When They Had Crucified Jesus


Copied from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore

September 9, 2018

Scripture Reading: John 19:23:

“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.”

There is so much going on in the nation that I think that I need to address a few things. First, is the weather. Fires in the West are devasting acres of countryside along with hundreds of homes. “There are two fires in the northern portion of California, close to Oregon, that “devasted entire communities and tragically cost many people their lives and were among the most destructive fires is our state’s history,” the State Commissioner said.

Then there is also a hurricane that is going to hit either North or South Carolina this upcoming week. This was after the storm that we are getting the rain (2 to 4 inches) from now in Cincinnati. After this hurricane there are more that are lining up. Don’t you think that our LORD God is angry!

Then we had the Puerto Rico man that shot random people in the 5/3 Bank and he was killed and died on the floor of Greater’s Ice Cream Shop. Then we had an anonymous Trump insider write a paper saying that Trump is causing all kinds of difficulties for the nation.

Kaepernick’s girlfriend, Nessa Diab, is a television and radio personality. Diab is also a Muslim who has espoused avowedly left-wing political views.Then we had the following situation where a famous shoe company, Nike, ran an advertisement about Colin Kaepernick. Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco second-string quarterback who refused to stand at the National Anthem, has a girlfriend who is a _______?

People walk by a Nike advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick.The former quarterback whose action has hurt the National Football League may have its origins in the Muslim’s hatred for America. He has come out and now supports Black Lives Matter and many other groups. Nike shoe company, which just supported him in their 30-year campaign, has caused many individuals to “burn their Nike equipment” and to state that they will never buy another pair of Nike shoes ever. Nike stock dropped 3% the first day it traded after their announcement of their pro-Kaepernick campaign.

Who owns Nike?

  • Philip H. Knight (Ashkenazi Jew): Chairman of the Board of Directors

  • Mark Parker (Ashkenazi Jew): President & CEO

  • Don Blair (Ashkenazi Jew): EVP & CFO

  • John Slusher (Ashkenazi Jew): EVP & Global Sports Marketing

  • Eric Sprunk (Ashkenazi Jew): COO

  • Three White Europeans and one Black

Colin Kaepernick in the Nike ad campaign, suggests we “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” Phillip Knight, its owner, an Ashkenazi Jew, started the company when he first graduated from business school. He took a $50 loan from his father and set up a company to import high quality running shoes from Japan at a low price.

In 1963, the company’s first year of operation, Knight sold the shoes from the trunk of his Plymouth Valiant, earning $8,000. Today, he is worth 25,000,000,000! The blood of Jesus the Christ in on him, since he is the descendant of the Pharisees and scribes who murdered our Savior. He believes that Jesus in now in hell, boiling in a hot pot of excrements.

What does his company believe?

  • Labor being paid pennies per hour to make sneakers sold here as status symbols to the most vulnerable among us — children and teens — at obscene prices.

  • Labor rights investigators have regularly listed Nike among the worst of the worst in operating Asian factories under draconian authorities and inhumane conditions.

Phil Knight, Nike Chairman of the Board of Directors18th wealthiest person in the United States: Phil Knight

Net worth: $25 billion: $25,000,000,000

Age: 78

Country: US

Industry: Retail

Source of wealth: Self-made; Nike

What do you do with $25 billion dollars? If you spent $1 million dollars a day, it would take almost 75 years to spend it all. How much will he have when he dies? Nothing!


Last Thursday at work, I found a copy of People magazine. On the front cover was a picture of John McCain. Inside the magazine, there was a five-page story about his life as they honored his death. He was called an “American Hero.” His mother, who is 106 years old, is still living. She remembers that he was troublesome at the Naval Academy and ran around with the “Bad Bunch.” He graduated 894 out of 899 in his class of 1954. But besides the two comments by his mother, they left practically all the bad stuff that he did out of the story.

John, son of Cain, was an Episcopalian who died an unbaptized Baptist. He wasn’t born in the United States, and his father and grandfather were 4-star Admirals in the Navy. His father helped cover up the incident of the Liberty fiasco. But now that his son has died, why is John receiving so much admiration from both sides of the political aisle? Former President Bush, who beat him in the primary, former President Obama, who beat him in one national election, and former President Clinton all gave glowing remarks at his funeral. They even had one day where he was laid to rest in the rotunda where people could come and see his coffin. But they did not invite the President of the United States to speak or to even come to his funeral.

