130: The Plot to Kill Jesus

BEMA Episode Link: 130: The Plot to Kill Jesus
Episode Length: 31:30
Published Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 01:00:00 -0700
Session 3
About this episode:

Marty Solomon and Brent Billings examine the question of who brought about Jesus’s execution, acknowledging the different characters at play and the role they each had.

Discussion Video for BEMA 130

BEMA 76: Silent Years — Sadducees

The Last Week by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan

Transcript for BEMA 130

Notes

*Note: The following notes are handwritten by me, Adam, and I reserve the right to be wrong.

BEMA Episode 130: The Plot to Kill Jesus - Study Notes

Title & Source Summary

Episode: 130 - The Plot to Kill Jesus
Hosts: Marty Solomon and Brent Billings Focus: Matthew 26-27, John 19, and the political and religious dynamics surrounding Jesus’s execution

This episode examines one of the most misunderstood questions in Christian history: Who killed Jesus? Rather than accepting oversimplified or anti-Semitic narratives, Marty and Brent carefully unpack the historical, political, and religious context to reveal that Jesus’s execution was orchestrated by a small, corrupt group of chief priests operating as a religious mafia. The discussion explores the distinction between the Jewish people (who loved Jesus) and the corrupt religious leadership, the role of Rome and Pilate, the difference between the formal and informal Sanhedrin, and the political chess match that led to crucifixion. This episode challenges centuries of destructive misinterpretation while providing crucial historical context for understanding the final week of Jesus’s life.

Key Takeaways

The Jewish people did not kill Jesus - they loved and revered him, which is why the plot had to happen outside the public eye
The chief priests, specifically a corrupt group of seven ruling families operating like a mafia, orchestrated Jesus’s execution
Not all Pharisees were involved; some actually tried to save Jesus’s life earlier in his ministry
Jesus was tried by the informal Sanhedrin at the high priest’s house, not the formal judicial body
The trial broke over 15 Jewish commandments about proper legal proceedings because the corrupt leaders didn’t care about those rules
Rome (specifically Pilate) was pressured politically by the chief priests who threatened to destabilize the region and report Pilate to Caesar
Crucifixion was reserved for Zealots (terrorists/insurgents), and demanding this specific form of execution sent a message
Jesus survived three years confronting the Pharisees theologically but lasted less than one week confronting the corrupt power of the chief priests
The story is about corruption, power, and political manipulation - not about ethnic or religious guilt
Eastern Church tradition holds that Pilate and his wife converted to Christianity and founded the Coptic Church in Egypt

Main Concepts & Theories

The Two Sanhedrins

The episode introduces a crucial distinction often missed in biblical teaching: there were two different Sanhedrins operating in first-century Jerusalem.

The Formal Sanhedrin:

Consisted of 70-72 leaders
Half were Pharisees, half were Sadducees
Functioned as the official ruling body of the Jewish people
Operated with formal procedures and rules
Similar to a combination of the Supreme Court and legislative body
Met in an official capacity with established protocols

The Informal Sanhedrin:

Composed of the chief priests
Run by the high priest
Met at the house of the high priest (not an official location)
Operated like a mafia with backroom deals
Made decisions that the formal Sanhedrin simply ratified
Those who didn’t ratify the decisions faced severe consequences
This is where Jesus was actually tried

According to Josephus, the informal Sanhedrin wielded real power while the formal body served as a rubber stamp. This corruption explains why Jesus’s trial broke so many legal rules - the corrupt leaders operating the informal Sanhedrin didn’t care about proper judicial procedures.

The Chief Priests as a Religious Mafia

The chief priests weren’t simply religious leaders - they were a corrupt oligarchy that operated more like organized crime than spiritual shepherds.

Origins of Their Corruption:

Originally, the priesthood was hereditary through Aaron’s line
During the Hasmonean period and into Herod’s reign, the position became purchasable
Herod the Great sold the chief priesthood to the highest bidder
Seven wealthy families emerged who controlled the position
These families formed what Marty calls “the rule of Ananus”

How They Maintained Power:

Used the informal Sanhedrin for backroom deals
Intimidated the formal Sanhedrin into compliance
Lived within enough Torah rules to maintain legitimacy
Found and exploited corrupt loopholes
Maintained relationship with Roman authorities
Threatened political instability when they needed Rome’s cooperation

Why Jesus Threatened Them:

Jesus’s teaching drew the people’s loyalty away from the religious establishment
He directly confronted their corruption (cleansing the temple)
His kingdom message undermined their power structure
If the people followed Jesus, the chief priests’ system would crumble
Unlike the Pharisees (who debated theology with Jesus for three years), the chief priests had Jesus killed within one week of direct confrontation

Crucifixion as Political Theater

The specific method of execution reveals important context about what the chief priests were trying to accomplish.

