Clark MemorandumJ.Reuben Clark Law SchoolBrigham YoungUniversityFall | 2000

CM·

The Trial and Death of Jesus

Of the numerous things that could besaid about the so-called trial and the deathof Jesus, I want to emphasize 10 personalreflections. These 10 points center aroundtwo perplexing questions: Why was Jesuskilled? and Who was responsible? As theworld marks the 2,000th birthday of JesusChrist, it would seem especially appropriateto think about his death, since “for thiscause came [he] into the world” (John 18:37).

REFLECTION 1 | Latter-day Saints andall people should approach this subjectwith humility and cautiousness. It willlong remain impossible to give a definitivedescription of the so-called “trial of Jesus.”Too little is known today about the lawsand legal procedures that would have beenfollowed in Jerusalem during the secondquarter of the first century a.d., and toolittle is known about all that was done solong ago for any modern person to speakwith any degree of certainty about thelegal technicalities of this case. As ElderBruce R. McConkie has written, “There is no divine ipse dixit, no voice from anarchangel, and as yet no revealed latter-day account of all that transpired when God’s own Son suffered himself to bejudged by men so that he could voluntar-ily give up his life upon the cross” (Bruce

R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah [SaltLake City: Bookcraft, 1981], 4:142). We areusually more glib about this subject thanwe intellectually or spiritually ought to be.

REFLECTION 2 | What is it that makesit so hard to be definitive about the trialof Jesus? Many things contribute to ourperplexities. As just one example, wewould like to know more about the legalrules followed by the Sanhedrin in Jesus’day. Of course, we know much aboutRabbinic law from the Talmud, but theTalmud was written later, from the sec-ond to the fifth centuries a.d., by thePharisees or their successors, and so theTalmud presumably reflects the rules pre-ferred by the late Pharisaic movement.Moreover, the Pharisees were not in con-trol of the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus;the Sadducees were decidedly in the major-ity. And we know that the Sadducees and Pharisees differed on a number ofpoints of law.

We also wonder: Did they or didn’tthey really have the authority to executesomeone in a case like that of Jesus? Thechief priests said to Pilate, “To us is notallowed to kill no one,” as the Greek readsin John 18:31, but we do not know why theylacked such authorization or why they

4 Clark Memorandum

T H I S T A L K W A S D E L I V E R E D J A N U A R Y 8 , 2 0 0 0 , A T A C O N F E R E N C E I N P R O V O , U T A H ,

E N T I T L E D “ C H R I S T , S A V I O R , S O N O F G O D , ” S P O N S O R E D B Y T H E B Y U C O L L E G E O F

R E L I G I O U S E D U C A T I O N . A M O R E C O M P L E T E V E R S I O N O F T H I S P A P E R , W I T H

D E T A I L E D N O T E S , W I L L B E I N C L U D E D I N T H E P R O C E E D I N G S O F T H A T C O N F E R E N C E T O

B E P U B L I S H E D B Y T H E B Y U R E L I G I O U S S T U D I E S C E N T E R I N T H E N E A R F U T U R E .

no sequence of events in legal h i story has proven m

all that transpired from the time that jesus was arre

the t ime he was taken and cruc i f i ed on a small outc

would say this. Many possibilities come tomind. Perhaps they said this because novalid conviction had been reached allowingexecution under their own law. Perhapsthey were showing voluntary deference toPilate. Or perhaps they simply neededPilate’s ratification. In any event, it wouldappear that Jewish people under Romangovernance did have power, or at least took the power, to execute people on some occasions, as we see in attempts tokill Jesus in Nazareth or in the case of thewoman taken in adultery, or in the deathsof Stephen or John the Baptist, none ofwhich involved Roman authorities.

For reasons like these, it is hard tospeak with any degree of certitude aboutthe technicalities, especially any allegedillegalities, in the proceedings involvingJesus. Parenthetically, Protestants in thelate 19th century so exaggerated thealleged illegalities that their analyses back-fired, and many people concluded thatsuch a fiasco or travesty of justice simplyhad to be a myth.

