Login
Home » Resources » CSS Acts Q & A » Q & A: Acts 1-5

Q & A: Acts 1-5

Acts Q & A Chapter 1

Question: I thought the half tribes were Manasses and Ephraim, not Benjamin. What’s up with that?

Answer: If you look at the division of the land among the sons of Jacob after their return to the Promised Land, you will notice two of the Twelve sons of Jacob missing —Levi and Joseph. Levi did not receive a portion of the land. Joseph’s two sons Manasseh and Ephraim each received a full share, filling in for Joseph and Levi.  So, Manasseh was not considered a half-tribe because of a split with Joseph’s share. Mannaseh and Ephraim both received a full share as full tribes.

Manasseh was split in two with half the tribe on one side of the Jordan River and the other half on the other side of the Jordan. The questioner is right, whenever you hear “half-tribe” biblically it is related to Manasseh. I shouldn’t have used it in relation to Benjamin but did so because Benjamin remained with Judah after the split between north and south and lived in the shadow of the much larger tribe of Judah. It much smaller both in population and geographical size and eventually almost absorbed into Judah.

So, “half-tribe,” technically speaking, should refer to Manasseh not Benjamin.

Question: Also, one of the students had a very short Psalm 69 with only six or so verses. I could not explain to him the reason. Please help. Thank you.

Answer: I would need more information to answer this. What translation is she using? Are there any footnotes or comments to explain why?

Question: How do you reconcile the seeming difference in the description of Judas’ demise between Mt 27:5 (hangs himself) and Acts 1:18 (”Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out”)? Is the “man” mentioned in Acts 18 referring to Judas or some other man who bought the field?

Answer: The Bible is referring to Judas in both accounts. I was just standing on Mount Zion two days ago looking down into the Hinnom Valley at the place where Judas hanged himself.

The Greek for “fell to his death” means, literally, “having become prone.” And the term “fell headlong” seems to have been a medical term for “swelling up” which certainly would happen if he was left hanging for any period of time. Augustine harmonizes by suggesting he hanged himself and then fell, by his own mistake or when someone cut him down. In other words, he hung himself and maybe the rope broke or slipped and Judas plunged to the ground to be gashed open by rocks or some other object below.

One commentary states it this way: “ ‘And becoming prone, he burst in the middle, and all his entrails poured out’ (literal translation). The NIV probably is right in interpreting the strange phrase “becoming prone” as “fell headlong.”? ? The picture is that of a fall so severe as to open his body cavity and cause his inner organs (splanchna) to spill out. In consequence of this gory death the field became known by Jerusalem locals as Akeldama” (Polhill, J. B. (2001, c1992). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (92). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers).

Acts Q & A Chapter 2

Question: On p. 27 of the Commentary on Acts of the Apostles, (lesson 2) Mr. Ray states that the only thing in the Ark of the Covenant were the tablets. What happened to the manna and the staff of Aaron that we learned about in the study of Exodus? Why is it that the notes state that the only thing in the Ark of the Covenant were the tablets when in Exodus we learned that there were the tablets along with a jar of manna and the rod of Aaron. Can you please explain?

Answer: In the OT we are told that the Tablets of the Law were INSIDE the ark (Ex 25:15-16; 16:32-34; Num 17:2-11), the other two items were place “before” the ark. The manna and the rod of Aaron were placed in front of the ark. In the NT, in Hebrews 9:4 we are told all three items were IN the ark. It is possible that when Solomon built the Temple, that all three items were actually placed inside the ark at that time. We do not know.

Question: Acts 2:1″ When the day of Pentecost had come, they were ….” Does “they” refer only to those mentioned in Acts 1:13-14, or does it include the 120 recorded in Acts1:15? ( i.e. did the “tongues as of fire” rest only on the apostles, or 120?)

Answer: Luke is not clear and maybe intentionally so—leaving us with the conclusion that we can not be sure. But now let’s speculate a bit. What we do know is that Jesus is with the Eleven on the Mount of Olives at the Ascension, then a they were with 120 in the Upper Room where they were staying. Then the day of Pentecost arrived Luke says “in those days” which could imply the room still had 120 or that it was later but still close in time.. Then Luke says “they were all gathered together in one place.” Luke does not tell us who “they” are and your question is a good one.

Next the fire falls and the crowds refers to those who were speaking as Galileans which could imply the Twelve alone who were (at least 11 of them) from Galilee, but he has led us to believe that the 120 were still gathered since it never says or implies that they had dispersed. If I had to fall down on one side or the other in this unclear case, I would suspect that “they” are referring primarily to the Twelve, but probably secondarily refers to all the 120 disciples who were probably still with them—especially since “all together” seems to imply a large number.

I think in general, most commentators consider the “they” to refer to the whole 120 gathered. As biblical scholar James Dunn writes, “’All’ are present, with nothing in the preceding context to indicate that the ‘all’ should be understood as any other than the 120 or so, indicated in 1:15. Without future detail we should presumably understand the ‘one place’ where they were gathered to be the upper room of 1:13” (Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Trinity Press), pg. 24).

For more on this see Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, by Lightfoot, Vol. 4, pgs. 26-27.

Question: In my Bible’s footnote, The New Jerusalem Version, it says that the Holy Spirit is not indicated at creation. Please explain.

Answer: In Genesis 1:2 the New Jerusalem Bible uses the wording “with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.” The Hebrew word is rua? which means “wind, breath, spirit.” It is the same word used in Job 33:4 “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” (Job 33:4, RSVCE). By the way, in John 3:3-5 which says we are “born again by water and Spirit” (an obvious reference back to Genesis 1:2), the word John uses for Spirit is “pneuma” which is a Greek word that can mean “wind” or “spirit.”

