What aspects of Jesus' ministry and teaching led to the Crucifixion?
A theological paper by Stefano Guaglione

In order to respond to this question we will examine the aspects of Jesus’ ministry and teaching that led him to his crucifixion. It will be analysed the context in which Jesus’ ministry took place and the relationship with his contemporaries. The essay will not focus mainly on the Old Testament prophecies and their possible fulfilment in Jesus, though on some occasions it will be inevitable. But, it will focus on Jesus’ teachings and actions and how they would be understood by the Jewish leaders as well as the Roman authorities.

Jesus’ Ministry and the Jewish leaders
The ministry and teaching of Jesus challenged the Jewish community in several areas. The aim of this point is to cover some of the reasons why this conflict arose from the beginning of Jesus’ early ministry and how it could have led him to his crucifixion.

The Conflict
The expression “Jewish leaders” refers to those recognised by any Jew living at the time of Jesus as authorities within the community. The Gospels mention them as the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, elders, and the high priests. Their main role was to protect the Torah, the Temple, and politically speaking, to keep a good relationship with the Romans ruling the area. Jesus challenged them exactly on these aspects. This fomented the Jewish leaders against Jesus and finalised his arrest, the trial before Pilate, and the sentence of death on the cross.

Although the Gospels seem to present this conflict quite openly, a few scholars have interpreted these verses differently. For instance, Sanders argues that Jesus did not engage in controversy with the Pharisees over religious matters such as the Sabbath or food and that Jesus’ actions in the Temple when he cleared it out, did not cause his death. Sanders is sceptical about the historicity of these conflicts since it seems to be more relevant in the early church, as we can read in the Acts of the Apostles, than in the time of Jesus. It may be possible, Sanders argues, that the Synoptics were written with this conflict mind-set portraying the rivalry already existing during the earthly ministry of Jesus.

Sabbath
The attempt to arrest and kill Jesus did not start during the last week of his life but was already present at the beginning of his ministry. Mark introduces the conflict already on the occasion of the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). Firstly, in 2:5 Mark quotes Jesus’ words ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’. When the scribes heard this sentence they were offended since only God can forgive sin and in this way Jesus was purporting to be equal to God. At this point, the scribes accused Jesus of blasphemy. Secondly, the scribes and the Pharisees accused Jesus of eating and drinking with what the Torah called sinners (Psalm 1:1; 26:4-5), but this was not the final climax. The offence reached its apex when Jesus and his disciples were accused of disregarding the Sabbath. In Mark 2:23-28 Jesus’ disciples were accused of picking the heads of grain and Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath. In Mark 3:1-6 Jesus healed a man and the Pharisees accused him for the same reason: it is not lawful to do any work on the Sabbath. It is here that we read for the first time in the Gospels that the Pharisees began conspiring against Jesus with the intention to kill him.

Sanders disagrees with this picture of Jesus having clashes with his contemporaries and in particular with the Pharisees. He argues that the Pharisees were mainly centred in Jerusalem so it is historically unlikely that they were in Galilee spying on Jesus’ disciples. The Pharisees, Sanders continues, were concerned about the keeping of the law and they would debate it but they would never be violent. Finally, he points out that Jesus never spoke against the law, but he brought it to its fulfilment. On the other hand, Wright disagrees with Sanders by claiming that before and during the time of Jesus several political events took place that could have caused the Pharisees to move from Jerusalem to Galilee. It is true that the Pharisees debated with each other, but Jesus was offering a further application of the Torah which brought a new understanding of it which was not fully appreciated by the scribes and Pharisees.

The Kingdom of God: A Jewish Understanding
Another relevant teaching of Jesus was about the kingdom of God. In fact, it was central in his ministry since the very beginning (Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43), and he called others to preach the Gospel of the kingdom too (Luke 8:1). Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God was not a new concept within the Jewish community which already had an Old Testament and non- canonical literary background emphasising the restoration of Israel, the inclusion of the Gentiles, God’s judgement on the wicked nations, and God the King of Israel in Zion. We may infer that the concept of the kingdom of God was not new to the Jews, though they believed in the future appearance of it while Jesus seems to claim that God’s kingdom is at hand. Miracles and exorcisms are the signs that the kingdom of God is active through Jesus (Matthew 12:28).

