal investment in this controversy
Until now I have had no stake at all. I have never held a position in J4J, the UMJC, the ADL or any of the other organizations, news outlets or blogs weighing in with a public response. Nor can I identify any relatives who perished in the Holocaust (they were no doubt affected, but my family was established in the USA by then). This gives me objectivity and distance in evaluating the TYDFY clip, but it also makes it easy to make pronouncements without consequences. It’s not entirely fair to scrutinize the views of others when you have not allowed others the opportunity to scrutinize you in return. So first I offer my personal take on the clip, and I invite comments – even arguments, if you are so inclined.
Due to my profession (a marketing communicator for 30 years), and my lifestyle (a Torah-observant Jewish believer rooted in Israeli culture), my analysis of the clip goes somewhat deeper than the average comment. I thought about the messages conveyed from several angles, as well as the messages which, according to Jews for Jesus, had been intended.
The messages I saw in “That Jew Died for You”
The video was a 3-minute clip produced on a limited budget. As a side-note, some critics specifically ridiculed it for its “low-budget” quality. As it stood, however, it carries remarkably strong images for a simple video.
The climax of the short plot is when the Nazi officers are interrupted in their sadistic “selection” process (right, to the work camp; left, to the “showers”) by the arrival of Jesus as one of their Jewish captives. It drives home the logical implications of Jew-hatred.
The stares of the officers, and the slight hesitation, tell us that they clearly recognize the Christian Savior – and they were not prepared for the encounter. They had forgotten that He was one of “them”. What will they do with Him? We see the choice as it develops.
Rather than arousing shame, Christ’s presence only whets the younger Nazi’s desire to destroy Him. The lust (as one reviewer identified it) is shown in his perverse eagerness to be the one to judge this special case, his up-down look showing his disdain and superiority, and finally his biting words accompanied by the spiteful head tilt. As the Redeemer is prodded in the direction of the gas chambers by a bored soldier enforcing the decision, the video wisely goes silent… giving viewers a few seconds to digest the traumatic implications.
The clip closes with scrolling text from the Suffering Servant prophecy in Isaiah 53. By now, it’s easy to apply the “transgressions” and “transgressors” mentioned in this famous chapter to what we have just seen. It’s especially relevant for those who deny the atrocities carried out at Auschwitz/Birkenau on the one hand, and yell “Jews back to Birkenau” on the other.
Pause for a side-note
If this application of Isaiah 53 troubles Messianic believers, it’s because we have lost the ability to read the scriptures and allow for multiple interpretations – the way Yeshua and His apostles did. For more details, please take a detour to an article on the Restorers site, “How to Read Torah through Jewish Eyes”.
Several years ago, we at RZ documented the reality that the Isaiah “Suffering Servant” passage is accepted in Jewish tradition both as a picture of the nation of Israel suffering rejection from the nations AND as the Messiah suffering rejection from His people (without one canceling out the other). Therefore, my allowing the first interpretation its place in the video did not represent a betrayal of the second interpretation. On the contrary, the result was a fresh interpretation of Messiah and Israel together suffering the same rejection from the nations, which further enriched my Jewish understanding of the passage.
In contrast, many MJs have absorbed the Christian tradition of either-or interpretation, which regards multiple understandings not as God-breathed revelation to be celebrated, but as competing options to be eliminated. Thus the typical church view of Isaiah 53 requires that the “Israel” interpretation must give way to the “Messiah” interpretation. (The modern Jewish view does the opposite: the “Messiah” interpretation must give way to the “Israel” interpretation. But ironically, that can only be done by dumping the Jewish method of interpretation and adopting the Christian way.)
My overall response to the clip
In conclusion, I decided after several viewings that I liked the clip very much… even the Isaiah 53 passage, the part that proved to be the most controversial for others. To my thinking, it was a most appropriate challenge for Holocaust Remembrance Day and the Christian Holy Week, the stated occasions for the release of the clip. I had identified so strongly with the Holocaust victims that I took the Isaiah 53 quote to be a message to the Christians, whose “transgressions” and “iniquities” included stripping Christ of His Jewishness, and/or cursing the Jews in His name. This understanding was shared by a few others who posted responses, mainly Christians.
So at first the dissonance that would result from an exclusive “Messiah” reading of Isaiah 53 went over my head. I was clued in by the contradicting statements from the clip’s producers.
The official TJDFY website includes a text and video explanation about the Holocaust imagery in the clip. Many MJ objections showed no sign that the protesters had done even the minimum courtesy of visiting this explanatory site and giving the producers a hearing. So for those who missed it, I am giving this source extra attention.
Misunderstandings created, resolved, and recreated
The US-based headquarters of these Jewish evangelists were prepared for possible accusations that they had joined the growing trend of trivializing the Holocaust with cheap comparisons. They presented a fairly strong defense.
But they weren’t prepared for the interpretation controversy they had raised by adding Isaiah 53. J4J tied the clip to the Christian interpretative tradition described above. Their explanation presents the Isaiah passage, and indeed the entire clip, as a message to the Jews about their Messiah’s suffering (suffering for them, not with them). Gentile contributions to Jewish suffering are only mentioned in passing, and not with reference to Isaiah 53.
This is especially ironic since J4J had themselves published an excellent article acknowledging the “both-and” interpretation of Isaiah 53 endorsed by RZ, and embracing the suffering Servant as Messiah in one sense and as Israel in another. It was written by J4J staffer Aaron Trank, who would later bring it up in his personal response to the controversy surrounding this clip. But in offering a resolution to this centuries-old dilemma that has blocked a full Jewish-Christian understanding of Isaiah 53, Aaron was on his own. The official TJDFY site passed up an opportunity to link their own article.
