Should we crucify him?

Historical Context

The historical events surrounding the question “Should we crucify Him?” emerged under the Roman occupation of Judea, at a time when tensions were high between Jewish leadership and both the political and religious expectations of the people. Contemporary historians, such as Josephus, confirm that crucifixion was a standard form of capital punishment employed by Romans for insurrectionists or those deemed a threat to their authority.

In the biblical narratives, the question arises most notably in Matthew 27:22, where Pilate asks, “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” The crowds answer definitively, “Crucify Him!” Herod Antipas, the chief priests, and the broader assembly around Jerusalem each contributed to the environment that led to crucifixion as the chosen penalty.

Prophetic Foundations

The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) lay the groundwork for the anticipated Messiah’s suffering and atonement. Short but significant references, such as Isaiah 53 (cf. v. 5: “He was pierced for our transgressions”), foretell a servant who would suffer on behalf of others. Psalm 22 likewise foreshadows details consistent with crucifixion. These ancient texts, dated by fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, predate the earthly life of Jesus by centuries and affirm prophetic insights that Christians believe were fulfilled in His passion and death.

The Accusations Against Jesus

The Gospels record that the religious leaders leveled accusations of blasphemy and sedition against Him. Claims of blasphemy stemmed from statements identifying Himself with God (John 10:30) and prerogatives understood to belong to God alone, leading the Sanhedrin to conclude that He deserved death (Matthew 26:65–66). The political accusation—stirring people to revolt against Rome—was highlighted before Pilate, making Jesus appear to threaten Caesar’s authority (Luke 23:2). Yet Pilate found no true fault in Him (Luke 23:4), reflecting the complexity of the situation and the nature of the charges.

Biblical Evidence of Innocence

Multiple passages indicate that Jesus was not found guilty under a just legal standard. Pilate repeatedly stated Jesus had done nothing deserving of death (Luke 23:15–22). Even Pilate’s wife had a foreboding dream, urging her husband to “have nothing to do with that righteous man” (Matthew 27:19). All this underscores that the legal basis for Jesus’s crucifixion was built more on political expedience than on verified wrongdoing.

Theological Significance of the Crucifixion

From the perspective of Scripture, choosing to crucify Jesus was not merely the outcome of human schemes; it was part of a redemptive plan. As 1 Peter 2:24 says of Christ, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.” The crucifixion is presented as the atoning sacrifice that reconciles humanity to God. Once-for-all, this event provides salvation, underscoring that His death was not a tragic end but a purposeful fulfillment of prophecies that promised rescue for those who trust in Him.

The Ultimate Question: “Should We Crucify Him?”

1. Historical and Moral Consideration

Historically, crucifixion stands as the climax of the Roman judicial process and the Jewish leadership’s demands, yet given the accounts of Jesus’s innocence, the moral answer is no. Even Pilate sought a way to release Him (Matthew 27:24); the final call to crucify was heavily influenced by social pressure and fear of unrest.

2. Prophetic and Scriptural Fulfillment

Despite its apparent injustice, the crucifixion was foreordained as part of the divine plan that the Messiah would suffer for others. Scripture teaches that rather than condemning Jesus further, a person’s proper response is repentance, acceptance of His sacrifice, and acknowledgement of His divinity.

3. Modern Implications

The question “Should we crucify Him?” also resonates symbolically today. Each individual is faced with accepting or rejecting Christ’s claims and sacrifice. Scripture reveals “no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Thus, rather than enacting another crucifixion, humanity is encouraged to receive the completed work Jesus accomplished at Calvary.

Archaeological and Manuscript Corroboration

Numerous scriptural texts, such as the extant papyri of the Gospels, lend credibility to the accounts. Archaeological findings (including remains of crucifixion victims with nail-mark evidence from first-century Jerusalem) support that crucifixion was prevalent and consistent with the biblical timeframe. Early manuscripts—cataloged and compared by scholars—show remarkable consistency, reinforcing the reliability of these narratives.

Philosophical and Behavioral Reflection

Humanity’s inclination to “crucify” what it does not fully understand, or to reject authority that threatens self-rule, remains a timeless lesson. Behaviors driven by group pressure or fear of upending personal security can lead to grave injustice—as happened historically in the case of Jesus. Recognizing that God’s design places moral imperatives on our conscience, we can look to Scripture as both corrective and redemptive in guiding ethical behavior.

Conclusion

Deciding whether to crucify Jesus, historically or symbolically, must be made in light of verifiable scriptural testimony, historical context, and the unified witness of prophetic fulfillment. All evidence points to Jesus’s innocence, His divine identity, and the salvific necessity of His crucifixion. Yet the act itself—humanly speaking—should never have happened were it only a legal question. The better question is how one responds to Christ now.

As the Gospels record, the crucifixion occurred at the instigation of those threatened by His message, but from a biblical standpoint, it was also the appointed means to provide redemption, atoning for humankind’s sin once for all. Therefore, “Should we crucify Him?” rightly answered is: No—He has already died and risen, fulfilling salvation’s plan, and our call is to believe, trust, and live according to this profound truth.