All About Pilate -- Part 2

Mark 15:6-15

Truth or fiction. "What is truth?"[i] Or maybe it's "whose" truth.

The story of Pilate -- as written -- focuses on an annual custom at Passover in which the Roman governor would grant amnesty to a prisoner. Such an act would be looked upon in favor by the Jews. And Pilate needed all the "favor" he could get.

Presented with a dilemma, the annual custom afforded Pilate with a way out. He would offer release to either a murderer or to the peaceful prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. The people's choice. Surely they would side with this Jesus who was given a hero's welcome just a few days earlier.

One would think… however that wasn't the case. While Pilate was doing his best to stay a step ahead of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council had "persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed."[ii] The hero in the eyes of this stirred up crowd was the insurrectionist, Barabbas. They were drawn to a warrior rebelling against Rome; not the passive peacemaker. Who would make a better vanquisher for the people?

This uprising against "the King of the Jews" put the Roman prefect in a quandary. If a riot broke out over this situation, and if he were reported to the Emperor Tiberius Caesar, it would cost Pilate dearly. Was it worth his job to save a wronged man?

'The Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor."'[iii]

With his primary job to keep the peace, is it any wonder Pilate chose to release Barabbas? Nonetheless, having to acquiesce to the people's adamant demand, and with disgust, Pilate 'took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves."'[iv]

Turning this story on its head,…

What if the scene with Barabbas never happened?

Historical research indicates no evidence that the Romans released prisoners at Passover. Plus given Pilate's demeanor as described in written accounts, including those of Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, what are the odds this Roman governor would've freed an insurrectionist against Rome -- especially if a Roman life had been taken? Odds like winning the Lotto.

So, if this story wasn't factual, why did Mark deliberately concoct a fictitious scene?

Because of Rome. The author didn't write this gospel account for the Jews; he wrote it for the Romans.

Prior to the first Jewish-Roman war in 66 AD, Christianity was a small Jewish sect centered in Israel. Mark's gospel account became available (most likely) at the conclusion of the war in 70 AD. At that point, "the center of the Christian movement shifted from Jewish Jerusalem to the Graeco-Roman cities of the Mediterranean: Alexandria, Corinth, Ephesus, Damascus, Antioch, Rome. A generation after Jesus' crucifixion, his non-Jewish followers outnumbered and overshadowed the Jewish ones."[v]

If the target audience was to be Rome, how receptive to the story of Jesus would they be if Pilate was shown in a negative light? If one of their own, a Roman governor, was considered the culprit behind Jesus' death? As Joe* stated to the study group, doing so would be "bad for sales."

Did You Know…?

Some scholars would say the gospel writers also chose to emphasize the pacifist side of Jesus which would be more appealing to the Romans rather than to a Jewish nationalist who wanted Rome's downfall. "Scattered across the Roman Empire, it was only natural for the gospel writers… to adapt Jesus' words and actions to the new political situation in which they found themselves."[vi]

If "true" this scene never happened, why else did Mark include it in the gospel account? He wanted to show change is never easy, and did so by providing an opportunity of choice -- even when we know which opportunity was for the betterment of all.

Mark presented us with a selection to be made -- not with just one Jesus but with two: Jesus Barabbas and Jesus "called the Messiah"[vii] 'Barabbas is Aramaic for "son of the father." '[viii]

One Jesus -- the son of a human father; the other Jesus -- the Son of God the Father. When offered an option between the two, the crowd chose human fallibility over divinity,… war over peace,… hate over love. Gene* shared Jesus Barabbas would've been easier in which to relate.

Mark wanted the readership to understand that the people still didn't accept the Christ. The crowd preferred the Messianic conqueror of the old covenant -- that for which they were familiar -- instead of the Messiah of the new covenant. By "forcing" Pilate to make a decision against Jesus the Christ, the blame-game was shifted on to the Jewish people.

'Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"'[ix]

Taking it a step further, who riled up the crowd to shout "Crucify him!"? The Jewish authorities. It was the Sanhedrin who wanted Jesus to die. Even so, if Matthew 27:25 is taken literally, an entire people are damned for eternity as well as their bloodline.

Misinterpretation of this story, along with misplaced emphasis on this verse, has allowed for a long history of anti-Semitism. It's absolutely ludicrous to place the blame at the feet of the Jews -- who in turn made blameless a Roman governor known for countless executions and wrongful acts.

Ultimately, who was responsible for Jesus' death? Everyone.

* The Sanhedrin and other religious leaders wanted to be rid of this thorn in their side. They believed the crucifixion of Jesus would put an end to their woes.

* The people desired someone who would restore the Promised Land to the Jews. In their eyes, that someone wasn't Jesus.

* Barabbas or no Barabbas, Pilate made the ruling. He could've made a different decision. But he didn't.

* The Roman soldiers tortured Jesus during the flogging, and gravely injured him. "An expert at wielding the scourge could literally tear the flesh from the back, lacerating muscles, and sometimes even exposing the kidneys or other internal organs."[x]

* The disciples were just as culpable for Jesus' death. Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, and the disciples left him.

Everyone was responsible. No one left unscathed.

As for us, if involved in this chaotic nightmare of a mess,… what would we have done? Who would the story have been about?

NEXT

A horrific, mock coronation; the man who played a larger role than just carrying a cross

---

[i] John 18:38

[ii] Matthew 27:20

[iii] John 19:12

[iv] Matthew 27:24

[v] Zealot, Aslam -- p. 150

[vi] Zealot, Aslam -- p. 149

[vii] Matthew 27:17

[viii] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 92

[ix] Matthew 27:25

[x] MacArthur Study Bible -- p. 1448

* Member of the study group

All About Pilate -- Part 1

Mark 15:1-5

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 the reason for Jesus' silence to fulfill prophecy? Isaiah 42:1-2; Isaiah 53:7.

