Irrelevant; the question we are examining is suicide — and we have a confession:No one takes it [his life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.
The question of murder is discretely separate; the two can coexist as well as independently exist.
This is perhaps a little easier than you might think:
Ask yourself: who administered the lashings?
Who drove the nails?
Who pierced his side with a spear?
All irrelevant to the question of suicide, unless you can prove that one cannot commit suicide by surrendering to the actions of others which the one in question knew beforehand would result in his death.
You have answered well. Based on the specific focus of your view, it seems—within that narrow view—that we might initially find reason to suspect the case of Jesus could be defined as a suicide. Although the fact that Jesus didn’t drive the nails would be seen as relevant in court—the ruling would be more complicated and probably very different from one pertaining to the case of Robin Williams.
But something tells me it’s just plain ludicrous to call what Jesus did suicide. Often, the best way to understand a particular circumstance is to broaden the view. So let’s do that here.
The broader—and higher—view is contained in the scripture you quote. Jesus Christ is the author of life. He can lay it down as well as he can take it up again.
None of us can do this. Therefore it is an entirely different act when men take their own lives. And it has a different name—suicide.