More difficulties arise from the signifi-cant differences between the four Gospels.John’s account is very different from theaccounts in the synoptic Gospels, and evenbetween the synoptics significant legal dif-ferences exist. For example, did the councilmeet at night, as Matthew and Mark say(which probably would have been illegal),or did they meet only when day came, asin Luke (where that alleged illegality doesnot arise)? Or what about John, who men-tions the council only before the arrest,never after? Matthew and Mark seem toplace the ultimate burden on the Romans,

since it must have been Roman soldierswho led Jesus away into the Praetorium(Mark 15:16); but in John, Pilate gives Jesus back to the Jews “and they [the Jewsit would seem] took Jesus” (John 19:16)and directed the crucifixion with Pilate’sacquiescence.

Harmonizing these four Gospelaccounts is possible, but only if one iswilling to ignore their different purposesand irreconcilable jurisprudential details.Latter-day Saints are usually not troubledby the technical differences between thesefour New Testament accounts, but somepeople are. Jews, especially, are interestedin how these texts are interpreted, becausethe trial of Jesus has been a major cause of antisemitism over the ages. In directresponse to that antisemitism, whichfueled the Holocaust, Jewish scholars havepassionately argued that the Jews hadnothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesusbut that the Romans were completelyresponsible.

Latter-day Saints accept various ver-sions of important events that do notalways agree with each other. We live withfour accounts of the Creation, three ver-sions of the Sermon on the Mount, andseveral accounts of the First Vision. Latter-day Saints also appreciate that Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John each had differentpurposes and various audiences. For exam-ple, when writing to the Greeks, Lukenever mentions any accusation of blas-phemy, which to a Greek would not beconsequential. (Indeed, in Greek, blas-phemy can simply mean rude speech, and,thus, interestingly, in Luke it is the captors

who blaspheme, that is, speak insolentlyto Jesus.) Matthew, whose purpose is oftento show how Jesus prevailed over thePharisees, is the only Gospel writer to tellthe story of the chief priests and Phariseesasking Pilate to secure the tomb in whichJesus was buried, but to no avail.

REFLECTION 3 | Even more problem-atical is the difficulty of determiningintent. Why did any of them do it? Whywas Jesus killed? Even today, the greatestchallenge in modern courts of law is tryingto prove a person’s intent. Scholarly pru-dence and Christian charity behoove us to withhold casting any aspersions and to follow a more cautious, sensitive approachas we attempt to ferret out the motives ofCaiaphas, the chief priests, or Pilate.

Actually, one may scan the four NewTestament Gospels and find precious fewexplicit indications of what actually moti-vated any of these people. We may guess,of course, but our guesses are specula-tions. We may attribute to these people a wide range of political, commercial,social, personal, religious, or legalisticmotives; but in most cases the motivesthat seem the most plausible to us stemfrom our own retrojections. Thus, itshould not surprise us that scholars of theterrorist-bitten 1970s were quite confidentthat Jesus was executed as some kind ofsupposed guerrilla terrorist, while somepost-Holocaust Jewish scholars of the1950s argued that Caiaphas and his templeguards actually took Jesus kindly intoprotective custody to warn him about the Romans who were out to get him.

5Clark Memorandum

ore d i f f icult or more important to understand than

sted east of the temple on the mount of ol ives until

ropp ing of rocks ju st outs ide the walls of j erusalem .

Obviously, such theories are in tune withthe sources of angst of the people whohave propounded them.

Latter-day Saints are not immunefrom such inclinations. According toErnest L. Wilkinson in 1966, the cause ofthe atrocious death of Jesus was noneother than the concentration of “legisla-tive, executive and judicial powers . . . inone unit, . . . in the Great Sanhedrin,” inwhich Wilkinson expressly saw the omi-nous specter of Communism.

More commonly, Latter-day Saintsassert that Israel’s judges were motivatedby hate. In 1915 the work of James E.Talmage portrayed the Sanhedrists asbeing galvanized against Jesus by “malig-nant,” “inherent and undying hatred”(James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ [SaltLake City: Deseret Book, 1976], 627, 637).But the word hate is not found in any ofthe trial narratives per se.

Specifically regarding the motives ofthese Jews, Matthew and Mark only saythat Pilate could tell “that the chief priestshad delivered [ Jesus to him] out of envy”(Mark 15:10); but notice that this ishearsay. And how did anyone know whatPilate was thinking? In any event, theword envy is not particularly antagonistic.It connotes jealous resentment of some-one else’s wisdom or good fortune, butscarcely does this common human emo-tion amount to lethal hatred.

