'He died for us' by Steve

The question of who killed Jesus—whether the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, broader Jewish community, or the Roman occupiers—has fueled debate for centuries, often laced with misunderstanding and bias. Historically, Jesus' death by crucifixion was a Roman execution, carried out under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect of Judea.

However, a closer examination reveals that all these groups had vested interests in denying or opposing Jesus' message and ministry. His teachings challenged religious orthodoxies, social hierarchies, and political stability in a volatile region under Roman rule. Yet, the narrative that "the Jews" as a people forced Pilate's hand is a distortion; the trial occurred during Passover, on the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath, when observant Jews would have been absent, focused on ritual preparations.

Instead, the crowd pressuring Pilate likely consisted of foreigners or non-observant visitors unfamiliar with Jewish messianic expectations. This perspective shifts blame from a monolithic "Jewish guilt" to a confluence of motives among diverse actors, ultimately highlighting Roman imperial power as the executioner.

To begin with the Pharisees: This group, primarily lay teachers and interpreters of Jewish law, saw Jesus as a direct threat to their authority and traditions. Pharisees emphasized oral law and strict observance of rituals like Sabbath-keeping, which they viewed as essential to Jewish identity post-exile. Jesus' actions—such as healing on the Sabbath and associating with sinners—clashed with their interpretations, portraying him as a law-breaker who undermined their "tradition of the elders."

They feared his popularity could erode their influence among the masses, whom they sought to guide toward piety. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, describes Pharisees as precise in legal matters but popular with the people, making Jesus' charismatic ministry a rival force.

Their opposition wasn't mere jealousy; it stemmed from a genuine belief that Jesus' flexible approach to the Torah risked diluting Jewish covenantal fidelity, potentially inviting divine judgment akin to past exiles. Thus, Pharisees had a strong interest in denying Jesus' claims, viewing him as a false teacher who could lead Israel astray.

The Sadducees, in contrast, were the aristocratic priestly elite, controlling the Temple in Jerusalem and collaborating with Roman authorities to maintain their power. Unlike Pharisees, they rejected oral traditions, resurrection, and angels, focusing solely on the written Torah.

Their positions depended on Roman patronage; any disruption could jeopardize their status. Jesus' cleansing of the Temple—overturning tables and criticizing commercialization—directly assaulted their economic and religious stronghold.

Moreover, his messianic claims implied a kingdom that might challenge the status quo, alarming Sadducees who prioritized stability over prophetic fervor. As collaborators, they saw Jesus as a potential instigator of unrest, much like other messianic figures crucified by Romans for sedition.

Their motive for denial was pragmatic: preserving Temple revenues and Roman alliances ensured their survival in an occupied land. The Gospels depict Sadducees questioning Jesus on resurrection, not out of curiosity, but to expose him as a theological outlier.

In essence, Sadducees denied Jesus to safeguard their elite privileges against a populist reformer.

The Essenes, a more ascetic and isolated sect, are less directly implicated in the Gospel accounts, but their worldview provides motive for opposition. Living in communal wilderness retreats like Qumran, Essenes rejected the corrupt Temple priesthood dominated by Sadducees, viewing themselves as the true remnant of Israel awaiting apocalyptic judgment.
They emphasized purity, fate, and dualism between light and darkness, often seeing outsiders as impure. Jesus' inclusive ministry—dining with tax collectors and forgiving sins without ritual immersion—would have clashed with their separatist ethos.

Some scholars suggest Essenes descended from Zadokite priests disillusioned with Sadducean corruption, further alienating them from mainstream Judaism. Both John the Baptist and the Essenes lived an ascetic lifestyle in the desert. 

If Jesus' message of imminent kingdom didn't align with their esoteric scrolls or communal isolation, they might deny him as a false prophet diluting their rigorous piety. While not active in Jerusalem politics, their ideological purity made them inherently opposed to a figure like Jesus, who engaged the world rather than withdrawing from it.

Broader Jewish communities, encompassing everyday people beyond these sects, had mixed interests in denying Jesus. Not all Jews opposed him; many followed as disciples or admirers. However, in a time of Roman occupation, messianic claims carried risks. Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on a donkey evoked Zechariah's prophecy of a king, potentially sparking unrest. Theory posits that Judas Iscariot was a Zealot and joined Jesus with the goal of sparking a rebellion against Roman rule and may have become disillusioned when Jesus's message didn't align with this political agenda. 

Ordinary Jews, scarred by past revolts, might fear Roman reprisals if Jesus' movement grew. Yet, sources emphasize that Jews as a whole lacked a unified motive for his death; opposition came from leaders, not the populace.

The idea of collective Jewish responsibility is a later antisemitic trope, unsubstantiated by history.

Many Jews saw Jesus as a healer or rabbi, but his denial of exclusive Temple mediation threatened communal identity tied to sacrifices and festivals.

Finally, the Romans, as occupiers, had the clearest interest in denying Jesus: maintaining imperial control. Crucifixion was reserved for rebels, slaves, and threats to order, a humiliating spectacle to deter insurrection.

Pilate crucified Jesus for claiming kingship, inscribed as "King of the Jews" on the cross—a political charge of sedition against Caesar.

In a province rife with messianic fervor, Jesus' following posed a risk of rebellion, even if non-violent. The Samaritan Uprising that finally led to Pilate's removal from office was his brutal suppression of a large gathering of Samaritans on Mount Gerizim. Pilate's forces killed many in the crowd, including some whom the Samaritans believed had assembled around a prophet promising to reveal sacred vessels hidden by Moses. The Samaritans complained to the Roman legate of Syria, Lucius Vitellius, who then recalled Pilate to Rome to face charges.

Pilate oversaw several incidents of civil unrest and rioting, which were violently suppressed and feared another over Jesus.

Romans viewed Jesus as another potential insurgent, crucifying thousands similarly to assert dominance.

Their motive was power preservation, not theology.

Crucially, the trial's timing exonerates "the Jews" from forcing Pilate. It occurred during Passover week, specifically on the Day of Preparation (Friday morning), when observant Jews prepared for Sabbath by slaughtering lambs and avoiding impurity.

Pious Jews, focused on rituals, wouldn't attend a Roman trial, risking defilement.

The Sanhedrin trial was nocturnal, and by dawn, Jews were homebound for preparations.

The crowd demanding crucifixion—stirred by chief priests—was likely foreigners: pilgrims, merchants, or Hellenized visitors in Jerusalem for Passover but unfamiliar with local messianic nuances.

These outsiders, detached from Jewish Sabbath observance, could be manipulated without representing "the Jews." Gospels note the crowd's agitation, but historical context suggests it wasn't a Jewish mob; Pilate, fearing riots, acted to appease this volatile mix.

This aligns with Roman strategy: execute to prevent unrest during festivals.

All groups—Pharisees challenging legal traditions, Sadducees guarding elite power, Essenes upholding isolationist purity, some Jews fearing instability, and Romans quashing threats—had interests in denying Jesus. Yet, no single entity "killed" him; it was a tragic intersection of fears. The myth of Jewish coercion ignores Passover's demands, pointing instead to foreigners as the crowd's core. This nuanced view rejects blame-shifting, emphasizing Roman culpability in a story of human frailty.
 
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah from all of us at HLJ to all of yours!

Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.