At daybreak, the Sanhedrin
"bound Jesus, led him away, and
handed him over to Pilate."
As far as the Sanhedrin
council was concerned, everything was going according to plan.
* Judas had provided the
time and place where Jesus would be;
* A pre-arrangement --
between Caiaphas and Pilate to secure Roman soldiers -- aided in the prophet's
apprehension;
* Jesus committed
blasphemy in the eyes of the Jewish court, which swung the door wide open for a
sentence of death.
All that remained for the "fait accompli" was Pilate's
approval as "supreme judge." As the prefect of the Roman provinces of
Judea, Samaria and Idumea, he had the ultimate power in ordering an execution
and to make it happen.
The Jewish leaders wanted
it to happen, especially under the jurisdiction of Rome. Consider the Sanhedrin
could've stoned Jesus to death given their earlier ruling. Leviticus 24:16
states, "One who
blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the
whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when
they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death."
The Torah is clear. So why
didn't they do this to Jesus?
By having Jesus sentenced
by a Roman leader to be crucified, the Sanhedrin could wash their hands of this
bloody business. Put the onus on Rome to divert all accusations against them.
This method of execution would specifically place Jesus in the category of criminal
or agitator, as well as create public humiliation to make his death even more
prominent.
Let Jesus die on a cross.
Such a death would further diminish the influence Jesus had over his followers.
How so? Because of the belief that crucifixion would bring a curse from God.
"This Jesus isn't blessed. He has been cursed!"
Deuteronomy 21:23 -- "…for anyone hung on a
tree is under God's curse."
Who better to drive the
nail in the cross than Pilate? This Roman governor was "a man renowned for
his loathing of the Jews, his total disregard for Jewish rituals and customs,
and his penchant for absentmindedly signing so many execution orders that a formal
complaint was lodged against him in Rome."[i]
Philo of Alexandria wrote
of Pilate, "specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts,
his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried
prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. He was a spiteful and angry
person."[ii]
In the Jewish War 2.175-177 and the Antiquities of the Jews 18.60-62,
Flavius Josephus accused Pilate of deliberately attempting to arouse
hostilities by using money from the Temple to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem.
While an aqueduct would be quite useful, the means to accomplish Pilate's
desired objective created such animosity that the people rioted. Many were
killed.
Would such a despicable
and cruel man spend even a moment of time to consider the fate of Jesus? Done
deal, indeed.
But… not so fast. In all
four Gospel accounts, Pilate asks this question, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Why is this so important?
It indicates Pilate was
previously informed of such a charge -- of Jesus being a king -- most likely by
the High Priest, Caiaphas, who wanted Roman soldiers to join Sanhedrin
representatives at Gethsemane. With this bit of news, the Roman prefect's
interest would be piqued, for a "king" ruled over his people. And
there was only one true king in Rome's eyes -- Tiberius Caesar.
Side Note -- Pilate may have also been curious if Jesus was
"King of the Jews." This title had been used previously. King Herod
the Great (a Jewish convert) had declared himself as such.
Jesus' reply to the Roman
governor's question wasn't the one expected. "You say so." Which
Mark followed by writing: "Then the
chief priests accused him of many things."
The hoped-for, easy stamp
of approval for Jesus to die on a cross had surprisingly become not-so-easy.
The tide had suddenly turned; thus, the onslaught of accusations. Pilate asks
Jesus, "Have you no answer?"
What had to take Pilate completely off-guard was the non-response. Accused
prisoners would vehemently deny charges made against them. Jesus' silence had
to have God-smacked Pilate.
Was Jesus silent because
Pilate had already pronounced him as innocent? Luke 23:4 -- 'Then Pilate said to the chief priests and
the crowds, "I find no basis for an accusation against this man."'
In the grand scheme of
things, it's intriguing how this Roman leader deemed to be heinous and
merciless would show mercy. Was Pilate toying with the Sanhedrin, to get back
at Caiaphas in some manner? Had the procurator smelled the trap being set -- to
put the blame on Rome as the reason why Jesus died? Or was he extremely concerned
about his own neck -- already being on thin ice with the Emperor for abuse of
power -- not wanting to upset the Jewish people at the Passover Feast thereby
causing another deadly riot?
Each Gospel account
progressively portrays Pilate in a sympathetic light. Matthew 27:1-2,11-14; Luke 23:1-16;
John 18:28-38.
While each trial narrative is slightly different, notice how Pilate's role is
ramped up -- being "forced" to rule against Jesus. The authors of the
gospels expanded upon the other's telling, working off of Mark's account.
In the Gospel of Peter
(written in the second century), Jesus is condemned by Herod Antipas -- not
Pilate. In the Gospel of Nicodemus (written in the fifth century), Pilate is
depicted even more friendlier toward Jesus. "After the dissemination of
the Gospels, Pilate was even considered a convert to Christianity, and he is
honored as a martyr in the Coptic Orthodox Church; his feast day is June
25."[iii]
Yet in all of these Gospel
stories, were Pilate's doubts actually exaggerated?
What could be gained in
portraying Pilate as compassionate? By detaching him further from Jesus' death?
When Barabbas is added
into the mix, it doesn't get any easier to figure out what's what.
NEXT
Human or Divine; war or
peace; truth or fiction; passing the buck
No comments:
Post a Comment