But, what you didn’t hear was the voices from the Navy men of the USS Forester, many former Vietnam Prisoners of War, many Vietnam vets, his first wife and children, many senators and others who have an 180 degree different view of John McCain.

The late Pastor Downey wrote that the word “hero” is not in the Bible, but in pagan mythology. A “hero” was an illustrious person, mortal indeed, but supposed by the populace to partake of immortality, and after his death, to be placed among the gods, (“Far Above Rubies,” June 4, 2002, page 25). That is exactly who John, son of Cain was.

The son of Cain’s infamy began when:

  1. He showed off with the “wet start” of his fighter jet on the USS Forrestal causing the deaths of 134 shipmates, seriously injuring 161 sailors and taking the ship off the battle line for extensive repairs. The incorrect procedure that the youthful aviator made caused the launching of a powerful Zuni rocket across the carrier’s deck hitting other parked planes that were packing high-explosive 1000-pound bombs. The subsequent massive explosions, fire and destruction went several decks below and nearly sunk this major 82,000-ton U. S. aircraft carrier.

  2. He was the “songbird” in the Hanoi Hilton from 1967 to 1973. His injuries were not because of torture, but for his failure to properly jump out of his plane and land correctly while he parachuted. Both of his legs and one arm were broken. John was not starved when he was released to return home as most prisoners were. He made many unpatriotic messages while he was a prisoner.

3. He got busted for secretly and illegally entering Syria to meet with a foreign group (allegedly Islamic State-linked jihadists) to coordinate strategy on that warfront. Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul accused McCain of unknowingly meeting with Islamic State fighters

4. According to the Washington PostJohn and his mistress, Cindy, obtained a marriage license in Arizona in early March 1980, four weeks before his divorce from Carol was final. They were married six weeks later, on May 17.

5. Carol, McCain’s first wife, was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they took their wedding vows in 1965. I guess he forgot that they made a vow, “for better, or for worse.” For after he was a prisoner for 5 ½ years, the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children, had been disfigured in a car wreck half-way through John’s imprisonment. Carol was discharged from the hospital after six months of life-saving surgery. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter. Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

6. Let’s put it in simple street talk. “Honest” McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire Jewish mistress, whose Jewish mafia daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress.

7. John first met the 17-years younger Cindy while he was in Hawaii going on a trip to China. This second wife of John was the daughter of a highly-placed fixture in the Arizona branch of the national organized crime syndicate: He was the chief henchman of the late Kemper Marley, Arizona point man for infamous mob chief Meyer Lansky and his powerful partners-in-crime, the super-rich Bronfman family of Montreal. She was there with her parents on a vacation.

8. When he died, John was worth about $16 million; Cindy was worth almost $200,000,000. Hardly, middle class! (But she only has 1/12 the new worth of Nike owner, Phillip Knight.) Cindy has long insisted she’s an only child, but in fact she has two half-sisters. Kathleen Hensley Portalski, 65, is the product of Arizona beer baron Jim Hensley and his first wife, Mary Jeanne Parks. Hensley and his second wife, Marguerite “Smitty” Johnson, had Cindy, 54, 11 years later. Cindy’s other half-sister, Dixie L. Burd, was born to Johnson before her marriage to Hensley.

Among other things, Kathy and Cindy are fighting over their cut of Hensley’s inheritance. Cindy and Kathleen are also at odds over their father’s will. While Cindy inherited his multimillion-dollar beer fortune, Kathleen inherited a mere $10,000. When he knew his death was imminent, he recommended his wife take his place in the senate after he passed.

9. When John married his first wife he adopted her two sons from a previous marriage. Then they had one daughter together. After their divorce, John had three children with Cindy and adopted a Bangladeshi girl named Bridget.

10. Cindy’s father’s boss for 40 years was the undisputed political boss of Arizona, acting as the behind-the-scenes power over both the Republican and Democratic parties. [Does this remind you of the wizard of Oz?] As such, his wealth and connections played the primary role in advancing John McCain’s political career from the start.