What Crucifixion Signified:

Reserved specifically for Zealots (Jewish insurgents/terrorists)
The worst form of torture Rome employed
Designed to be a public spectacle and deterrent
Sent a clear political message about opposing Rome
The two “robbers” crucified with Jesus were actually Zealots (the Greek word is used for Zealots in extra-biblical literature)

Why They Demanded Crucifixion:

The chief priests didn’t just want Jesus dead - they wanted him publicly branded as a Zealot
They could have stoned him (as they did Stephen), but crucifixion served their political purposes
It was meant to discredit Jesus’s movement by associating him with violent revolution
It demonstrated the chief priests’ power to mobilize Rome for their purposes
One of the Zealots on the cross recognized the irony - he was an actual Zealot who had bought into violence, while Jesus was falsely accused

The Political Dynamics with Pilate

The interaction between the chief priests and Pilate reveals sophisticated political manipulation.

Pilate’s Position:

Sent as one of Rome’s best governors to control the most difficult region in the settled Roman Empire
The Jews refused to worship Caesar, making Judea exceptionally hard to govern
Replaced Archelaus (Herod’s son) who couldn’t handle the region
Present in Jerusalem for Passover specifically to maintain order during the volatile festival
Had to keep peace or risk losing his position or life
Maintained some crowd-pleasing measures (like releasing a prisoner each festival) to manage popular opinion

How the Chief Priests Manipulated Pilate:

Threatened to destabilize the region if he didn’t comply
Used the loaded phrase: “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar”
Warned that anyone claiming to be king opposes Caesar
Made clear they would report Pilate to Rome as unreliable
Forced Pilate into a political corner where executing Jesus was the path of least resistance

Pilate’s Response:

Repeatedly tried to find charges against Jesus and failed
Attempted multiple times to release Jesus, finding no fault in him
Didn’t view Jesus as a genuine threat (just a peasant rabbi teaching forgiveness)
Eventually caved to political pressure to protect his position
Symbolically washed his hands but couldn’t wash away responsibility

Jesus’s Anti-Empire Ministry

The episode clarifies an important nuance: Jesus wasn’t trying to overthrow Rome militarily, but his entire ministry was fundamentally anti-Empire.

Not Fighting Rome Directly:

Jesus wasn’t leading a revolt with swords or clubs
He wasn’t marching on Rome politically
He wasn’t mobilizing military resistance
When asked if he was a king, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world, because if it were, my servants would fight”
His triumphal entry was on a donkey, not with an army of chariots
His teachings about forgiving enemies seemed harmless to Roman authorities

Fighting Empire Itself:

Jesus’s message about the Kingdom of God inherently opposed Roman imperial theology
His claim to have a kingdom standing in opposition to Rome had “fighting words” implications
He challenged the very concept of Empire and domination systems
Scholars like Crossan and Borg note this was essentially mystic resistance
Jesus marched on the temple for “house cleaning” - confronting Empire showing up in Jewish leadership
His real war was against Empire as a system, not Rome as a political entity

Rome’s Perspective:

To Pilate, Jesus didn’t appear threatening
A peasant rabbi teaching peace and forgiveness didn’t seem like a military concern
Jesus was like “a mustard seed” - the smallest of garden plants
Rome probably would have ignored Jesus entirely if not for the chief priests’ political pressure
The threat wasn’t military power but the destabilizing potential of religious leaders turning the region against Roman authority

Historical Consequences of Misinterpretation

Marty emphasizes with gravity that misunderstanding this question has had devastating consequences.

The False Narrative:

“The Jews killed Jesus” became a common Christian teaching
This interpretation blamed an entire people group for Jesus’s death
It ignored the text’s clear distinction between the Jewish people and the corrupt leadership
It failed to recognize that the crowds who welcomed Jesus and the crowd that called for crucifixion were different groups

The Historical Damage:

Millions of Jews have been murdered throughout history based on this false interpretation
Anti-Semitism found religious justification in this distorted reading
Pogroms, persecution, and genocide were partially fueled by this theology
The Holocaust cannot be separated from centuries of Christian anti-Semitism

The Corrected Understanding:

The Gospel texts repeatedly show the Jewish people loved Jesus
The plot required secrecy specifically because the Jewish public would have opposed it
Every time authorities wanted to arrest Jesus earlier, they couldn’t because the people protected him
Matthew 27:1 clearly identifies “the chief priests and elders” as those who plotted the execution
John’s Gospel shows Pilate handing Jesus over to the chief priests specifically
The blame lies with a small, corrupt group of powerful families, not the Jewish people

