In recent years I’ve been reading a lot of Agatha Christie books. Although she often writes about murders her style is light and entertaining, often containing humor and romance. Or maybe I’m just a sicko who likes stories about killing people. I’m not sure. Anyway, one of the most significant stories in world history is that of Jesus being killed. It is the cornerstone of Christianity along with his reported resurrection the third day after. But people seem to be divided over exactly who killed Jesus. And why.
Let’s assume, like most historians, that there was a Messiah figure named Jesus, who preached for a period of time in various areas of Israel. Our earliest gospel states this was his basic message: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel [good news].” (Mark 1:15) But when he took his message to Jerusalem he ended up being arrested and crucified. Which seems odd, because there is nothing in that message that seems worthy of a death sentence.
As you read the Gospels you will see Jesus’ public teaching was consistent with his basic message, that people needed to repent of doing evil and should ask God for forgiveness and start doing what is right if they wanted to be part of God’s coming kingdom. But there was also his private teaching, to his core group of disciples. This teaching was that when the Kingdom of God came Jesus would be made its ruler, with his twelve disciples ruling with him:
“You are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:28-30)
In 1st Century Israel there was an ‘apocalyptic’ movement: the belief that God was soon to provide a Messiah, a deliverer who would finally throw off the oppression of the Romans and re-establish a great independent nation of Israel. John the Baptizer and Jesus appear to have been part of that movement. John was executed by Herod (not for this teaching, but for criticizing Herod’s marriage! Mark 6:17-19), and Jesus took the lead. Although Jesus believed he would be the king in God’s kingdom on earth he did not declare this publicly. In fact, the Gospels portray him as trying to suppress this idea, even telling his disciples to keep quiet about it: “Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Messiah.” (Matthew 16:20. Or ‘Christ,’ the terms being equivalent, meaning ‘the anointed one.’)
When Jesus took his preaching to Jerusalem that final fateful week he continued to preach about the coming end of the age; see Matthew 21 through 25, where in one parable after another he warns people to get ready for the impending judgment. This idea was not unique: we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Essene community had similar expectations. But is such a message worthy of death? Probably not.
The parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 24) is an example of Jesus warning people
that they better be ready for the end of the age and the new kingdom.
Don’t end up locked out of the Kingdom!
Jesus also preached some blistering criticism of the religious authorities in Israel and in the temple, pointing out their hypocrisy and even calling them names, like “blind guides” and “whitewashed tombs” and a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 23). Now that could get a person killed!
However, Passover week in Jerusalem was a volatile time, with the city crowded with pilgrims and the Roman authorities being watchful to keep the peace. Pontius Pilate had a reputation as a cruel and heavy-handed governor (technically, ‘prefect’), so the Jewish leaders had to be careful not to rile things up and bring the Romans down on them. The Gospel of John (18:29-32) hints at this tension, as it suggests Pilate told the Jewish leaders to handle this matter themselves, but they respond, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death,” Despite Herod executing John the Baptizer and the stoning of people for certain sins still being practiced, as described in John 8:3f (the woman caught in adultery). But the Passover was a delicate time, and the Jewish leaders apparently were on their best behavior. So, let’s look at how things transpired, according to our earliest Gospel, commonly called ‘Mark.’ (There is no good evidence it was written by a disciple named Mark, but we will use the traditional name.)
Now the Passover and Unleavened Bread were two days away; and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to seize Him by stealth and kill Him; for they were saying, “Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people.” Mark 14:1, 2
I find this statement curious, because this gospel goes on to say that in fact they arrested and had Jesus crucified on Passover Day itself. Did they forget the plan, or did it go wrong? Anyway…
Jesus has the Passover meal with his disciples and then they go out to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray. Then: “Immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.” (Mark 14:43) So it is on the authority of the Jewish leaders that Jesus is taken into custody. (I might point out that the last Gospel written, John, says they were accompanied by a Roman cohort of soldiers, but Matthew, Mark and Luke give no hint of this. It may be a later idea that was added to the story.)
Jesus is then questioned by the Jewish authorities, called the Council or Sanhedrin, but they “kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.” (Mark 14:55) Finally, the High Priest takes his turn:
The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of Heaven.” Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Mark 14:60-64
Now, Jesus had been preaching about the coming Kingdom and criticizing the religious authorities, but where did the high priest get the idea that Jesus was claiming to be the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God? Hold that question. They then take Jesus to the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.
