without committing ourselves to a full acceptance of the gospel story of christ's death, with all its monstrous miracles and absurd defiance of roman and jewish legal procedure, we propose to take the story as it stands for the purpose of discussing the question at the top of this article.
the ordinary christian will exclaim that jesus was murdered by those infernal jews. ever since they had the power of persecuting the jews—that is, ever since the days of constantino—the christians have acted on the assumption that the countrymen of jesus did actually cry out before pilate, "his blood be on our heads!" and that they and their posterity deserved any amount of robbery and outrage until they unanimously confessed their sin and worshipped him whom they crucified. it made no difference that the contemporaries of jesus christ could not transmit their guilt to their offspring. the christians continued, century after century, to act in the spirit of the sailor in the story. coming ashore after a long voyage, jack attended church and heard a pathetic sermon on the crucifixion. on the following day he looked into the window of a print-shop, and saw a picture of jesus on the cross. just then a jew came and looked into the window; whereupon the sailor, pointing to the picture, asked the hebrew gentleman whether he recognised it. "that's jesus," said the jew, and the sailor immediately knocked him down. surprised at this treatment, the hebrew gentleman inquired the reason. "why," said the sailor, "didn't you infernal jews crucify him?" the poor son of abraham admitted the fact, but explained that it happened nearly two thousand years ago. "no matter," said the sailor, "i only heard of it yesterday."
now it is perfectly clear, according to the gospels, that the jews did not kill jesus. unless they lynched him they had no power to put him to death. jud?a was then a roman province, and in every part of the empire the extreme penalty of the law was only inflicted by the roman governor. nevertheless it maybe argued that the jews really killed him, although they did not actually shed his blood, as they clamored for his death and terrorised pontius pilate into ordering a judicial murder. but suppose we take this view of the case: does it therefore follow that they acted without justification? was not jesus, in their judgment, guilty of blasphemy, and was not that a deadly crime under the mosaic law? "he that blasphemeth the name of the lord," says leviticus xxiv. 16, "shall surely be put to death." were not the jews, then, carrying out the plain commandment of jehovah?
nor was this their only justification. in another part of the mosaic law (deut. xiii. 6-10), the jews were ordered to kill anyone, whether mother, son, daughter, husband, or wife, who should entice them to worship other gods. now it is expressly maintained by the overwhelming majority of divines that jesus asserted his own godhead, he is reported as saying, "i and my father are one," and, as st, paul says, "he thought it no robbery to be equal to god." were not the jews, then, bound to kill him if they could?
let it not be supposed that we would have killed him. we are not excusing the jews as men, but as observers of the mosaic law and worshippers of jehovah. their god is responsible for the death of jesus, and if jesus was a portion of that very deity, he was responsible for his own death. his worshippers had learnt the lesson so well that they killed their own god when he came in disguise.
it is contended by some christians that pontius pilate killed jesus. according to these arguers, pilate knew that jesus was innocent, and the execution was therefore a murder. but is it not perfectly obvious from the gospel story that pilate tried to save jesus? did not the obstinate prisoner plead guilty to what was really a charge of sedition? did he attempt any defence? did he call any witnesses? was he not contumacious? and had pilate any alternative to sentencing him to the legal punishment of his crime?
other friends of jesus lay the blame of his death on judas iscariot, but the whole story of his "betrayal" of jesus is a downright absurdity. how could he sell his master when the commodity was common? what sense is there in his being paid to indicate the best-known man in jerusalem? even if the story were true, it appears that jesus knew what judas was doing, and as he could easily have returned to galilee, he was accessory to his own fate. it may also be pointed out that judas only killed jesus if the tragedy would not have occurred without him; in which case he was the proximate cause of the crucifixion, and consequently a benefactor to all who are saved by the blood of christ. instead of execration, therefore, he deserves praise, and even the statue which disraeli suggested as his proper reward.
who killed christ? why himself. his brain gave way. he was demented. his conduct at jerusalem was that of a maniac. his very language showed a loss of balance. whipping the dove-sellers and moneychangers, not out of the temple, but out of its unsanctified precincts, was lunatic violence. those merchants were fulfilling a necessary, reputable function; selling doves to women who required them as burnt offerings, and exchanging the current roman money for the sacred jewish coins which alone were accepted by the temple priests. it is easy to call them thieves, but they were not tried, and their evidence is unheard. if they cheated, they must have been remarkably clever, for all their customers were jews. besides, there were proper tribunals for the correction of such offences, and no one who was not beside himself would think of going into a market and indiscriminately whipping the traders and dashing down their stalls. certainly any man who did it now would be arrested, if he were not lynched on the spot, and would either be imprisoned or detained at her majesty's pleasure.
quite in keeping with these displays of temper was the conduct of jesus before pilate. a modicum of common sense would have saved him. he was not required to tell a lie or renounce a conviction. all that was necessary to his release was to plead not guilty and defend himself against the charge of sedition. his death, therefore, was rather a suicide than a martyrdom. unfortunately the jurisprudence of that age was less scientific than the one which now prevails; the finer differences between sanity and insanity were not discriminated; otherwise jesus would have been remanded for inquiries into his mental condition.
as a man jesus died because he had not the sense to live. as a god he must have died voluntarily. in either case it is an idle, gratuitous, enervating indulgence in "the luxury of woe" to be always afflicting ourselves with the story of his doom. great and good men have suffered and died since, and other lessons are needed than any that may be learnt at the foot of the cross.