Pilate’s motivations are equally obscure.Some people see Pilate as a weak, incompe-tent, middle-management functionary whohad recently lost his power base in Rome,who was easily intimidated, and who wasmanipulated by his wife. But this samePilate, who usually resided in Caesarea andmay have been cautious in handling Jesus inJerusalem, still held in his hands the highestlegal power of Rome in the area. He hadnot hesitated on other occasions to asserthimself, even with military force. Havingtried in several ways to get the chief prieststo drop their complaint against Jesus, Pilatesaw that nothing was working but “thatrather a tumult was made” (Matt. 27:24).Physical violence—a riot—was erupting.When he tried to placate the crowd by giv-ing them Barabbas as a “secure pledge,”Pilate may have acted out of desperation,fear for his own safety, or equally out ofhope that the crowd would disperse andleave Jesus alone. In fact, in the JosephSmith Translation, Pilate tells the Jews toleave Jesus alone.

Returning to the point about hate, theGospel of John makes it clear that the world(not just Pilate or the chief priests) wouldmisunderstand, reject, and hate Jesus, justas it would also hate all of his true disciples.Jesus said: “But me [the world] hateth,because I testify of it, that the worksthereof are evil” (John 7:7); “If the worldhate you, ye know that it hated me before it

hated you” (John 15:18), for “I am not of theworld” (John 17:14). In the cosmic conflictpresented in the Gospel of John, thisworldly hate of truth is the theologicalopposite of divine love; but that antipathyis too broad to provide a legal motive forkilling Jesus, for it applies to all people,both then and now, who reject Jesus in anyway, personally as well as legally.

In response to the question Of whatcrime was Jesus accused? there also is no simple answer. Blasphemy, sedition,encouraging tax protesters, and declaringhimself a king are all mentioned, but noneof these charges really stuck. But then, weare told that Jesus was arrested as a rob-ber, and such outlaws were given no legalrights, let alone a Miranda warning or aformal arraignment. Even Pilate had toask, “What is it these men accuse you of?”No one ever gave a straight answer. TheGospels in the end simply say that he wasaccused of “many things” (Matthew 27:13;Mark 15:3–4), leaving the legal issue inten-tionally vague, reminding us that precise,modern pleading practices were not nec-essarily followed in the ancient world.

The situation is very complicated. It isno wonder that uncertainty was a commonreaction of the people to Jesus. At the con-clusion of his temple speech on the Feastof Tabernacles, John says, “There was adivision among the people because of him”(John 7:43). “Some said, He is a good man:

7Clark Memorandum

others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the peo-ple. Howbeit no man spake openly of himfor fear of the Jews” (John 7:12–13).

REFLECTION 4 | When people get con-fused, they often become afraid. Whenthey become afraid, they act irrationally.Although the factor of fear is rarely men-tioned by commentators, fear provides the driving undercurrent that best explainsthe irregularities and vagaries of the so-called trial of Jesus. His trial was not arational affair. Fear played a much largerrole than we have stopped to realize.Sooner or later, everyone is afraid.

People who were sympathetic to Jesuswere afraid of the Jewish leaders. The dis-ciples fled from the scene of the arrest outof great fear. Even the powerful Joseph ofArimathaea kept his loyalty to Jesus secret“for fear of the Jews” (John 19:38).

The chief priests also were deeplyafraid. They worried that if Jesus becametoo popular, the Romans would comeand take away “our place [the holy city,the temple, or the land] and nation”(John 11:48). But more than that, theyfeared Jesus. Mark 11:18 clearly states thatafter Jesus denounced the temple as a denof robbers, they “sought how they mightdestroy him: for they feared him.”

Their scheme to destroy him, how-ever, seems to have gone quickly awry.After he was arrested, Jesus was treatedlike a hot potato, being passed spasmodi-cally from one hand to another—hands“of frightened subordinates whose planshad gone astray,” as law professor DallinH. Oaks wrote in 1969—with no onewanting to take the rap for either hisdeath or his release.

They were not the only ones whowere frightened of Jesus. When Pilateheard the words “he has made himself theson of God,” his reaction was fear. Johnstates that Pilate “was the more afraid”(John 19:8). Even Herod the fox was saidto fear the crowd.

Moreover, Golgotha, that scene ofgruesome death, was a theater of fear. Thecenturion and those with him, when theyfelt the earth quake, “feared exceedingly”about what they had done. Phobias areeverywhere in this story—far more thanpeople usually think.

