Judicial Murder of Christ.
By J. H. Waggoner
SENATOR SARGENT, of California, in a speech recently made, spoke of “the assassination of Christ by the Jews.” In reference to this the following appeared in a San Francisco paper:— “In answer to Senator Sargent’s very polite remark condemning the Jews for the assassination of Christ, I deem it proper to say that he is a very jealous [zealous] (!) Christian. It is necessary for this gentleman to commence reading the New Testament, and then he will find that Christ was tried by three different parties, namely: Pilate, Herod the King, and the High Priest. He was found guilty of blasphemy. Hence the execution [not assassination] was carried into effect by the Romans. I hope, when Mr. Sargent will have attentively read the New Testament, he will then become a true friend to Israel; as Christ said: Who does for my brethren does for me.
“A. ROSENBERG.” On this Hon. J. W. Dwinelle furnished to a San Francisco paper a lengthy article, published March 6, 1877. It is an able article, canvassing the subject of the death of Christ from a purely judicial stand-point. Mr. D. speaks highly of the Jews of the present day, but justly insists that they have no right to feel so sensitive over the errors of their ancestors as to endeavor to hide or to distort a historical fact. That part of Mr. Dwinelle’s article in which the readers of the Signs will be specially interested here follows:— “WHY WAS JESUS PUT TO DEATH?” “One of the best Jewish treatises on the special topic which we are now discussing is that of the Rev. Dr. Schlesinger of Albany, New York, entitled, The Historical Jesus of Nazareth, recently published. I do not agree with that author in all his views, nor am I at all indebted to him for my facts or conclusions, but his book is very candid, and the following canon of historical criticism is as fair as could be stated: ‘Of Jesus and his time the New Testament alone gives us any records, which we must necessarily submit to a careful examination before forming any judgment of what they contain.’—p. 6. Yet outside of the New Testament we have evidence in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and others, of what the policy of Rome was in relation to its subjects; that the Jews were among the most refractory and turbulent of its conquered populations, and were treated with peculiar severity; what sort of man Pontius Pilate was; and that the slightest pretexts were often seized in order to inflict sanguinary outrages upon the Jewish people. The gospels themselves relate that Pilate slaughtered some Galileans at the very altar, and mingled their blood with their sacrifices. Luke 13:1. And Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest, one of those who conspired to put Jesus to death, seems not to have had any personal malice towards him, but to have thought that it was better that ‘one man should die for the whole people,’ rather than be permitted to excite popular commotion which might afford the Romans a plausible occasion for putting the whole nation to the sword.” John 11:50. “Looking at the accounts given in the four gospels, and combining them into one narrative, the inference seems to be clear that the protection of the Jewish nation from the bloody methods of the Romans was the motive of the leading Jews in the prosecution of Jesus. “JESUS NOT EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY, BUT FOR TREASON.
“How was his ‘taking off’ accomplished? I think Mr. Rosenberg is in an error when he says that Jesus was executed upon a conviction for blasphemy. The Jews convicted him of blasphemy, which by their law, was punishable with death, and asked Pilate to execute the sentence. Matt. 26:65, 66; Mark 14:63, 64; Luke 22:70, 71. But both Herod and Pilate decided that blasphemy under the Jewish ecclesiastical law was not a crime under the Roman municipal or political law, and that they could not execute sentence of death pronounced upon Jesus by the Jewish council, but would discharge him from custody. John 19:12; Matt. 27:23–25. “The result of all the proceedings set on foot for the Jews for the condemnation of Jesus under the Jewish law, is thus summarized in chapter 23, of St. Luke’s gospel, verses 13–16:— “‘And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people; and behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him. No, nor yet Herod; for I sent you to him, and lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.’” “But the Jewish leaders who had decided that public policy demanded the death of Jesus, were not to be baffled of their purpose. They instantly shifted their ground, and accused him before Pilate of high treason against the Roman Emperor. This ‘change of base,’ and its effect upon Pilate are thus stated in St. John’s gospel, chapter 19, verses 12–16:— “And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him; but the Jews cried out saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour, and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King. 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 Cæsar. Then delivered he him, therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away.” “Pilate thus found himself, as it were, caught in a trap. He was a good-natured, highly-cultured savage; like Bulwer’s ‘Arbaces,’ in The Last Days of Pompeii, he would step over a worm, rather than wantonly and needlessly crush it out beneath his feet. But when emergencies arose, he was equal to any supposed necessity, even of the bloodiest kind. He would not put Jesus to death merely because the Jewish Ecclesiastical Council had pronounced that penalty against him upon a charge of blasphemy, and in strict accordance with the Jewish law. But he very well knew the suspicious character of the reigning Cæsar, Tiberius, and his insane jealousy of any attempt to dispute his imperial authority, or, even as his lieutenants, to share it. He possessed too fully the modern politician’s instinct of self-preservation, to permit himself to be accused at Rome of permitting a political adventurer to style himself, ‘The King of the Jews,’ without being punished for that crime; and he did not propose to appear by attorney before the Emperor, and explain to him, as Jesus had already explained to himself, that the kingdom of Christ was ‘not of this world.’ He submitted to the inevitable, and accepted the easiest solution of the problem. He had tried to ridicule the conspirators out of their purpose, as we have just seen: ‘Shall I crucify your King?’ but without effect. He therefore judiciously sentenced Jesus to death upon the accusation of high treason against the Roman Emperor, and crucified him accordingly. “THE INSCRIPTION OF THE CRIME IMPUTED TO JESUS.”
“But he took a grim and humorous revenge. In the same gospel of St. John, chapter 19, verses 19–22, we read: ‘And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 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. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.’” “It is probable that the Roman law required that there should be written over the head of crucified malefactors a statement of the crimes of which they were convicted and for which they suffered. In complying with this custom, Pilate did all that the law required of him, and probably more. The narrative shows that the inscription contained a covert sneer at the Jewish leaders, by way of revenge, and that it was purposely made so explicit as not to require any explanation, either at Rome or elsewhere.” “I think it is clear from the citations I have made, that Jesus was put to death upon a charge of treason against the Roman Emperor, and that all the forms of law were strictly complied with. But it is equally evident that the whole proceeding was a sham. The charge was false, and both the accusers and the judge knew that it was so. The accusers did not care whether Jesus had committed treason against the Roman Emperor or not; on the contrary, they knew that he had not committed such treason, yet thought it necessary, for the good of the Jewish nation, that Jesus should die, and therefore resorted to this charge as an available expedient to accomplish that purpose. Pilate also knew that Jesus was innocent of the imputed crime, and resented the necessity which had been forcibly and craftily imposed upon him; yet chose to put an innocent man to death, rather than answer an accusation against himself for inefficiency or partiality before a jealous tyrant at Capri or at Rome. The execution of Jesus was therefore a judicial murder; and if his treachery and craftiness did not add a stealthiness to it which characterized it as an assassination, then I confess that I do not understand the English language.”