What could have created friction between the Jewish leaders and Jesus was the teaching of inclusiveness highlighted by Jesus concerning the kingdom of God. In fact, Jesus was labelled by the Jewish religious authorities as ‘a friend of sinners’ (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). Jesus openly said that prostitutes, tax collectors, thieves, and Samaritans were entering into the kingdom of God before the Jews (Matthew 21:31), and this teaching clashed with the teaching of the Pharisees on purity. As Theissen and Merz explained, the Pharisees acted with the notion of defensive purity by which the unclean was infectious. Jesus, instead, acted with offensive purity by which cleanness was infectious. For that reason Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God included those that by Jewish interpretation of the Torah were supposed to be excluded and isolated. Sanders argues on this point that if Jesus had led sinners to repent and repay, no one, including the Pharisees, would have objected but he would have been seen as a national hero. On a few occasions, anyway, Jesus called them hypocrites and other epithets creating strong dissent (Matthew 23:1-36).

The Messiahship of Jesus
What probably caused a stronger dissent was to deal with Jesus’ role as the Messiah, the Christ, the “anointed one”. In Hebrew Scripture this title was reserved for the reigning king and attached to the Davidic dynasty in Judah. On some occasions it was also used to refer to the high functionaries in Israel, such as the high priest during the Second Temple era. The word “Messiah” does not appear until the first century BCE, particularly during the revolt of the Maccabees. Yet, the Hasmoneans were not David’s descendants, so it was not possible to associate them with the Davidic Messiahship. During the inter-testamentary period, the concept of the Messiah as anointed by God became more a picture of a royal figure who would free Israel from the Gentiles and purify the temple and re-establish worship. At this point in history, there was no connection between being the “anointed one” and the “Son of God” or divine. On the other hand, in the Gospels the two concepts are linked. In Matthew 16:16, in response to the question of Jesus, Peter proclaimed ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ implying that the ministry of Jesus was linked to his divinity. Another example is recorded in Mark 14:61-62 on the occasion of Jesus’ arrest when he was brought in front of the high priest. Once again the two concepts are linked ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ To this question Jesus answered in the affirmative but even more he introduces the eschatological role of the Messiah sitting at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven, which is a clear declaration of his divinity (Daniel 7:13-14). This explains the reaction of the high priest accusing Jesus of blasphemy and brought him before Pilate. The Jewish leaders, despite their position, could not sentence anybody to death (John 18:31). They needed the approval of a Roman authority as the historian Josephus seems to imply.

Jesus’ Ministry and the Roman Authorities
It would be incomplete to investigate what led Jesus to his crucifixion without mentioning how the Romans examined the Jesus phenomenon in Israel. The face of Roman rule in Galilee and Judea was Herodian kingship and the Jerusalem high priesthood. Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem in grand Hellenistic-Roman style, with a golden eagle mounted over one of the gates. This could confirm how, in Jesus’ time, the Romans and Jewish leaders were trying to coexist and be politically correct.

Jesus’ Action in the Temple
The synoptic gospels give an account of Jesus cleansing the Temple and the reaction of the Jewish leaders in trying to arrest and kill him (Matthew 21:12-16; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45:48). The Temple in those days was not only a religious place for the Jews but also a political symbol of Jewish greatness despite Herod rebuilt it and put a Roman symbol in it which could have been seen by Jesus as a compromise. His action in the Temple recalls the prophecy about the Messiah re-establishing worship in the Temple and being God’s sent messenger to purify Israel (Malachi 3:1-4). Sanders concludes that Jesus’ action in the temple was not a “cleansing” but a prophetic demonstration of what lay ahead for the Temple which is its destruction. Jesus’ action was meant to symbolise the destruction of the Temple. However, it may be assumed that Jesus created more agitation among the scribes and the Pharisees. The crowd started to praise Jesus realising he could have been the messianic hero to free Israel from the Romans and the Jewish leaders became indignant (Matthew 21:15). At the same time though, these leaders, since they had no legal authority to sentence anybody to death, saw a great opportunity to seize Jesus and bring him before Pilate as an enemy of Rome now that the crowd also acclaimed him. In fact, on the night of the arrest, Pilate confronted Jesus with the question: ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ (Mark 15:1-2).

The Kingdom of God: A Roman Understanding
We are going to refer to Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God once again but this time examining how the Romans could have understood this concept. As Wright suggests, the religious Jesus offended the Jews with his teaching opposing the Torah and their legalistic system. The political Jesus, instead, offended the Romans.

