Who Killed Jesus? The Historical Context of Jesus’ Crucifixion

Much of the scholarly discussion about the circumstances of Jesus’ death relates to the question of who was responsible for his arrest and crucifixion.

Historically, the primary responsibility has been placed on the Jewish leadership and the Jews in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, this has sometimes had tragic consequences, resulting in anti-Semitism and violence against Jews.

The tendency to blame the Jews, it is said, arose in the decades after the crucifixion with the church’s growing conflict with the synagogue and its desire to convince Rome that Christianity was no threat to the empire.

Most contemporary scholars recognize that there is not an either-or solution to this question, but that both Jewish and Roman authorities must have played some role in Jesus’ death.

First, Jesus was crucified—a Roman rather than a Jewish means of execution. (Stoning was the more common Jewish method.) There is good evidence that at this time the Jewish Sanhedrin did not have authority to carry out capital punishment (John 18:31; y. Sanh. 1:1; 7:2). The Roman governor Pontius Pilate no doubt gave the orders for Jesus’ crucifixion, and Roman soldiers carried it out.

At the same time, all that we know about Jesus’ teachings and actions suggest that he was more apt to offend and provoke the Jewish religious leaders than the Roman authorities. It is unlikely that the Romans would have initiated action against him without prompting from the Jewish authorities.

Raising the question this way actually misrepresents first-century Judaism, in which religion and politics were inseparable. Jesus’ death was no doubt motivated by the perceived threat felt by the religio-political powers of his day.

Let’s take a look at the motivations, tendencies, and actions of these authorities.

The evidence points to the conclusion that Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition—rebellion against the government.

While this evidence confirms the charge against Jesus, it raises the mystifying question of why Jesus was crucified, since he had almost nothing in common with other rebels and insurrectionists of his day. He advocated love for enemies and commanded his followers to respond to persecution with acts of kindness (Matt. 5:38–48; Luke 6:27–36). He affirmed the legitimacy of paying taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:14, 17; Matt. 22:17, 21; Luke 20:22, 25). At his arrest, he ordered his disciples not to fight but to put away their swords (Matt. 26:52; Luke 22:49–51). His few enigmatic sayings about taking up the sword probably carry spiritual rather than military significance (Matt. 10:34; Luke 22:36, 38).

Jesus’ kingdom preaching would hardly be viewed by Pilate as instigating a military coup.

Furthermore, the fact that Jesus’ followers were not rounded up and executed after his death, and were even allowed to form a faith community in Jerusalem, confirms that Jesus was not viewed as inciting a violent insurrection. The early church was surely following the teaching of its master when it advocated a life of love, unity, and self sacrifice (Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–35).

While it is unlikely that Pilate viewed Jesus as a significant threat, he also had little interest in justice or compassion.

We know from other sources that Pilate’s governorship was characterized by a general disdain toward his Jewish subjects and brutal suppression of opposition. At the same time, his support from Rome was shaky at best, and he feared antagonizing the Jewish leadership lest they complain to the emperor. Pilate had originally been appointed governor of Judea in AD 26 by Sejanus, an advisor to Emperor Tiberius. When Sejanus was caught conspiring against Tiberius and was executed in AD 31, Pilate too came under suspicion. Pilate’s tenuous position is well illustrated by the Jewish philosopher Philo, who writes about an incident when the Jews protested against Pilate’s actions in placing golden shields in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem:

While Philo may be exaggerating Pilate’s faults, the picture here is remarkably similar to that of the Gospels—an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them.

When the Jewish leaders warn Pilate, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar” (John 19:12), he would surely have felt both anger and fear.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, he faced opposition primarily from the Pharisees and their scribes.

In his last week in Jerusalem, the opposition came especially from the priestly leadership under the authority of the high priest and the Sanhedrin, which was dominated by the Sadducees.

Torah (the law) and temple were the two great institutions of Judaism. Jesus apparently challenged the authority and continuing validity of both, posing a significant threat to Israel’s leadership.