Examples & Applications

The Informal Power Structure

The informal Sanhedrin meeting at the high priest’s house mirrors many modern power dynamics. Consider how decisions are often made:

Corporate boards where real decisions happen in executive sessions before formal board votes
Political systems where backroom deals precede public votes
Religious denominations where unofficial power brokers control decisions despite official structures
Any organization where formal procedures exist but informal networks wield actual power

When Peter sits in the courtyard of the high priest’s house (Matthew 26:57-58), he’s witnessing this informal power structure in action. The archaeological evidence of these high priest houses shows the luxury and wealth of this ruling class - they had everything to lose if Jesus’s movement succeeded.

Crucifixion’s Message

The choice of crucifixion wasn’t random - it was strategic communication. Modern equivalents might include:

Labeling political opponents as “terrorists” to delegitimize their movements
Using specific charges or procedures to send messages beyond the individual case
Public executions or punishments designed to deter others
Character assassination that associates someone with extremists to discredit them

The irony is profound: the two actual Zealots crucified with Jesus recognized he wasn’t one of them. One of them even “gets it” and realizes his violent agenda failed while Jesus’s kingdom message represents truth. Everyone watching would have assumed all three were violent revolutionaries, which was precisely what the chief priests wanted.

Political Pressure Tactics

The chief priests’ manipulation of Pilate demonstrates timeless political pressure tactics:

Threatening to expose someone to their superiors (“We’ll tell Caesar who his real friends are”)
Creating no-win scenarios where compliance is the path of least resistance
Using public opinion and potential unrest as leverage
Forcing authorities to choose between principles and pragmatic self-preservation
Making veiled threats about consequences for non-compliance

Pilate’s situation mirrors many modern scenarios where officials must choose between doing what’s right and protecting their positions. His symbolic hand-washing shows the human tendency to seek absolution through gestures while taking the pragmatic path that compromises integrity.

The Danger of Corrupt Religious Power

Jesus survived three years of intense theological debate with the Pharisees but lasted less than one week confronting the corrupt chief priests. This illustrates an important principle:

Theological disagreement, even intense disagreement, can coexist with mutual respect and ongoing dialogue
Corrupt power, however, eliminates threats rather than engaging them
Religious authority combined with political power and wealth becomes especially dangerous
Those who have everything to lose from reform will use any means to preserve their position
Prophetic voices challenging corrupt religious systems face existential danger

Modern applications include recognizing when religious institutions prioritize self-preservation over faithfulness, when wealth and political power corrupt spiritual leadership, and when church structures protect abusers or maintain injustice to avoid scandal or loss of influence.

The Temple Cleansing Context

Jesus’s clearing of the temple (flipping tables, driving out merchants) takes on new meaning in this context. He wasn’t just making a theological point about prayer versus commerce - he was directly challenging the economic system controlled by the chief priests.

The temple marketplace involved:

Money changers who exchanged currency (at exploitative rates)
Sellers of sacrificial animals (at inflated prices)
A system that profited the chief priests who controlled temple operations
Economic exploitation of pilgrims who had to purchase approved animals

When Jesus disrupted this system, he threatened the chief priests’ income stream and exposed their corruption. This wasn’t just religious theater - it was economic and political confrontation. Combined with the triumphal entry (witnessed by Roman guards at the Antonia Fortress overlooking the temple courts), Jesus’s actions during Holy Week guaranteed a response from the religious mafia.