Early in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, immediately held a consultation; and binding Jesus, they led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.” The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, “Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!” But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate was amazed. Mark 15:1-5
To clarify, Jesus’ response in the Greek is only two words, which could be translated as “Thou sayest” or “You say so.” That’s a rather ambiguous answer if you think about it. “You say so,” not “I say so.” But note Pilate’s question: Are you the King of the Jews? Where did he get that idea? Recall that the Council had asked, “Are you the Christ?”, which is more of a religious concept. But to Pilate they apparently represented Jesus as claiming to be ‘King’ of the Jews, not just the Messiah. This is actually a fair representation, as the Messiah was thought to be the leader (king) that would lead Israel back to its independent glory. But “King of the Jews” is a political term, and one to which Pilate and the Romans would have strongly reacted. Only Rome had the authority to determine who sits on the throne. To claim to be the next king of the Jews was a seditious claim. It is a matter of insurrection. And that is punishable by death in the view of the Romans.
“The soldiers took Him away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium), and they called together the whole Roman cohort.” Mark 15:16 And these soldiers take Jesus to Golgotha (Place of the Skull) and there crucify him. And they put a sign on the cross of the charge against him: “The King of the Jews.” (15:26) About 3 pm (‘the ninth hour’) Jesus died.
But again: how did they get the idea that Jesus claimed to be ‘King of the Jews?’ He did not teach it publicly, but he did teach that to his own disciples. Scholar Bart Ehrman, recently retired from a long tenure at UNC-Chapel Hill, suggests an intriguing possibility. Tradition suggests that his disciple Judas betrayed Jesus by leading the Council’s men to him in Gethsemane. But Jesus had been teaching openly in Jerusalem the prior week; there is no indication he was in hiding from the authorities. Dr. Ehrman suggests that what Judas really betrayed to the Council was this secret teaching of Jesus, that he was to become the new King of the Jews, with his disciples under him. This treasonous charge is what allowed the Council to take Jesus to Pilate, and it is the charge Pilate leveled at Jesus, even posting it on the cross, so everyone would know what happens to people who try to usurp the kingdom from the Romans. I think Dr. Ehrman makes a good point that clarifies how things went down that night.
So, who killed Jesus? Clearly it was a group effort. First the Jewish Council apprehends him and finds cause to take him to Pilate, the Roman governor. Pilate focuses on the one charge that worries him, that Jesus claimed to be the next ‘king of the Jews.’ He sentences him to crucifixion for this seditious claim. Roman soldiers carry out the crucifixion. So ultimately is was the Romans who killed Jesus, for leading a potential insurrection. If you examine Jesus’ teachings he seemed to believe that God Himself was going to intervene and overthrow the evil kingdoms of the world to establish His own righteous kingdom; it is not that Jesus was going to lead a revolt to make it happen. (I do wish our CINO[1] politicians of today would understand this: it is supposed to be God who does this, not you!) But in the eyes of the Romans, claiming to be the next King of the Jews was enough: off to the cross you go!
Now, although Mark, our earliest Gospel, does implicate the Jewish leaders as setting things in motion, their role seems to get worse with each Gospel. Keep in mind that the gospels appear to have been written by Gentile Christians in Greek, not by earlier Jewish Christians who would have written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Each Gospel seems to get more pro-Roman and more anti-Jewish. Even in Mark there is an attempt to reduce the guilt of Pilate and the Romans: there is an extremely improbable episode in which Pilate offers to release either Jesus or an insurrectionist named Barabbas (the Pilate of history would never do such a thing!). Mark says, “the chief priests stirred up the crowd to ask him to release Barabbas for them instead.” The crowd calls for Jesus to be crucified, but Pilate asks, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they force Pilate’s hand, and Jesus is sent off to crucifixion. So, Pilate tried to intervene for Jesus, but the Jews, urged on by their leaders, demand his crucifixion.
Jesus or Barabbas?
Next the Gospel of Matthew, which clearly used Mark as one of his sources as he sometimes quotes from it verbatim, adds some details to the scene:
When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” Matthew 27:24, 25
So, in this version Pilate proclaims his innocence by washing his hands of the matter, literally, and the Jewish ‘people,’ not just the leaders, willingly accept the guilt, even “on our children,” suggesting the guilt would remain on future generations of Jews. Clearly this is a very anti-Jewish sentiment, which later contributed to Christians labeling Jews as “Christ-killers.” (For those who saw Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ you may recall that in this scene he did not subtitle this statement by the people. Even he recognized the offensive anti-Jewish nature of the statement!)
Christ before Pilate, by Hans Holbein the Elder
Note Pilate washing his hands.
In Luke there are several more additions. Pilate specifically tells the people, “I find no guilt in him,” not just once, but three times! (Luke 23:4, 14, 22) Pilate finds out that Jesus is from Galilee so he tries to push the responsibility off onto Herod, who just mocks Jesus and then returns him to Pilate. Pilate again appeals to the crowd, saying for the third time that he does not find guilt in him worthy of death, and neither did Herod, but:
But they were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will. Luke 23;23-25
Luke makes it pretty clear that in his view Pilate tried to exonerate Jesus but it was the Jews who insisted on his crucifixion and their will prevailed.
