Who crucified Christ?

Thread starter #1
The question was asked by Adrian Rogers in his Love Worth Finding sermon broadcast as I drove in to work this a.m.

He started out by meticulously pointing out it wasn’t the Jews, and went on to denounce anti Semitism. Then he shifted the question to “What crucified Christ?” And proceeded to announce hypocrisy, deceit, etc was the murderer.

I kept waiting waiting for the very simple answer to emerge until the program streamed off with “Tune in tomorrow ....”

I kept thinking this is a lot of fluff and I’m gonna be very disappointed tomorrow if he doesn’t reach the very simple point.

Who crucified Christ? I did.
 
My take on the crucifixion story goes like this:

The writers of the four Gospels in our New Testament were pretty clear in their descriptions of the final week of the life of Jesus. Details vary because the Gospel writers were recording their stories between 30 and 80 or 90 years after the events, and because they used some different sources.

Two points are clear. First, the college of priests (more than just the Sanhedrin) of Jerusalem's Second Temple, were not fans of the ministry, or message, of Jesus. These Jewish leaders wanted Jesus removed. Their actions led to the Friday trial and crucifixion. But more directly, the Roman governor Pilate, ordered the scourging, brief trial, and execution of Jesus.

The message of the Gospels is also (intentionally) two fold. The Jewish prophet and teacher, Jesus, was opposed by the powerful, hereditary leaders of the Hebrew faith. And that same Jesus was (IS) God's own appointed (anointed) leader of the faithful. But also, the second message conveyed by the writers is that the world (Rome represents everyone outside the faith) does not easily accept the Word, nor the Savior. Part of that second message is that death can - and does - await the faithful.

Remember that these gospels were written AFTER Jerusalem was conquered, sacked, and almost totally destroyed in 70AD by Titus of Rome as a result of the Jewish rebellion. The Second Temple (or Herrod's Temple) was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was no longer a force, and the faithful Jews were scattered and disorganized. The small, but growing group of faithful Jews who still believed Jesus was the actual Messiah, was reluctantly allowing some non Jews to join their worship. The apostles were scattered, and growing old, out of communication, or already dead. Other "new apostles," who had never heard Jesus speak - many born after Jesus was crucified - were visiting villages and cities throughout Jewish and Greek lands, telling many different stories about Jesus (not all the story tellers spoke truth).

With that background, the Gospels were written. And the message of the crucifixion is that the Leaders of the Temple (church) failed to recognize God in their midst AND that the world (Rome) will kill God's messenger (the Son of God) if the message is not spoken anew to every generation.

It is not your fault God's Son was murdered. It is your responsibility to speak, give (gift) the message of salvation to the next generation, and to live that message.
 
Thread starter #3
My take on the crucifixion story goes like this:

The writers of the four Gospels in our New Testament were pretty clear in their descriptions of the final week of the life of Jesus. Details vary because the Gospel writers were recording their stories between 30 and 80 or 90 years after the events, and because they used some different sources.

Two points are clear. First, the college of priests (more than just the Sanhedrin) of Jerusalem's Second Temple, were not fans of the ministry, or message, of Jesus. These Jewish leaders wanted Jesus removed. Their actions led to the Friday trial and crucifixion. But more directly, the Roman governor Pilate, ordered the scourging, brief trial, and execution of Jesus.

The message of the Gospels is also (intentionally) two fold. The Jewish prophet and teacher, Jesus, was opposed by the powerful, hereditary leaders of the Hebrew faith. And that same Jesus was (IS) God's own appointed (anointed) leader of the faithful. But also, the second message conveyed by the writers is that the world (Rome represents everyone outside the faith) does not easily accept the Word, nor the Savior. Part of that second message is that death can - and does - await the faithful.

Remember that these gospels were written AFTER Jerusalem was conquered, sacked, and almost totally destroyed in 70AD by Titus of Rome as a result of the Jewish rebellion. The Second Temple (or Herrod's Temple) was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was no longer a force, and the faithful Jews were scattered and disorganized. The small, but growing group of faithful Jews who still believed Jesus was the actual Messiah, was reluctantly allowing some non Jews to join their worship. The apostles were scattered, and growing old, out of communication, or already dead. Other "new apostles," who had never heard Jesus speak - many born after Jesus was crucified - were visiting villages and cities throughout Jewish and Greek lands, telling many different stories about Jesus (not all the story tellers spoke truth).

With that background, the Gospels were written. And the message of the crucifixion is that the Leaders of the Temple (church) failed to recognize God in their midst AND that the world (Rome) will kill God's messenger (the Son of God) if the message is not spoken anew to every generation.

It is not your fault God's Son was murdered. It is your responsibility to speak, give (gift) the message of salvation to the next generation, and to live that message.
You missed my point. He was crucified for MY sin. That makes ME culpable.
 
