In a shocking display of how Biblical interpretation can be weaponized against the Jewish state, Jesuit Father David Neuhaus has unleashed a devastating theological assault on Israel, accusing the nation of using sacred scripture to “create hell” for Palestinians in Gaza. Speaking from the pulpit of Holy Trinity Church in Johannesburg, Neuhaus deployed the very Biblical texts he claims Israel misuses to level explosive charges of genocide against the Jewish state.

“The Bible has been a source of absolute poison and venom” in the Gaza conflict, declared Neuhaus, a Catholic priest whose own Jewish heritage adds painful irony to his condemnation. In language that would have been familiar to medieval anti-Semitic preachers, Neuhaus portrayed Israel as a nation that perverts God’s word to justify systematic destruction and mass killing.

The priest’s inflammatory rhetoric represents a troubling new chapter in Catholic-Jewish relations, demonstrating how quickly decades of interfaith progress can unravel when political passion overrides theological responsibility. Neuhaus didn’t merely criticize Israeli policy—he transformed Biblical exegesis into a weapon of moral condemnation, accusing Israel of genocidal intent while citing the same scriptures he claims Israel manipulates.

Neuhaus’s accusations align with an increasingly hostile Vatican stance toward Israel. The Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has accused Israeli leadership of weaponizing Biblical texts to justify what it characterizes as the systematic destruction of Gaza. This represents a dramatic escalation in Vatican criticism, moving beyond policy disagreements to suggest that Israel deliberately corrupts sacred scripture for political purposes.

The charges center on claims that Israeli leaders selectively cite Biblical passages—particularly the conquest narratives in Joshua and the warfare commands in Deuteronomy—to provide religious justification for military operations. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced “Amalek” following the October 7 attacks, Vatican critics seized on this as evidence of genocidal language drawn from Exodus 17, which commands the complete destruction of Israel’s archetypal enemy.

The messenger makes Neuhaus’s accusations particularly stinging. Born in South Africa to German Jewish parents who fled Nazi persecution, Neuhaus immigrated to Israel at age 15 before converting to Catholicism at 26. His credentials include serving as a research fellow at the Jewish Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and 25 years teaching Bible to both Arabic-speaking Catholic seminarians and Hebrew-speaking rabbinical students.

This background lends apparent authority to his devastating assessment: Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute nothing less than genocide, with the Bible serving as the instrument of justification. “I have a great love for scripture. I adore teaching scripture,” Neuhaus declared, before delivering his crushing verdict: “But we need to recognise that our sacred texts have been used, abused and manipulated to create hell for people.”

The priest’s condemnation carries the weight of personal betrayal—a child of Holocaust survivors who found refuge in Israel now accusing the Jewish state of perpetrating genocide while perverting the very scriptures that sustained Jewish survival through centuries of persecution.

Neuhaus outlined several criteria that, in his view, support the genocide allegation:

• Direct and indirect killing of Gazans through bombings, shootings, and starvation
• “Domicide” – the systematic destruction of homes and social infrastructure
• Repeated expulsion and mass displacement of populations
• Destruction of political, social, educational, cultural, and health structures

Drawing directly from Biblical texts to make his case, Neuhaus provocatively asked: “Did God not give this land to Israel? Is Israel not called to genocide?” He then cited Deuteronomy 20:16-17, referencing the command to “not let anything that breathes remain alive” and to “annihilate” the Canaanite peoples.

Neuhaus pointed to Netanyahu’s reference to “Amalek” as proof of genocidal intent, connecting it to the Biblical command in Exodus 17 to wipe out Israel’s archetypal enemy. He argued that “those committing acts of violence against Palestinians continually draw on terminology from the Bible to justify their actions, including through frequent references to the Book of Joshua, which tells how the Israelites destroyed their enemies in Canaan.”

The priest traced this pattern historically, noting how “even before he became prime minister, David Ben Gurion claimed that the ‘Bible is our Mandate'” and despite not being religious, Ben-Gurion viewed “the Book of Joshua as a historical blueprint for the conquest of the ‘Land of the Bible by the People of the Bible.'”

However, the genocide allegation faces substantial factual challenges. Statistical analysis reveals significant discrepancies with historical genocides. While tragic, the civilian casualty figures in Gaza, even accepting Hamas-provided numbers, represent approximately 1-2% of Gaza’s population over more than a year of conflict. By contrast, the Rwandan genocide killed 10-20% of the population in just 100 days, and the Holocaust eliminated approximately 60% of European Jewry over four years.

Furthermore, Israel’s military operations have included unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties, including advance warnings, targeted strikes, and humanitarian corridors – procedures incompatible with genocidal intent. The presence of extensive tunnel networks beneath civilian areas has complicated military operations while Hamas has documented its strategy of using civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.