As I mentioned, the clip itself (without the “help” of J4J’s explanation) does a better job in fusing Isaiah 53 with the traumatic image of the Messiah heading toward the gas chambers as “just another Jew” being “led to the slaughter”. Unfortunately, the J4J statement denies that message and tacks a different message over it.
J4J’s text defense
The official explanatory text on the “Why” site is only two short paragraphs. The first paragraph has a two-fold message: directed first at those Jews who blame Jesus for providing inspiration for the Holocaust (“Jesus has often been wrongly associated with the perpetrators of the Holocaust. In reality, he is to be identified with those who were the victims.”); and second at those Jews (and Christians?) who had forgotten His Jewish identity (“As a Jew, if he were in Europe at the time, Jesus may well have suffered the same fate of the six million who perished in the concentration camps.”)
These two messages are worthy and relevant, and those taking the clip at face value will recognize that they both come through in the video. Then the second paragraph of this text, with no warning, pulls readers in a completely different direction:
Jewish teaching promotes the idea that the death of Jews in the Holocaust accomplished kiddush ha Shem, the sanctification of God’s name. How much more then, the Bible tells us, Jesus’ death was intended by God for kiddush ha am, the sanctification of the people. Through him we can be made right with God. (See Hebrews 13:12)
Besides coming off as an obligatory “give them the gospel while we have their attention” exercise, the three-sentence statement fights with itself. There is nothing in the TJDFY clip that links the heartbreak of the Holocaust with the opportunity provided by Yeshua’s sacrifice to “be made right with God”. The One Jew who willingly laid down His life because this was His Father’s plan, and the six million Jews brutally deprived of their lives because the world refused to intervene, cannot coexist in the same thought. Last but not least, although Yeshua’s atonement does have the power to sanctify all peoples (not just “ha-am”, the [Jewish] people), the rabbinic concept of Kiddush HaShem has no connection to any atoning sacrifice mentioned in Torah. Despite the literal translation of “Kiddush” as “sanctification”, this is a special term reserved for martyrdom for the Jewish faith. The term “kiddush ha-am” does not exist either in Jewish teaching or in the salvation message.
Unlike the first paragraph, the second one feels forced and artificial. It provides ammunition for one accusation from the Jewish community: the evangelistic add-on of Isaiah 53 was the real goal for making the clip, and the Holocaust was just a means to that end.
J4J’s defense in explanatory videos
In fairness to J4J, their site demonstrates that giving the gospel was not the only goal. The lineup of testimonies from Holocaust survivors, each one of them worth the time it takes to watch, pokes holes in that accusation. Likewise, those who viewed one companion video on the TJDFY site, “Jesus in Jewish Art”, would have realized the unfairness of the second accusation from uninformed responders: J4J had showed insensitivity towards the Holocaust and its significance, by merging it with the image of Jesus.
The main video (“Why we made this film”) adds several more statements about the clip’s use of the Holocaust setting. The first points out that they had attempted to address the haunting question, "where was God during the Holocaust?" J4J showed that this issue was indeed a priority by offering a 44-page booklet that apparently wrestles in more detail with the question. (I did not take the time to read it.)
The “where” question is also addressed in the clip itself. The Lord’s first appearance is partly off-camera and easy to miss; in fact, a Messianic Israeli friend watching it with me for the first time DID miss Him. It’s a fitting allusion to God’s presence in the real-life Holocaust, which the narrators mention more explicitly in their “Why” video. I should add that implicit in the video is the profound footnote that God did not demand… or necessarily receive… recognition for being there.
The second statement in the “Why” video is the hope that casting Messiah as one of the Holocaust victims would help fight the lie that Jesus or His teachings justified the Nazi “final solution”. By removing this obstacle, they anticipated that more Jews would re-think their opinions of Him, and of His claim to be their Messiah.
The third “Why” explanation (time mark 1:15) again brings in the gospel… and here the clash of messages returns more strongly than ever. The scene of Christ being driven off to the gas chamber in 1943 Poland becomes the background for a narrator’s voiceover telling us about “Jesus’ sufferings almost 2000 years ago”, introducing a time overlap which the scene does not support. The Nazi dismissal of “just another Jew” to the gas is overridden by the announcement that God sent Jesus “to die, willingly, as an atonement for our sin”. The latter spoken words make nonsense of the former printed words, which are clearly visible during the "atonement" voiceover. You might even think that a sound track from a different clip had been accidentally mixed with this one… were it not for the precise match a few seconds later between the video of the Isaiah passage and the audio explanation of its significance.
Having discharged the obligation of inserting a gospel commercial, the “Why” narration returns to the Holocaust theme, urging “both Jews and Gentiles to rethink their bias against Jesus and redefine the conversation” about Him, at which point the visuals (shots of the production team working with the stage set) once again reinforce what’s being said. But then comes a final statement about the film being a message of “hope and salvation”. No such message can be found in the film scenes, forcing the “Why” producers to create visual support for this statement with scenes from a world that never experienced Auschwitz.
To conclude, the confusion and offense arose partly from the message of the clip itself conflicting with the producer’s comments, and partly from the apparent fact that no opponents yelling “Holocaust abuse” had bothered to explore the official TJDFY site.
What were the Messianic objections?