My answer to the New Jerusalem Bible is that they are correct and incorrect at the same time. The word ruah means “wind” or “spirit” and does not say distinctly the Holy Spirit (3rd Person of the Trinity) because there was not understanding of the Trinity—as fully developed today—but only a power from God. So in that sense I can understand why they are trying to understand it from the ancient perspective. But, they are incorrect in their footnote because knowing what we now know of the Trinity, we understand that this was the Holy Spirit of God.

That is why the Catholic Translations—NAB and the RSV-CE—and most good Protestant editions all capitalize “Spirit” in Genesis 1:2 implying it was the Person of the Holy Spirit involved in the First Creation, just as it is the Holy Spirit that brings about the New Creation (John 3:3-5).

Question: 7.   In the Acts 2 lesson under the subheading “A Festival of First Fruits” there is a reference to Lev. 23:17 detailing the offering of two loaves of bread to God.  The CSS study guide explains this as “… — one loaf for the Jews and one for the Gentiles.”  Can you please tell me the source for this explanation?  I looked up this passage in a couple of Bibles, and neither of them reference this explanation (that is, one for Jews and one for the Gentiles) in either the Lev 23:17 passage itself, nor its corresponding footnotes.

This explanation plus the sentences that follow in the CSS study guide, “The original feast of Weeks anticipated a time when all the world would worship God.  Because of their tradition of remaining separate from the Gentiles, the ancient Israelites and later the Jews who celebrated this feast never understood how God would bring all the nations into covenant with hiim.” are particularly interesting to me.  I would like to be able to discuss this with a Jewish relative, but I need to have my research in order!

Answer: This was my own conclusion since many things in the Old Testament look forward with anticipation or symbol to the coming of the New. There were two separate loaves (Jew and Gentile) which are now fused into one loaf in the Eucharist and Body of Christ. The two flocks of Jesus are now joined as one (Jn 10). Jew and Gentile are now one Body in Christ.

When I originally taught my classes on Acts in 1998-2000 I found a comment saying that the two loaves represented Jew and Gentile written by a Jewish commentator which supported my thoughts. I mentioned it to my class and included it in this study. I didn’t remember where I had read it but just found it again. It is located in Jewish convert David Stern’s New Testament Jewish Commentary:

“Yeshua spoke of himself as the “bread of life” (Yn 6:35). Since leavened stuff (chametz) symbolizes sin in the Tanakh, Yeshua represented himself as sinless by using unleavened bread, matzah, to inaugurate the New Covenant (Lk 22:20&N). The Shavu?ot bread offering is made with leaven, symbolizing God’s people as having sin before Yeshua’s atoning death; later Sha’ul writes the Messianic Community in Corinth that “in reality you are unleavened. For our Pesach lamb, the Messiah, has been sacrificed” (1C 5:6–8&N; see 1 Yn 1:5–10&N). The two loaves of the offering can now be understood as representing God’s expanded people comprised of Jews and Gentiles (see Yn 10:16N, Ro 11:17–26&NN, Ga 3:28&N, Ep 2:14&N) (Stern, D. H. (1996, c1992). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (Ac 2:1). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.)

This would make sense since Jesus is the wheat that falls into the ground to die and bring much fruit. Pentecost is the ultimage “harvest” starting with the Jews, and then the Gentiles. The fruit of Jesus’ grain harvest of Jesus Christ is Jew and Gentile formed into one body. The whole New Testament in some ways is the operation of God to do that very thing in Christ. Acts 15 shows the practical implementation.

However, there is nothing in Scripture that proves the point that the two loaves represent Jew and Gentile. Though there are no specific biblical verses with which we can prove this conjecture, it is widely understood to be the case as can be seen in a few other representative samples below.

Interesting note on Shavuot: “The fulfillment of the Feast of Shavuot—the day of Pentecost—was the coming of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:1 the phrase “was fully come” means to “fill completely” or fulfill. In 1 Cor. 12:13, Paul taught that only Spirit-baptized believers form the body of Christ, the Church. Since the day of Pentecost was when the Holy Spirit came upon and indwelt believers for the first time, Pentecost is the day in which the church was born. Thus on the day of the fulfillment of Pentecost, both Jew and Gentile were joined into the body of Messiah by the Holy Spirit. How beautiful then is the picture of the two wave loaves found in the biblical celebration of Shavuot. Sinful – Jewish and Gentile people are wonderfully pictured. The loaves were baked with leaven. The church, composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers, contains sin. Finally, both loaves comprised one offering. Although composed of two different groups, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is united into one “new man” (Eph. 2:15)” (http://www.shalomnyc.org/feasts/shavous.htm).

“In biblical days the feast was celebrated by bringing two loaves of the finest wheat and offering them before the Lord, along with the prescribed animal sacrifices (Lev. 23:17-21). This offering of the two loaves was of leaven (type of sin) bread and represents Judah/Israel and Ephraim/Israel we now recognize. The same as the two Shabbat loaves” (http://rabdavis.org/Shavuot-Feast%20of%20Weeks.htm).

“Why were two loaves of bread waved, and not one? The two loaves of bread can be understood as symbols of the two groups of peoples that make up the Messianic Community. In Romans 11, Rabbi Paul gives us the analogy of an olive tree made up of the original branches, the Jewish people. Later, wild olive branches, the Gentiles, are grafted into the olive tree of salvation and blessing. It could be that the two loaves of bread waved by the High Priest at Shavuot represent the original branches, the Jewish people, and the wild branches, the Gentiles grafted into the Olive Tree. Each loaf is incomplete without the other. The Jewish loaf needs the Gentile loaf to be complete, and the Gentile loaf needs the Jewish loaf to be complete.
“Why is this offering made with leaven, a symbol for sin? The bread represents the Messianic Community, which is made up of sinful men and women. We struggle with sin each day of our lives. We are not yet like Messiah Yeshua, the pure unleavened bread. One day when He appears, we will be like Him, and will have complete victory over the presence and power of sin. But until that day, each one of us still wrestles with sin”  (http://www.shema.com/commentaries/Leviticus/Leviticus_23.php).

