Would the Real Pontius Pilate Please Stand Up?
Pilate then had Jesus scourged. Afterwards, he presented Him to the crowd and they again demanded his death. Pilate, once again, defended Him saying he found absolutely no reason to put Him to death. According to John 19:7, the Jews yelled, “We have a law, and according that that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” This made Pilate very fearful, for the Romans were notorious for having literally dozens of gods. For all Pilate knew, Jesus was one of them.
He brought Christ back inside and asked Him where He was from. Jesus did not answer. Pilate was becoming more desperate and said to Him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have the authority to crucify you?” (John 19:10 ESV) Jesus, after being nearly beaten to death and most likely in the beginning stages of hypovolemic shock from severe blood loss, looked at Pilate and calmly answered, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore, he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:11 ESV) Now, that’s not something Pilate was accustomed to hearing from a prisoner!
This powerful governor with the reputation of being cruel and violent, uncharacteristically squirmed between knowing he would be condemning an innocent man and facing an ever more excitable and riotous crowd who could, at any moment spiral out of control. He could not afford for this to happen.
About this time, as Pilate was seated on the Bema, a seat of judgment on the Gabbatha, a mosaic pavement in front of the palace, he received an urgent message from his wife, Claudia Procula. Matthew 27:19 ESV says she warned, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of Him today in a dream.” The pressure mounted.
After one last attempt to reason with the crowd, the Jews told him that if he released Jesus, he was not Caesar’s friend. This was a veiled threat from the Jewish leaders. In other words, if Pilate did not acquiesce to their demand, they might charge him with treason against Rome. By this time, Pilate had had enough. He called for a bowl of water and symbolically washed his hands before the crowd, announcing that he was innocent of Jesus’ blood. He then turned Christ over to the soldiers to be crucified.
As a last act of defiance and control, Pilate had an inscription attached to the cross, printed in Aramaic, Latin and Greek which stated, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” The chief priests, rather emboldened by their new found but temporary power, instructed Pilate to change the wording. Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.” (John 19:22 ESV)
So who was this man, this normally ruthless, brutal, cold-blooded governor of Judea? When confronted with Jesus, what happened to his customarily unyielding, heavy-handed methods of dealing with accused criminals? Was it the early hour that softened his stance? Was it the unexpected warning from his wife not to deal with, “this righteous man”? Or was it something else? Did he somehow subconsciously recognize the Deity of Christ? I have to wonder which man was the “real” Pilate and if his life was forever changed by his encounter with the Son of God.
Posted on March 17, 2008 12:00 AM
Comments
I believe this article proves that no one encounters the living Christ and remains unchanged, even a Roman strongman with a penchant for unnecessary executions.
Posted by: journalboy | March 18, 2008 1:27 PM
I think this is a good meditation, but the Gospels are not accurate in their portrayal of Pilate. The picture we get from other (non-Christian) sources do depict a more accurate picture. He was a ruthless, blood-thirsty man, the "Jews" as John's gospel calls the crowds, did not really want Jesus to be killed. It was a small minority, scholars differ, but it was most likely the aristocratic Temple priests or the conservative Sadducees, not the general public of the "Jews". The various communities from which our gospels came from had a political agenda to not make the Christians seem threatening to the Roman authority, and therefore painted the Jews to be mostly responsible for the death of Jesus and his "controversies" with the "Pharisees" and other Jewish authorities causing this, rather than Jesus' radical message that not only challenged the Jewish peasants he encountered but the very governmental structure of Palestine. Jesus was followed by a rag tag group of individuals, some with sympathies to the guerrilla "Zealot" fighters. Jesus wasn't killed because the "Jews" didn't like him, and that he preached "grace" and "love" over legalism and the "Law" rather he was killed for disturbing the peace of the fat, comfortable aristocracy, political figures and religious leaders in Jerusalem, and his message of the "Kingdom" threatened of anarchy and revolution.
I would recommend ANYTHING by E.P. Sanders to get a good grasp on the political situation and cultural context of Jesus' life (specifically "The Historical Figure of Jesus" and the larger and more comprehensive "Jesus and Judaism"). Obviously N.T. Wright is good here as well, but I prefer Sanders' work over Wright's. And Paula Fredriksen's "Jesus of Nazareth" is important as well. And for a radical reassessment of the Historical Jesus see John D Crossan's "Historical Jesus: Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant". And most importantly John P. Meier's magisterial series "A Marginal Jew" is a must (my personal favorite, although Sanders is close behind)!
Often times the Gospels have been twisted to make the Jewish people guilty of the execution of Christ, I am not saying this wonderful piece does this, but we have to be careful about letting a tyrant like Pilate of the hook so easily. That is what is so disturbing about Gibson's film, is that it takes historically inaccurate parts of the Gospels and portrays Pilate as an unwilling victim of the violent, frenzied crowds of the terrible "Jews".
I am Eastern Orthodox, and every Holy Friday before the glorious feast of Pascha (Easter), my skin crawls at the Liturgy and how it filled with such indignation toward the "Jews" and how this liturgy was probably composed during the early Middle Ages by Christian monks with a huge gulf between the Jewish sect that the Apostles were apart of and the cloistered Hellenized faith they were apart of in a majority Christian society filled with anti-Jewish sentiments. As the catholic (universal) Church we need to try our hardest as Christians to reconcile with our Jewish brothers and sisters, and apologize for the more uncomfortable aspects (and occasionally biased) accounts of our Lord's life.
Posted by: Guy Barnhart | March 20, 2008 1:46 PM
I agree wholehearty with Guy's comment, very well put.
I will like to add that at the time Rome was not about to bow down to Jews, high priest or not. If a contingency of soldiers was sent to arrest Messiah is because in Pilate's mind he was already guilty. In those days anyone with a large following such as Messiah had was suspected of treason against Rome.
It is my understanding that the tradition of allowing a prisoner free came in the late 300's during Easter, not Passover. Also the Sanhendrin met in daylight in the Temple, not at night, and on the eve or the first day of Passover.
It is also highly unlikely that a group of Jews would have assembled agaisnt Messiah a few days after they welcomed Him in Jerusalem with palm branches and in a city where 4 years earlier 2000 Jews were cruxified by Quinlilius Varus as a result of a Jewish revolt.
Besides, if all the apostles ran for cover, how would they really know what transpired behind closed doors?
Posted by: Susana Hernandez | June 28, 2009 7:00 PM