The opposition Jesus faced from the Pharisees and scribes centered especially on his teaching and actions relating to the law and the Sabbath. He claimed authority over the law, treated the Sabbath command as secondary to human needs, and accused the Pharisees of elevating their oral law—mere human traditions—over the commands of God. He also accused them of pride, hypocrisy, and greed, warning the people to do as they say but not as they do (Matt. 23:3). These actions certainly did not win him friends among the religious leaders.

Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and his calling of twelve disciples would have also provoked anger among the Pharisees, who considered themselves the rightful guardians of Israel’s traditions.

Jesus’ call for them to repent, his warning of coming judgment, and his actions in creating a new community of faith all sent the message that Israel needed restoration and that her leaders were illegitimate and corrupt. In the boiling cauldron of religion and politics that was first-century Palestine, Jesus’ words would have provoked strong opposition.

While Jesus certainly made enemies before his final journey to Jerusalem, it was the events of the final week which resulted in his crucifixion.

In fact, Jesus’ clearing of the temple is widely recognized as the key episode which provoked the Jewish authorities to act against him. His attacks were aimed at the Sadducees, who represented the religious leadership of Jerusalem.

Here’s what happened: in Mark’s account of Jesus’ Jewish trial, “false witnesses” are brought forward who testify, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.’ ” The high priest then questions him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” to which Jesus’ replies, “I am . . . and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest responds with rage and accuses Jesus of blasphemy. The whole assembly calls for his death (Mark 14:58–65; cf. Matt. 26:55–68; Luke 22:66–71).

Some have questioned the historicity of this scene, claiming it violates Jewish trial procedures. For example, the Mishnah states that it is illegal for the Sanhedrin to meet at night, on the eve of Passover, or in the high priest’s home.

A second hearing would also have been necessary for a death sentence, and a charge of blasphemy could be sustained only if Jesus had uttered the divine name of God (m. Sanh. 4:1; 5:5; 7:5; 11:2).

On closer inspection, Mark’s trial account makes good sense when viewed in the context of Jesus’ ministry.

Jesus’ temple action would naturally have prompted the high priest to ask if he was making a messianic claim.

Jesus’ response combines two key Old Testament passages, Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13. The first indicates that Jesus will be vindicated by God and exalted to a position at his right hand. The latter suggests Jesus will receive sovereign authority to judge the enemies of God.

By combining these verses, Jesus asserts that the Sanhedrin is acting against the Lord’s anointed, that they will face judgment for this, and that Jesus himself will be their judge!

Such an outrageous claim was blasphemous to the body, which viewed itself as God’s appointed leadership, the guardians of his holy temple. Jesus was challenging not only their actions but also their authority and legitimacy. Such a challenge demanded a response.

There were also political and social consequences to consider. Jesus’ actions in the temple—probably viewed by the Sanhedrin as an act of sacrilege—together with his popularity among the people, made it imperative to act against him quickly and decisively.

A disturbance of the peace might bring Roman retribution and disaster to the nation and its leaders. The earlier words of the Pharisees and chief priests in John are plausible in this scenario: “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48).

The Sanhedrin therefore turned Jesus over to Pilate, modifying their religious charges to political ones—sedition and claiming to be a king in opposition to Caesar—and gaining from Pilate a capital sentence.

In fact, Jesus’ clearing of the temple is widely recognized as the key episode which provoked the Jewish authorities to act against him.

The place had become a den of thieves. The spirit of the Temple tax had been corrupted by the authorities who had other motives that involved the love of money, power, and status. The collection occurred in the month of Adar. Coming up in the next month - first of the religious year (Nisan) - was the pilgrimage festival of Passover. The tax provided the funds for the purchase of the sacrifices.

The original text for the donation is in Exo 30:11-16. It's purpose was to provide a gift for the upkeep of the Tent of Meeting and for the atonement of souls. Twenty was the traditional age for the pursuit of a livelihood. The census (an accounting of souls, aged 20 and up) was routed through this donation, with every man giving the same amount: no more, no less.

This provision for the atonement of souls is placed in the text ahead of the sin of the Golden Calf (when the people gave credit to the gold gods for the Exodus from Egypt, the Passover). It's one of the examples for the Jewish concept that God provides "the cure before the disease."