A few related thoughts. Not surprisingly, since God was concerned to eventually bring the Gentiles in to his fold, this was prefigured and pictured often in the Old Testament. For example, when God spoke from Mount Sinai, Jews believed he spoke in 70 different languages related to the nations of the world. : “In rabbinic thought seventy is the traditional number of Gentile nations and the traditional number of languages of mankind. Although the number of tongues mentioned in the present passage falls short of seventy, enough are mentioned to allow the understanding that God is speaking here through Yeshua’s faithful talmidim to all humanity.” (Stern, D. H. (1996, c1992). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (Ac 2:4). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.)

We will revise the study to temper this by saying something like “Some commentators see in these two loaves the eventual union of Jew and Gentile into one body, two flocks becoming one.”

Question: Lesson 2—I would like to respectfully clarify a section of Lesson 2 – The Acts of the Apostles Notes on page 28 near the top of the page. “The Israelites who participated in the worship of the golden calf are condemned to wander in the wilderness for 40 years until all of them have died”. The punishment for worship of the golden calf is described in the prior paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 27 of the notes from Ex 32:27-28. Then he said to them (the Levites) the God of Israel says, “each man shal strap a sword on his side. Go back and forth through the came from one end to other, each killing his brother and friend an dneighbor.” The punishment of 40 years wandering in the desert is found in Numbers 14: 20-30 after the 12 spies return and give their report on the promised land. (submitted 10/14/07)

Answer: The immediate penalty for worshiping the golden calf was the death of 3,000 Israelites under the sword of the Levites, the imposition of the elaborate sacrificial system and the loss of priesthood for the heads of families. The immediate penalty for the bad report about the Land the ensuing grumbling was their immediate death by plague of the ten unbelieving spies who instigated the grumbling (Numbers 14:36–37).

However, the penalty of wandering for 40 years in the wilderness was announced after the time the 12 spies returned but it is not a penalty ONLY for the response to the message of the spies. The penalty of death for the whole generation after 40 years of wandering is cumulative punishment for the constant grumbling of the people from the first moment until now. The worst thing they did was to worship the golden calf—and this generation WAS condemned to wander in the wilderness until they died, not only because of the calf but for their cumulative rebellion against God.

In Numbers 14:22 we are told they are being punished not JUST for the response to the spies. We are told that “none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the proof these ten times and have not hearkened to my voice shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers; and none of those who despised me shall see it.” (Numbers 14:22-23, RSVCE).

Specifically, the penalty was for the “ten times” that the people had disobeyed and tested Him (Num. 14:22), not only because of the response to the spies. The number 10 could be a literal number but, more likely, it means a great many times (cp. Job 19:3) or as one commentary says, “Ten is used as the number of completeness and full measure.” (Gray, G. B. (1903). A critical and exegetical commentary on Numbers (158). New York: C. Scribner’s sons.)  Another scholarly commentary provides this insight: “The [Jewish] Talmud (?Arakin 15 a b) takes ‘ten’ literally, and explains by reference to two temptations at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:11, Ps. 106:7), two in demanding water (Ex. 15:23, 17:2), two for food (Ex. 16:20, 27), two for flesh (Ex. 16:3, Nu. 11:4), the golden calf, and the spies.” (Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament. (1:714). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.)

So, though not refused access specifically for the worship of the golden calf, the cumulative disobedience and grumbling of the generation who worshiped the calf—the worst of their offenses—this generation was forbidden entrance into the land.

Notice too, that when Stephen mentions this whole affair (Acts 7:36-43) he mentions only the incident of the golden calf as the egregious action of the Israelites that made “God turn” so that he “gave them over to [idolatrous] worship of the host of heaven.” Stephen does not mention the spies or the refusal to enter the land. He mentions God’s disgust with the most offensive of all offenses—idolatry.

In future editions of the study guide we will clarify this matter. The main point I was trying to make was not what caused God to condemn them to wander in the wilderness until they died. My point was that the idolatrous, rebellious, unbelieving, and grumbling Israelites brought about their own destruction after the “first Pentecost” by rejecting God at Mount Sinai and in the wilderness, just like the Jews did after the “new Pentecost” on Mount Zion. Both were “destroyed” in forty years.

I will clarify this in the study guide to state that the cumulative and habitual rebellion brought about the penalty of death in the wilderness, and that the reaction to the returning spies was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”—but there was already a lot of straw on the poor beast’s back, including the worship of the golden calf, which brought about the final judgment. I hope that helps.

Question: Lesson 2—In the Acts Study Guide, page 28, first full paragraph, starting with “There is another parallel …” The text of this paragraph states that the reason for the Hebrews having to spend 40 years in the desert was the “golden calf affair”. I do not believe this statement is in accord with scripture. a. All instructions following the affair, and all explanations I have heard in recent years, was that the golden calf affair resulted in the loss of the priestly role of the heads of families and that role being assigned exclusively to the Tribe of Levi. It also resulted in the establishment of the sacrificial system detailed in Leviticus. After the golden calf affair of Exodus 32, Exodus 33 starts off with the Lord telling Moses that He will go before them to drive the various peoples out of the land promised. b. In Numbers 13, we have the 12 Scouts being sent out and their report of findings. Num 14 details the peoples “revolt” because of the report of 10 of the scouts. Num 14:23 explicitly states that “None of these who have spurned me shall see it [the Promised Land] (NAB translation). Thus it was their refusal to move into the promised land when God told them to that caused their extra years of wandering, not the Golden Calf Affair. For more explanation, see Scott Hahn, “A Father Who Keeps His Promises”, pages 164-7 and 172-3. I believe that Jeff Cavin’s “Great Bible Adventure” series also explains it this way.  (submitted 10/08/07)

Answer: I think I answered this adequately above.