You missed my point. He was crucified for MY sin. That makes ME culpable.
No, actually I saw your last line. I do disagree. You are not culpable. Christ died for your sins. The Savior would have gone to the cross if you were the only one who had ever sinned. But that is NOT your fault. I will not get into the whole original sin v. personal sin argument, here, but the fact that you fall short of the Glory (perfection) of God, does NOT make you guilty of murdering Jesus.

You are guilty only for your own sins. Which are redeemed, forgiven, forgotten, by a loving God. Now you are responsible for carrying the message of Salvation with you and sharing it along the way.
 
Thread starter #5
“You are guilty only for your own sins.”

“The Savior would have gone to the cross if you were the only one who had ever sinned. “
Agreed, therefore culpable. We can agree to disagree.
 
Therefore let ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom YOU crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36 if you read this chapter you find that about 3000 people gladly received this gospel message that day. I don't think all of Israel or that 3000 people literally had a direct roll in crucifying Christ. But that they where all guilty of it. John the Baptist introduced Christ by saying "behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". Well if you put all the sins of the world in a bucket, a bunch of ems mine! He died for my sin. Therefore I crucified Him. That is the gospel message of the new testament. Who crucified Christ? I did.
 

gemcgrew

Senior Member
Ultimately? God

"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
 

Israel

Senior Member
He who spared not His own Son...
 
Last edited:

280 Man

Senior Member
Agreed, therefore culpable. We can agree to disagree.
While I'm not looking to argue I fail to see how you are culpable..

..Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Sin entered the world through Adams disobedience so therefore sin and condemnation passed unto all men through no fault of their own, except being in the lineage of Adam.

No one has to do anything to be a sinner except be born. Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"

Because of this imputed sin there had to a sacrifice. One that was spotless, without blemish. One that was perfect. One that was Holy. There was no such one on earth that could atone for the sins of all. God had to provide himself as the Lamb that would take away the sin of the world through Jesus Christ, his son.

Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us"

I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Jeusus didn't give his life because of what YOU had done, he was crucified, gave his life, for what was already in you...SIN

One definition for culpable. meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful negligence.

The only thing you would be culpable for would be your spending eternity in he11 by your negligence to accept Jesus Christ as your savior before you die..
 

280 Man

Senior Member
I understand the "personal" sin aspect, but I think you fail to see my point. Christ was crucified for SIN as a whole...

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him
 
Last edited:

hobbs27

Senior Member
The apostate Jews had Christ crucified. The Romans did the deed.

His sacrifice made a way that mans sin could finally be forgiven. Before this sin death reigned, after this eternal life could be granted.
 
Thread starter #17
I understand the "personal" sin aspect, but I think you fail to see my point. Christ was crucified for SIN as a whole...

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him
And I see your point. Being doctrinally sound is of utmost importance. The issue as I see it is this. A non-believer can be doctrinally sound, but it ain’t till it’s personal that it’s real to you. Adrian said a lot. None of it untrue, but nothing I heard made it personal, and that’s the point one must arrive at to truly grasp the love of God, the need for repentance, and the mercy given.
 
And I see your point. Being doctrinally sound is of utmost importance. The issue as I see it is this. A non-believer can be doctrinally sound, but it ain’t till it’s personal that it’s real to you. Adrian said a lot. None of it untrue, but nothing I heard made it personal, and that’s the point one must arrive at to truly grasp the love of God, the need for repentance, and the mercy given.
It appears to me that God is very invested (I wonder if using "very" is just a superfluous vanity of mine. Yes, I believe it is) in personal experience. It's as if there is a real nexus, a true nexus of observation to be revealed.

Brothers, I barely know what I mean by this, so I beg your indulgence. I see it in a form, taste it, and some may be right to say "you should not write of it, or speak of it till it is more plain...till then you are just adding to confusion..." Yet I remain in this conviction that it is true...and if I must appear as fool or foolish means nothing much to me as weighted against the compelling to speak of it.

And I believe no small part of this is owed to what I sense as being real in others, even if we might together admit sometimes "words fail us". But as much as I know this...that my words fail, there is a working in each, for the supply of each, and in the supply of each, to more than make up for even all the failings seen in others, and perceived in ourselves. (one may even see a "link" here...in projecting of fault)

It is a sensing. Yes, it is. Like taste...who could believe themselves sufficient to find words for something to impart that experience of taste...to another? And yet, I find it. (By this I mean the precious knowing of confirmation) May I assume you do also? A confirmation of sorts...coming not so much in a clear verbal declaration or definition, though it may, but a nodding of agreement. How much may be revealed in a slight smile of father toward son when something essential is finally seen to be grasped? As in "he does not click the safety to off until he has the target, and that alone, in sight". Always and only until then...it is to remain in "on".