I mention that detail because it is an important component within the broader crucifixion narrative: the timing, the place, the purpose, and who's to blame for it.

John 19

14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

The place where Jesus was crucified was called Golgotha, where what/whom he was accused [of being] was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

The truth is crucified (has its character assassinated) at the place of the poll (consensus, popular opinion, or in the fake polls and accountings that are designed to manipulate majority beliefs).

Golgotha, of Aramaic origin:

01538 gulgoleth {gul-go'-leth}
by reduplication from 01556; TWOT - 353l; n f
AV - poll 7, scull 2, every man 2, head 1; 12

1) head, poll, skull
1a) skull
1b) head, poll (of census)

The Temple tax was called the beka la'gulgolet, a beka for every man:

Exodus 38:26 A bekah for every man (beka la'gulgolet, Strong's H1538 above), that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

The bekah of the accounting of souls *was* the Temple tax la'gulgolet, the required donation for every man (i.e. accounting, head count). It literally was the coin of Golgotha, where he was crucified, at the place of the money, because *it* was the object of love and affection from which power and status was derived:

In fact, Jesus’ clearing of the temple is widely recognized as the key episode which provoked the Jewish authorities to act against him.

The atonement money was for the accounting of souls, just not in the way people might have thought. Ostensibly, the money-changers and dove sellers were there to provide for the sacrifices. If the master of the house discovers that his stewards are corrupt, violating the intent of the procedure, then by providing the sacrifice directly, he takes the corrupting influence of money out of the equation. He's not changing the goal by doing that, he's completing it.

Now you'd think folks would have been grateful for and exceedingly humbled by the procedural change, believing in the power of its tranformation (the changing of hearts), and then been happy to keep the place up for the Master. Costs a whole lot less too without all the added layers of bureaucracy. But where's the material profit in that? Say bye to the nice houses and vehicles, the status of being the boss of things, because there goes the entire Establishment swamp that had taken 46 years to build.

John 2
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

A miracle of tearing down a 46-year entrenched Establishment ranks right up there. Doing that did not engender love and affection in those who derived their wealth and power from the system. The fix was in, until he arrived.

The money was removed from the equation, but lovers of money, status, and power always find ways around any attempt to thwart their own selfish goals. Somehow they figure out ways to Establish themselves as nessessary -- providing services, knowledge, experience, expertise, scholarship, instruction et al in order for the hoi polloi to know and perform what is required to satisfy the Master. Nobody would have any clue how to perceive Jesus without buying books filled with man's establishment dogma (consensus), for example.

Jesus was crucified between two thieves. It's an appropriate visual representing those who put him there in the first place: "every man" who came before, and also after, whose eyes are focused on a material prize. Those with a personal agenda more important than the truth work by buying and selling opinions in the religious marketplace 24/7/365 and by sticking it to those who won't get with the program.

What wil happen to the Messiah when he shows up to flip over the tables of the Temple of his body? It's not like the merchants and their dedicated followers are going to recognize him, except as a troublemaker with the worst sort of subversive character.

In any case, it's another example where God provided the cure before the disease, the rectification ahead of the problem. Right there at the place named Golgotha, for the atonement of souls. Yet the longer people keep accepting that their permanent default identity is one named "sinner", death awaits. The experts can be counted on to keep hammering in the demoralization and shame, because it keeps business brisk. The Jesus they peddle creates a dependency on dead doctrines that generate confusion and conflict, instead of a Messiah who demonstrates personally with the totality of his being how to love people, which IS the way to life.

Who killed Jesus? It's all fun and games until someone comes along with the answer to the question.

In fact, Jesus’ clearing of the temple is widely recognized as the key episode which provoked the ~~Jewish~~ authorities to act against him.

As an aside, I thought it was interesting that the Strong's Hebrew entry number (Aramaic actually) for the word meaning "every man" (source word of Golgotha, #1538) is the same on the Greek side of the concordance that also means "every man".

One on this side, one on that side, you might say..

The uses of the Greek word [which are on that link] say a lot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

"Crucify Him!"