Who Killed Jesus? The Historical Context of Jesus’ Crucifixion

ZA Blog on April 11th, 2017. Tagged under ,.

ZA Blog

Books and articles that equip you for deeply biblical thinking and ministry.


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

By submitting your email address, you understand that you will receive email communications from HarperCollins Christian Publishing (501 Nelson Place, Nashville, TN 37214 USA) providing information about products and services of HCCP and its affiliates. You may unsubscribe from these email communications at any time. If you have any questions, please review our Privacy Policy or email us at yourprivacy@harpercollins.com.

Who was responsible? The Jews or the Romans?

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.

More recent trends in scholarship have shifted the blame to the Romans.

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.

So was Jesus crucified for political reasons or religious reasons?

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 motivations of Pilate and the Romans

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

  1. 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.
  2. Second, he was crucified between two “robbers” or “criminals”—Roman terms used of insurrectionists (Mark 15:27; Matt. 27:38; Luke 23:33; John 19:18). Another insurrectionist, Barabbas, was released in his place (Mark 15:7; Matt. 27:16; Luke 23:19; John 18:40).
  3. Finally, the account of charges brought to Pilate by the Sanhedrin in Luke’s Gospel are related to sedition: “And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king. . . . He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here’ ” (Luke 23:2, 5).

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).

Learn more in the online course:
Cultural Context of Jesus’ Life and Ministry

Why did Pilate have Jesus crucified?

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:

He feared that if they actually sent an embassy [to Rome] they would also expose the rest of his conduct as governor by stating in full the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injustices, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty. So with all his vindictiveness and furious temper, he was in a difficult position.*

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.

Most likely, Pilate ordered Jesus’ execution for three reasons:

  1. It placated the Jewish leaders and so headed off accusations against him to Rome.
  2. It preemptively eliminated any threat Jesus might pose if the people actually tried to make him a king.
  3. It ruthlessly warned other would-be prophets and messiahs that Rome would stand for no dissent.

Jewish opposition to Jesus

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.

Why the Pharisees opposed Jesus

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.

Why the Sadducees opposed Jesus

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).

Questioning the historicity of Jesus’ trial

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).

This argument is not decisive for four reasons:

  1. First, the procedures set out in the Mishnah were codified in AD 200 and may not all go back to the time of Jesus.
  2. Second, even if they do go back to the first century, they represent an ideal situation which may or may not have been followed in Jesus’ case. The existence of guidelines suggests abuses in the past. They may have arisen as correctives to illegitimate trials like this one.
  3. Third, the Mishnah represents predominantly Pharisaic traditions, but the Sadducees were dominant in the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day.
  4. Finally, there is good evidence that blasphemy was sometimes used in Judaism in a broader sense than uttering the divine name, including actions like idolatry, arrogant disrespect for God, or insulting his chosen leaders.

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.

Learn more in the online course:
Cultural Context of Jesus’ Life and Ministry

What a rebellion would mean

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.

Learn more about the Bible

Get started with a free online course. Plus, you’ll get occasional updates about new courses, free videos, and other valuable resources.

By submitting your email address, you understand that you will receive email communications from HarperCollins Christian Publishing (501 Nelson Place, Nashville, TN 37214 USA) providing information about products and services of HCCP and its affiliates. You may unsubscribe from these email communications at any time. If you have any questions, please review our Privacy Policy or email us at yourprivacy@harpercollins.com.

* See Philo, Legum allegoriae 302f. (Colson, LCL). Pilate was eventually recalled to Rome in AD 36 after a typically ruthless military action against the Samaritans (Josephus, Ant. 18.4.2 §§85–87).

Learn more about the life and death of Jesus

The Four Portraits, One Jesus online course takes an in-depth look at the events of Holy Week, including Jesus' death and resurrection.

Watch a free preview:

This post is adapted from material found in the Four Portraits, One Jesus online course, taught by Mark Strauss.

  • Caroline Haydu 2 years ago

    You might consider this ancient homily by Bishop Melito of Sardis (2nd cent) which testifies to a very early belief that Christ did descend to the dead to free the patriarchs. In part, “[Christ] has gone to search for our first parent…he has gone to free from sorrow the captives Adam and Eve”. Find it here: http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010414_omelia-sabato-santo_en.html

  • Weekly News – Canon Story 2 years ago

    […] ◎ An article about finding answers to the question “Who killed Jesus?” Was published on Zondervan’s blog. Who Killed Jesus? The Historical Context of Jesus’ Crucifixion → http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-killed-jesus-the-historical-context-of-jesus-crucifixion/ […]

  • john fout 1 year ago

    Nobody killed Jesus.
    John 10:18 No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded.”

