Here’s a previous thread (wow, over ten years ago!) that discusses the matter.
The obvious point first - other people killed Jesus, so what we’re really talking about is something along the lines of suicide by willingly entering a murderous situation.
[QUOTE=Luke 22 14-22 (NIV)]
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!”
[/QUOTE]
It seems reasonable to say that Jesus knew in advance that he was going to be killed. Likewise, he knew in advance that he was going to be betrayed to this, too; he had opportunity to avoid it, at least at this moment.
So is Jesus willingly going to his own death in this manner, even if it would be at the hands of others, “suicide”?
Usually we do not view people who sacrifice their self for others to be committing suicide.
For example a soldier who leaps on a grenade in order to save his squadmates is not considered to have committed suicide. Nor is a person helping people out of a burning building suicidal if they die doing it.
We are told Jesus died for our sins. He was doing it to become a martyr for our benefit. Essentially he jumped on the proverbial hand grenade to save humanity.
I think a major difference there is that in the second situation, death isn’t guaranteed - indeed, if it’s avoidable while still helping others, it would be. This is true to a lesser extent with the soldier throwing themselves onto a grenade; death is a risk, not a certainty. And beyond that, I would argue that in some cases, we do speak about people taking on unbelievable or foolhardy risks as “death-seekers”.
That said, if a soldier threw themselves on a grenade to protect their fellows with a 100% certainty that they would die, I would call that a suicide. A noble suicide, but suicide nonetheless.
Would the Catholic church deny that soldier a Catholic burial? (at least under their old rules…IIRC the Catholic church has modified its stance towards suicide and will now give them a Catholic burial but it was not always so)
There isn’t enough solid evidence to draw any conclusions on the plans, ideas, and thoughts of the historical Jesus (or exactly what happened to him, or if he even existed.) Even within Christian denominations, there is no solid consensus on the nature of Jesus. Even taken entirely as a fictional narrative, the motivations aren’t clear.
I guess if you want a very strict definition that suicide is whenever a person takes their own life or places them self in an entirely avoidable position to have someone else take their life (e.g. suicide by cop/centurion) then yeah…it is suicide.
However, I think this goes against most people’s feelings about suicide which is a person taking their own life because they do not want to live anymore. I think there are plenty of martyrs through history or people trying to save others who died but not because they had given up on living.
It isn’t a matter of “wanting” a very strict definition.
I’d also disagree that’s it’s that strict. Speaking of what most people’s feelings are, I would say that “suicide bomber” is a popular term for, well, suicide bombers. They would seem to fall under the kind of criteria you talk about where the death itself is not the aim of the action, nor due to the person in question not wanting to live anymore.
If someone said, “My cousin committed suicide”, certainly I think my first thought would be of a depressed person who took their own life. But I think you might be taking a common image of suicide and applying it to all uses of the term. The first thing I think of if someone says “I like carrots” is an orange vegetable. That doesn’t mean that purple carrots aren’t carrots; it’s just that that’s not the popular image.
Given that the same thing could have been accomplished without the crucifixion and death, yeah, kinda. God could have just waved his hand and said, “Okay, humanity has suffered enough; you’re all forgiven, so long as you believe in my son. This guy over here, preaching. Don’t kill him, okay?”
It’s like the soldier throwing himself on the grenade…rather than kicking it down into the disposal hole (some bunkers were built with holes specifically for that purpose.)
Or just picking it up and throwing it back; that happened now and then.
I guess, technically, you can’t kill Jesus. You can make his earthly body stop working but that’s just a meat suit for Jesus…he doesn’t really need it.
He didn’t commit suicide because he didn’t die (or was only temporarily dead).
Yes, if you assume Jesus to be an immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing god who slummed it for the equivalent of an eyeblink and then went straight back to being the eternal ruler of a perfect realm and knew that would happen after his “death”, then not only brings into question the idea of it being suicide but also how meaningful that death would be.
But if you don’t make that assumption, and don’t assume that every word of the Gospels is the gospel truth, then you hit the ambiguity. Did the historical Jesus (if there was one) believe that he was a god? Did he believe that god would save him from being executed? One of the lines from the Gospels that seems to support the argument that there was a historical (IMHO) is the line where he cries out from the cross asking God why he abandoned him–which I read to mean that he was hurt and confused that he wasn’t rescued, or didn’t lead a successful revolt against Rome. If so, it wouldn’t be considered suicide because (like so many others before and after) he was confident that his god had his back.
Taking the Historical Jesus as a concept, I think he didn’t commit suicide, but, instead, panicked and stopped short of what he (and his followers) thought he was going to do.
Instead of proclaiming himself the Messiah at the Temple, he backed away, stood down, and got involved in petty issues. He could have had a massive crowd whipped up into religious zeal and fury, but he didn’t take that last step.
Everything else follows; he gave the priests and the Romans the time and opportunity to arrest him.
The problem there is threefold. One, you don’t hear the word used that way. The guy who does that is not considered to have committed suicide.
And, two, it’s still his own act that causes the final death. But Jesus didn’t kill himself. He just didn’t save himself. Others actually did the killing. God didn’t make them want to crucify him. He just knew it would happen.
And, third, that guy on the grenade stays dead. Jesus comes back to life. It’s kinda hard to call it a suicide if you know you’re coming back.
Sure, maybe treating it like a suicide might make some Christians be less judgemental on suicide. But we’ve largely already got that working anyways. So I see no practical reason to call suicide, either.
I mean, there’s a reason why he is crucified, not just dying painlessly. It’s taking on all the suffering that is relevant in the whole “he suffered for us” part. His death just shows that sin can die and the Resurrection shows that we can come back.
The question becomes meaningless then, since you lose the “knew he was going to die” aspect. So then he just was killed by the Romans. Assuming he was even killed at all.