The operative word used most often by the brethren was “offensive”. It was not given a context often enough to report a solid consensus on what that actually meant.
In the case of Messianic believers, we can rule out one possibility that haunts the wider Jewish community. It is inconceivable that we should ever find the gospel message of Isaiah 53 “offensive” in itself. Therefore, we should be able to immediately look for the offense elsewhere.
I suggest that in the context of this clip, the gospel application was not so much offensive as off-topic.
The conflict and moment of decision (“What will you do with Jesus?”) were squarely on the Nazi side, with the Jews as helpless witnesses. There was nothing in the visual presentation about the Holocaust victims struggling to accept Jesus’ role as Messiah; His carrying of the cross was merely a visual cue to distinguish Him from any another Biblical figure. As for the Jews arriving at Auschwitz, they see Him as a fellow prisoner – in fact, they accept His presence among them in a matter-of-fact way that also speaks (to the perceptive viewer). That message was indeed a challenge to the Jewish people, but it has to do with Jesus’ identity as a Jew who shares their stigma, not His role in forgiving their sin.
The reflexive need to splice an explicit salvation announcement into every J4J presentation, regardless of whether or not it fits, is a habit which many have come to expect (or dread) from this evangelistic organization. We might argue about whether this feeling of obligation comes from a narrow view of how God reveals His Son to our people, or whether it comes from donor expectations…. That’s a question beyond the scope of this paper.
But the “off-topic gospel message” was not an objection heard from Messianic opponents. And the objections that were voiced did not hold water, as I will now attempt to show.
A few believers opposed Yeshua’s appearance at Auschwitz as an “anachronistic conflation”, taking a literalist view which demands strict separation of historical events and personalities. “Anachronistic” means “not belonging to this time period”; “conflation” is the merging of two unrelated concepts together in a way that destroys their differences. Besides the solid evidence that this creative device is already familiar in Jewish art, this was a judgment that our own faith will not support.
The Messianic meaning of the Isaiah 53 passage is itself an “anachronistic conflation”. The prophecy spells out the future reality in past tense: “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried.” (Isa.53:4) It’s an inescapable time-bending paradox – and not the only one in Scripture where Messiah is described.
An “anachronistic conflation” more relevant to this film is Yeshua’s final pledge to His disciples, some of whom went through the Holocaust: “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” To creatively portray the Messiah’s presence in that dark hour should be a welcome reminder of the unseen reality. It is a violation of logic only for the unbelievers, who depend on human wisdom and visible reality (1 Cor.2:14-16).
There was one objection that noted the dissonance between the Holocaust and the gospel, but that individual suggested that J4J should have made the gospel the primary message. No opinion was offered on what to do with all the ‘off-topic’ Holocaust scenes which made up the entire 3-minute clip.
The most common MJ response was the prediction, or assumption, that the Jewish community in general, and Holocaust survivors in particular, would erupt (or were already erupting) in outrage at this misuse of the Holocaust. A repeating corollary was that J4J’s insensitivity would damage (or was already damaging) the efforts of other Messianic groups who are trying to bring the Good News to the Jewish people.
It’s hard to know how many tried to test their theory. They would have had to ponder the numerous Jewish artists who have associated Jesus symbolically with the worst-ever tragedy of the Jews, as a way of reclaiming Him for the Jewish people. To the J4J’s above-mentioned educational video I would add Chaim Potok’s novels, as well as the impressive poem someone posted at the beginning of the Messianic debate on this issue (see the timeline, 11/apr). That latter work, by 20 th-century Zionist writer Marie Syrkin, is entitled “To a Christian Friend” and it ends with the lines: “Return to Him the yellow badge. Give me back Jesus. He is not yours.”
Not least in this tradition is our very own Messianic Israeli sculptor Rick Weineke, whose work has often merged Yeshua and the Holocaust. Rick’s “Fountain of Tears” in Arad has deeply moved Jewish people who would never accept a J4J gospel tract… and has opened them up to Yeshua’s love in ways that can only be attributed to the Holy Spirit.
For all these reasons, it is imperative to test the widely published, effortlessly accepted MJ theory. Did the wider Jewish community and/or Holocaust survivors react in widespread outrage to this clip? If so, what did they find offensive? If the answers were not clear at the time of the MJ controversy, they should be clear by now.
Disclaimer:
I will admit that online investigations cannot show everything, and that much of the response has probably not been expressed in public statements. For example, there was no comment on this clip from Israeli Messianic leaders found online, other than two different entries from one individual. This finding is significant, since many of them have a good command of English and could have entered the online debate if they had wanted. In fact, a thorough check of the English-language blogs and letters archived at kehilah.com (the most comprehensive collection of Israeli MJ online communications) showed that from the time of the clip’s release (2/apr) until the last MJ comment abroad (mid-july 2014), no Israelis made “That Jew Died for You” a focus for comment. One article appeared (27/apr) in the Israeli MJ publication Israel Today, which did not quote any Israeli believers. The Caspari Center Media Review (a synopsis of mostly Hebrew Israeli press mentioning Christians or MJs) likewise reveals nothing.
By the same token, there was very little first-hand response from Holocaust survivors available online – other than the ADL’s Abe Foxman, whose personal Jewish-Christian background (explained later) may have fueled his condemnation. The closest we get to hearing from survivors are a couple of organizations speaking in their name, but with no actual quotes from survivors. A few believers with Holocaust family losses only mention the fact; those who were bothered by the clip gave the same reasons for their objections as those with no losses. A rare exception was J4J staffer Aaron Trank, who expresses ambivalence about the clip but ultimately defends it.