Men are able to recognize in actions, and even in words, not merely the man's deportment, and disposition, but also the source, and exercise of their instructor. Something is shown in the man...by the man...that is more than just the man.

Rightly the Centurion was marveled at by Jesus, for he was seeing by faith...this Roman fellow. He saw a man...under authority. Others may merely see a "miracle worker"...doing as he pleases, and there is enough of marvel in that...but to see the beyond, or fullness of what is taking place...is that not our calling? Is not our persuasion in all things "nothing is either mindless nor random"...all is to purpose?

With reference to this discussion, then, I find it not without purpose that Jesus says this: "He who is forgiven little, the same loves little..." How much is there, in that statement, that I know I am insufficient to expose! Yet, I taste it. Were I given all time to draw a chart of algorithms to its plainness, of what I see happening "in man" as response or responses, nothing could ever substitute or sufficiently define its meaning.

Love and the experience of it toward another (or out from one)...is so very dependent upon what must be received from another toward that one first, who would either be in the much loving...or littleness of loving. Oh yes! It is doctrinal that God is merciful and forgiver of man shown through Jesus Christ! But to any "particular man"...the experience is made essential for this knowing of that doctrine.


To say the depth of love is only limited by personal knowledge of how much one has been forgiven seems not at all inconsistent. A man must know how much he is forgiven if he would "love much", and one might even be so bold as to say...if there can be found a limit to that forgiveness, he would also find the limit to which his love, any love, or all love that might proceed from man to Creator is itself limited.

And I do not think at all, as poor as I am in words, that there is a set limit for man...to know of love. I taste that knowing (or even the slightest of brushing up against it) as the most bitter thing of all in consideration, that God would set limit to how much man may know of love. "To here, but no farther" is something, in all, I do not believe God saying. And so there becomes a something said (is it mere assumption? presumption? feel free to help me as you are able) as clearly heard in knowing what is not said. No forbidding to know love must be determined to either presumption or invitation (if it can be) in the man. Is God placer of limit to the knowing of love...or not? Or is He discloser through Christ of what limits a man...to that knowing? Believe you are forgiven little, you will love little. (and therefore...know little of love?)

And here is where I find that thing I called (for want of better words) a real, or true nexus. Can there be a loving deeper than any knowing I have, (can I say?) of how much I have been forgiven? Do you see how helpless I am, and any man I may speak to, or may speak to me, to just mouth, (if mouthing be all it is) "Jesus forgives". Apart from the personal experience, the personal experience of loving is just as removed. And God help me (and may He not only me, but all who might even taste this) "love" in the abstract is nothing but a taunt, a teasing, a painfully, woefully, insufficient thing! Nothing is of more pain than the mere taste that it might remain so!

And here alone is my confidence, or a great part, that I do not speak vainly to others of you that taste this. I have been told...I am not alone, nor is it good that I should be. Like you, I stretch forth for a something tasted as the truest of all things, against all that would (even in myself) yet hold the persuasion, or try to make it of some primary, that love and mercy is a vanity.

You needn't trust me at all in this saying, but how much I have found within, how much is ready to raise its very ugliest of head against the knowledge of love and mercy. Or that I, of all men, have finally found the limits to it.

When I see this, I all but despair of my excess, superabundance of vanity...till I am reminded...and hear..."that too, is forgiven!"

Not being ignorant is really not the same as knowing. We know one is always scheming to twist a thing, even if we may not know every particular in every situation. Is it safe to say, in this situation, there could be a thing trying to twist? A thing that would seek to take advantage and say "be very evil so you may know how much God forgives?"

But that is not it, at all. Paul knew this was not it all too...falsely reported by twist "let us continue in sin that grace may abound?"

God forbid.

And so I commend as much as I am able, you brothers in whom I have been taught, and am learning of your diligence to pay attention to the one who has set you free. It is not as though Jesus is saying "I have come to show you all how dirty you are"...but you will learn what needs be learned in being made clean. And of such have been the some and many that remind me of what a clean man looks like. You encourage me to see the cleaner. And, the Cleaner.
 
Last edited:
And I see your point. Being doctrinally sound is of utmost importance. The issue as I see it is this. A non-believer can be doctrinally sound, but it ain’t till it’s personal that it’s real to you. Adrian said a lot. None of it untrue, but nothing I heard made it personal, and that’s the point one must arrive at to truly grasp the love of God, the need for repentance, and the mercy given.
Did you ever bother to listen to the second half of the sermon?
 
Who crucified Christ?
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

It is a most humbling experience to think on the fact that I am that beloved of the Most High God.
 
Top