Potential Areas for Further Exploration

The Sadducees and Chief Priests (Episode 76): Marty references this earlier episode extensively. Understanding the Sadducean party, their theology, their political alignment with Rome, and the emergence of the chief priest families provides essential background for this episode.
The Formal vs. Informal Power Structures in Second Temple Judaism: How did the dual Sanhedrin system develop? What evidence does Josephus provide? How did this affect Jewish life under Roman occupation?
The Historical Pilate: What do we know about Pontius Pilate from Roman sources, Josephus, and archaeology? How does the Gospel portrayal compare to other historical evidence? What happened to him after his governorship?
The Eastern Church Tradition about Pilate: Explore the Coptic tradition that Pilate and his wife converted, fled to Egypt, and founded the church there. What are the origins of this tradition? How is it viewed by different Christian traditions?
Crucifixion in the Roman World: Study the historical practice of crucifixion - who was crucified, the legal procedures, the variations in method, the symbolism, and how it functioned as political theater.
Anti-Semitism in Church History: Trace how the “Jews killed Jesus” narrative developed, how it was used to justify persecution, and how modern scholarship has worked to correct this misinterpretation.
The Zealot Movement: Who were the Zealots? What were their goals and methods? How did they relate to other Jewish parties? How did Rome respond to them?
The Hasmonean Dynasty and the Corruption of the Priesthood: Study how the priesthood became purchasable, the transition from Hasmonean to Herodian rule, and how Herod the Great established the corrupt chief priest system.
Jesus’s Anti-Empire Theology: Explore scholarly work by Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and others on how Jesus’s kingdom message functioned as resistance to Roman imperial theology.
The Via Dolorosa and Jerusalem Topography: Research the actual geography of Jesus’s trial and crucifixion. Where was the Antonia Fortress? Where was Herod’s palace? What is the historically accurate route versus traditional pilgrimage routes?
The Different Crowds: Analyze the Gospel accounts to distinguish between the crowd at the triumphal entry, the crowd at the informal trial, and how the chief priests might have assembled a specific group to call for crucifixion.
Peter’s Denial in Context: With Peter sitting in the courtyard of the high priest’s house during this corrupt, informal trial, how does that context inform his denial? What was he witnessing?
Pilate’s Wife’s Dream: Explore Matthew’s unique detail about Pilate’s wife warning him about Jesus. What might this suggest about early Christian interaction with Roman officials’ families?
The Political Situation in First-Century Judea: Study the transition from Herod the Great to his sons, Archelaus’s failure, the imposition of direct Roman rule, and why this region was so difficult for Rome to govern.
The Phrase “We Have No King But Caesar”: Analyze the profound irony of Jewish chief priests claiming Caesar as their only king, given Jewish theology about God’s kingship and their opposition to idolatry.

Comprehension Questions

Explain the difference between the formal and informal Sanhedrin. Where was Jesus actually tried, and why does this matter for understanding the corruption involved?

The formal Sanhedrin consisted of 70-72 leaders (half Pharisee, half Sadducee) who met officially with proper procedures. The informal Sanhedrin was composed of the chief priests, met at the high priest’s house, and made backroom decisions that the formal body simply ratified under threat. Jesus was tried by the informal Sanhedrin at the high priest’s house (where Peter waited in the courtyard). This matters because it reveals the trial was conducted by a corrupt mafia-like group that didn’t follow proper legal procedures, not by the official judicial body of the Jewish people. The informal nature allowed them to break over 15 Jewish commandments about proper trials and to operate under cover of darkness away from public view.
Why did Jesus survive three years of confrontation with the Pharisees but last less than one week confronting the chief priests? What does this reveal about the different types of power?

Jesus engaged in intense theological debates with the Pharisees throughout his ministry, disagreeing fundamentally on many issues, yet continued dialogue and even received warnings from some Pharisees about threats to his life. However, when Jesus confronted the corrupt chief priests during Holy Week (through the triumphal entry and cleansing the temple), they moved quickly to execute him. This reveals that theological disagreement - even intense disagreement - allows for ongoing engagement and debate, while confronting corrupt political and economic power provokes violent elimination of the threat. The Pharisees were invested in theological purity; the chief priests were invested in maintaining their wealth, status, and power structure. Jesus threatened the latter’s entire system, not just their ideas.
How did the chief priests manipulate Pilate into authorizing Jesus’s execution, even though Pilate found no fault in him? What does this reveal about political power dynamics?

The chief priests used sophisticated political pressure tactics. They threatened to destabilize the region during the volatile Passover week when Pilate was specifically present to maintain order. They used the loaded phrase “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar” - essentially threatening to report Pilate to Rome as unreliable or disloyal. They warned that anyone claiming to be king opposes Caesar, framing their demand in terms of Pilate’s duty to Rome. This created a no-win situation where Pilate had to choose between his principles (releasing an innocent man) and his pragmatic self-interest (maintaining his position and possibly his life). It reveals how corrupt actors can manipulate systems by threatening instability, appealing to superiors, and forcing officials into corners where compliance is the path of least resistance.
Why did the chief priests specifically demand crucifixion rather than another form of execution? What message were they trying to send?

