Logout
Of course he was innocent, responds every ounce of theology and tradition. Our salvation rests on this, that Jesus was fully God and thus incapable of sin, that his suffering and death is liberative because it was unmerited. Surely this man was innocent, the centurion at the cross declares.
But what does it mean to be innocent?
For Jesus to be innocent cannot mean that he was private and reserved. Jesus’ ministry before Jerusalem was markedly public, despite frequent pleas to keep his messianic identity a secret. His triumphant entry into Jerusalem was at best brazen, an intentional employing of prophetic imagery to offer a counternarrative to Pontius Pilate and Caesar’s reign. The throng outside the city greeted him with political chants, declaring him king in direct opposition to the emperor. Jesus used a weapon to cleanse the temple, disrupting the economy and likely damaging supplies and other property.
For Jesus to be innocent cannot mean that he was above suspicion. Prior to his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus and his followers traveled constantly and met in small house groups, keeping themselves out of the public eye. He had no means of income and encouraged his followers to abandon theirs. On the night of Passover, Jesus and his disciples retreated out of the city to gather in secret in the Garden of Gethsemane. He advised his followers to arm themselves with swords, to the point that they violently resisted his arrest.
For Jesus to be innocent cannot mean that he was law-abiding. The legal accusations against Jesus were numerous and, at least from a certain point of view, honest. Presented with the opportunity to affirm the paying of Roman taxes, he offered an ambiguous answer, lacking proper deference to the empire. Most egregiously, he committed blasphemy in claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God, a charge translated into Roman law as a claim to be king of the Jews. These are all honest accusations: after all, there is no provision permitting such claims if you actually are the Chosen One.
For Jesus to be innocent cannot mean that he could be found not guilty. The religious leaders and Herod Antipas all declare Jesus culpable. Pilate at first attempts to declare no charges against him but is swayed by the crowd to condemn him to crucifixion. Public opinion is no guarantee of innocence either since that crowd turns so violently against him.
For Jesus to be innocent cannot mean that he could be released, for we know that instead he suffered the sentence of death on a cross.
Jesus was guilty. He was open in his declarations challenging the government. He acted suspiciously and associated with unsavory characters. He broke both Jewish and Roman laws. He was found guilty, condemned and executed. By all measures we use to determine innocence, Jesus met none. The story should have been unremarkable. Any unbiased newspaper of his time would have reprinted the relevant federal statements on the third page of the “Local” section and summarily moved on.
What we as Christians recite as incontrovertible would have gone against all available declarations by local ministers, law enforcement and government agencies. And Jesus’ vindication (and thus ours!) would come not through due process and proper procedure but through the laughable gossip of a few sleepy-eyed women—people so far outside of the judicial system that their testimony was often inadmissible in court.
What does it mean that we believe—for all intents, really, we require—that Jesus was innocent? That we, as believers, receive part of our salvation from rejecting what would have been the dominant narratives?
First, we learn that we can’t unconditionally trust voices of power. The Empire, whether it be Holy or Roman or both or neither, will do what it must to protect itself. The powers that be will lie, they will distort, they will be so controlled by their own narrative that they cannot witness reality even when it happens before their eyes. The Empire had to find Jesus guilty. What other lies has power created in its millennia of corruption?
But second, we learn we also can’t unquestionably accept counternarratives when they conveniently align with our own biases. If we reject all available “proof” of Jesus’ guilt because we, with the gift of history, know Easter morning’s surprise, we miss the divine alignment with the guilty. Jesus was not found guilty on accident. The wisdom that made the vast universe and each microscopic atom within it became intentionally incarnate among the poor, the suspect and the condemned. God will not be knit up with perjuring authority. God will not align with power even as a means to an end. God takes the losing side, and in Jesus’ supposed guilt makes winners of us all.