Acts Q & A Chapter 3

Question: Lesson 3—So if we don’t “gain” heaven by our acts, do we at least gain a higher place in heaven? What exactly do we earn by gaining indulgences? Thanks for all of your insight. (submitted 10/10/07).

Answer: How is this question specifically related to the study of Acts of the Apostles? This is an important question to which I could give a lengthy response, but I will refrain from doing so unless it is specifically related to the text and content of the study and I am aware of the specific passage in question. I would suggest visiting www.catholic.com and viewing their many topical studies which gives great answers to this question.

Question: Lesson 3—In regard to our class discussion tonight about the times of day for prayer, we diverged into Islam and their multiple calls to prayer each day. The question arose if this stemmed back as far as Abraham or to Judiasm at some other point. Further diverging, we ask if you can confirm of a notion that in Islam it is believed that Abraham was asked to sacrifice Ishmael and not Isaac.  (submitted 10/10/07)

Answer: The Jews practiced formal and public prayers throughout the day and prescribed readings and “liturgy” especially on the Sabbath. The first Christians were all Jews and took up the same practice. Not being an expert on Islam and its history I cannot specifically say that their patterns for prayer were inherited from the Jewish practice. But we do know that Mohammed was very much influenced by Judaism and Christianity so it would not be unexpected that he would adopt elements from the contemporary religions that influenced him and adapt these  practices into his own new religion.

Muslims believe that the Jews twisted and corrupted Scripture. They believe that Abraham offered up Ishmael as the son of promise and that the Jews changed their Bible to make their ancestor Isaac the promised son instead of Ishmael. The Muslims are incorrect and have no evidence to support their position.

Question: Acts Lesson 3, Chapter 3: What was the Beautiful Gate and where was it?

Answer: Today there are eight gates penetrating the outer walls of the Old City of Jerusalem which Janet and I have gone in and out of countless times. Clockwise from the Dung Gate which goes into the Western Wall we have Zion Gate, Jaffa Gate, New Gate, Damascus Gate, Herod Gate and Lion or St. Stephen’s Gate. Next is the walled up Golden Gate along the eastern wall. But these gates were not original from the time of Christ and the walls have been built and rebuilt numerous times.

Some scholars suggest that the Shusan (Susa) Gate, known now as the Golden Gate, is the gate called Beautiful, but most scholars and historians disagree.

The truth is no one really knows what gate Luke refers to in Acts 3:2 when he writes,

“And a man who had been lame from his mother’s womb was being carried along, whom they used to set down every day at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, in order to beg alms of those who were entering the temple. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms.” (Acts 3:2-3, NASB95)

“And all the people saw him walking and praising God; and they were taking note of him as being the one who used to sit at the Beautiful Gate of the temple to beg alms, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.” (Acts 3:9-10, NASB95).

Scholars are unable to say with certainty where the temple gate called Beautiful was located. Records about the temple area after Jerusalem’s destruction in a.d. 70 are lacking.

Though no one is certain where the Beautiful Gate was located, it is very likely, as most scholars agree that it was the Nicanor Gate located east of the Court of Women (see picture below). It provided access to the Court of Women from the Court of the Gentiles. Because its doors were made of Corinthian bronze and “far exceeded in value those plated with silver and set in gold” (Josephus, Wars 5.5.3 [201].

The Nicanor Gate was named after the rich Jewish donor from Alexandria. It must have been exceedingly beautiful in the light of the rising sun. One had to climb fifteen steps to reach this gate. Beyond it neither women crippled, maimed or unclean could pass. It may have been populated with beggars on its steps who could appeal to those going to the Court of Israel. This is the same thing that happens in many churches to the day around the world.

Neither Josephus nor the Mishnah mentioned the Beautiful Gate, but Josephus (Jewish Wars v.5.3 [201]) spoke of a gate “of Corinthian bronze” outside the sanctuary. It is very probable that this bronze gate described by Josephus was the Beautiful Gate mentioned twice by St. Luke.

In the first century, the Jewish historian Josephus wrote of the beautiful Nicanor Gate. He describes it as follows:

3. (201) Now nine of these gates were on every side covered over with gold and silver, as were the jambs of their doors and their lintels; but there was one gate that was without [the inward court of] the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those that were only covered over with silver and gold. (202) Each gate had two doors, whose height was severally thirty cubits, and their breadth fifteen. (203) However, they had large spaces within of thirty cubits, and had on each side rooms, and those, both in breadth and in length, built like towers, and their height was above forty cubits. Two pillars did also support these rooms, and were in circumference twelve cubits. (204) Now the magnitudes of the other gates were equal one to another; but that over the Corinthian gate, which opened on the east over against the gate of the holy house itself, was much larger; (205) for its height was fifty cubits; and its doors were forty cubits; and it was adorned after a most costly manner, as having much richer and thicker plates of silver and gold upon them than the other. These nine gates had that silver and gold poured upon them by Alexander, the father of Tiberius. (206) Now there were fifteen steps, which led away from the wall of the court of the women to this greater gate; whereas those that led thither from the gates were five steps shorter” (The Wars of the Jews (5.5.3) 5:201-206) (Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged. Includes index. (Wars 5.200-206). Peabody: Hendrickson

Question: In my middle schoolers’ faith formation materials, it says, “the early Church did not practice infant Baptism.” In our class notes on page 39, it says the opposite. What is the actual Vatican-endorsed Catholic church teaching on this matter? Where is it supported in the Bible? Thank you.

Answer: I am sorry to say this, but your child’s school text is wrong. Baptism was considered necessary for salvation from the very beginning and infant baptism was always a part of that. I would ask, “Who should I trust, modern “faith formation textbook writers” or the Fathers of the Church. Here is my extended explanation, and remember, if someone says that Infant Baptism was not practiced in the early Church, the burden of proof is on them—where is their evidence?