Be that as it may, the Messianic-Christian community appeared to be relying heavily on online responses for their opinions. So I present to you a chronicle of the responses (as complete a record as I was able to gather), as a reality check.
THE TIMELINE: Who expressed outrage, when, and what were their accusations?
In order to determine the sources of the repeating Messianic comments about “widespread Jewish outrage”, and to discover who/what they were referring to, I arranged my findings in chronological order. In the Jewish responses, I color-coded the names and organizations to distinguish between (presumed) Jewish Messianic believers and Jewish non-believers, giving a faith-based context for who was quoting, supporting, responding to, or taking issue with whom. The obviously non-Jewish respondents are considered third-party participants for our purposes – color-coded in green. Non-believing Jews with a contradictory identity (like one Jewish Holocaust denier) are violet and green but are counted in the Jewish feedback. All these differences are enlightening, and the colors make it easier to see who dominated the outrage over the clip.
Finally, in order to avoid confusion between fact and opinion, I bracket my own inserted comments between the notes [HW] and [end].
2/apr/14: The clip is released by Jews for Jesus. The J4J press release gives the debut date as 14/apr, but the earliest video is found here.
11/apr: This Messianic comment appears to the first review posted by anyone, anywhere. Messianic blogger Dror at Rosh Pina Project (RPP, a MJ blog that appears to be based in the UK) expresses an objection that is multi-layered. On the evangelistic add-on, he notes its dissonance with the Holocaust setting, but his objection is unique in proposing that it was the gospel, rather than the Holocaust, that was being short-changed: “The concept of Jesus suffering in a concentration camp… seems to distract from the main message of Yeshua being our atoning sacrifice.”
His other objection focuses on a predicted Jewish refusal to associate the crucifixion with the Holocaust. [HW] Here Dror missed a chance for self-education provided by the J4J video survey of Jewish art. [end]
11/apr: A poem by Zionist and Holocaust writer Marie Syrkin, is posted by an anonymous responder to Dror’s comment, presumably as an argument against his theory. Dror makes no reply to this challenge, and neither does anyone else at RPP.
14/apr: J4J media producer Sean Trank posts a short blog telling about his “mixed feelings” in producing the clip. He sums up his understanding of the message and advises viewers to take time to digest it: "This film expresses that God was very much present during the Holocaust and I invite you to watch and respond to the film in any manner you see fit. It may take time to process, it may take several views to process, it may offend, and it may tear down veils and give you a new perspective."
16/apr: The Christian News Wire runs a brief story announcing the release of the video to coincide with Passover, Christian Holy Week and Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. It’s not clear whether this is a press release or a news report – J4J leaders are the only sources quoted, followed by the TJDFY link; but the headline and lead paragraph already mark the clip as “controversial”.
17/apr: A strongly worded protest over the clip appears in the Opinion section of the Jewish Forward from liberal Jewish writer Jay Michaelson. Using sensational language, Jay attracts attention from other media over the following weeks. He is quoted by numerous blogs and news outlets, both Jewish and Christian, as well as secular media.
[HW] As the first to bash the video, Jay Michaelson lights the fuse for quite a few other journalists and bloggers. Unfortunately, he supplies them with more heat than light. He quotes from the “Why we made the film” page at the TJDFY site, showing he had visited the site; but by asserting that the memory of the Holocaust was desecrated by the image of Christ suffering at Auschwitz, he shows that he didn’t absorb the companion video, “Jewish Suffering: A Look at Jesus in Jewish Art”, which debunks that idea. [end]
Jay sees nothing positive, only a “tasteless” and “ludicrous” attempt to “lever Jewish tragedy into Jewish converts”. He dismisses J4J as “a front” that is not really Messianic because it is funded by Christians. He makes a confident unqualified prediction on behalf of the Jewish people: “ Any Jew with personal, familial, or even historical memories of the Holocaust will immediately find it to be an outrage.”
Jay Michaelson evades the idea of Jesus’ eligibility as a Jew for the Nazi gas chambers. But he appears to be sincerely confused by the dissonance between the Holocaust imagery and the “theological message” given in the TJDFY site’s explanation of the clip:
J4J is so enmeshed in its Christian universe, its leaders seem unable even to understand that Jews see the world differently. Ending with a selective mistranslation [sic, misinterpretation] of the “suffering servant” passage from Isaiah 53, the film implies that Jesus was killed, by the Nazis and/or the Romans, for our sins. Of course, if that substitutional theology were true, why did six million Jews also have to die?
18/apr: A pastor at Topeka Bible Church (name not available) uses the clip to start his Good Friday sermon. He comments that to date, the clip has logged roughly “over half a million” views, including 180,000 hits in Israel, with 19,000 responses. He also mentions an “outburst” from unnamed Jewish leaders in Israel which was igniting a “firestorm” over here.
[HW] The source for his information was not mentioned, but we will assume these details came from J4J. I was unable to locate either the “outburst” or the “firestorm” here in Israel – the earliest Israeli news coverage appears in the Jerusalem Post, also 18/apr and quite brief. We might be missing some printed or radio-TV coverage, but the really newsworthy stories tend to show up online sooner or later. That “storm” never did surface in Israeli media, so this declaration remains a mystery. [end]
18/apr: Jay Michaelson’s critique is used as a springboard by blogger Adam Weinstein, who would later be quoted as a representative Jewish voice by Christianity Today (see 23/apr). [HW] It’s not clear why Adam’s response was selected by CT. His distance from Jewish identity is demonstrated by the fact that his only other blog on Jewish issues is a sarcastic slam against Israel’s defense needs. [end]
18/apr: A Jewish blogger affiliated with New Age briefly pokes fun at the clip, spending more time on inventing witty one-liners than explaining his objection.
