PILATE'S PROBLEM AND OURS

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

this was the sermon from my pastor this past sunday from the Gospel of John (read Pilate and Jesus conversation during his trial in John chapters 18 and 19 for background info)...I'll see if I cant find a video link, but the summary is posted below:

---

PILATE'S PROBLEM AND OURS 

As the Roman governor, Pilate's role was simple.  All he had to do was identify the criminal, identify his crime, and decide on a punishment.  But with Jesus he had a problem.

He couldn't identify Him.  He asked him if He was King of the Jews.  And he asked Him where He came from.  He didn't get clear answers.   

He established that He committed no crime, and even told the angry Jewish religious leaders, "I find no guilt in this man."

Yet he administered a flogging anyway.  And his soldiers put a crown of thorns on His head, and mocked Him.

Still the Jewish leaders were not satisfied. They demanded He be crucified, and Pilate complied.

1. Pilate let religion leaders overpower truth.

2. He let the crowd's opinion override the law.

3. He let evil trample on good.

You can see why Pilate's problem has become our own.

1. We, too, can be like Pilate and let "religion" become truth, instead of "Truth" Himself being truth.  "I am the way, the truth, the life," Jesus said.  "No man comes to the Father but by me."  But we have distinguished religious leaders today telling us we are archaic if we believe that. 

2. And we also let popular opinion determine what we let our kids wear, see, and practice.  We are so influenced by television and the entertainment industry that we have indeed become the generation defined by Jesus' own words, "They loved fables more than the truth."

3. And we constantly see "evil" trampling on "good."  This week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the Plano ISD case in which students were not allowed to hand out candy canes at Christmas because they were telling the story of Jesus in the red and white colors.

And a judge declared that the Medina Valley ISD could not include prayer, or even a hint of prayer at its graduation ceremonies.  Can't even say, "bow for a moment of silence."  He warned they would be in contempt of court and subject to jail sentences if they tried to used words like "amen," or anything else to hint of prayer.  In America!  A nation once proud of its Christian heritage!

We may be hours away from crucifying Christ.  We have lost our ability to defend Him.  We are like Pilate.  We know He is innocent.  But we fear the leaders, we fear their laws, and we enable evil to triumph over good.

Can we reverse this trend?

Only you know.

[Liberté]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

[Liberté]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

Roman law allowed for the execution of usurpers. All the hullabaloo about Christ being "King of the Jews" should be taken in a literal sense.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

Roman law allowed for the execution of usurpers. All the hullabaloo about Christ being "King of the Jews" should be taken in a literal sense.

but Pilate found no fault in him and washed his hands, nor was Jesus leading a rebelling against Roman rule of Judea

[Liberté]

Err, this -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- is not factually true. While the Biblical account seems to suggest that Pilate hadn't wanted to execute Christ (and this has been a matter of speculation for centuries), he was certainly within Roman law in doing so.

on what basis?

Roman law allowed for the execution of usurpers. All the hullabaloo about Christ being "King of the Jews" should be taken in a literal sense.

but Pilate found no fault in him and washed his hands, nor was Jesus leading a rebelling against Roman rule of Judea

The bit about Pilate washing his hands is, as I've said, a subject for debate. A lot of modern-day interpreters believe that Pilate was signaling his dislike for the 'circus' nature of the trial and contempt for the Jewish hierarchy. Others think it was a show to signal to Jesus' followers that the ultimate, real responsibility for the execution lay with that hierarchy. That doesn't mean it wasn't within Roman law as it was imposed by the Romans on the territories they conquered.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

IN a nutshell:

Pilate was a victem of peer preasure, so don't let yourself become one too.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The bit about Pilate washing his hands is, as I've said, a subject for debate. A lot of modern-day interpreters believe that Pilate was signaling his dislike for the 'circus' nature of the trial and contempt for the Jewish hierarchy. Others think it was a show to signal to Jesus' followers that the ultimate, real responsibility for the execution lay with that hierarchy. That doesn't mean it wasn't within Roman law as it was imposed by the Romans on the territories they conquered.

But the Gospels explicitly state Pilate’s reason for washing his hands.  You can’t cherry pick which aspects of the trial you believe and which you reject, without citing another source to refute the NT account of Jesus’ trial.