11. In 1953 Hensley and (this time) Marley were prosecuted by federal prosecutors for falsifying liquor records, but young attorney William Rehnquist acted as their “mouthpiece” (as mob attorneys are known) and the two got off scot-free. Rehnquist later became chief justice of the Supreme Court and presided over the “fix” that made George W. Bush president in a rightly disputed election.

12. Now, do you understand why John was the deciding vote on not killing Obamacare. Why John’s positions on foreign policy were indistinguishable from Hillary’s. And why he constantly voted against tax cuts and veteran’s benefits? Because John was very, very pro-Canaanite. He committed the same sin as Esau did!

13. The story in Arizona is that McCain’s second wife’s father took the fall for Marley. Upon Hensley’s release from prison, Marley paid Hensley back by setting him up in the beer business—distributor for Anheuser-Busch beer. And without Marley’s political support McCain would never even gotten elected dogcatcher.

Hensley expanded his family fortune further by selling his dog racing track to an individual connected to the Buffalo-based Jacob’s family. The Jacob’s family were the leading distributors for Bronfman (Jew) liquor into the United States during Prohibition into the hands of local Jewish gangs that were part of the Lansky (Jew) syndicate. Over the years, the family’s enterprises were once described as being “probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime’s money-laundering in the United States.” So. John McCain owes his political and financial fortunes to the good graces of the biggest Jewish names in organized crime.

Since McCain’s career was sponsored by the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate, it is no coincidence McCain recently traveled to London where Lord Jacob Rothschild of the international banking empire raised money on McCain’s behalf. Rothschild (Jew) has long been allied with the Bronfman family (Jew) as major patrons of Israel.

So, was John McCain the hero of America or was he the son of Cain who was a traitor to the POWs, the American people and the middle class? Did John, son of Cain, do something that was an abomination in the eyes of our God? He followed in the sin of Esau as He married a daughter of one of the Canaanites.


John 19:23: “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

Who do you think the “they” are in this verse? Some interpret the word to mean the “Roman soldiers”; others to mean “the band of chief priest, Pharisees and scribes of Israel(i).” Was it the Roman soldiers who took His garments after the Roman soldiers crucified Him or was it the chief priests, Pharisees and elders of Israel(i) who crucified Jesus and then the Roman soldiers took His garments. Which one do you think it is?

It is like the sentence: “Rachel, who served as a model for Robert’s sister, thought her interpretation of the role was the best.” Does the “her” refer to Rachel or to Robert’s sister? There is no way to completely know without the context. There must be more sentences, either before or after or both, to determine which one that it refers to.

The same is true with this verse in John 19:23. Who the “they” are, must be determined by the context. Are you a detective? What would a police detective do to solve a murder case? Wouldn’t he try and answer the following questions about the suspect? What information does the Bible give us about the following questions?

  • Did anyone plot His murder?

  • Did anyone have a reason to kill Him?

  • Did anyone attempt to kill Him before the trial with Pilate?

  • Did anyone show enough hatred of the victim that it might bring about a desire to kill Him?

  • Who was last seen with the victim?

  • Who did they say killed Him after He had been murdered?

  • Did the victim identify who might kill Him?

The answer to these questions would be a major clue as to the meaning of the word “they” in verse 23. Does the Bible provide any information if Romans is the answer to the above questions?

  • Was it the Romans who plotted His murder? No.

  • Was it the Romans who had a reason to kill Him? No.

  • Was it the Romans who attempted to kill Him before the trial? No.

  • Was it the Romans who had shown enough hatred of the deceased that it might bring about a desire to kill Him? No.

  • Was it the Romans who was last seen with the victim? There were four Romans soldiers close by.

  • Did they say it was the Romans who killed Him after His death? No. Nowhere in the gospels or in the epistles are either Pilate or the Roman soldiers accused of putting Jesus to death.

  • Did the victim say that it was Romans who might kill Him? No.