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

---

[i] Zealot, Aslam -- p. 149

[ii][ii] Legatio ad Gaium 299-305 (translated by E.M. Smallwood)

[iii] Jewish Annotated New Testament -- p. 93

The Cowardly Lion

Mark 14:54, 66-72

This is a heart-wrenching story. Yet, just because there's an end, does it mean that's "the end"?

How often in our own lives do we judge someone over disappointment or because there's been a disagreement? "You don't agree with me, so we're done!" "You didn't stick up for me, so we're done!" "What you did was shameful beyond belief, so we're done!" The End.

Where is there room for grace? For mercy? For healing? For growth? Isn't this what Jesus is about?

To throw stones at Peter is easy. In the face of adversity, Peter failed. He denied Jesus not once; not twice; he denied knowing Jesus three times. Instead of being courageous, Peter used this moment for self-preservation.

Let's take a step back though and piece the story together. Let's see what "the end" truly is.

Earlier that evening, Jesus told the disciples, "You will become deserters."  Peter immediately responded, "Even though all become deserters, I will not." What happened then in the Garden of Gethsemane? Upon Jesus' arrest, the disciples fled. All of them.

End of the story? No. In all of the ensuing chaos, Peter drummed up the courage to stealthily follow Jesus to the house of the High Priest. While he wasn't inside, Peter stood on the outside in the courtyard. This disciple meant to keep his word.

On a cold night, Peter warmed himself by the fire. In the light produced by the flames, he was recognized by one of the High Priest's servant-girls who "stared at him."

"You were also with Jesus, the man from Nazareth."

How did a servant-girl have this knowledge? Jesus preached the message of Good News to all, but especially to the poor, to those in need. Would not this servant-girl have been drawn to such a message? Being a servant, even to the High Priest, wouldn't exclude one from being poor. It may have been an honor to serve Caiaphas, but a retirement plan wasn't in the works for that privilege of servitude.

By her statement, the servant-girl had actually been in the presence of Jesus -- at some point that week. How so? She had seen Peter "with Jesus, the man from Nazareth."

Peter knows he's standing on rocky pavement and in unfriendly confines. He utters a quick denial and makes his way to the gateway of the courtyard, but... he doesn't leave. "The cock crowed."

The servant-girl doesn't want a potentially money-making opportunity to escape. She says to others in the crowd, "This man is one of them."

While her heart may have been lifted by Jesus' message for a better future to come, the servant-girl had an opportunity to be instantly rewarded in her "present." To turn in a wanted man -- and the disciples were wanted -- would've lined someone's purse. Hers.

Again, Peter verbally denies it. In so doing, an observation is made by someone nearby.

"Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."

How did they know? Peter's accent gave him away. It was known fact that 11 of the 12 disciples were from Galilee. Standing in the courtyard of the High Priest at this absurd hour and with this emotionally wrought throng, no one would want to be associated with Jesus. Guilt by association would equal death.

What is Peter's response? For the third time, he denies Jesus. Vehemently. "I do not know this man you are talking about."

The rooster crows (or the priestly Temple Crier calls out) for the second time. At that moment, in saving his own neck, Peter realizes what he has done. "And he broke down and wept."

Why wasn't Peter arrested? By weeping, he admitted his guilt, yes? Not under that type of stress and pressure. His breakdown could've easily been looked upon as nothing more than weakness. Who among them could provide the necessary proof that Peter was a disciple?

Is this a story of cowardice? Of shame? It has those elements but there's more to the story.

The writer of the Gospel of Mark was very sharp. He brought irony to the page. On the inside of the High Priest's palace, false witness was being provided against Jesus. Simultaneously, on the outside, false witness was also provided.

Who among the disciples was the first to be called by Jesus? Peter. Mark 1:16-17. Who was the first to state Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah? Peter. Mark 8:29. Who was the first to openly deny knowing Jesus? Peter.

Swept up under the horrible circumstances surrounding Peter, one can understand why he collapsed from the weight of his words. He wept. Not just a few tears. He wept.

And even then, does the story end here? No.

Through his tears, Peter turned to God for forgiveness and mercy. Peter mourned his weakness. He wanted to be strong; to become the man who Jesus knew he could be.

In 2 Kings 20:4-5, the great prophet Isaiah heard these words coming from God, 'Turn back and say to Hezekiah prince of my people, "Thus says the Lord, the God of your ancestor David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; indeed, I will heal you;...."'

Because "I have heard your prayer," because "I have seen your tears," you will be healed.

That is a beautiful message of forgiveness, of grace, of mercy, of healing, of hope.

In this moment of utter despair, Peter's life changed forever. He would never be the same. If this story of Peter's denial ended with him in a heap of cowardice and shame, what would've happened to Jesus' message of Good News? Most likely this Gospel account would've never been written. Mark, the author, eventually followed Peter who gained fortitude and shared his witness to the masses. Mark, who was in the Garden of Gethsemane and fled as well, became inspired by Peter's courage and his wherewithal to grow from this experience.

Like the Cowardly Lion at the end of "The Wizard of Oz," Peter is no longer filled with fear. His story of shame ultimately becomes one known for his courage.

We aren't called to be perfect, and we won't be perfect even when answering that call. At times, we will be weak when we want to be strong. However with a humbled heart, we will eventually grow into who God wants us to be.

NEXT

It's all about Pilate