The NT account of his trial is historically accurate in its small details:
-That Pilate was ruler of Judea and had authority to execute
-That Herod Antipas was ruler of Galilee.
-That Caiaphus was the high priest.
-Crucifixion as a form of execution of non-Roman citizens.
-Flogging before execution
-Dividing up of the condemned man’s clothes
-Guarding of the execution site by Roman soldiers
-The condemned being made to carry their cross
-The condemned being nailed to their cross during crucifixion

…all of those are historically accurate within non-Christian first century sources

And then we have two non-Christian historical sources, one Roman (Tacitus) and one Jewish (Josephus) that verify that Jesus was executed by order of Pilate with the urging of the Jewish religious leaders.

So, on what basis do you doubt the reason for Pilate washing his hands?

[Liberté]

Leaving aside the fact that quite a few of those are not attested to within non-Christian first century sources, you've missed my point, which is:

So, on what basis do you doubt the reason for Pilate washing his hands?

There is no reason for it given in the Gospel account. Pilate's washing of his hands is rather conspicuous in that it's one of the few actions we don't see a motivation for within the text.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Leaving aside the fact that quite a few of those are not attested to within non-Christian first century sources, you've missed my point, which is:

So, on what basis do you doubt the reason for Pilate washing his hands?

There is no reason for it given in the Gospel account. Pilate's washing of his hands is rather conspicuous in that it's one of the few actions we don't see a motivation for within the text.

dont know how you're reading it, but, to me, the reason for him washing his hands is stated

 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked.

   They all answered, “Crucify him!”

 23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

   But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

 24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
 25 All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”

 26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

[Liberté]

4 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

That's not a reason, do you see? Why did Pilate feel Jesus was innocent? Did he feel it was the result of a kangaroo court on the part of the Temple establishment? Was it a political play against them, where he didn't really care about "this man's" innocence or guilt? Nothing is given. Pilate is an enigma in the Gospels.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

4 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

That's not a reason, do you see? Why did Pilate feel Jesus was innocent? Did he feel it was the result of a kangaroo court on the part of the Temple establishment? Was it a political play against them, where he didn't really care about "this man's" innocence or guilt? Nothing is given. Pilate is an enigma in the Gospels.

the reason Pilate felt Jesus was innocent is again, plainly given:

Luke 23:4
Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

John 18:38
“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him."

John 19:4
Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.”

John 19:6
As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

even a 5 year old can understand that

[Liberté]

*snip*

Again, that's not a reason: why does Pilate find "no basis for a charge" against that man? We are told what Pilate said; we are not told why Pilate said it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

*snip*

Again, that's not a reason: why does Pilate find "no basis for a charge" against that man? We are told what Pilate said; we are not told why Pilate said it.

could it be that Pilate found no basis because, perhaps, there was no basis to be found?!

I am starting to see why you were banned - you've got a bad case of Derekitis

[Liberté]

*snip*

Again, that's not a reason: why does Pilate find "no basis for a charge" against that man? We are told what Pilate said; we are not told why Pilate said it.

could it be that Pilate found no basis because, perhaps, there was no basis to be found?!

Under Roman law, once again, anyone accused of claiming to be "King of the Jews" (or, really, "King" of any of the peoples they dominated) could be executed as a usurper to Roman authority. Which is why John 18:33-37 are such important verses:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed. Pilate may have had reservations, but he was within his legal rights to execute Christ anyway. What we don't know is why Pilate had reservations about this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're one to talk.

[anvi]

It might be worth noting that other major sources on first-century Jewish history, Josephus and Philo, contain scathing accounts of Pilate's tenure as Perfect of Judea.  He frequently provoked popular hostility by departing from Roman precedent to display Roman religious images on soldiers' standards n public, and was reportedly rebuked several times by none other than Emperor Tiberius for these actions.  On at least two occasions, if not more, he instigated violent suppression of Jewish protest and religious observance, after one incident early in his perfectorate where he did concede to a protest about the aforementioned standards.  Tradition has it that his governorship was so inept and counter-productive to Roman wishes for relative peace in Judea in the '30's that Pilate was recalled to Rome and the exiled to Gaul.  He appeared, in view of all this, to have no admirers in the first-century community in Judea, which was in his charge; he was on the contrary seen as a nefarious and wicked Perfect.  On a personal level, he was observed to have a quick temper and prone to cruel vindictiveness.  In any case, if this was the accepted and widely-held view of Pilate in the first and second centuries, then Pilate might have been assumed to be the last guy in the world who would have been likely to have contemplated letting an accused "King of the Jews" go free.

