​I cannot take part in the Holy Week Services which begin this evening without thinking about the Jewish community and how in the past the readings and prayers had a decidedly anti-Jewish tone which no doubt led to an antisemitic attitude amongst Christianity at large and Christians in particular. The story of the passion and death of Jesus as set out in John’s gospel will be read in churches on Good Friday. Often there are different voices for the various characters in the story with the congregation taking the part of the Jews whose lines are ‘Crucify him, crucify him’. Is it any wonder that the belief grew up that the Jews had crucified Jesus and were culpable of deicide. This was so strongly held that at times in the past it was not safe for Jews to show their face during these solemn and so-called holy days for fear of being attacked. This has now changed. Scripture scholars admit that while religious authorities were involved in bringing Jesus before Pontius Pilate and sought his death it was the political authority that sentenced him to death. And it certainly wasn’t the Jewish population of the time, many of whom were his followers. The Vatican II document Nostra Aetate which set out the Church’s relationship with other religions spoke out against any charge of deicide being brought against members of the Jewish community and recognised the Jewish roots of Christianity. But the scripture with this in it is still read on Good Friday and hopefully whoever is preaching will deal with this sensitively. For some Jews the very phrase ‘the Jews’ brings back memories of antisemitism and the kind of atrocities that resulted in the Holocaust.

It is so easy to blame a whole people for the faults and failings of their government and while we Christians may have changed out attitude to the Jews of Jesus’ time, Jewish people are often asked to account for the actions of the Israeli government, even though they are not Israeli. I have heard it myself and if I can feel uncomfortable at this supposition how much more must our Jewish brothers and sisters feel. The land of Israel is central to Judaism and many Jews are broken hearted at what is happening in the Middle East now. They have a great loyalty to the State of Israel as a place where Jews can live out their way of life in peace and security but the attack by Hamas on October 7th 2023 sent shock waves through the community as it seemed they were no longer safe in their own land. While the response of the Israeli government can be criticised I think it is difficult for Jews to be openly critical of it because they feel the rise in antisemitism, the overwhelming support in the media for Palestine and what seems a lack of sympathy for Jewish fears and need for security.

During this war which is horrific for the Palestinians I have tried not to take sides. That is not to sit on the fence but rather to try to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, recognising the legitimate history of the pain and suffering of both people, both of whom I think have been let down by their governments. How to hold both stories at the same time is difficult and while I no longer engage in conversation with people whose support for one side suggests a rejection of the other I do find myself expressing the pain of the Palestinians when I am with Jews and the pain of Israel when I am with those who support the Palestinians. Those of us who are engaged in interfaith relations, especially the Council of Christians and Jews have reflected often on the situation and concluded that the only response is that of being broken hearted. For me I have felt a great sadness and real pain when I think of how the Israeli government is responding, more out of fear for its own existence than any desire for peace. When I read the prophets or Jonathan Sacks and hear of the beauty of Judaism and what it has to offer the world I hate what is happening and even fear for Israel’s survival. How wonderful it would have been if it could have lived by the high ideals of Judaism and shown the world how to negotiate and work for a peaceful solution for two people having a claim to and sharing the same land. But why should I expect that of Israel when there are so many examples of so called Christian and Islamic nations not living up to the ideals of their religion?

There are of course many Jewish people and groups who have demonstrated and spoken out against the war. This week there has been a statement from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the largest communal organisation in the UK decrying Netanyahu and his concern for his own survival. I was heartened by this and found it reflective of my own views. Under the heading “As British Jews we can no longer stay silent on the war in Gaza” they express their love for Israel and deep concern for its future as well as their pain and shock at what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank. They see “hopes dwindling for a peaceful reconciliation and the return of the hostages. Israel's soul is being ripped out” they say “and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to.  Silence is seen as support for policies and actions that run contrary to our Jewish values…. We stand against the war. We acknowledge and mourn the loss of Palestinian life. We yearn for the "day after" this conflict when reconciliation can start”.  