Infant Baptism is a rite by which children who have not yet attained the age of reason are initiated into the Family of God—the Church. Original sin, which destroyed the life God in soul of our first parents, has been inherited by all their descendants. Infant Baptism remits the effects and stain of Original Sin while Sanctifying Grace is infused into the infant’s soul (CCC no. 1250). Even though the majority of Protestants practice Infant Baptism it is rejected by many others. The rite has a biblical foundation and can be traced back to apostolic times, though first explicitly mentioned in the 2nd century.

To grasp the background and origins of Infant Baptism we must understand the original recipients of the New Covenant. During the first years, the members of the Church were exclusively Jewish. The Jews practiced infant circumcision, as mandated to Abraham (Gn 17:12), reaffirmed in the Mosaic Law (Lv 12:3), and demonstrated by the circumcision of Jesus on his eighth day (Lu 2:21). Without circumcision no male was allowed to participate in the cultural and religious life of Israel.

The rite of circumcision as the doorway into the Old Covenant was replaced in the New Covenant with the rite of Baptism—both applied to infants. St. Paul makes this correlation: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism” (Co 2:11–12). The Catechism informs us that “this sign [of circumcision] prefigures that ‘circumcision of Christ’ which is Baptism” (CCC no. 527).

When Peter preached under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost he was speaking to a Jewish audience (Ac 2:5–35). Peter announced, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children” (Ac 2:38–39). The Jews would have been dismayed had the New Covenant not included their children, especially since it was promised to them, and the New Covenant was to be an improvement over the Old in which they were included.

The New Testament frequently implies that adults and children were included in the rite of Baptism. For example, when the head of a household converted and was baptized, his entire household was also baptized with him (Ac 16:15, 33; 1 Co 1:16). The inference of course, especially based on Jewish understanding of the family and covenants would include the aged, the adults, the servants, and the infants. If the practice of Infant Baptism had been illicit or prohibited it would surely have been explicitly forbidden, especially to restrain the Jews from applying Baptism to their infants as they did circumcision. But we find no such prohibition in the New Testament nor in the writings of the Fathers—a silence that is very profound.

Many commentators see an allusion to Infant Baptism in the words of St. Luke, “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’ (Lk 18:15–16). In the early Church this passage was understood as a command to bring the infants to Christ for Baptism. The very first time this passage shows up in Christian literature (c. 200), it is used in reference to Infant Baptism (Tertullian, De Baptismo 18:5). Even though Tertullian espoused a later baptism for children, he acknowledged that Infant Baptism was already the universal practice and does not try to avoid the interpretation of this verse’s reference to Infant Baptism. The Apostolic Constitutions (c. 350) taught that children should receive baptism based on the words of Jesus, “Do not hinder them” (VI 15.7)

In the middle of the second century Infant Baptism is mentioned not as an innovation, but as a rite instituted by the apostles. Nowhere do we find it prohibited and everywhere we find it practiced. Early in the nascent Church we have St. Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200) who provides a very early witness to Infant Baptism, based on John 3:5. Irenaeus wrote, “For He [Jesus] came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God,—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies, 2, 22, 4).

Origen (ad c. 185–c. 254) who had traveled to the extents of the Roman Empire wrote with confidence, “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition [custom] of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentary on Romans 5, 9).

St. Augustine confirmed the ubiquitous teaching of the Church when he wrote, “This [infant baptism] the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end” (Augustine, Sermon. 11, De Verb Apost) and “Who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptized and born again in Christ?” (Augustine, On Original Sin 2, 20).

Throughout Christian history, only a very few have opposed Infant Baptism. The opposition resides mainly in those of Anabaptist heritage which originated in the sixteenth century and who were strongly opposed by Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin who both taught and practiced Infant Baptism. The Anabaptists’ opposition to the baptism of infants lies mainly in their belief—unsupported by Scripture and with no supporting evidence from the practice of the early Church—that one has to be of sufficient age to exercise personal faith in Christ and make a personal confession at baptism. Nowhere is this taught in Scripture that only adults can receive baptism. To hold this extreme view is to be outside the continuity of historical Christianity.

The Catechism summarizes the Church’s teaching: “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism. . . . The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth” (CCC no. 1250). See also CCC 1250-1252, 1282-1290, especially 1282.

Acts Q & A Chapter 4

Question: Acts Lesson 4—This question deals with Page 49, last paragraph of “Phenomenal Growth”. Is the auther implying that Jesus came to form a “new religion” or that the Sanhedrin saw the events as the formation of a “new religion”? It seems to me that Jesus did not come to form a “new religion” but to bring to completion the work of salvation promised in Gen 3:15 and to complete the series of promises made to Abram in Gen 12 and the subsequent covenant oaths. Thus, the mission of Jesus and the empowerment of the Apostles was to show the completion of the covenant series and its expansion beyond the limited vision of the Jewish leaders of the time. There were already several divisions within 1st century Judism, primarily the Sadducees, Pharisee, and Essenes. Was not the real issue the failure of the folks to not grasp what Jesus came to do? Even Isaiah (Is 6:9-10) was told that not all would hear and heed. Paul himself cites this in Acts 28:26-27.

Also, Paul’s words in Romans 9-11 concerning the place of the Jews as God’s people. That, plus the several references in John’s Gospel to the followers of Jesus being put out of the Synagogues. Plus the act of Jesus on the cross ending the need for the Temple Sacrifices (institued because of the “Golden Calf” affair of Ex 32) and the eventual destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. So why should we view the eventual development of Christianity as a “new religion” and not just the evolution from completing the Covenent promises and the failure of the Jews of the time to fully grasp what Jesus came to do? (submitted 10/17/07)

Answer: I believe the words in question are these:

“The majority of the members of the Sanhedrin, the religious governing power in Jerusalem, were Sadducees. They were rich and powerful—and strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo, especially with Rome. The Sadducees had everything to lose if Christianity replaced Judaism, and their leaders were determined to nip the spread of this new religion in the bud. The very early Church represents a formidable political contingent.”