18/apr: The Christian Post (advertised as “the largest Christian newspaper in the world”) covers the controversy, giving the most space to a J4J reply, prefaced by Jay Michaelson’s criticism (17/apr) of the video.
18/apr: The Christian news blog “One News Now” posts a brief positive announcement about the clip, quoting J4J’s David Brickner.
18/apr: The mainstream Israeli news outlet Jerusalem Post briefly notes that the J4J clip has “gone viral” and “is causing a stir” but does not elaborate. The news item (editorial?) of four sentences dismisses it as a “provocative” move by “messianic Jews” and most likely a “membership” drive for the J4J organization.
19/apr: The mainstream Israeli news outlet Ynet reports on the clip, with the headline, “Jesus Died a Jew: Video Showcases Christ as a Holocaust Victim”. Other than the subheading, which sounds mildly disapproving (“Video by ‘Jews for Jesus’ aims to convert Jews to Christianity and intentionally released in conjunction with Passover, Easter, Holocaust Remembrance Day”), the story is exclusively from the J4J viewpoint.
19/apr: The anti-Messianic site “Jewish Israel” links the clip, with a one-sentence condemnation of it as a “desecration of our people” and “a promotional clip for Jews for Jesus”. The site is managed by a small circle of Israeli and Diaspora orthodox Jews, who not only condemn all Messianic presence in Israel, but view “unregulated” Israeli-evangelical interaction with suspicion as well. [HW] Commentary from Israeli researcher Ellen Horowitz, which usually analyzes Messianic offenses against the Jewish community in great detail, is absent here. Presumably Ellen was not able to support her harsh verdict of the clip with a description of its content. But to her credit, she allows others to decide for themselves what they think. [end]
20/apr: Jewish Holocaust denier Paul Eisen posts the Ynet article (19/apr) and a link to the J4J clip, calling it “horrible rubbish” but declining to explain. Paul’s reason for objecting is found elsewhere on his site, where he voices his disbelief that “homicidal gas chambers” really existed, or that the Nazis carried out a systematic plan to destroy the Jews.
21/apr: An antisemitic Holocaust-denial site becomes the only source to express any criticism of Jay Michaelson (“he grossly misses the point”). In contrast, this blogger hates the clip precisely because it IS so sympathetic to the Jews: “The [J4J] video bonds the naive Christian believer to Jewish suffering by providing a bridge between the Passion of Christ and Jewish suffering. The intent is to plant the holocaust Zionist orthodoxy into the heart of the Christian naive soul.”
22/apr: Another Holocaust denier denounces the J4J clip as part of a Jewish plot to foist the “Holocaust fable” onto the Christian world.
22/apr: "Progressive Christian Channel" blogger Tony Jones voices strong condemnation of “the always-offensive evangelistic group” J4J and calls the clip “one of the most blatantly offensive and disgusting pieces of Christian propaganda that I’ve ever seen.” Tony’s objection accurately pins down the dissonance of “tak[ing] the Holocaust and us[ing] it for evangelism,” but he wrongly accuses J4J of using the Holocaust only as a means to that end.
Dr. Jones, who teaches theology at Fuller Seminary, does not regard accuracy on Jewish concepts to be relevant to his assessment. He notes that the clip “equates the Jewish understanding of martyrdom (kedoshim) [sic, Kiddush Hashem] with Jesus’ execution,” but says it doesn’t bother him. However, he regards his readers as unable to evaluate the clip’s merits for themselves: “I’m not going to link to it, because I don’t want you to watch it….”
23/apr: The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issues a statement on their site condemning the video. In it ADL director and Holocaust survivor Abe Foxman accuses J4J of “cheapening” the Holocaust and “cynically using” the traumatic event for evangelizing purposes.
At the end of this press release is a mention that the ADL had condemned J4J in 2001as well, for publishing testimonies of “people identified as Holocaust survivors who were quoted as saying that they were Holocaust survivors who ‘truly believe in Jesus.’”
[HW] Here I pause to give some little-known background on Abe Foxman before commenting on his attempt to discredit MJ Holocaust survivors.
For the record, the head of the ADL has at times expressed a strong Jewish-Christian ambivalence. The TJDFY site includes a valuable crash course on the spiritual (pagan) foundations of Nazism, which begins with a quote by Abe Foxman implying that Nazi ideology was compatible with Christianity: “Many of the same people who operated the gas chambers worshiped in Christian churches on Sunday…The question of the complicity of the church in the murder of the Jews is a living one.”
From that statement, one would never guess that Abe had survived the Holocaust as a baptized Catholic. He confesses in his bio, “Had my parents died during the Holocaust, it is a possibility that I may have even become a priest when I grew up…. Even once I was reunited with my parents, I was a good practicing Catholic…. I cried when other children called me a Jew. ” Abe Foxman’s attempts to delegitimize J4J’s Messianic Holocaust survivors may be an indication that their stories came too close for comfort…. or that he could only cope with his past Christian identity by denying their current Messianic Jewish identities.