When the Roman, Pilate, washed his hands and told the Jews that Jesus was innocent, would it make any sense if the Romans then would go against his verdict and crucify Him? Would it be possible for the Romans to go against what Pilate had just said? If Pilate had said that Jesus was innocent, would that mean that the Roman soldiers considered just the opposite—that He was guilty and crucify Him? Pilate would not have performed this ancient ritual had he been planning to have his soldiers kill Jesus.

It would mean that the Romans would not do anything to Jesus, except give Him a beating to satisfy the hostile, demonstrating Jews. So, if the Romans didn’t crucify Him, who did? Let’s look at the other suspects:

  • Was it the Negroes? No, because they were not there. They were living mainly in Africa and had no knowledge of what was going on at this time.

  • Was it the Orientals? No, because they were not there. They were living mainly in Asia and had no knowledge of what was going on at this time.

  • Was it the Islanders. No, because they were not there. There were living mainly in the islands of the Pacific and had no knowledge of what was going on at this time.

  • Was it the Aborigines? No, because they were not there. There were living in Australia and had no knowledge of what was going on at this time.

  • Was it the Israelites? No, because the clear majority of them were not there. The ten tribes were in dispersion; and of the three tribes of the southern kingdom, only a small remnant were there--Benjamin in Galilee, while most of Levi and Judah in Judea. The rest were in dispersion also. Most of them had no knowledge of what was going on at this time.

  • There was only one people who fulfilled all the clues. The other part of the Genesis 3:15 dual seed lines; the unholy seed line.

It was the life-long enemy of the covenant seed of Jacob. They have had a hatred of God’s people since their punishment committed by Cain in the Garden. They are the descendants of Cain, then Canaan, then Edom, then Shelah, and others, and even more recently, Michael J. Fox and John McCain. Their wicked seed line cannot hear the Words of God. That is the “mark” that they have carried for six millennias.

  • Was it the Canaanite/Jews who plotted His murder?

    We are told of the healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day, following which the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him. The Pharisees were planning with the Herodians, the Edomite-Jews to kill Jesus.

    Mark 3:6: “And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.”

    Matthew 12:14: “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against Him, how they might destroy Him.”

  • Was it the Canaanite/Jews who had a reason to kill Him?

    In John 5, it says that after Jesus healed a man who had an infirmity for 38 years, the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to slay Him. They sought to slay Him, but He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father.

    John 5:16: “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath day.”

  • Was it the Canaanite/Jews who attempted to kill Him before His trial before Pilate?

    In Matthew 2 we find that King Herod, an Edomite Jew, attempted to trick the Wise Men into revealing the location of the child Jesus. When God prevented that, we find that Herod was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under in a vain attempt to kill the infant Jesus.

    Matthew 2:16: “Then Herod [Edomite/Jew], when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two-year-old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.”

    Mark 14:1: “After two days was the feast of the Passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take Him by craft, and put Him to death.”

    Luke 4:28-30:

    28) “And all they in the synagogue [Jews], when they heard these things, were filled with wrath.

    29) And rose up, and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that thy might cast Him down headlong.

    30) But He passing through the midst of them went His way.”

    John 7:30, 32, 44:

    (30)“Then they sought to take Him: but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come.

    (32) The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning Him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him,

    (44) And some of them would have taken Him; but no man laid hands of Him.”

    John 8:59: “Then took they [scribes and Pharisees] up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

    John 10:31: “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.”

    John 11:47, 53:

    (47)“Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? For this man doeth many miracles.

    (52) Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put Him to death.”

    It became so bad, that Jesus tells why He lived north of Judea.

    John 7:1: “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him.”

  • Was it the Canaanites/Jews who had shown enough hatred of the victim that they might cause His death?

    Besides actual attempts to murder Jesus, we find the Gospels tell of open ridicule, trickery, and hatred of Jesus by the chief priest, scribes, and Pharisees. In Matthew 15:12, the Disciples told Jesus the Pharisees were offended by what Jesus had said. Luke tells us that after one miracle they [scribes and Pharisees] were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.

    Luke 6:11: “And they [scribes and Pharisees, v. 7] were filled with madness: and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus.”

    Mark 11:18: “And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people was astonished at His doctrines.”

    This hatred for Jesus became so well known in Judea that we read in:

    John 7:13: “Howbeit no man spake openly of Him for fear of the Jews.”

