Why Christ was Crucified

Adrian Goldsworthy’s Pax Romana has an interesting description of the sequence of events that led to Christ’s crucification. As per Roman law, Christians could be executed if they refused to recant. While provincial governors enforced this law, they did not actively seek out and hunt Christians. Hunting them down cost money and effort, and to what end? They didn’t pose a threat to the empire, so why bother? Thus, prosecution of Christians was rare, and even then initiated only if influential locals called for it.

 

One time, Paul (later apostle) was accused of being a troublemaker. His crime? He had “cured” a slave girl who possessed by an evil spirit. The slave’s owner was furious because in her possessed state, she used to tell fortunes for money (that went to the slave owner, of course). A large crowd gathered, forcing the magistrate to act:

“Without a hearing, Paul (was) stripped, beaten and imprisoned.”

 

Roman citizens were entitled to (slightly) better treatment – they could not be subjected to arbitrary beatings and imprisonment. The next day, when being released, Paul protested how they could have done this to him even though he was a Roman citizen. Hearing this, the magistrate personally came down to release him with apologies. This wasn’t the last time Paul was treated better on account of being a Roman citizen.

 

Jesus, on the other hand, was neither a Roman citizen nor from a well-off family. When he drove out the moneylenders from the temple at Jerusalem, it was a challenge to the (Jewish) priests. The Romans needed the support of the elite high priests to govern. Unsurprisingly then, the governor named Pilate was receptive to the call for the prosecution of Jesus by the high priests.

 

Perception mattered. Thus the principal charge against Jesus was his claim to be the King of the Jews. Isn’t that a direct challenge to the emperor in Rome, demanded the priests. It was too risky a topic for Pilate to ignore.

“Whoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caeser.”

Refusal to act on a “challenge” to the emperor was suicidal. Pilate definitely was not a suicidal man.

 

Pilate therefore decided to have the accused flogged, but didn’t see any reason to execute him. But the key figures of the local elite demanded more. Pilate insisted the record show that he was not acting arbitrarily, that he was acting as per the wishes of the community and its leaders. Only after such a record was created did he order the crucification. The way Jesus was killed was not uncommon in that era… Pilate was not being excessively cruel or savage by the standards of the era.

 

Goldsworthy says the entire account of events fits:

“The way the events occurred, the pressures brought to bear on the governor and his assertion of his authority, fit with everything we know of Roman provincial government.”

 

It’s amazing how little human nature has changed in the last 2,000 years.