Was the Charge Against Jesus Insurrection or Blasphemy?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
Many have written on Jesus the Galilean——often portraying him as someone who “was involved in anti-Roman seditious activity” and “put to death as an insurrectionist” (see e.g. Dr. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “[Why] Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.2 [2013] 127-154; & “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” a book by Muslim writer and scholar Reza Aslan).
But these speculative reconstructions have nothing to do with the New Testament literary accounts. These religious scholars should not be allowed to tamper with the internal evidence by altering it to suit their theological objectives. Let me give you an example why that would run counter to the standards of textual criticism. If modern scholars, who are far removed from ancient times, were to be given such artistic license as to change the words of Homer or Virgil, for instance, then it would no longer be Homer or Virgil that we would be reading but rather a modern 21st century forgery or adaptation of their works. Classicists would rightly be outraged! So then, if these interpolations are inexcusable in classical literature (e.g. in ancient Greco-Roman works), why are these religious scholars allowed to rewrite history and change the words of the New Testament accounts by superimposing their own imaginations on the text? Who gave them the licentia poetica (poetic license) to do so? Such books abound in the popular literature whose authors helped shape our modern views of Jesus!
Sadly, it would seem that none of these scholars have carefully consulted the Greek New Testament to see what it says on the matter, including the scriptural *messianic context* in which it says it. For example, Matthew 26.63-66 says categorically and unequivocally that Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the Jewish leaders. Specifically, Jesus purportedly blasphemed by claiming to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews (i.e. the new David cf. Ezekiel 37.24 [NRSV]: “My servant David shall be king over them;” Ezekiel 37.25 “and my servant David shall be their prince forever”). In fact, during Caiaphas’ interrogation, Jesus purportedly responded by identifying himself with the Danielic Son of Man (Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), a messianic figure who will one day come in the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26.64). That’s precisely when the high priest cried out (v. 65): “He has blasphemed!” (Ἐβλασφήμησεν). Then at Matthew 26.66, the high priest asked the attending council:
What is your verdict? They answered, ‘He
deserves death.’
The members of the Sanhedrin (vv. 57, 59) answered in unison: “He deserves death” (Ἔνοχος θανάτου ἐστίν)! This is explicitly recorded at Mark 15.26 as well, where the official charge against Jesus was said to be inscribed on his cross:
The inscription of the charge against him
read, ‘The King of the Jews.’
Conclusion
The context of the literary account in Gethsemane, prior to the crucifixion, is one of prayer and supplication. It has absolutely nothing to do with violence or any plans to overthrow the Roman legions. Moreover, the Sanhedrin’s verdict, that was later inscribed on Jesus’ cross, was NOT insurrection but rather blasphemy, namely, that he claimed to be the Messiah: “The King of the Jews” (i.e. Mashiach Ben David cf. Jn 19.7)! It should be noted that Messianic claims did not themselves carry capital punishment. However, Jesus' claim to be the unique Son of God who would one day come in the clouds (cf. Daniel 7.13-14) was considered to be blasphemous and punishable by law. By contrast, the so-called charge against Jesus of political insurrection is never once mentioned in the New Testament!
So, if we’re going to engage in academic exegesis, we must avoid presuppositions, assumptions, speculations, & conjectures. We must allow expositional constancy or the analogy of scripture, and the original biblical languages, to guide our hermeneutic. In other words, we must not impose our own private interpretations on the text. Rather, we must allow the text ITSELF to give us the authorial intent (meaning)! Thus, even though some liberal scholars are very familiar with the gospel literature, nevertheless they’re constantly inserting or imposing extraneous, extra-biblical material to put a Roman spin on it. This is a clear violation of the standard principles of biblical interpretation!