This then raises a question about why Pilate would receive the portrayal in the Gospels that he does.  If the Gospel writers saw Pilate as bearing little responsibility for Jesus death, but instead saw him for the most part as giving in to the supposed popular will by having Jesus crucified, that would seem to indicate that they saw fit to lay most of the blame on Herod, temple leaders and the Jerusalem crowds.  Given how incredibly unpopular Pilate was among both Jewish and presumably even Roman audiences, the Gospels seem to be attempting to make a quite dramatic point, namely that if even an odious and ill-intentioned ruler like Pilate could tell Jesus was innocent of any crime, he must really have been innocent.  Whatever historical and religious reasons the Gospel writers had for trying to make this point, and there are a number of theories afoot for why they did, I think they were definitely trying to emphasize just that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It might be worth noting that other major sources on first-century Jewish history, Josephus and Philo, contain scathing accounts of Pilate's tenure as Perfect of Judea.  He frequently provoked popular hostility by departing from Roman precedent to display Roman religious images on soldiers' standards n public, and was reportedly rebuked several times by none other than Emperor Tiberius for these actions.  On at least two occasions, if not more, he instigated violent suppression of Jewish protest and religious observance, after one incident early in his perfectorate where he did concede to a protest about the aforementioned standards.  Tradition has it that his governorship was so inept and counter-productive to Roman wishes for relative peace in Judea in the '30's that Pilate was recalled to Rome and the exiled to Gaul.  He appeared, in view of all this, to have no admirers in the first-century community in Judea, which was in his charge; he was on the contrary seen as a nefarious and wicked Perfect.  On a personal level, he was observed to have a quick temper and prone to cruel vindictiveness.  In any case, if this was the accepted and widely-held view of Pilate in the first and second centuries, then Pilate might have been assumed to be the last guy in the world who would have been likely to have contemplated letting an accused "King of the Jews" go free.
This then raises a question about why Pilate would receive the portrayal in the Gospels that he does.'

Pilate is accurately portrayed in the Gospels:

Luke 13:1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

---

  If the Gospel writers saw Pilate as bearing little responsibility for Jesus death, but instead saw him for the most part as giving in to the supposed popular will by having Jesus crucified, that would seem to indicate that they saw fit to lay most of the blame on Herod, temple leaders and the Jerusalem crowds.

you really should stop listening to theories of the "experts".  They are hacks who dont even understand the basics of the Gospel: that we are all sinners and that Christ came to die for our sins.  So, from a human standpoint, we all crucified Christ, for he died for the whole world.
I dont blame one group more than another for his death, because that is the very reason he came into this world - to die for my sins.  So I am THANKFUL THAT CHRIST DIED and therefore don't hold a grudge against anyone for his death.

The self proclaimed "experts" who accuse the Gospels of being anti-Semetic or favoring one group over another, don't understand the basic concept of the universal necessity of Christ's death.

---

  Given how incredibly unpopular Pilate was among both Jewish and presumably even Roman audiences, the Gospels seem to be attempting to make a quite dramatic point, namely that if even an odious and ill-intentioned ruler like Pilate could tell Jesus was innocent of any crime, he must really have been innocent.  Whatever historical and religious reasons the Gospel writers had for trying to make this point, and there are a number of theories afoot for why they did, I think they were definitely trying to emphasize just that.

why does there have to be a grand conspiracy amongst the writers of the Gospels or any other motive, other than simply relaying the truth about what happened? Instead of unsupported theories, what about the theory that the accounts of his trial are accurate and Jesus really was innocent?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed.

if Pilate thought Jesus' kingship was basis for execution, he wouldn't have said, "I find no basis to comdemn him" after hearing Jesus admit to being a king:

Mat 27:11-23 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied....v23“What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

Mark 15:2-14 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied....v14 "What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate

Luke 23:3-4 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

John 18:37-38 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” 38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him."

All 4 gospels recount Jesus admitting to be king, and THEN go on to say that Pilate could find no basis against him even AFTER hearing Jesus confess to be a king.  So, you are simply in error in saying, "Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed."

[patrick1]

I find the fault in the notion that it is 'evil'  to not be allowed to hand out candy canes and suc stuff.    The whole second half spins a false persecution narrative-  One that would be laughable to the early Church.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I find the fault in the notion that it is 'evil'  to not be allowed to hand out candy canes and suc stuff.    The whole second half spins a false persecution narrative-  One that would be laughable to the early Church.

no one is equating it to what the early Church went through, or what other Christians around the world are currently going through.  Rather it is just a sign America is ultimately headed in the same direction - the denial of first amendment rights of Christian kids is just another step along that path.