REFLECTION 5 | What were these peo-ple so afraid of? Above all, they weredeeply afraid of the supernatural. Althoughthe followers of Jesus accepted his miraclesas manifestations of divine power, thosewho did not believe that Jesus was the Sonof God found those wondrous works dis-turbing. A common reaction to the mira-cles of Jesus was fear, for if Jesus workednot by the power of God, he must havebeen possessed by “Beelzebub, and by theprince of the devils casteth he out devils”(Mark 3:22).

In Matthew 9 we read that Jesushealed a man who had been paralyzed bysome kind of stroke. The King JamesVersion of the Bible says that when thepeople saw this “they marvelled”; but theoriginal Greek says that “they wereafraid” (Matt. 9:8). When the multitudesaw Jesus raise the son of the widow inNain and heard the young man speak,their reaction again was sheer terror:“And there came a fear on all,” readsLuke 7:16. Fear of the extraordinary pow-ers of Jesus, which nonbelievers saw ascoming from the realm of the occult,explains much that transpired in his trials.

Personal manifestations of miracles orthe glorious appearance of supernaturalbeings would probably evoke fear in mostof us. The first words of an angel toZacharias were, “Fear not.” Mary was toldby Gabriel, “Fear not” (Luke 1:30), as werethe shepherds in the fields. Even the apos-tles ran from the angel at the tomb, trem-bling, “for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8).When those disciples had assembled, theresurrected Lord’s first words to themwere, “Be not afraid” (Matthew 28:10).

Imagine trying to arrest Jesus. Thechief priests could not have undertakenthis venture lightly and must have steeledthemselves against the unexpected. Jesuswas known to have amazing powers. Hewas a new Moses, and the chief priestswere well aware of what Moses had doneto Pharaoh and his army. Some of the chiefpriests had been involved in the attempt tostone Jesus when he “hid himself . . . ,going right through the midst of them,”and escaped undetected (John 8:59). WithJesus known as something of an escapeartist, people had their hands full trying totake him at the height of his power. It is no

8 Clark Memorandum

wonder they needed to enlist the assistanceof one of his closest followers.

If Jesus had the power to commandloaves and fishes, to still the waves, towither fig trees, and to order evil spirits,what powers might he use in defense ofhimself and his apostles? The raising ofLazarus, only a few days earlier, just overthe hill from Jerusalem, brought Jesus’powers too close to the Holy City. It wasthen that the chief priests and Phariseesgathered in a council and said, “What dowe [do]? for this man doeth many mira-cles” (John 11:47). This disclosure tells usthat the deep root of their concerns wasthe fact that Jesus worked many miracles.If they were not miracles from God, thenJesus had to be some kind of trickster orsorcerer. Coupling these powers with whatthey considered to be his incantationagainst the temple (Mark 14:58) yields apotent formula for fear and trepidationand the need to strike quickly.

Even at his arrest, Jesus continued tocall upon his miraculous powers. Jesustold Peter, “Thinkest thou that I cannotnow pray to my Father, and he shallpresently give me more than twelvelegions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53); andwhen Peter cut off the ear of the highpriest’s servant, Jesus “touched his ear, andhealed him”( Luke 22:51). Anyone in thegroup of arresters hearing or seeing thesethings must have been stunned. Movingforward must not have been easy.

Supernatural factors continue to play adominant role up to the end of Jesus’ life.People witnessing his crucifixion won-dered if Jesus could save himself; theywaited to see if the miracle-working Elijahwould rescue him from the cross.Although that did not happen, the rockssplit apart, graves opened, and holy spiritscame forth out of the ground after Jesus’death (Matthew 27:51–53).

Behind everything lurked a strongundercurrent of fear, misplaced fear, thatJesus was an evil magician. In a significantrevelation from the Book of Mormon, anangel announces that Jesus Christ wouldgo about “working mighty miracles, suchas healing the sick, raising the dead, [and]cast[ing] out . . . evil spirits” (Mosiah 3:5);but “even after all this they shall considerhim a man, and say that he hath a devil, and

shall scourge him, and shall crucify him”(Mosiah 3:9). In the Book of Mormon, thisis the proximate cause of the death ofJesus: not that he was a political threat, andnot that some people disagreed with hisdoctrines, but that certain key people con-sidered him to be of the devil. Latter-daySaints can relate. In 1879 an article appearedin the Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star com-paring the death of Jesus to that of theProphet Joseph Smith. In both cases, the“chief crime was that he obtained revela-tions from heaven.” In both cases, divinepower had been mistaken for magic.