First, the context of my wording is related to the perspective of the Sadducees. As they watch thousands of their people—including a large number of priests and Pharisees and even members of the Sanhedrin (e.g., Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea)—the Sadducees think “if we lose our religion, if all of our people follow this Jesus fellow, if Christianity replaces Judaism and worship around the Temple and Moses, then we will lose everything. So, in the context I was not saying that Christianity would or would not “replace” Judaism.

But now that the subject is broached, does Christianity replace Judaism?—yes and no. Yes, it replaces the old worship of the Temple because we now worship Jesus, the new temple. It was originally for the circumcised Jew and not for me, the gentile. They followed Moses, we now follow the New Moses. Their worship was prescribed geographically for Jerusalem, but we offer a pure sacrifice from east to west, etc.. So, yes, I would suggest in practical terms that it can be viewed as a new religion—come with me to Israel some time and at the Western Wall ask any Jew!

But on the other hand, no! Many times when speaking to groups I tell them that there is only one true religion in the world and they expect me to say it is Catholicism. Rather, I surprise them by saying that the only true religion is Judaism! Jesus was the fulfillment of Judaism as the Jewish Messiah who took YHWH, the God of Israel beyond the borders of “the land” to the whole world. Christianity is the branches, the leaves and the fruit, but the roots and trunk are Jewish.

So, the New Covenant replaces, or should I say, fulfills the Old. The Old is the foundation—the New is the fulfillment.

Question: Acts Lesson 4—The commentary on lesson 5 (page 61) notes that “Barnabas has been praised for selling property and bringing all the money to the apostles.” A footnote in the Bible and the New American Bible Dictionary in the back of my Bible says that Barnabas was a Levite. It is my understanding that Levites did not own property. Can you tell me how Barnabas then could have owned property ? Thank you. (submitted 10/17/07)

Answer: The Scriptures do not mention anything about a prohibition of Levites from owning private property, since they obviously owned their own clothes, homes and animals. They were distinct from the other Israelites in that they were not given a portion of the land like all the other tribes were. Each tribe received a large geographical portion of the land as their inheritance.

The inheritance of the Levites was God and the priesthood—although they were given forty-eight cities of refuge (Num. 35:1 ff. Jos. 21:1ff.) surrounding which they owned pasture land. They received tithes and animals from the other tribes for their service. They were certainly not forbidden from owning private property or land. It is also generally acknowledged that Matthew was a Levite, having a second name of Levi, and he worked for the Romans collecting taxes and presumably had a very large bank account of his own.

Question: In the discussion of Peter and John being uneducated, did they use scribes to write their letters, or did they have some literacy? Did they have their bar mitzvah? (submitted 10/16/07)

Answer: Acts says, “” Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they wondered; and they recognized that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13, RSVCE)

The words common and uneducated (some translations say ignorant) are not demeaning words. It does not means not that they stupid or illiterate. But in light of the heady study of the Law going on with the Doctors of the Law in Jerusalem, these men were comparatively simple in their education, not scholars or professional academics. They were laymen, not in the middle of academia. It describes men who had never studied in the rabbinic schools, and had no special knowledge of rabbinic teaching.

They were blue collar workers, but remember that Peter owned a nice house in Capernaum near the synagogue, he owned fishing boats and had a lucrative business. He could certainly read and write and must have been educated in the normal manner to be as successful as he was.

However, even the brilliant scholar Paul used a secretary, scribe or amanuensis who would take dictation. For example, we know that Paul did not write Romans—a man named Tertius did (Rom 16:22). We know from history that St. Mark wrote his gospel from Peter’s account. In other words, St. Mark’s Gospel is Peter’s Gospel written by St. Mark.

Though records of the 2nd century mention 13 as the age of religious manhood, most elements of the Bar Mitzvah celebration did not appear until the European Middle Ages. So, at 13 the Apostles would have moved into a new stage of their lives. He would now become a son of the Law, which is what “bar Mitzvah” means—a son of the Law or the Commandment.

The Mishnah is a collection of Jewish tradition from near the time of Christ and it says: : “(1) At five [years old] to Scripture, (2) ten  [years old] to Mishnah, (3) thirteen  [years old] to religious duties, (4) fifteen  [years old] to Talmud, (5) eighteen to the wedding canopy, (6) twenty to responsibility for providing for a family, (7) thirty to fullness of strength, (8) forty to understanding, (9) fifty to counsel, (10) sixty to old age, (11) seventy to ripe old age, (12) eighty to remarkable strength, (13) ninety to a bowed back, and (14) at a hundred— he is like a corpse who has already passed and gone from this world.”

Question: Were the Sadducees all from the tribe of Levi? (submitted 10/16/07)

Answer: From the Anchor Bible Dictionary: “[M]odern scholarship connects [the name Sadducee] with the name Zadok . . . current scholarly opinion connects the term to the name of Zadok, the high priest at the time of David (1 Sam 8:17 and 15:24) and of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:34 and 1 Chr 12:29). Stern (1976:561, 567) states that from the beginning of the Persian period until the wake of the Maccabean revolt, the priestly house of Zadok, descended from Joshua son of Yehozadak, controlled the high priesthood in Jerusalem. Thus, Mansoor (Encyclopedia Judaica, 14:62) claims that the term “Sadducees” refers to “anyone who is a sympathizer with the Zadokites.” Kohler stated that “in the course of time” the term became “a party name applied to all the aristocratic circles connected with the high priests by marriage and other social relations” (Enc Judaica 10:630–33). However, as we shall see, the actual connection between the Sadducees and the priests is unclear.”

“None of our sources actually link the Sadducees with the priesthood, stating only that certain priests were also Sadducees.”Wood, D. R. W. (1996, c1982, c1962). New Bible Dictionary (1044). InterVarsity Press.)