[patrick1]

I find the fault in the notion that it is 'evil'  to not be allowed to hand out candy canes and suc stuff.    The whole second half spins a false persecution narrative-  One that would be laughable to the early Church.

no one is equating it to what the early Church went through, or what other Christians around the world are currently going through.  Rather it is just a sign America is ultimately headed in the same direction - the denial of first amendment rights of Christian kids is just another step along that path.

The lack of Candy canes and head bows are evil as implied by the text.  And it places us in the position of recrucifying our Lord? It all sounds vaguely Catholic.   Christians are not barred from worshiping and it is excessive hyperbole on the part of your pastor to go down that road. If you want religion in your schools then pay for them like some other groups have done for 200 years. (thick sarcasm intended, but with friendly intentions)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The lack of Candy canes and head bows are evil as implied by the text.  And it places us in the position of recrucifying our Lord? It all sounds vaguely Catholic.   Christians are not barred from worshiping and it is excessive hyperbole on the part of your pastor to go down that road. If you want religion in your schools then pay for them like some other groups have done for 200 years. (thick sarcasm intended, but with friendly intentions)

the statement regarding kids is in the larger context of walking away from truth, even within the church...it's simply an example of going along to get along

[Liberté]

All 4 gospels recount Jesus admitting to be king, and THEN go on to say that Pilate could find no basis against him even AFTER hearing Jesus confess to be a king.  So, you are simply in error in saying, "Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed."

That's because Jesus went on a spiel about how his kingdom was "not of this Earth" and so on, which may well have been considered a mitigating factor against executing him as a usurper. But that's exactly what he was executed as under Roman law. As much of an asshole as Pilate is known to have been, he would not have had the leeway to execute any man, no matter how much political pressure he may have been under, if he could not have justified it according to Roman law.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All 4 gospels recount Jesus admitting to be king, and THEN go on to say that Pilate could find no basis against him even AFTER hearing Jesus confess to be a king.  So, you are simply in error in saying, "Christ did not explicitly deny this kingship - which is why he was executed."

That's because Jesus went on a spiel about how his kingdom was "not of this Earth" and so on, which may well have been considered a mitigating factor against executing him as a usurper. But that's exactly what he was executed as under Roman law. As much of an asshole as Pilate is known to have been, he would not have had the leeway to execute any man, no matter how much political pressure he may have been under, if he could not have justified it according to Roman law.

Well, technically, Jesus was breaking the Roman law by being king.  But Pilate accepted the truth about Jesus’ kingship and accepted Jesus as king of the Jews.  Pilate also acknowledged that truth trumped the law, because Pilate still found no fault in Jesus even after accepting his status as king.  But then Pilate gave into the mob and allowed Jesus to be crucified…hence the lesson that Pilate’s problem is also our problem because we face the same pressures today:

-   We are mocked by many in the religious hierarchy for acknowledging Jesus as the only path to salvation.
-   We was faced with laws that increasingly forbid acknowledging Jesus
-   We are faced by a mob that makes us out to be the enemies of society if we acknowledge Jesus

So we have the same choice Pilate had:  continue to stand for truth even if it is against the law, or give into the religious leaders and the mob

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Liberté, I now see your initial point about Jesus technically being in violation of Roman law.  I think you went off track in regard to why Pilate washed his hands (which is clearly stated) and why Christ was actually executed (it wasnt because he was found guilty of being in violation of the law, though I admit he was technically guilty)...but your initial point is technically valid.

But Pilate was willing to accept that truth trumped the technicality of laws that suppress truth.  The fact of the matter is that Pilate was afraid, of both the truth and the pressures of the law/crowd.  And I can even agree with you that Pilate was disgusted by the absence of truth within the proceedings, therefore I can even agree with you that one of the reasons why Pilate washed his hands was out of disgust.

But Pilate was clearly afraid of the possibility that Jesus was really the Son of God, but in the end, Pilate cared more about his position in society and attempted to have it both ways:  he gave into the crowd while attempting to still acknowledge Jesus as king of the Jews.  Pilate even attempted to honor Jesus by placing a sign over Jesus’ head that read “king of the Jews”.

But attempting to have it both ways didn’t absolve Pilate of his role, nor did it do him any good as far as eternity is concerned.  So the lesson is that we cant have it both ways:  either we are willing to be killed along with Christ (which Pilate may have been if he continued to acknowledge Jesus), or we give into those who want to destroy truth in a attempt to save our own skin.