Indeed, the chief priests worried tothe bitter end that Jesus, whom theycalled a “trickster” (planos), would riseafter three days, as he had prophesied.They worried that this, his last trick(plane), would be worse than his first.Their concern confirms the Book ofMormon text. Indeed, the word planos, inother early texts such as the Testaments ofthe Twelve Patriarchs and the SybillineOracles, can mean especially one whodeceives through evil powers or spiritsand fools even the elect through naturemiracles, including churning up the sea or raising the dead. Obviously, being aplanos could raise serious legal and reli-gious concerns.

REFLECTION 6 | Was it possible thatsorcery and necromancy could be consid-ered criminal conduct in Jesus’ day? Ofcourse, certain forms of magic and wiz-ardry were not legally problematical underthe law at that time. Magicians such asSimon the Magician (see Acts 8:9) andTheudas, another wonder worker (see Acts5:36), seemed to walk the streets freely. Butwhen magic was used for improper pur-poses, it was severely punished.

Biblical law prohibited sorcery, sooth-saying, and necromancy. Some knowledgeof sorcery was even “a requirement to beappointed a member of the Sanhedrin,”presumably so that such cases could beproperly prosecuted. Leviticus 20:27 pro-vides: “A man also or woman that hath afamiliar spirit, or that is a wizard, shallsurely be put to death.” We have here thesame words, “being worthy of death,” thatare used in Matthew and Mark to con-demn Jesus as worthy of death. Having a

familiar spirit refers to “calling out of theearth” or conversing with the spirits of thedead (might one think of Lazarus?). Beinga wizard has to do with giving signs orwonders, and Deuteronomy 13:1 made it acapital offense to use signs or miracles topervert or lead people into apostasy. Tosome, the case of Jesus could easily,although erroneously, have presented aprima facie case of such conduct warrant-ing the death penalty.

Likewise, Roman law at the time ofJesus outlawed certain forms of spell-cast-ing or divination and made them punish-able by death. In a.d. 11 Augustus Caesarhimself issued an edict forbidding manticsfrom prophesying about a person’s death.Such conduct had become a serious politi-cal and social problem in the Romanworld. The main thrust of Augustus’decree was to expand the law of maiestas,which had long punished people whoharmed the state by actions, to nowinclude treasonous divination, especiallyaugury directed against the imperial fam-ily. This “empire-wide imperial legisla-tion circumscribed astrological and otherdivinatory activities everywhere,” and weknow of about one hundred trials formaiestas from the time of Tiberius alone.Later Roman law would specify that the punishment for enchanters or spellbinders was crucifixion.

This is not to say that Jesus was cru-cified for predicting the death of TiberiusCaesar or anyone else, but it may explainwhy the chief priests thought they couldget Pilate to take action against Jesus. If Jesus—who had been born under anunusual star and visited as an infant bymagi (astrologers or sign-readers) fromthe east—spoke evil predictions againstthe temple and the lives of the Jews andprophesied about his own death, perhapshe would next lay spells on Caesar. If thatwere to happen, letting Jesus go wouldcertainly make Pilate no friend of Caesar.In final desperation the chief priestsargued that anyone who made himself a king “speaketh against Caesar” ( John19:12). All this looks like attempted allega-tions of maiestas.

Ultimately, of course, Pilate found nolegal cause of action here. Jesus claimedthat his kingdom had nothing to do with

9Clark Memorandum

Caesar’s world, and Pilate was satisfiedthat the man from Nazareth had not bro-ken any Roman law. But Pilate was stillworried enough by the situation that hewas willing to take action or to go alongwith Jesus’ accusers.

Laws against sorcery are mentionedoccasionally by commentators writingabout the trial of Jesus, but this underly-ing cause of action is not usually takenseriously by them. No formal accusationof magic ever seems to be made duringthe trial. But, as Morton Smith argues, theterm “worker of evil” used by the chiefpriests only in John 18:30, or its Latinequivalent maleficius, is “common par-lance” in Roman law codes referring to a“magician.” So the supernatural may wellhave had more to do with the death ofJesus than people think, just as Mosiah 3:9indicates. This is not to say that otherlegal charges did not figure into thecourse of these proceedings. But concernover Jesus’ mighty power best explains allthat the Gospels report.