My father taught me this little reminder as a boy. The Sadducees didn’t believe in angels, spirits or resurrection with life after death—and that is why they were “Sad you see!”

Question: Acts Lesson 4—What is the significance of Acts 4:22, (”For the man on whom this sign of healing was performed was more than forty years old.”)? What does the age of 40 have to do with the situation? (submitted 10/27/07)

Answer: First, reading the story as literal history, we don’t have to assume any significance to the age of the man who was healed. It could be recorded by Luke simply as a historical fact—the man who was healed was 40 years old. The life expectancy was much shorter in those days and for a man who was over 40 years old to be healed even after he had begun to get old was quite a marvelous miracle.

Also, the people, along with the religious leaders had probably seen this man at the Beautiful Gate for decades and NOW he was healed. The miracle did not involve a fraudulent claim like many televangelists today are accused of. Everyone knew this man for 40 years so no one could deny the authenticity of the miracle. This was obviously a sign from God. No one could ignore it. This was like a white elephant in the room that had to be noticed!

Matthew Henry in his commentary has an insightful note: “The miracle was so much the greater, he having been lame from his mother’s womb, ch. 3:2. The older he grew the more inveterate the disease was, and the more hardly cured. If those that are grown into years, and have been long accustomed to evil, are cured of their spiritual impotency to good, and thereby of their evil customs, the power of divine grace is therein so much the more magnified.”

Lastly, the number 40 is very significant in Scripture. It represents suffering, fasting, temptation. Moses was in the wilderness forty years, the Israelites wandered for forty years, Jesus was tempted for forty days, etc. This man could also be seen as bearing the fruit of suffering, rewarded by God by his gravitating toward the Temple. After 40 years of suffering he was healed by Jesus.

The man healed in John 5 had been under the 5 porticos for 38 years. The Fathers saw this as representing the Jewish people in the wilderness for 38 years (the actual number of years of wandering) who was now in the shadow of the 5 books of Moses. He was liberated and saved from the bondage of the Law through Christ.

Acts Q & A Chapter 5

Question: Acts Lesson 5—The commentary on lesson 5 (page 61) notes that “Barnabas has been praised for selling property and bringing all the money to the apostles.” A footnote in the Bible and the New American Bible Dictionary in the back of my Bible says that Barnabas was a Levite. It is my understanding that Levites did not own property. Can you tell me how Barnabas then could have owned property ? Thank you. (submitted 10/17/07)

Answer: The Scriptures do not mention anything about a prohibition of Levites from owning private property, since they obviously owned their own clothes, homes and animals. They were distinct from the other Israelites in that they were not given a portion of the land like all the other tribes were. Each tribe received a large geographical portion of the land as their inheritance.

The inheritance of the Levites was God and the priesthood—although they were given forty-eight cities of refuge (Num. 35:1 ff. Jos. 21:1ff.) surrounding which they owned pasture land. They received tithes and animals from the other tribes for their service. They were certainly not forbidden from owning private property or land. It is also generally acknowledged that Matthew was a Levite, having a second name of Levi, and he worked for the Romans collecting taxes and presumably had a very large bank account of his own.

Question: Were the Sadducees all from the tribe of Levi? (submitted 10/16/07)

Answer: From the Anchor Bible Dictionary: “[M]odern scholarship connects [the name Sadducee] with the name Zadok . . . current scholarly opinion connects the term to the name of Zadok, the high priest at the time of David (1 Sam 8:17 and 15:24) and of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:34 and 1 Chr 12:29). Stern (1976:561, 567) states that from the beginning of the Persian period until the wake of the Maccabean revolt, the priestly house of Zadok, descended from Joshua son of Yehozadak, controlled the high priesthood in Jerusalem. Thus, Mansoor (EncJud 14:62) claims that the term “Sadducees” refers to “anyone who is a sympathizer with the Zadokites.” Kohler stated that “in the course of time” the term became “a party name applied to all the aristocratic circles connected with the high priests by marriage and other social relations” (JudEncy. 10:630–33). However, as we shall see, the actual connection between the Sadducees and the priests is unclear.” (Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:892). New York: Doubleday.)

“None of our sources actually link the Sadducees with the priesthood, stating only that certain priests were also Sadducees.” (Wood, D. R. W. (1996, c1982, c1962). New Bible Dictionary (1044). InterVarsity Press.)

My father taught me this little reminder as a boy. The Sadducees didn’t believe in angels, spirits or resurrection with life after death—and that is why they were “Sad you see!”

Question: ACTS Lesson 5—I am the Study Leader for this course in my parish. In preparing for Lesson 5, I noted with keen interest the fact that the story of Ananias and Sapphira does not appear in the Lectionary for any year. If that is the case, why the emphasis on it in this lesson? (submitted 10/23/07)

Answer: I’m not quite sure how to answer this question. The Lectionary does not cover all of Scripture but only a selection of passages over a three-year cycle. This study of Acts is not following the Lectionary or emphasizing only the passages used in the Lectionary. We are virtually covering every verse in a given biblical book.

I don’t think the question is why do we study Ananias and Sapphira when the Lectionary doesn’t mention it; but rather, why spend so much of the study on this incident. If this is the emphasis of the question, it is a fair question.

In Acts of the Apostles, the story of Ananias and Sapphira is given great emphasis even though the book of Acts only covers the highlights of early Church history. So, if Luke and the Holy Spirit deemed it worthy enough to emphasize this event in some detail in Holy Scripture, we thought we would study it in some detail ourselves—and expand on the lessons that can be learned from it—and how the New Testament relates also to the Old Testament.

In our study guide we do devote most of the study to this incident. But it is stunning and from it we draw a lot of lessons which are quite appropriate.

