I follow Jesus from a Gospel perspective, which includes approaching the Bible the way he does, through the interpretive lens of the Gospel. I gave examples last time of how Jesus treats scripture in ways that challenge a ‘biblical’ hermeneutic, especially if ‘biblical’ implies weighing scriptures somewhat ‘equally’ (whatever exactly that means). Rather, Jesus filters all scripture through the Gospel, affirming what conforms to the Gospel and correcting, possibly even rejecting, what contradicts it.

One claim made against this view is that it risks diminishing Jesus as a devoutly Jewish person. This is mostly ridiculous, since Jesus is clearly a Jewish Rabbi. There can be no doubt that he is a devoutly Jewish person, and I can hardly conceive of someone seriously arguing otherwise. But often when conservative evangelicals make this argument, they then go on to assume that a devout Jewish person reads the Bible like a conservative American evangelical and, therefore, anyone claiming that Jesus reads it otherwise is ‘modernizing’ Jesus out of his historical religious context. To the contrary, conservative evangelicals who assume Jesus reads the Bible the same way they do are the ones displaying a condescending and patronizing ‘modernist’ attitude toward Jesus and 1^st century Judaism.

Even more disturbing is that there are sometimes hints of an undercurrent of antisemitism directed at any suggestion that Jesus is in any way at odds with his Jewish religious culture. In our current political climate, what counts as ‘antisemitism’ has become a weapon of power with an ever-increasing range of targets and severity of consequences.

Traditionally, Quakers don’t swear oaths. However, I can confidently and unequivocally attest and affirm that I am not, to the very best of my knowledge, antisemitic in any way.

Both the U.S. Department of State and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) share the following “working definition” of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In practice, a “working definition” is often ‘over-worked’. Thus, the definition of ‘antisemitism’ is susceptible to being adapted to include or exclude certain as yet unspecified perceptions, expressions, and manifestations, as the Trump and Netanyahu administrations have both demonstrated in practice, without openly changing the official language of the working definition. It’s a deliberate strategy to keep the “working definition” somewhat intentionally open-ended, because it makes any discussions of antisemitism potentially risky. And that is often the point for those in power – to encourage cautious self-censorship in the face of vague language or arbitrary enforcement.

Nonetheless, I can confidently attest and affirm that I have no perception of Jews which can be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Nor is it antisemitic to simply observe that Jesus, as a devout Jewish person, makes direct and pointed rhetorical criticisms of “Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The opposite is actually the case – Jesus criticizes certain Jewish individuals and institutions because Jesus is a devout Jewish person, not because he is antisemitic.

In case my self- attestation of my own personal opposition to antisemitism is insufficient, I’ll include this further anecdote. As I’m literally writing this blog post, I received an email from J Street U asking me to petition my Congressional representatives to support The Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (ARPA). I received the Director’s letter because I am on their subscription list as a supporter. She testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to denounce how “the White House is still using all of it [antisemitism incidents on college campuses] as a pretext to push their own anti-immigrant, anti-education, anti-democratic agenda.” She reports that “the MAGA crackdown on colleges and pro-Palestinian students harms the very community it purports to defend” – Jewish students “who hesitate to tell people they’re Jewish because they’re afraid of being associated with this Administration’s assault on their campuses and their classmates.”

ARPA is deemed legally necessary by J Street U because it reportedly (though I have not read it) is “clear-eyed in distinguishing between antisemitism and criticism of policies of the Israeli government.”

If pro-Jewish organizations are opposed to the weaponization of charges of ‘antisemitism’ by the Trump and Netanyahu administrations (among others), then it becomes all the more obvious that accusing a Gospel-focused Jesus of ‘antisemitism’ for having been found guilty by the governmental powers of his day for criticizing Jewish religious institutions is no evidence of actual antisemitism whatsoever.