The complexity of urban warfare in one of the world’s most densely populated areas, combined with Hamas’s embedded military infrastructure, provides context that the genocide framework cannot adequately address. International legal experts remain divided on whether the actions meet the specific legal definitions of genocide under international law.

The current tensions illuminate both the achievements and limitations of Nostra Aetate, the 1965 Vatican II declaration that revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations. The document ended centuries of teaching that portrayed Jews as “cursed and rejected by God” and formally rejected the deicide charge that blamed Jews collectively for Christ’s death.

Nostra Aetate represented a theological earthquake, declaring anti-Semitism “a sin against God at any time or place” and affirming the continuing validity of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. The document led to the Vatican’s recognition of Israel in 1993 and established formal diplomatic relations.

However, the current controversy reveals that Nostra Aetate‘s transformation of Catholic-Jewish relations remains incomplete. While the document established theological foundations for mutual respect, it did not resolve political disagreements over Israel’s policies or provide frameworks for addressing contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts.

Father Neuhaus’s critique raises profound questions about Biblical interpretation and its political applications. His argument that Israeli leaders have weaponized scripture echoes historical criticisms of how religious texts have been misused to justify oppression. “Instead, the Bible has often served — during apartheid in South Africa and in many other countries — as a text to imprison and enslave,” he noted, drawing parallels between Israeli policy and historical injustices.

The priest specifically condemned how “the Church used the Bible during the Crusades and how some Christians still use it to stoke and rationalise Islamophobia.” He called on Catholics to read scripture “in the sacred spirit in which it was written,” which he argued reveals “values of equality, justice and peace, rather than a justification for war and death.”

“We have a huge job of reading our religious texts properly so that they are ‘Good News’ for life, dignity, freedom, equality; all the values that we know our God and Creator would like us to promote,” Neuhaus declared. His conclusion was unambiguous: “We need to read the Word of God so that it is not — again — manipulated and exploited to commit genocide.”

This challenge cuts both ways. Critics note that anti-Israel advocacy often employs equally selective Biblical interpretation, emphasizing prophetic calls for justice while minimizing Jewish connection to the land or the reality of security threats. The complexity of Biblical interpretation in political contexts defies simple solutions.

Neuhaus specifically criticized Christian Zionism’s “fundamentalist reading of the Bible,” which he argues has “reinforced and legitimised Israel’s claims” over biblical territories. This critique reflects broader Catholic theological concerns about Protestant dispensationalist theology that sees modern Israel as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

The Catholic Church’s position has evolved toward supporting a two-state solution while maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel. However, Vatican statements have increasingly criticized Israeli settlement policies and military actions, creating tensions with both Israeli officials and American Catholic supporters of Israel.

The current controversy underscores how Catholic-Jewish relations, despite dramatic improvements since Nostra Aetate, remain vulnerable to political developments in the Middle East. The document’s theological achievements cannot fully insulate the relationship from disagreements over contemporary policies.

Several factors complicate the relationship:

Institutional Memory: Many Catholic institutions retain sympathies for Palestinian causes rooted in liberation theology and historical identification with oppressed peoples. This creates natural tension with Jewish concerns about Israel’s security.

Theological Differences: While Nostra Aetate addressed historical Christian anti-Judaism, it did not resolve theological questions about the relationship between the Jewish covenant and Christian supersessionism. These underlying tensions surface during political crises.

Political Complexity: The Middle East conflict involves competing narratives of victimhood and justice that resist simple moral frameworks. Religious leaders on both sides struggle to address legitimate concerns while maintaining interfaith relationships.

Father Neuhaus’s controversial statements, whatever their merits, illuminate the incomplete nature of Catholic-Jewish reconciliation sixty years after Nostra Aetate. While the document established crucial theological foundations, it could not resolve all tensions between religious communities with different historical experiences and contemporary concerns.

The challenge moving forward lies in maintaining the genuine theological progress achieved while developing frameworks for addressing contemporary political disagreements. This requires recognition that religious texts, however sacred, require careful interpretation that considers both historical context and contemporary implications.

The controversy also reveals the need for continued dialogue that goes beyond formal diplomatic relations to address underlying theological and political tensions. Both communities must grapple with how their religious traditions inform responses to contemporary injustices without succumbing to selective interpretation that serves narrow political ends.

Nostra Aetate transformed Catholic-Jewish relations from hostility to friendship, but friendship requires honest conversation about difficult topics. The current tensions over Gaza, however painful, may ultimately serve the cause of deeper understanding if both communities approach them with the humility and commitment to truth that genuine reconciliation demands.

The path forward requires neither uncritical acceptance of political positions nor abandonment of religious conviction, but rather the difficult work of maintaining relationships across difference while pursuing justice through dialogue rather than demonization. In this effort, the legacy of Nostra Aetate remains both inspiration and unfinished business.