An underlying concern about demonswould explain especially the puzzles ofcrucifixion and the lack of legal formali-ties. Since the publication of the TempleScroll from the Dead Sea in the 1970s,many scholars acknowledge that hangingon a tree (or crucifixion) could serve as a

possible Jewish mode of execution. In oneother notorious case a century before thetime of Jesus, 80 witches were hung or cru-cified in Ashkelon without proper trials,because the Jewish court saw the matter asan emergency. This event shows that suchthings could happen, even if only rarely.Thus, both Romans and Jews (especiallyon an emergency charge involving a fear ofdemons) were capable of executing some-one by crucifixion.

REFLECTION 7 | We can now turn toour second main question: Who killedJesus? We can now realize that lots of peo-ple were involved. But before we answerthis question, we must back up again andreflect on which of the four Gospels tofavor, for again we get different answersfrom the different Gospels.

In giving weight to various statements,Latter-day Saints generally favor thereport of the highest priesthood authority,which in this case is the Apostle John.With Peter and James, John was one of thehighest ranking apostles. Matthew, thepublican, was one of the Twelve, but Markand Luke apparently were not.

Moreover, most people find morecredibility in the testimonies of eyewit-nesses, and it is not clear how Matthew,Mark, and Luke learned the details they

10 Clark Memorandum

report. None of them were present formost, if any, of the proceedings surround-ing Jesus’ trial and death. Mark may havelearned something from Peter, but afterthe arrest, Peter only “followed [Jesus] afaroff” (Matt. 26:58) and stayed outside thedoor of Caiaphas’ palace hoping to remainunrecognized. But John was present forthe duration of the hearing. Significantly,he was the only disciple who actually“went in with Jesus into the palace of thehigh priest” (John 18:15), and, of course,John was there at Golgotha when Jesusentrusted his mother Mary into his care(John 19:26–27). Of the spear thrust, Johntestified: “And he that saw it bare record[gives solemn testimony], and his [testi-mony] is true” (John 19:35). In this affirma-tion, John distinctively speaks of himselfas the one who saw, claiming for himselfspecial status. Latter-day Saints do nottake his witness lightly.

R E F L E C T I O N 8 | Latter-day Saintsshould be especially comfortable with theJohannine approach to the trial of Jesus,which is strongly supported and clarifiedby the Book of Mormon.

A key element in lds doctrine is theknowledge that the sacrifice of the Saviorwas promised and foreordained frombefore the foundation of this earth, as weread in the words of Lehi, Benjamin,Abinadi, and Alma. Likewise, for John, thedeath of Jesus was a foregone conclusionfrom the beginning. It had to happen. Itwas supposed to happen. “For this causecame I into the world” (John 18:37).

John particularly wants his readers tounderstand that Jesus was not killedbecause of some offense against the templeor its economy, as many people conclude(especially from Mark). Here John is par-ticularly interesting. Unlike Matthew andMark, John does not have Jesus say eitherthat he is able or actually will destroy thetemple; rather, John 2:19 reads, “[If you]destroy this temple, . . . in three days I willraise it up.”

People have also long puzzled overthe distance that John puts between thecleansing of the temple and the death ofJesus. For John, the cleansing occurs atthe very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (seeJohn 2:13–17), not after his triumphal entry

into Jerusalem. Why does John place itthere? One reason is to introduce Jesus’prophesy of his death from the beginning;another is to show Jesus working at acleansed temple, where he often wentthroughout his ministry.

Latter-day Saints understand thatJesus, the Holy One, was innocent of anycrime. Indeed, in John’s good news, Jesuswas not convicted of anything. In John wefind no mention of any Jewish court at all,let alone a verdict against him; and on thispoint I think John is right. Even in dis-cussing the synoptic accounts, it is some-thing of a misnomer to speak of the “trial”of Jesus. There was a hearing (maybe) orperhaps an inquiry or attempted deposi-tion and the voicing of an opinion of howthings “appeared” (as the Greek reads inMatthew 26:66 and Mark 14:64), but not atrial and verdict.