On the other hand, if we are to allow the Lectionary to dictate what passages we emphasize in our study of Acts—or the degree to which we emphasize any given passage—we will shortchange our study. In the long run we would ignore Acts 21, 23 and 27 altogether since none of them are included in the Lectionary.

I would also add, by the way, that we have only so many pages allowed for each lesson which limits the amount of material we can discuss. If you ever look at my book entitled St. John’s Gospel: a Bible Study Guide and Commentary, you will notice that if I am given unlimited space, I will usually fill it up gladly J

I hope I have understood the question correctly and answered appropriately and fairly.

Question: ACTS Lesson 5—In Acts 5:17-21 Peter and John are arrested and put in prison. An angel comes at night and lets them out and tells them “Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this Life.” What is the phrase “all the words of this Life” referring to? Steve Williams, Des Moines CSS, St. Joseph Parish (submitted 10/23/07)

Answer: This is an unusual phrase and yours is a good question. Jesus had proclaimed himself “the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (Jn 14:6). Compare also John 6:63, 68. It seems to me this is the foundation for understanding this phrase.

The Greek word used for “life” is ???? (z??s). It seems that each time this word is used in Acts it is appropriately understood to refer to eternal life (2:28; 3:15; 8:33; 11:18; 13:46, 48; 17:25). Cp. Mills, M. (1997, c1987). The Acts of the Apostles (Ac 5:17). Dallas: 3E Ministries. NIV New International Version

It seems that the angel might be very clever in his use of the word z??s to refer to the Gospel of eternal life. Remember, this is said in the context of a conflict with the Sadducees (v. 17) who did not believe in spirits (angels) or life after death (eternal z??s). There is a bit of irony here since both things rejected by the Sadducees are here being affirmed!

One commentary says, “The Greek text reads, “In the temple speak to the people all the words of this life.” What is the meaning of the expression this life? When crowds of people forsook Jesus during his ministry, Jesus asked the twelve apostles, “You do not wish to leave too, do you?” Then Peter as their spokesman said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:67–68, NIV). These words, then, convey the message of salvation—eternal life through the resurrection of Christ (compare 3:15; Phil. 2:16). The Sadducees rejected the doctrine of the resurrection, yet the apostles publicly proclaim it as “the full message of this new life” (NIV).”

Interestingly, the Gospel is not viewed here as simply a new religion, a new philosophy or a new teaching (all of which it is, of course), but it is much more. It is real, vibrant LIFE. It is the very LIFE of God being given to man—implanted in his very soul. The apostles are to tell the WHOLE message, ALL the words of this LIFE!” How exciting, eh?

“And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-27, RSVCE).

Question: Acts Lesson 5— It is a historical fact that the Jewish community demanded for the death of our Lord and accepted his blood on them and their children. It is also a historical fact that the Apostles were persecuted for Christ’s name sake by the Jewish leaders. Why did the Second Vatican Counsel said that the Jews per say were not responsible for the death of our Lord and not to be hated for such? Our Lord never blamed his persecutors and even asked for their forgiveness. The Apostles likewise rejoiced and only seek to speak the Truth. It seems that the Second Vatican Counsel is contradicting a historical fact while trying to be P.C.? (submitted 11/01/07)

Answer: First, let’s provide the pertinent quote from the Catechism which also contains the statement from Vatican II. I think you will see that the question is misstated. The question asks why Vatican II “said that the Jews per say were not responsible for the death of our Lord.”

Here is what the Catechism says (I underlined the most pertinent phrases),

Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death

597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!” a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . .[N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . .[T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected  or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.

All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that “sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured.” Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone . . .

Now, the Catechism (echoing Vatican II) did not say what the questioner claimed they said. The Church did not say that the Jews were “not responsible for the death of our Lord.” What the Church did say was 1) that we as finite humans cannot judge in God’s place—that the “personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. 2) The Catechism also says we cannot “lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole” and that 3) we cannot “extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places.” That is a far cry from what the question asserts.

I am part German. My grandmother’s maiden name was Knedler. In the 1930’s Hitler came to power and with the agreement of many of the German people, he slaughtered millions of Jews, Poles, Hungarians, Gypsies, handicapped, and more. Were ALL Germans guilty of this genocide? If the Germans at the time said, “Let the blood be on our descendants!” —does that make me guilty of Hitler’s crimes? Of course the answer is NO. Not all Germans at the time can be held responsible for the German government’s egregious behavior, nor can Germans who are born well after the fact.

Neither were all Jews responsible at the time for the death of Our Lord, nor are ethnic Jews 2,000 years later.

I have many Jewish friends today, in Israel and in the Unites States. Some of them are marvelous converts to the Catholic Church. Should I accuse them of the death of Our Lord simply by virtue of their ethnicity? Of course not.

And Peter acknowledged their ignorance, though not their innocence, when he said, “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” (Acts 3:17, RSVCE) Jesus forgave them because they did not know what they were doing. Even when it comes to us there are three elements that must be necessary for a moral sin to be committed: 1) it must be a grave matter or sin, 2) we must KNOW it is a grave matter or sin, and 3) we willfully commit the act knowing it is a grave matter or sin.

Regarding the people in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion, do we know better than Jesus and Peter? Can we declare with certainty that the Jews in the time of Jesus were all personally guilty of mortal sin and therefore hate them as sinners? Should we hate all Jews today because some of their ancient ancestors acted in ignorance and were later forgiven by Jesus?

The Church also asserts that we are as guilty as anyone back then for the death of Our Lord because of our own sin and disobedience. As the Catechism says,

“[t]he Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone . . .” CCC 598).

Vatican II was not writing with the intent of being politically correct, though it certainly had a political aspect and certainly was correct. The Church was rectifying injustices perpetrated on the Jews through the centuries, educating Christians, bringing the truth to light, and attempting to curb any future injustice, bigotry and anti-Semitism—making sure that no guilt is imputed where guilt is not proven.