    Was it the Canaanite/Jews who were last seen with the victim? Scribes, chief priests, elders; who else?

    Matthew 26:3, 4:

    3) “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

    4) And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him.”

    One of Jesus’ disciples was bribed to tell them when the time would be correct for them to arrest Him when the people would not be able to protest His arrest.

    Matthew 26:47: “And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

  • Was it the Canaanite/Jews who they identified as being the guilty ones after He had been murdered?

    Nowhere in the Gospels or in the epistles are either Pilate or the Roman soldiers accused of putting Jesus to death.

    1 Thessalonians 2:15: “Who [Jews, v. 14] both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:”

Did the victim identify the Canaanite/Jews as the ones who might kill Him?

Jesus told His twelve disciples of His coming death, and He named the men who would cause it. There are five times that He names the chief priest, scribes, elders, and Pharisees as those who would kill Him. Here is one place:

Matthew 16:21: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”

In the Gospel of John, we find an account of Jesus personally accusing these same men of seeking to kill Him.

In, John 7:19: “Why go ye [Jews, v. 15] about to kill Me?”

In the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21:33-46 and Luke 20:9-19, Jesus taught that when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; Come, let us kill Him, and let us seize on His inheritance.”

Matthew 21:45, 46:

45) “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spake of them.

46) But when they sought to lay hands on Him they feared the multitude, because they took Him for a prophet.”

Nowhere in all the New Testament Scriptures is anyone accused of being a part of Jesus’ betrayal and capture except those who were directly connected with, or paid by, the religious rulers of Jerusalem.

After the Jews crucified Israel’s savior, the scribes and the Pharisees remembered that He talked about the fact that He would be raised on the third day. So, they went to Pilate and requested to make the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch so that His disciples could not come by night, steal Him away, and say unto the people that He is risen from the dead. But He rose from the dead in great power and magnificence.

Some of the soldiers went quickly to the chief priests and elders and told them all what had just happened.

Matthew 28:12-15:

12). “And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

13) Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we slept.

14) And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

15) So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”

It was the Canaanite/Jews who plotted Jesus’ murder; it was the Canaanite/Jews who had a reason to kill Him; it was the Canaanite/Jews who tried to murder Him over a dozen times before they finally succeeded; it was the Canaanite/Jews who showed enough hatred of the victim that it might bring about a desire to kill Him; it was the Canaanite/Jews who were last seen with the victim; it was the Canaanite/Jews who were identified as being the ones who murdered Him after He had been crucified; it was the Canaanite/Jews who were identified by the victim as being His killers; it was the Canaanite/Jews who bribed the watchers of the tomb of the murdered victim to lie about His resurrection. Judeo-Christians say that the evidence is overwhelming…the Romans did it!


If we could interpret the Greek, how would we interpret Matthew 27:27? John 18:3, 12? Let’s look how one Christian Identity person, who knows the Greek, interpreted the passages in the Christogenea New Testament:

Matthew 27:27: “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.”

The words “of soldiers” is not in the Greek text. It is added by the translators to make their position more credible. The phrase, “a band of Roman soldiers”, is not found anywhere in the Bible. But there is a band of someone else who is mentioned several times in the Scriptures.

John 18:3, 12:

3) “Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

12) Then the cohort and the commander and the deputies of the Judaeans seized Yahshua and they bound

13) And brought Him to Hanna first, for he was the father-in-law of Kaiaphas who was the high priest for that year.”

How does the King James’ Version interpret these same verses?

Matthew 27:27: “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.”

The words “of soldiers” is not in the Greek text. It is added by the translators to make their position more credible. The phrase, “a band of Roman soldiers”, is not found anywhere in the Bible. But there is a band of someone else who is mentioned several times in the Scriptures.

John 18:3, 12:

3) “Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

12) Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him.

13) And led Him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest the same year.”

Leaving out the words “of soldiers”, inserted by the translators, it becomes obvious that both accounts say the same thing. Jesus the Christ was taken from Pilate’s presence by the Roman soldiers and then turned over to the band of the chief priests and Pharisees.