Latter-day Saints agree with John thatan innocent Jesus died for the wholeworld, for all mankind, and that the wholesinful world in a significant sense broughtabout the death of Jesus. Look who arrestshim in John’s account: not just a group ofmen with torches, as in the other Gospels,but a cohort of soldiers, servants of chiefpriests and Pharisees (see John 18:3), andthe commander or chiliarchos (see John18:12). The whole world, it seems, was sym-bolically there. This seems particularlyconsonant with another important revela-tion extended to us by the Book ofMormon. Nephi prophesied: “And theworld, because of their iniquity, shall judgehim to be a thing of naught; whereforethey scourge him, [smite him and spitupon him] and he suffereth it, . . . becauseof his loving kindness and his long-suffer-ing towards [all] the children of men” (1Nephi 19:9).

R E F L E C T I O N 9 | If we need to find a precipitating culprit in all of this, theprime and persistent movers in the finalactions against Jesus were probably only a small group identified as “the chiefpriests,” the most powerful and bestknown officials of Jerusalem. An interest-ing pattern emerges by carefully examin-ing every reference to these chief priests: It is the chief priests and scribes of whomHerod asks about the birthplace of the

Messiah. When Jesus prophesies about hisdeath in Matthew 16:21, he mentions onlythe chief priests, elders, and scribes asbeing involved. It is the chief priests andelders who in the temple question Jesus’authority. The chief priests alone seekJesus’ death after the raising of Lazarus.Judas betrays Jesus to the chief priests.The chief priests alone demand Jesus’death before Pilate in Mark 15:3; and in the end, it is they who want the title toread, “He said, I am King of the Jews”(John 19:21).

Fourteen times in the Gospels andfour times in Acts, the chief priests actalone against Jesus or his disciples.Eighteen other times they act togetherwith the elders, rulers, captains, or theSanhedrin. Twenty-one times they areassociated with the scribes. Clearly thechief priests and these associates of theirsare the driving force behind the arrestand execution of Jesus. The Phariseesoften debated Jesus and were verballydenounced by him, but they are men-tioned much less often, and they lackedthe political muscle of the Sadducceanchief priests, whose party had a strongmajority in the Sanhedrin. It is not hardto see that small group of chief priests as the one consistent force that agitatedand militated against Jesus and his disci-ples. Their crowd was not large; certainlyit did not contain all the Jews.

This subtle point is consistent with an important passage in the Book ofMormon. In 2 Nephi 10:5 it clearly saysthat it would be “because of priestcrafts[in other words, because of a small, pow-erful group interested in trafficking in reli-gion for money] and iniquities, [that] theyat Jerusalem will stiffen their necksagainst him, that he be crucified.” TheBook of Mormon by no means implicatesor condemns all Jews.

In this regard, we should also remem-ber the testimony of Paul. As a student of Gamaliel, Paul would have been wellinformed about legal events in Jerusalem,and he adds an important corroborationto this Book of Mormon position. Thewords in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 speak ofJews who killed Jesus. Notice the greatimportance of the punctuation betweenthese words: should it read “the Jews who

12 Clark Memorandum

killed Jesus,” with no comma (meaningthe particular Jews who killed Jesus)? orshould it read “the Jews [comma] whokilled Jesus” (meaning that all of themkilled Jesus)? This is the most famouspunctuation mark in the world and isknown as the “antisemitic comma.” Butbased on the Greek construction of thissentence, no punctuation mark should bethere. Paul spoke only of those particularJews who killed Jesus. Surely many Jewsaccepted Jesus. Peter was a Jew. Mary wasa Jew. John was a Jew. Those in the crowdson Palm Sunday were all Jews.

REFLECTION 10 | Finally, especially forJohn, Jesus was in full control from thebeginning to the end. At the beginning ofhis ministry, Jesus spoke of his death evento prominent Jewish leaders and othersoutside his circle of disciples. Speaking toNicodemus, Jesus said, “Even so must theSon of man be lifted up” (John 3:14).

Consistent throughout his writing,John reports the death of Jesus with Jesusknowing exactly what was required tocarry out the plan. When his hour hadcome, Jesus knew and “bowed his head,and handed over his spirit” (according tothe Greek in John 19:30). Might it be signif-icant that this same word is used threetimes in the story: when Judas betrayed orhanded Jesus over to his arresters; whenthe Jews handed Jesus over to Pilate; andwhen Jesus handed over his spirit to God?For John, we must never forget that it isGod who is voluntarily, purposefully, andknowingly dying as planned.