Crucifixion was specifically reserved for Zealots - Jewish insurgents and terrorists who opposed Rome violently. It was the most torturous form of execution Rome employed, designed as public spectacle and deterrent. The chief priests could have stoned Jesus (as they later did to Stephen), but crucifixion served multiple purposes: it publicly branded Jesus as a violent revolutionary, discrediting his movement by associating it with Zealot terrorism; it demonstrated the chief priests’ political power to mobilize Rome for their purposes; and it sent a warning message to any followers that Jesus’s kingdom movement would be treated as armed insurrection. The irony was that the two actual Zealots crucified with Jesus recognized he wasn’t one of them, with one even acknowledging his own violent agenda had failed while Jesus’s message represented truth.
How does understanding the historical context of who killed Jesus challenge centuries of anti-Semitic interpretation? What does the text actually say versus what has often been taught?

The historical context reveals that “the Jews” did not kill Jesus - a small group of corrupt chief priests did. The Gospels repeatedly show the Jewish people loved and revered Jesus; the plot required secrecy specifically because the Jewish public would have opposed it and protected Jesus (as they had done multiple times before when authorities wanted to arrest him). Matthew 27:1 specifically identifies “the chief priests and elders” as those who plotted, and John’s Gospel shows Pilate handing Jesus over to the chief priests specifically - not to “the Jews” generally. The crowd calling for crucifixion was not the same crowd that welcomed Jesus at the triumphal entry. However, the false teaching that “the Jews killed Jesus” has been used for centuries to justify persecution, pogroms, and genocide, with millions of Jews murdered based on this misinterpretation. Properly understanding that a small, corrupt, powerful elite orchestrated Jesus’s death - not the Jewish people - is essential for correcting this devastating theological error.

Summary

BEMA Episode 130 tackles one of the most consequential questions in Christian theology and history: Who killed Jesus? Through careful examination of the Gospel accounts - particularly Matthew 26-27 and John 19 - alongside historical context from Josephus and Roman sources, Marty and Brent dismantle oversimplified and destructive narratives to reveal the complex political and religious dynamics at play.

The episode’s central thesis is clear: the Jewish people did not kill Jesus. Instead, a small, corrupt group of chief priests - seven ruling families who operated like a religious mafia - orchestrated his execution to protect their power, wealth, and status. These families had purchased the priesthood from Herod the Great and maintained control through an informal Sanhedrin that met in the high priest’s house and made backroom decisions that the formal Sanhedrin rubber-stamped under threat.

Jesus survived three years of intense theological debate with the Pharisees, but when he confronted the corrupt chief priests during Holy Week - through his triumphal entry and cleansing of the temple - they moved to eliminate him within days. This reveals a crucial distinction: theological disagreement allows for ongoing dialogue, but confronting corrupt power structures that combine religion, politics, and economics provokes violent suppression.

The specific demand for crucifixion was strategic. Reserved for Zealots (Jewish terrorists opposing Rome), crucifixion would publicly brand Jesus as a violent revolutionary, discrediting his movement and sending a warning to followers. The irony is profound - the two actual Zealots crucified with Jesus recognized he wasn’t one of them, with one acknowledging Jesus’s kingdom message as truth while his own violent agenda had failed.

Pilate represents Rome’s complex role. He repeatedly tried to release Jesus, finding no fault in him and not viewing this peasant rabbi as a genuine threat. However, the chief priests manipulated him politically, threatening to destabilize the region during Passover and warning “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar.” This forced Pilate into choosing between principle and pragmatic self-preservation. He chose the latter, symbolically washing his hands while authorizing the execution.

The episode emphasizes Jesus’s anti-Empire theology - he wasn’t fighting Rome militarily but challenging Empire itself as a system. His kingdom message fundamentally opposed imperial domination, which showed up in Jewish leadership as much as Roman rule. He marched on the temple for house cleaning, not on Rome for political revolt.

Understanding this historical reality matters tremendously. The false teaching that “the Jews killed Jesus” has justified millions of Jewish deaths throughout history, contributing to pogroms, persecution, and the Holocaust. Properly attributing responsibility to a small corrupt elite rather than an entire people is essential for theological accuracy, historical justice, and preventing future atrocities.

The episode concludes with fascinating Eastern Church tradition suggesting Pilate and his wife converted to Christianity, fled to Egypt, and founded the Coptic Church - a “happy ending” that Marty acknowledges as tradition rather than proven history, but finds deeply hopeful. Whether historically accurate or not, it represents the Christian commitment to redemption and the possibility of transformation even for those complicit in Jesus’s death.

This teaching challenges listeners to recognize corrupt power structures in religious institutions today, understand the dangers when religious authority combines with political power and wealth, and appreciate the prophetic courage required to confront such systems. Most importantly, it calls for historical honesty that properly understands the past to prevent repeating its most destructive errors.

Edit | Previous | Next

S3 130: The Plot to Kill Jesus

Who Killed Jesus? [31:30]