Also, Luke tells us in Luke 23:23, 24, 25, 26, 33:

23) “And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified. And the voices of them [scribes, Pharisees, captain and officers of the Jews and rulers of the people] and of the chief priest prevailed.

24) And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required…

25: He delivered Jesus to their will…

26) They led Him away…

33) They crucified Him.”

Who is the subject of the pronouns in these four verses? It had to be the chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, captain and officers of the Jews and rulers of the people (Luke 23:4, 10, 13, 23.

Let’s replace the pronouns found in four verses in John 19:

John 19:14-16, 18:

14) “…(A)nd he [Pilate] saith unto the Jews, Behold your [Jews] king!

15) But they [Jews] cried out, Away with Him [Jesus the Christ], crucify Him [Jesus the Christ]. Pilate saith unto them [Jews], Shall I [Pilate] crucify your [Jews] King? The chief priests [Jews] answered, We [Jews] have no king but Caesar.

16) Then delivered he [Pilate] Him [Jesus the Christ] therefore unto them [Jews] to be crucified. And they [Jews] took Jesus, and led Him [Jesus] away.

18) When they [Jews] crucified Him [Jesus], and two other with Him [Jesus], on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.”

Right before this event happened, Pilate made the following proclamation. This one sentence proclamation contains 10 pronouns.

John 19:6: “When the chief priests [Jews] therefore and officers [Jews] saw Him [Jesus], they [Jews] cried out, saying, Crucify Him [Jesus], crucify Him [Jesus]. Pilate saith unto them [Jews], Take ye [Jews] Him [Jesus], and crucify Him [Jesus]: for I [Pilate] find no fault in Him [Jesus].”

Pilate made the statement that if Jesus was to be murdered, it would have to be the Jewish rulers who did it.

What scriptures do those who say the Romans crucified Him use to show that it was the Roman soldiers who were the ones who actually nailed Jesus to the Cross?

John 19:23: “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

What is the critical word in this verse? It is the pronoun “they.” Does the words that replace the word, “they” mean:

      • Then the soldiers, when they [Roman soldiers] had crucified Jesus…” or is it,

      • “Then the soldiers, when they [chief priests of the Jews] had crucified Jesus…?

The ministers say, "See, it says the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus!" But it should be obvious from John 19:16 and 18, that those referred to as “they” in verse 23 are not the Roman Soldiers, but the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees and rulers of the synagogue! It would be logical to read the verse as follows:

John 19:23: “Then the soldiers when the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees and rules of the synagogue had crucified Jesus, took his garments…”

The reading would agree with what we have already read from the unimpeachable witnesses, the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Plus, the parting of the garment of Jesus reveals another important truth. John 19:23 says the soldiers made four parts, to every soldier a part, at least implying there were only four soldiers present at the crucifixion—hardly possible if it had been an official Roman execution.

So, what is correct? Did the Romans execute Jesus, or was it the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees of the Jews?

So, why was it in the “My Answer” column, written by Billy Graham and printed in newspapers across the country on November 2, 1968 that Graham wrote the following?

“Another reason may be the mistaken impression that it was the Jews who crucified Christ. This is not true. The Romans actually killed Him…”

And a little bit later Graham explains that in a sense we all had a part in the crucifixion of Jesus. The Bible says, “All we like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”

“People of many races had a part in Christ’s crucifixion. Whatever prejudice there may be against the Jew, justification for it is not found in the Bible.”

Evangelist Billy Graham was selected to receive the international brotherhood award by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. “His moral preaching based on the Judeo-Christian concept of the dignity of man has been an inspiration and source of consolation to all religious motivated people,” the spokesman for the group said of Graham. Graham went to Cleveland where he gladly accepted the award showing that he was an anti-Christ.

Would Martin Luther, of the Protestant Reformation, receive an award from the enemies of Jesus the Christ? Instead, Martin is quoted in the book, Biblisches Spruch U. Schatz-kastlein, as saying, “I give you my true counsel: First, that we avoid their synagogues and schools and warn people against them. And such should be done to the glory of God and Christendom, that God may see that we Christians have not knowingly tolerated such lying, cursing and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.”

Who is right? Billy Graham or Martin Luther? Judeo-Christianity or Christian Identity?

Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.