Why Was Jesus Executed?
There is a theological reason and a historical reason, and while the theological reason is arguably more important, this is about the historical reason. Was Jesus executed by the Jews or the Romans? And on what charge?
Blasphemy?
The Jews may have convicted him of blasphemy, but Jesus was crucified; it was the Roman's who did the did, therefore he necessarily must have been found guilty of breaking Roman law, and the Romans would not care one jot if he blasphemied against the Jewish religion - Pilate did that himself!
That is not to say the priests did not find him guilty of blasphemy, and then frame him for sedition; that is a possibility. But even if that is the case, he was not executed for blasphemy, he was executed for sedition.
Note that the Bible tells us the Jews were allowed to execute blasphemers; if Jesus was accused of blasphemy, they had no need to hand him over to Pilate, they could deal with it on there own, just as they did with Stephen.
Acts 7:59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
He was not executed by the Jews and so we can be sure he was not executed for blasphemy.
Sedition or Treason?
This has some nuance, and scholars have debated exactly what the exact charge would have been.
"Because Ulpian mentions maiestas as a possible exception to burial of individuals condemned to death, it is necessary to discuss that as a possible charge against Jesus. Although Raymond Brown and others have argued that maiestas was the charge against Jesus, it is more probable that Pilate executed him for sedition or troublemaking, especially because Jesus was a peregrinus (not a Roman citizen). Since Jesus was a peregrinus, it is difficult to see that a formal charge like maiestas (or perduellio [high treason]) would be relevant. I have not found any records of Roman trials in which a peregrinus was explicitly accused of maiestas by a magistrate. A. N. Sherwin-White, a meticulous classical scholar, thinks that Pilate executed Jesus on the charge of sedition. The bibliography is endless, and it is not necessary to rehearse it here". (Cook, J. (2011). 'Crucifixion and Burial'. New Testament Studies, 57(2)
Maiestas was the crime of treason, so the above is considering whether Jesus was charged with sedition or treason. What is the difference? Either way Jesus was considered a rebel against Roman rule.
One difference appears to be how the accused was executed. Those accused of maiestas were generally beheaded, but as the above says this applied to Roman citizens, so would not be the case for Jesus. That said, definitions changed over time, so it cannot be ruled out.
To me it seems the charge would have been sedition, but either way, Jesus was charged with leading a rebellion against Rome.
Leading a Rebellion?
The Jews hailed Jesus as the messiah - the new Jewish king, the man sent by God to deliver them from the Roman oppressors.
This is what they expected of the messiah:
Micah 5:6 They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,
The land of Nimrod at its entrances;
And He will rescue us from the Assyrian
When he invades our land,
And when he tramples our territory.
So when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, he was hailed as the man who would restore the coming holy nation of our father David, i.e., the kingdom of Judah.
Mark 11:8 Many people put their clothes down on the road. Others cut branches off the trees and put them down on the road. 9 Those who went in front and those who followed spoke with loud voices, “Greatest One! Great and honored is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Great is the coming holy nation of our father David. It will come in the name of the Lord, Greatest One in the highest heaven.”
The Sadducees supported the Romans, and the high priest had been appointed by Pilate. They were against Jesus because they did not want a rebellion, which would only lead to the destruction of their nation, and indeed in AD 70 just that happened, and the Sadducees pretty much disappeared thereafter. The Sadducees wanted to maintain the status quo. Hence we read:
John 11:47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council meeting, and they were saying, “What are we [o]doing in regard to the fact that this man is performing many [p]signs? 48 If we let Him go on like this, all the people will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take over both our [q]place and our nation.”
If Jesus was generally understood as promoting a message of love and peace why would they be worried? A message of love and peace would calm people down, and reduce civil disturbances.
The Sadducees were worried because they knew the people were hailing Jesus as the messiah, and hence potentially sparking a revolt.
Some other verses where Jesus was hailed as the new king, and hence a theeat to Roman rule:
John 1:49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel!”
John 6:15 So Jesus, aware that they intended to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself, alone.
John 12:13 they took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, indeed, the King of Israel!”
John 12:15 “Do not fear, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”
Clearly the disciples expected Jesus to deliver them from the Roman oppressors too.
Luke 24:21 But we [i]were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel....
Acts 1:6 So, when they had come together, they began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
Whether Jesus ever said he was going to overthrow Roman rule is unclear, but kind of beside the point if everyone was expecting him to do just that. As far as the Roman's were concerned, a man who spread a message of love and peace, but was wrongly understood by the populous as the messiah who would lead the rebellion was a threat to Roman rule who had to go.