  • Julian Doyle 1 year ago

    This timeline might cause you to rethink

    AD 26 – Pilate arrives in Judea. [confirmed]
    AD 34 – Herod’s brother Philip dies. [confirmed]
    AD 34 – Herod divorces wife who returns to her father King Aretas of Petra.
    AD 34/35 Herod marries Philips’ wife Herodias.
    AD 34/35 The Baptist complains about the marriage.
    AD 34/35 Herod arrests the Baptist.
    AD.35 – Lucius Vitellius becomes legate of Syria. [confirmed]
    AD 35 – Herod kills the Baptist.
    AD 35/36 King Aretas goes to war and wipes out Herod’s army.
    AD 36 – Josephus writes the Jews thought the defeat was
    Gods revenge for Killing the Baptist. [confirmed]
    AD 36 – Vitellius sacks Pontius Pilate who leaves Judea [confirmed]
    AD 36 – Tiberius instructs Vitellius to take revenge on Aretas for Herodian war.
    AD 37 – Vitllius sets out to attack.
    AD 37 – Tiberius dies (16th March) [confirmed]
    AD 37 – Vitellius stops attack when news arrives of Tiberius death.[confirmed]
    AD 37 – Vitellius arrives back in Jerusalem to be welcomed by cheering
    crowds; he then cancels taxes and allows the Judean Priests custody
    over their own vestments, giving a period of peace [confirmed]
    AD 37 – In this period of peace Jesus practices his mission.
    AD 38 – Jesus is stoned to death by High Priest Theophilus ben Ananus.

    Not only can this all be proven (see – https://goo.gl/SvuTay ) but much of the information comes from snippets from Josephus’ book ‘Antiquities of the Jews’.
    But to prove that this timeline is accurate and totally undermines the Bible story just look at the full description of these important event in Josephus first book, ‘The Jewish War’ which covers exactly this important period. Look at the destruction of Herod’s army. The death of John the Baptist, the actions of Vitellius in the ‘War’ book and what do you find? Nothing! No mention of the destruction of Herod’s army. No mention of Vitellius at all. (see index) No mention of John the Baptist. Nothing. As these are vital events in the build up to the war there can only be one reason for their absence. Christians have cut them out because the full explanation of these events would totally undermines the Bible story. There can be no other reason.
    The only info that can contradict this timeline comes from an insertion in Josephus
    “Herodius divorced her husband while he was alive.” But I would point out –
    1. You would not divorce your husband if he was dead – so – “while he was alive” has been placed to try and contradict this timeline.
    2. Josephus writes about Philips death before he tells of the marriage of Herodius to Herod.
    3. If you try to place the divorce in AD 28/9 to fit in with the Bible then Artetas revenge attack happens 8 to 9 year after the insult.
    4. The Jews would not link the defeat of Herod’s army to the death of John the Baptist if the events were 9 years apart. Clearly they were six months to a year at the most between these events.
    5. And the statement “Divorced her husband while he was alive” – always makes me laugh – although that is not in any way a proof of anything but my sense of humour.

  • Site Title 1 year ago

    […] zondervanacademic.com/…/who-killed-jesus-the-historical-context-of-jesus-crucifixion […]

  • Harold Eugene Crow 12 months ago

    Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
    Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

    Mat 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

    Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

    Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

    Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

    Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

    By His words, Jesus was condemned to be crucified just as Moses attached the brazen serpent to a pole in the wilderness.

    By His words, Jesus laid down His life. No one took it form Him.

    Offered in the Love of Christ,

  • Allan Dolormente 12 months ago

    I want to learn more about the historical and cultural background of the Scripture…

  • Timothy Williams II 8 months ago

    Nowhere did you state who killed Jesus.
    Furthermore, the point of jesus’ death is not who killed Him but who allowed it. There were many that could be held accountable. Pilate, Jewish leaders, Judas, Peter, etc. The Father crushed Him and it was His plan. Jesus was obedient to the Father even to death.

  • Tomas Kindahl 5 months ago

    Well, yeah. Except that Revelation 4-20 tells us otherwise, Either Revelation 4-20 isn’t Christian, or as I suspect, it was the original Christianity — a very seditious rebell movement, not the very least peaceful. Then Jesus probably was executed for a message something like the Revelation 4-20.

  • John Smith 4 weeks ago

    How can this subject possibly be discussed without acknowledging 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15?