With all this as background, and know-ing that much more work still remains tobe done, we can now cautiously offer ananswer to the question Who was responsi-ble for the death of Jesus? For John and forLatter-day Saints, the whole world killedJesus. As Nephi prophesied, the whole“world” would kill their God (1 Nephi19:9). And if everyone was responsible, then,in an important sense, no one was responsi-ble or to blame. Or if someone specificallywere to blame, that is quite irrelevant forJohn, the apostle of love.

Of course, iniquity played its part.But, ironically, Greeks and pagans, forwhom the gods could be found anywhere,were quite accepting of miracle workers.

The Jewish legal system, however—with its prohibitions against witchcraft, necro-mancy, and idolatry—effectively made theJews (as the Book of Mormon says) theonly nation on earth in which anyonecould have cared enough about suchsupernatural conduct to have reacted withsuch hostility and to have “stumbled”against the very presence of their God intheir midst, as Jacob says (Jacob 4:15).

In 2 Nephi 10:3–6 Jacob writes that itwas “expedient” (which means pragmati-cally effective, “tending to promote somegood end or desired purpose, expedi-tiously, quickly, and profitably”) thatJesus “should come among the Jews,” for“thus it behooveth [or was fittingly neces-sary for] our God.” Jacob identified thatOld World location as “the more wickedpart of the world,” with more wickedbeing a comparative between two places.From Jacob’s point of view, the questionwas whether Jesus should come to theOld World or to the New, and his answeris, to the Old, for its inhabitants wouldbe more wicked than his posterity. Hefurther explains, “And there is noneother nation on earth that would crucifytheir God,” and I hasten to emphasizethat this statement views this conduct incollective terms and does not infer thatall people in that body necessarily agreedwith their national leaders on this action.Continuing on, Jacob writes, “For shouldthe mighty miracles be wrought amongother nations they would repent, andknow that he be their God.” We canindeed agree that such recognition wouldhave been more easily given by people incultures of other religions, where lawsagainst such activity did not warrant thedeath penalty.

There may have been some miscar-riages of justice in the trial of Jesus, but Ido not think that John or Jacob want usto think of the death of Jesus that way.Jesus was not a victim. His death was sup-posed to happen. It had to happen. Forthis reason, God in his mercy does notcome out and place blame on any singleperson or group of people. The writers ofthe New Testament Gospels were inten-tionally ambiguous. They could have beenmuch clearer about who killed Jesus ifthey had wanted to be, but that was not

their point. Even in Judas’ case, we do notknow what motivated him; things cer-tainly did not turn out the way he hadintended or expected.

In the final analysis, overwhelmedwith irrational fear, all of them knew notwhat they really did. As Peter said only afew weeks later to those very people inJerusalem “who killed the Prince of life,”“I [know] that through ignorance ye didit, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:15, 17).Jesus forgave people as he hung on thecross, forgiving whom he would; and ofus it is required that we forgive all people.Whereas God will judge, we are to judgenot. Placing blame is not part of this pic-ture. Masterfully understating all thathappened, all Jesus said, out of the dark-ness to the Nephites, was, “I came untomy own, and my own received me not” (3 Nephi 9:16). Let us never forget that we also reject and crucify Jesus anewwhenever we partake of the world and itsdarkness.

In his first general epistle, the ApostleJohn concluded: “And we know that theSon of God is come, [we have heard; wehave seen with our eyes, and handled withour hands] and he hath given us an under-standing, that we may know him that istrue, and we are in him that is true, even inhis Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,and eternal life” (1 John 5:20 [1 John 1:1]). Byreflecting carefully and cautiously on theevents and causes leading up to the deathof Jesus, one may more surely agree thathe is indeed the Son of God, of whom the Book of Mormon and all the holyprophets have ever testified.

John W. Welch is the Robert K. ThomasProfessor of Law in the J. Reuben Clark LawSchool at Brigham Young University. Editorin chief of byu Studies, he also is director ofpublications for the Joseph Fielding SmithInstitute and founding director of FARMS(the Foundation for Ancient Research andMormon Studies).

page 2 Rembrandt, Ecce Homo. © National Gallery, London.

Used by permission.

page 6 Rembrandt, The Raising of Lazarus. Courtesy Museum of

Art, Brigham Young University. All rights reserved.

page 11 Rembrandt, Annunciation to the Shepherds. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam. Used by permission.

13Clark Memorandum