TO CLARIFY : I would not think to criticize this long-time defender of the Jewish people for a past over which he had no control. However, he may not have realized that these attacks by the ADL set a dangerous precedent of discriminating against one subgroup of Holocaust survivors. The wording of the condemnation from 2001 also encourages Holocaust deniers by insinuating – without evidence – that some Holocaust survivors may have fabricated or embellished their stories. [end]
23/apr: Mainstream Christian magazine Christianity Today carries the story, including a handful of quotes representing the different sides in the controversy. Leading with Jay Michaelson (17/apr), the report adds Adam Weinstein (18/apr), whose right to speak for the Jewish people is unquestioned, despite his complaint about J4J seeking “to convert Hebrews [sic]”. The article also includes Messianic blogger Dror (11/apr) as a more nuanced objection.
23/apr: Liberal Israeli news source Ha’aretz reports on the video, finding interest in the controversy but remaining neutral about the clip itself. The report quotes the Forward’s Michaelson (17/apr), giving equal time to J4J’s executive director David Brickner, and reprinting the opinions quoted (23/apr) in Christianity Today.
23/apr: Rosh Pina Project links the Ha’aretz article, and cites it as proof of “massive backlash from the Jewish community”. RPP blogger Gev reinforces this idea by slightly misquoting the Israeli news headline as “Most Tasteless YouTube Video Ever”. The actual headline is an open question based on the opinion of Jay Michaelson: “the ‘most tasteless YouTube video ever’?”
23/apr: J4J media producer Sean Trank, who was involved in producing the clip, posts his own experience of the feedback as viewing hits the 1 million mark. According to Sean, the private comments are far more positive than the made-for-public comments. He comments:
Just the fact that [sic] being a Jew for Jesus stirs up trouble by nature… Yet the feedback we received in just a few days of the launch might surprise you. I like many others who worked on the project assumed the worst as far as what response the film would get, but I was pleasantly surprised by many responses from people who took some time to really think about the reality we were portraying.
He provides links to a few of the “worst” (all of which are in my report), and he invites talk-back.
One Jewish believer named Bill responds, saying that he finds the 3-minute video “incredibly offensive and it hurts.” Sean asks the brother why he feels that way. There is no reply.
[HW] Unless Bill answered Sean privately, he lost all opportunity to finish that conversation, at least in this life. On 2/jul/2014, the Lord took Sean home. While he was producing the clip, Sean apparently already knew he was dying of lung cancer. I would assume that his elation in the above-mentioned post was from the realization that his final earthly contribution was being taken seriously by the world – and not misplaced pride in causing controversy, as some bloggers at RPP would later insinuate. [end]
24/apr: The secular media outlet UK Telegraph carries a review of the clip by (presumed Jewish) journalist Jake Simons, framed in sensational terms like “sick joke” and “possibly the most offensive video ever made”. Jake’s reason for the superlatives: “It assumes the right to blithely portray the Holocaust…for its own narrow theological ends.” He dismisses the J4J explanations as “wooly and confused”, and Jake himself is skeptical that the Jews ever associated Jesus with the perpetrators of the Holocaust, or that the Holocaust ever stopped Jews from thinking about Jesus.
[HW] Although he has written before on Holocaust issues, Jake Simons could have learned something new, had he viewed the J4J-supplied testimony of Holocaust survivor Rose Price, who relates that every time a camp guard beat them, he would say, “Jesus told us to hit you. Jesus hates you.” [end]
24/apr: The ADL condemnation (23/apr) is carried on several Jewish sites, including a report at Algemeiner, and one at the Jewish Press. The religious Israeli news outlet Israel National News comments that the video “is being seen as a step too far even for Jews for Jesus, a group already infamous for its provocative activities and attempts to lure Jews into leaving their religion.” But only the ADL response is quoted.
24/apr: The mainstream Israeli news source Times of Israel gives a factual report on the ADL denunciation, placing Abe Foxman’s quotes opposite the J4J response.
24/apr: Secular UK media outlet Huffington Post covers the story, giving the lion’s share of quotes to Jay Michaelson with a nod to J4J rebuttals.
25/apr: Jay Michaelson’s condemnation (17/apr) of the J4J clip is picked up by the UK Independent. Roughly the same space is given to J4J’s Susan Perlman, but a caption over the J4J clip link says, “Warning: Contains some scenes that viewers may find upsetting.”
25/apr: The secular network BBC interviews Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner who says she is also “a Christian theologian” [sic]. Rabbi Klausner states that the clip producers “connect the Holocaust with punishment” and that the clip’s message was that “the Holocaust was punishment” on the Jewish people; she demands its removal from YouTube. Julia Pascoe, UK director for Jews for Jesus, responds (more extensively on BBC radio earlier in the day, but only briefly quoted in this BBC news item). Rabbi Klausner is later quoted by several other sources.
25/apr: The Israeli orthodox news outlet Israel National News publishes a retraction and apology to the clip’s producers. Embedded in another story about a "missionary ad" run by J4J was this: “The [J4J] organization states, however, that it strongly rejects views that were attributed to it in the Israeli media that the Jews are to blame for the persecution they have experience [sic] over the generations, and especially for the Holocaust, because of their rejection of Jesus. [Our news outlet] Arutz Sheva, which previously reported those claims, apologizes for any misunderstanding.”
