Crucifixion
During 1989-1990, in a series of theological discussions with my friend
Rankin Fisher, a former Missionary Baptist minister, I told him I'd read an
interview with a Catholic priest in the Los Angeles Times. The priest was
saying the Romans, not the Jews, were responsible for the crucifixion. I
told Rankin statements like these could help end anti-semitism.
One of the first books I ever read on the subject of biblical vegetarianism
in 1986 was The Essene Christ by Dr. Upton Clary Ewing. (1961) According to
Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived during the time of Jesus, there
were only three Jewish sects: the Pharisees, the Sadduccees, and the
Essenes. Dr. Ewing makes the case that Jesus was an Essene, the Essenes were
vegetarian, therefore, Jesus was a vegetarian.
Dr. Ewing then proceeds to document vegetarianism in Christianity: the
earliest Christians, the writings of the early church fathers (who wrote
extensively on the subject), the lives of the saints (Catholicism) and
religious reformers (Protestantism)...including Schweitzer, whom he quotes
at length. In drawing an analogy to the way 19th century Southern churches
upheld human slavery on biblical grounds with the way we treat animals
today, Dr. Ewing foreshadowed the contemporary animal rights movement.
According to Dr. Ewing, the Romans were responsible for the crucifixion, and
not the Jews.
Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing writes:
"The wrongful blaming of the Jews for the death of Jesus has been one of the
most effective roadblocks ever placed in the highway leading to the
brotherhood of man. It is not only shameful, but completely illogical, for
one to continue to hold that the Jews were responsible for the death of
Jesus. As all the evidences of comparative beliefs seem to verify, Jesus and
the Pharisees were more in agreement on religious issues than they were in
disagreement.
"As for Jesus' declaring himself to be the Messiah, the Jewish hierarchy
would have been more amused than hostile at the audacity of anyone from
Galilee making such a claim. The Jews, with very few exceptions, were far
from being averse to the principles of Jesus. Even those who were annoyed by
his jibes and his admonitions would not have felt justified in taking severe
measures against him. There were great multitudes of Jews who, although they
dared not protest to the Romans, wept deeply as they followed Jesus to
crucifixion. Even the gospel of Luke openly admits the sincere affection the
Jews had for Jesus. 'And there followed him a great company of people and of
women who also bewailed and lamented him.' (Luke 23:27)
"The trial and execution of Jesus was strictly a Roman responsibility. It
was prompted by and carried out in accord with strict Roman ordinances which
extended little leniency to a Jew. The Jews under Roman authority were
tolerated only when they conformed to all the articles of strict obedience.
To be involved in the slightest misdemeanor, even among themselves, could
mean the lash or other harsh, humiliating punishment.
"During the Roman occupation of Judea, it was the custom of the time to mete
out severe punishment for a Jew for an offense that would hardly warrant the
arrest of a Roman citizen. One does not need other historical evidence to
confirm this; verification is found where Paul is charged with disturbing
the peace: 'Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman?' (Acts
22:24-29)
"The crucifixion of Jesus is explicable on one ground only: that he was
sentenced to death and executed by Roman authority as a sower of sedition
against Roman rule. A sentence by the Sanhedrin was imagined, and
condemnation pronounced on the grounds that Jesus laid claim to be the Son
of God. Jesus, as all four evangelists are compelled to admit, was condemned
to death by Pilate on political grounds as 'King of the Jews,' that is, as a
Messianic agitator who laid claim to some kind of royalty in Israel, which
automatically made him subversive of the imperial government. Historically,
the case of Jesus is intelligible only if we admit from the outset that he
was sentenced to death by Pilate alone, acting as a representative of Roman
authority.
"Crucifixion was strictly a Roman means of execution. Death by stoning was
the method used by the Jews, and this was ordered by the Sanhedrin only upon
conviction of blasphemy; i.e., for cursing or denying the existence of God,
which Jesus did not do. Up to the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin had not
imposed a death sentence in over 200 years. In fact even if they had desired
to do so they could not, for capital punishment was administered solely by
Roman authority for crimes against imperial law...they nailed a sign on the
cross to show their contempt for the Messianic claims of Jesus: 'Behold Him
the king of the Jews.' These words which appear in all four gospels spell
out examples of Roman vituperation, not Jewish judgment."
The New Testament says Pilate unwillingly sentenced Jesus to death, but
Josephus says Pontius Pilate was so brutal he was recalled to Rome because
of too many executions! Luke 13:1-5 reveals the real Pilate of history:
"...the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices..."
Go on to: Current Trends
Return to: Articles