The Empire was based on the absolute sovereignty of Rome, and of Caesar. The Romans already dealt with several riots in Galilee and Judea before Jesus, and as Philo and Josephus affirm, Pilate was already in a difficult position before Tiberius because of his attitude towards political matters.

Mainly, the teaching and ministry of Jesus focusing on the kingdom of God could have threatened the Romans since the new kingdom would fight against them for a free Israel with Jesus as leader and king above Caesar (Mark 12:13-17).

At the same time, the attitude of Pilate before Jesus is not really confirming this theory. Pilate does not seem threatened by Jesus, nor by his teaching about the kingdom. It could be that since Jesus was silent and did not defend himself, Pilate may have thought he could not be a threat for the Roman Empire (Matthew 27:11-14). On the other hand, John 11:45-57 helps us to understand how the Jewish leaders were concerned about Jesus’ teaching and ministry and how the Romans could have destroyed them and the Temple if they were aware of how Jesus was inciting the crowd. Their concerns about it seem to be right as we read in the gospel of John that on one occasion the crowd tried to make Jesus king over them (John 6:15).

The historical Jesus was crucified by order of the Roman governor at that time. The accusation made by the Jewish leaders and confirmed by the action of Pilate, was that Jesus appeared to be a political agitator of crowds in the provinces and an insurgent leader against the Romans. This could be confirmed by the inscription on Jesus’ cross, chosen by Pilate (John 19:22), which claims why Jesus was crucified: ‘Jesus, the king of the Jews’.

Jesus Foretelling his Death
It is important to briefly mention that despite all the religious and political clashes Jesus faced during his ministry, it is important not to overlook the statements in which Jesus foretells his suffering at the hands of the Jewish leaders, and how he would be killed in Jerusalem (Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31-38). Jesus’ self-understanding of his ministry is still a matter of debate. It seems, for example, that Jesus used specific Old Testament imageries to bring people to understand his mission which implies he knew who he was. Others believe that since Jesus never openly said ‘I am the Messiah’ he probably never thought he was. The issue here is to consider the context in which Jesus lived and ministered, the religious and political accusations that brought him before Pilate to be condemned, and actually what Jesus knew about his mission.

Conclusion
Jesus’ contemporaries were offended by his teachings and actions. From the beginning of his early ministry, Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the scribes and Pharisees. Since then, their focus was to plot against him because he was a threat for them, for the Torah, and for the Temple since his teachings and actions seemed to be against their traditions. In particular, knowing that they could not kill Jesus without a final approval of a Roman governor, they looked for a way to demonstrate how Jesus was a threat to the Romans. They delivered him up to the Roman authorities to be sentenced to death (Luke 24:19-20). It was a religious and political murder achieved by the cooperation of two cultures, Jewish and Roman. At the same time, Jesus, according to what we read in the gospels, knew what was coming and it seems he did not try to avoid the cross.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beaumont, Mike, The One-Stop Guide to Jesus, Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2010.

Borg, Marcus J., & Nicholas T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999.

Coloe, Mary L., & Tom Thatcher, John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011.

Horsley, Richard A., Jesus and the Politics of Roman Palestine, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2014.

Josephus, Flavius, The Complete Works, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.

LaCocque, André, Jesus the Central Jew: His Time and His People, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015.

Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, Leicester: IVP, 1998.

Motyer, J. A., ‘Messiah,’ in J.D. Douglas, N. Hillyer, F.F. Guthrie, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer, and D.J. Wiseman (Eds), New Bible Dictionary, Leicester: IVP, 1988, 763-770.

Perry, John Michael, Exploring the Evolving View of God: From Ancient Israel to the Risen Christ, Lanham: Sheed & Ward, 1999.

Sanders, E. P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, London: Penguin Books: 1993.

Sanders, E.P., Jesus and Judaism, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Stott, John, The Cross of Christ, Nottingham: IVP, 1989.

Theissen, Gerd, & Annette Mertz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Wilson, Ian, Jesus the Evidence, London: Guild Publishing, 1984.

Witherington, Ben, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Wright, Nicholas T., Jesus and the Victory of God, London: SPCK, 1996.

Wright, Nicholas T., John for Everyone: Part 1 Chapters 1-10, London: SPCK, 2004.