[HW] The only previous Arutz Sheva report on the clip that I could find (24/apr) makes no mention of this accusation. It’s possible they deleted it. Likewise, I found no other “Israeli media” that printed this view which they report was attributed to J4J. [end]
25/apr: The secular newspaper UK Guardian hosts a commentary by interfaith priest Giles Fraser who gives equal time to condemning the “mind-bogglingly offensive” J4J clip and condemning the notion of Jesus dying for the sins of mankind, an idea which he says “was unknown in the early church”. Giles rejects the clip mainly because of the cross appearing in it, which to him conveys “the idea that the Jews were the Christ-killers”. [HW] Without commenting on his fractured theology, I will note that his heart is in the right place. But he will search in vain for even a hint about “Christ-killing Jews” anywhere in the J4J clip. [end]
25/apr: The London-based Jewish Chronicle reports on the clip. Other than mentioning (without details) that it “has been condemned for drawing connections between the Holocaust, Jesus and punishment” (likely an indirect quote of UK Rabbi-Christian theologian Klausner, 25/apr), the short article just gives the scene sequence, ending with: “Another actor, dressed as Jesus Christ holding a large wooden cross, suddenly appears at the front of the gates. The Nazi officer directs him to the gas chamber. ‘Just another Jew,’ he says.”
25/apr: American MJ Nicole Czarnecki starts a poll to survey believers’ reactions to the clip. She uses the site to promote a petition calling for J4J director David Brickner to step down. Nicole accuses David of “exploiting the Holocaust” and bringing J4J to a “deplorable” state. As it is worded, her appeal implies that J4J is being cursed and that God is going to “deliver them to trouble”. (The petition was not successful and was eventually closed.)
Nicole receives two challenges on this blog from MJs. Says Stan Cohen: “Why is Jesus being on the side of the Jews offensive? If he was a Nazi I would be very offended.” An anonymous responder: “I think this film is very powerful and as a Messianic Jew myself it has been a great value for [sic] have a conversation about Jesus with my Jewish family.” Nicole receives support from Richard, a Christian who says the clip is “disgusting, as is the whole premise of Messianic Christianity [sic].”
Nicole responds to Richard with the prediction that her cousin (a Holocaust survivor who became a “Catholic Messianic Jew”, now deceased) “would be [sic, would have been] offended” by the clip. She continues with criticism of J4J’s management.
26/apr: Atheist Jaclyn Glenn is upset by the popularity of the J4J clip and makes “a response video”, in which she rambles against Christian Nazis and Christians in general, but doesn’t have anything specific to say about the clip itself.
27/apr: British Jewish blogger Sam Gross volunteers his negative opinion about the J4J clip on the Times of Israel blog. Sam expresses his “revulsion” at the clip’s content because of the existence of Nazi Christians, causing him to conclude that the Jews at Auschwitz were killed for Jesus. [HW] It is not clear how Sam reached this conclusion by watching the video. Nor is it clear why the “Swiss-born Briton studying at Cambridge” chose to express his opposition to a US-produced clip on an Israeli site. But his fellow-Brit Jake Simons should read it, since Jake is skeptical (24/apr) that any Jews blame Jesus for the Holocaust. [end]
27/apr: One of the strongest public rebukes is posted on the blog of former J4J evangelist and American MJ Stuart Dauermann. Due to the length and tone of his response, I will comment in some detail.
[HW] I understand from Stuart’s comment here that he received offline criticism for his post which perhaps stung, and I don’t like to add to that. But there are greater issues at stake than his comfort zone, or mine, and a public declaration from a respected teacher in the MJ community needs an equally public response. [end]
Stuart writes that he was reluctant to share a personal letter he had sent to his former colleagues at J4J, David Brickner and Susan Perlman. But he feels it is more important for “the public” to recognize the difference between Jews for Jesus and himself. More accurately, his desire to distance himself from J4J was a stated motive before he saw the clip: “I felt obliged to watch it, since it would be in the public eye, and as I said, the public often misimagines [sic] Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews like me as the same.” Stuart mentions this concern four times in two paragraphs.
Among other charges, Stuart Dauermann’s rebuke to J4J contains a criticism for trying “to speak of his [Jesus] being wounded for our transgressions, as if Jews went to the ovens for their own, but he was prepared to go in our place!” [HW] While the Isaiah 53 add-on and the “Why” video do invite confusion about why Yeshua is portrayed at the gates of Auschwitz, this particular objection is based on an imaginary offense. The video did not imply that Yeshua was presenting himself to the Nazis as an atonement that could release the inmates from Auschwitz. There was no offer of a prisoner exchange, much less any choice given to Jewish prisoners about whether they could let Yeshua “go in our place”. And there was certainly no insinuation that “Jews went to the ovens for their own [transgressions]”! [end]
Stuart tells the J4J leaders that their project will damage not just J4J but the entire “Messianic Jewish movement and the gospel” in the eyes of the Jewish people. The only source of feedback he names is unspecified YouTube comments following the clip. [HW] This was the one feedback source I did not consider valuable, since YouTube back-talk tends to be dominated by irrelevant responses and irresponsible flaming. [end] These comments lead Stuart to conclude that “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” – applying to them Paul’s rebuke (Rom.2:24) to lawbreaking Jewish hypocrites who offended the non-Jews.
After speculating that the “well-deserved backlash” they can expect is probably past repair, Stuart makes a prediction: “I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to find any Jew who regards this positively.” [HW] Within two days, a rabbi and Holocaust expert refutes this prediction with a direct rebuttal, but the event goes by without comment in the MJ blogging community. [end]
Two MJs immediately ask permission to reprint this letter to J4J leaders, and Stuart gives it.
