Prompted by a swell in antisemitic incidents in Europe back in 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) drafted a definition of antisemitism to help countries, institutions, and organizations recognize it when it was happening in order to respond quicker to, monitor better, and track antisemitic incidents. As of April 2024, 45 countries and more than 1,000 nongovernmental institutions have adopted the definition, which says:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, Jewish community institution, or religious facilities.
In addition to defining antisemitism, IHRA also gave practical examples of it, including targeting the State of Israel as it is a “Jewish collective.” For this reason, anti-Israel critics complained that the IHRA definition inhibits their freedom of speech and was being misused to protect Israel from their legitimate criticism. However, the IHRA explanation explicitly says that this is not the case. It says that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Recently, another complaint about the IHRA definition was heard when the US House of Representatives passed a bill to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws on campuses. The bill, called the Antisemitism Awareness Act, requires universities to consider the IHRA definition when assessing whether an allegation was motivated by antisemitic intent, and failing to do so could result in their federal funds being withheld.
To the surprise of many, a rather vocal member of Congress voted against the bill, saying it could lead to convicting Christians of antisemitism simply for preaching the gospel or quoting the New Testament. The accusation spread throughout the media, and a chorus of voices began expressing concerns about Congress’ adoption of the IHRA definition.
The controversy surrounds another example of antisemitism listed by IHRA, which is “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” Several verses in the New Testament do blame Jews for Jesus’ death, like Acts 2:36, Acts 3:13–15, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16. But is that what the IHRA definition is talking about?
Not at all. According to Dr. Michael Brown in his article “Did the House of Representatives Just Outlaw Quoting Parts of the New Testament?” the IHRA definition merely states it would be antisemitic to label Israelis today—or all Jews—as Christ-killers or as responsible for Jesus’ death. Dr. Brown says it “addresses the historic (and still present) antisemitic libel that all Jews were and are Christ-killers, a libel that has led to the slaughter of Jews throughout history.”
When I was studying theology in college, a fundamental rule we learned when interpreting Scripture was “Context is king.” This means we must interpret a verse or passage literally and within its historical setting. Taking a verse out of context leads to error and misunderstanding.
Critics of this bill do just that. They fail to consider that the audience to whom the New Testament authors were speaking or writing were some of the actual Jewish leaders who either carried out or supported turning Jesus over to the Roman authorities for crucifixion. These verses cannot be applied to all Jews of all ages, and to do so is antisemitic. The charges raised against the House bill are false and a gross misuse of Scripture.