But Jesus told people to pay taxes to Caeser!
Here is the verse:
Mark 12:17 And Jesus said to them, “Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at Him.
Taken out of context it surely looks like Jesus is telling his fewllow Jews to pay taxes to their Roman oppressors. But when we look at the context, it is quite different. Jesus is showing his distain both for money and for all things Roman. The verse is not Jesus telling people to pay taxes, the verse is Jesus sticking two fingers up at Roman authority. Jesus divides the world in to things that matter - "to God the things that are God’s" - and things that do not matter, the profane - "Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s".
Look at the question is the greater context of verses 13 to 27. The first half is the Pharisees asking a question that they hope will ensnare him, in the second half the Sadducees do the same. In both cases Jesus is asked a yes/no question, and yet he will be sunk if he answers either way.
So he does neither; instead he changes the framing. The woman who married seven times will be married to no one in the afterlife because marriage is irrelevant. Paying Roman taxes is irrelevant, it is spiritual riches you should worry about.
How can we be sure? Well the Bible tells us:
Luke 23:1 Then the entire assembly of them set out and brought Him before Pilate. 2 And they began to bring charges against Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is [a]Christ, a King.”
What did Pilate believe?
Was Pilate aware that the Jews were hailing Jesus as their new king? That is exactly what the gospels tell us.
Mark 15:2 Pilate questioned Him: “So You are the King of the Jews?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.”
Mark 15:9 Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?”
Matthew 2:2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”
John 18:33 Therefore Pilate entered the Praetorium again, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “You are the King of the Jews?”
John 19:1 So Pilate then took Jesus and [a]had Him flogged. 2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and placed it on His head, and put a purple [b]cloak on Him; 3 and they repeatedly came up to Him and said, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and slapped Him in the face again and again.
...
12 As a result of this, Pilate [g]made efforts to release Him; but the Jews shouted, saying, “If you release this Man, you are not a friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king [h]opposes Caesar!”
13 Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called [i]The Pavement—but in [j]Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the [k]sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Look, your King!” 15 So they shouted, “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 except Caesar.”
...
19 Now Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written: “JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 20 Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in [n]Hebrew, Latin, and in Greek.
No Christian was there to witness what Pilate actually said; all the above was invented - words put in Pilate's mouth. But whoever made it up was clearly convinced that Pilate knew Jesus was hailed as the king of the Jews, as the man they believed had been sent by God to overthrow Roman rule.
Furthermore
I think there can be little doubt Jesus was executed by the Romans as a threat to Roman authority, as a rebel leader.
Craig Evans agrees with that. Virtually everyone agrees with that. Jesus was killed on a political charge. By calling himself king – in Roman eyes, whether this is what he personally meant or not, he was making a political claim, that he was going to replace the Roman governance of Judea with a kingdom in which he himself would be king. This could happen (in Roman eyes) only if there was a rebellion.
https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/
Jesus was tried and executed by a Roman official (Pontius Pilate) likely for sedition against the state of Rome. This was a political crime, not a religious one, and Jesus received the punishment specifically reserved for such a crime under Roman law --crucifixion. This was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one.
https://www.drabruzzi.com/crucifixion_of_jesus.htm
The evidence points to the conclusion that Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition—rebellion against the government.
First, he was crucified as “king of the Jews.” As noted in the last unit, the titulus on the cross announcing this is almost certainly historical.
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-killed-jesus-the-historical-context-of-jesus-crucifixion
This article goes further, making the argument that Jesus really was intent on overthrowing the Romans.
Another crucial point which is apparent from the cluster is that it interrogates the widespread assumption that Jesus was a man solely of love, mercy, and peace, lying outside the web of violence: there are several converging passages (Lk. 22:38; Lk. 22:49; Mark 14:47 and par.) indicating that – at least in the final phase of Jesus’ ministry – Jesus’ disciples were armed and ready to use the weapons they carried, and according to Lk. 22:36 Jesus himself encouraged his followers to arm themselves with swords. Moreover, Jesus and his disciples are remembered as saying and doing some other things which are not to be reconciled with a kind of pacifism or nonviolence avant la lettre.12 The widespread attempt to downplay or suppress the violent aspects in Jesus’ words and deeds is only possible through a conceptual lifting which is very helpful for pastoral purposes, but is untenable as a result of critical scholarship.
Comments
Post a Comment