27/apr: Gerry Cohen, secretary of BMJA (British Messianic Jewish Alliance), expresses support of Stuart Dauermann’s denunciation and responds to the prisoner-exchange idea as though it were part of the clip: “I cannot see why we should have an image of Yeshua about to go (anachronistically!) to His death instead of the Jewish people.” Cohen mentions that BMJA is publishing a denunciation of the clip, and he goes on to call the creators of the clip “wolves”.
[HW] The term “wolves” is New Covenant shorthand for predators infiltrating the flock of Messiah with the intention of destroying believers. This is equivalent to accusing J4J of faking their faith in Yeshua, and calling for them to be ejected from the Body. It’s hard to over-emphasize how serious it is to make such a charge against a fellow believer, and I can’t help but ponder the condition of a Messianic audience that would let this slander pass unchallenged. [end]
Stuart Dauermann thanks Gerry for the news, and says he expects similar denunciations from UMJC (Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations) and MJAA (Messianic Jewish Alliance of America). The UMJC does eventually issue a condemnation (28/apr), but not the MJAA.
27/apr: A short article appears in the MJ publication Israel Today, in which J4J director Susan Perlman is interviewed by Israeli writer (and MJ pastor) David Lazarus. Here the report of Jewish feedback is confusing. First, it’s quite positive:
Jewish people in particular are showing great interest in the new short film, which is now being reported on in Israel’s mainstream media. According to Susan Perlman, the Director of Communications for Jews for Jesus, the film is getting more than 100,000 views a day. “This is way beyond our expectations,” says Perlman.
But this optimism is tempered with speculation on potential Jewish negativity (“Watching Jesus carry his cross into Auschwitz looking like the same Christ figure so often blamed for the Holocaust may prove too much for Jewish people”) and actual Messianic negativity fueled by that same speculation (“Some Messianic Jewish groups in Israel are concerned that the Jews for Jesus strategy may backfire and further alienate Jews from Jesus”). However, no quotes from Israeli believers are provided.
A later reference to “the multitude of negative reactions to the film from the Jewish community” turns out to be “some Israeli newspapers” which quote Jay Michaelson’s opinion piece in the Forward, “calling the film ‘the most tasteless YouTube video ever.’” [HW] As we have seen, Jay’s terminology was first repeated by the Christian Post (23/apr) and Christianity Today, and after that only Ha’aretz picked it up (in the form of a question). Later Israeli reports focused on the ADL’s condemnation only. [end]
28/apr: Several responses on Stuart Dauermann’s blog express distaste and delegitimization of J4J as a ministry. MJ responder Merrill passes on an anonymous complaint from a MJ in the UK about J4J as an organization. Stuart receives these comments uncritically and with thanks; he then repeats his reasons for publicizing the letter as a need to distance MJs from the clip’s producers (bold emphasis mine):
I thought twice and then twice again about first sending this letter as an email, and then posting it as I did on my blog. I felt that these things needed to be said, that a retraction or public apology by Jews for Jesus would have been SO powerful and arresting, and remains, sadly, appropriate. I also felt that I needed to remind people unaware of nuances and variations of various kinds that not all of us who are Jews who honor Yeshua as Messiah would produce or favor such a film.
28/apr: The British Messianic Jewish Alliance (BMJA) issues a brief rejection of TJDFY. “Portraying Jesus as an Auschwitz victim distorts both the nature of Jesus’ death and the history of the Holocaust.” [HW] Like other MJs weighing in on the issue, BMJA does not take into account the Jewish artists who had portrayed Yeshua in exactly that way. [end]
The BMJA statement then adds an objection heard for the first time (emphasis mine): “Many British Messianic Jews who lost family members in the Shoah are distressed by this video.”
[HW] It’s conceivable that Jews who don’t know Yeshua as Messiah might not accept the imagery. But if it causes distress in those who love Yeshua, surely that requires more explanation or examples. We receive neither. My efforts to find supporting online evidence for this startling claim yielded only one statement – more accurately, another letter to J4J made public (see 29/apr). The writer turns out to be a member of the same BMJA Committee that made this claim. [end]
28/apr: The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) publishes a denunciation from their Executive, charging that “the video diverts the emotional impact of the Holocaust in an effort to convey its own message,” and that it also “diminishes the uniqueness” of both the Holocaust and the sacrificial death of Yeshua. They add an assessment of the Jewish response similar to that of UMJC colleague Stuart Dauermann, only in past tense: “The video has gained wide exposure and notoriety, including condemnation from many sources within the Jewish community.”
28/apr: European MJ Anna Wikmann recommends Stuart Dauermann’s post (27/apr) and registers the same sort of reaction to the clip (“distasteful and blatant sensationalist exploitation of a sensitive issue”). Interestingly, she reports that posting her rejection of the J4J clip on the Jerusalem Post Facebook page provoked responses from angry Jews – not discussing the clip but attacking her Messianic identity. Anna points out that she had nothing to do with the clip’s production or with J4J, and yet she blames this Jewish hostility against MJs in general on this J4J project.
28/apr: Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg of Congregation Beth-El (NJ) writes in the Christian Post that he sees the J4J clip as “compassionate”. A Yeshiva University graduate and lecturer on the Holocaust, he also identifies both his parents as Holocaust survivors. Among his qualifications: “I am not a stranger to this subject having just authored a new book The Holocaust as Seen Through Film, one of the many books that I have written with a Holocaust theme.” Rabbi Rosenberg writes that he does “not agree with those who are attacking the video.” Although he rejects the clip’s secondary (evangelistic) messa