To have such a respected body speak out so clearly is for me hopeful and I will carry their pain as well as their hopes and desires for peace with me as I enter into these solemn days of remembering the death and resurrection of Jesus.  

 Amy- Jill Levine is Professor Emerita at Vanderbilt University. She is a New Testament scholar and professes to love the NT and Jesus, yet she is Jewish. This gives her a unique insight into the stories and events in the gospels, so it was natural for me to consult her when I was asked last Sunday to give a reflection on the scripture readings for the day. The text was from Lk 15 and the story was that of the Prodigal Son.  We all know it well – the son who leaves home having asked for his share of his inheritance and only returns when he has squandered it and is in fact starving to be welcomed and embraced by his father.

In her reflections on the story Professor Levine points out that it is the third in a series of stories at the beginning of chapter 15 of Luke’s gospel – the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son which is her way of naming the parable.  She also points out the introductory verse which says, “One day when many tax collectors and other outcasts came to listen to Jesus, 2the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law started grumbling, “This man welcomes outcasts and even eats with them!” 3So Jesus told them this parable” Even when the reading focussed only on the third story of the lost son whoever drew up the cycle of Sunday readings included those verses, meaning to put the story of the lost son into a context which suggested a  group that supported Jesus and were ready to learn from him and another group which grumbled and complained about him. This Dr Levine suggests is Luke interpreting the parable and influencing how we might interpret it.  Unfortunately, there has been and perhaps still is a tendency in Christianity to identify the scribes and pharisees with the older brother and the Jewish people who have remained faithful to the Law but rejected Christ and identify the outcasts and tax collectors with younger brother and Christians who have now been welcomed into the embrace of the father.

This interpretation betrays a supercessionist approach that sees Christianity as having replaced the Jewish people and assumed their role as God's chosen people. Over the centuries this approach has led to an anti-Judaism and antisemitism that has had such terrible consequences for the Jewish people and the world at large.  Although supercessionism and any sense of Christians replacing Jews would now be considered wrong in the Catholic Church and many other churches we must beware of and be on the look out for suggestions of an antagonism that does not reflect Jesus position but that of the tension between the early Christian community and the synagogue.

 While many commentators reflect on the patient and unconditional love of the father in the story Professor Levine sees it as a story about family dynamics. It begins “There was a man who had 2 sons… For a Jewish audience this would immediately call to mind stories in the Torah of other 2 sons – Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. In these stories it is the younger brother who unexpectedly receives the blessing of his father. So, she suggests that if Jesus audience were biblically literate and why would they not be they would know to identify with the younger son who in this case turns out not to be righteous or faithful but irresponsible, self-indulgent and possible an indulged and spoiled child.  Professor Levine imagines the situation when the younger son asks for his share of the inheritance:  what happens in the time before the son leaves, - is the father busy dividing his property, is he heartbroken, does he try to remonstrate with his son? Where is the mother in the story?  Did the older son try to mediate and change the mind of his brother – was he angry because according to Deuteronomy he should have got two thirds of his father’s estate?

The father lets his son go. Unlike the good shepherd and the woman with the lost coin the father does not search for his son though we get the impression that he was constantly on the lookout for him, no doubt pained by his younger child’s action. It was because of this patient waiting that he was able to spot him from afar and run to welcome him
And what about the older son? Do we not feel some kind of sympathy with him?  No-one ran out to invite him to the feast, he only discovered it by chance – perhaps on his way home. His anger and upset are not unprovoked,
Now Professor Levine tells us the father has a problem.  The father has his younger son back but now the elder son is lost – and perhaps always had been in a way that the father didn’t notice until now.
 The father now needs to return this lost elder son to the family if he is to make his family complete. Will the father be reconciled with his elder son? Will the brothers be reconciled?

Is this the challenge that Jesus poses in telling this story?  This story of the need for reconciliation would have been a challenge to Jesus’ listeners and is surely a challenge to us today. How do we respond? Can we be agents of reconciliation in our own homes but also in the world we inhabit, in our relations with people of other faiths, people who are different from us and so contribute to reconciliation in a world that so easily polarises and divides?