In some ways the Gospel of John is thought to be even more anti-Jewish. In the other Gospels Jesus often argues with the religious leaders, like the Pharisees or scribes. In John he often simply labels them inclusively as “the Jews.” For example, John 10:31, “The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.” Or John 5:16, “For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.” Do an online Bible search of the term “the Jews” and you will find dozens of times John uses this. It’s not just their leaders, it’s “the Jews.” In the trial scene rather than Jesus saying only two words to Pilate they have a brief conversation, as if portraying Pilate as trying to give Jesus a fair trial. As in Luke Pilate declares to the Jews that he finds no sufficient guilt in Jesus and even tries to give him back to the Jews. When Pilate warns Jesus that he has authority to either release him or crucify him Jesus responds, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” So, Pilate isn’t really guilty; it is God’s plan, and the truly guilty one is the he who delivered Jesus to Pilate. He may be referring to Caiaphas the leader of the Council, or Judas who betrayed his secret teaching, or perhaps he means the whole Council, or to be consistent with the rest of the gospel, perhaps he mean “the Jews” as a whole. As one final dig at “the Jews,” Pilate reluctantly agrees to the crucifixion:
So they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified. John 19:15, 16
The other gospels make it clear that Roman soldiers took Jesus away to be crucified, but here in John Pilate appears to hand Jesus over to the chief priests; perhaps another way of putting guilt on the Jews and away from Pilate and the Romans.
This lessening of Pilate’s guilt and increase of the guilt of “the Jews” continued after the writing of the Gospels. Early Christian writings like The Gospel of Nicodemus and The Acts of Pilate further exonerate Pilate and tell of his conversion to Christianity, to the point that Pontius Pilate is considered a saint by some Eastern Christian traditions, specifically the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The end result of all this? Centuries of persecution of the Jews, culminating in the Holocaust under the Nazis. Unfortunately the current situation in the Middle East may be exacerbating that long-standing anti-Semitism, as many people don’t try to distinguish between a person of Jewish heritage and the actions of a political government that happens to bear the name Israel.
Indulge me for a moment as I enter into speculation: when the Gospels were written we already see evidence of anti-Jewish sentiment. To take it a step further, is it possible that Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion was solely a Roman matter, and that the involvement of the Jewish Council was added later, shifting the blame more to them and away from the gentile Romans? Recall that Mark told us the Council said “Not during the festival, otherwise there might be a riot of the people.” Yet Jesus is arrested and crucified on Passover Day! Is it possible that the Jewish Council shared their concerns about Jesus with the Roman authorities, not expecting them to take such immediate action? But instead the Romans, not wanting to let the situation fester during this volatile period, moved that very night to go after Jesus and take him out of the way. But as the story is told in the coming decades it is portrayed as the Jewish Council arresting Jesus and turning him over to the Romans and then insisting on his crucifixion. Thus the Jews became the villains of the story, and over time the Romans, and Pilate, are seen as less culpable. I just throw that out there as a possibility, considering the trajectory of anti-Jewish feelings in the early church as the Gentiles took over.
One final point: who betrayed Jesus? A disciple named ‘Judas.’ Now, Judas was a common name in those days, so maybe it was just coincidence that the betrayer in the story had that name. But the name literally means “one from Judah,” that is, “a Jew.” So the betrayer of Jesus had a name meaning “Jew.” I guess John would be okay with that association. Again, maybe it is just coincidence, but it make one wonder if ‘Judas’ was a name intentionally assigned to the disciple who betrayed Jesus as Gentile authors recorded their versions of the story of Jesus.
So, who killed Jesus? The Romans, but they were fed incriminating information by the Jewish Council. Why? The official charge was claiming to be the next King of the Jews, a charge worthy of crucifixion, although the Jewish leaders may have had more personal reasons, given Jesus’ attacks upon them. Any way you look at it Jesus ended up crucified, and later his disciples claimed to see him alive again, and a new religion was spawned. And two millennia of anti-Jewish sentiment was also spawned. I have a friend who told me that religion is all about love. <sigh> If only that were true.
(Scroll down to make comments and ask questions.)
Thinking exercises:
1. Who do you think was responsible for Jesus’ execution? If you believe it was all part of God’s plan, then is God the real culprit?
2. Should descendants ever be blamed for something their ancestors did? What did your ancestors do? Any horse thieves, or worse, among them?
3. Are people today thinking like John in that they blame “the Jews” for actions of the leaders of the Israeli government? How do you feel about people in other countries blaming “the Americans” for things that the Trump administration is doing? Is it right to blame people for the things their leaders do? Why or why not?
[1] CINO = Christians In Name Only.
Leave a Reply