Posted on 04/06/2015 12:35:58 PM PDT by Teacher317
I'm not exactly a Biblical scholar, so be a little gentle with the flames.
I was watching Passion of the Christ yesterday for Easter (my third time seeing it), and a thought occurred to me. Both the movie and the Gospels note that Pilate tried, repeatedly, to not sentence Jesus to death. His wife lobbied for Jesus, he declared "this man has done nothing", he sent him to Herod declaring him not guilty, and he even tried the once-a-year prisoner release gambit. At every turn, the high priests and the crowd pushed for his death. Even after finding him guilty of something (Jesus DID try to talk two tax collectors out of their jobs, and he DID admit to being the King of Hosts... with the exact phrasing depending on your Bible version), he only sentenced him to punishment, not death (and yet Jesus got viciously tortured... again, against Pilates orders).
So... here's my question for the many religious historians and "experts" on FR that I have some respect for...
Why is it that we have, every week for 2000 years, called out Pilate by name in the Apostle's Creed. Caiaphas is the one, by most accounts, who pushed the most for Jesus to be tortured and killed. The high priests pushed the crowds to act up if they did not get their way. The Romans just wanted to avoid yet another riot and civil unrest, and Pilate (according to the movie) was already on notice about allowing any more uprisings.
In the end, Pilate tells the crowd "you do it, I won't. The blood of the Son of God is not on my hands", and he famously washes his hands. He did his best to find other ways out, he did his best to avoid many people being killed in the riots, and he recognized, repeatedly, that Jesus was innocent. His only crime was to EVENTUALLY wear down and give in to the crowd to avoid many more than one "man" being killed. For a Roman soldier with political responsibilities, with no reason to have any faith in this latest prophet, he did a good job overall of trying to minimize the damage to himself, to the crowd, to Rome, and to the region. I cannot say that I could or would have done any better. (although every Christian will want to jump up and say "Well *I* would have stood up for Him!!!"... which is almost surely malarkey. Pilate didn't KNOW, and neither would you have known.)
So, again... why do we weekly pour out scorn for Pilate's name, for millenia, and not Caiaphas?
My take is that this confession of truth places Jesus into historic truth under a particular ruler of state affairs, much like Christian currently suffer under Barack Obama. It is a crucial aspect to the Christian faith that it is rooted in reality as it plays out before our eyes and as reported to us by those who have gone before us.
Pontius Pilate was included in the creeds, not because he was especially monstrous or that he incurred the most guilt in allowing Jesus to be unjustly crucified. No mention is made of that at all. He is there simply as a historical marker. He is there to place the life of Christ in a historical context, and disabuse the notion that Jesus was some type of myth that was made up out of thin air. Pontius Pilate was an identifiably historical person, serving the Roman Empire in a particular place and time and holding a particular position in the government. All the other characters in the story are, by secular standards, more or less obscure. They could have said, I suppose, "He was crucified in AD 33", but there might not have been exact agreement on the date among the council Fathers. Identifying Pontius Pilate would have been the next best thing.
It would be like saying my grandfather was a field laborer on a farm owned by Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States. While my grandfather's life may be somewhat obscure, Woodrow Wilson is more identifiable.
Because he alone had the authority the authorize Crucifixion - and with authority comes accountability.
By the way, the Coptic church in Egypt counts him as a saint, because he was a convert to Christianity later in life.
At that point, he was probably lock-in by prophesy and didn’t have a choice.
Another aspect to this is that Christ is abandoned in nearly every way possible. Peter was the only one who came to Jesus’ defense physically, and Jesus would not allow it. The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him. The whole account of the Passion of Christ as it actually took place will be an object of the highest reverence for all ages to those who know and believe the Truth.
The Nicene Creed. The one Proclaimed at every Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant Masses was the result of the Council of Nicea in Bithynia a part of present day Turkey in 320 AD by Constantine I. It was a meeting of Early Church leaders who fashioned the creed as the basic understanding of the tenants of Christianity. Among those are:
1.Jesus Christ is described as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God”, proclaiming his divinity.
2.Jesus Christ is said to be “begotten, not made”, asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being ‘from the substance of the Father’.
3.He is said to be “of one being with The Father”. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., “of the same substance” (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous, and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.
He is scorned for having no backbone and allowing an innocent man to be put to death.
Pilate, like Herod, could find no law Jesus had broken.
The crowds, however, would not be satisfied until this blasphemer and sacrilegious violater of the sabbath was put on a cross.
So, Barabus lived, having been pardoned under a local tradition of commutation during passover by the Romans to pacify the locals with an act of compassion.
Jesus was forced to take his place and since there were already three crosses prepared, Jesus was made to take up the one meant for Barabus.
Short version and my dos centavos. ...
We also learned that during the last supper Christ told the disciples “This bread is my body...etc...”
They replied “No way!”.
Christ affirmed “Yahweh!”.
We also onow the disciples were Mexican, because they were all in one Accord....
It was God’s will for Christ to die for our sins and redeem us.
Jesus said to Pilate that, he, Pilate didn’t have the power to condem him to death unless it were given above.
Had Pilate been successful in having Jesus released there might have been no atonement for our sins.
All happened because God ordained it so.
You said what I was trying to say in a much better and more complete way. Thank you.
He knew Jesus was innocent of any crime, but ordered his execution anyway.
“But my question has always been why they did not believe he was the messiah?”
Frankly I’ve always doubted that I’d have walked away from the Torah for some guy claiming to be the Messiah. That’s a big step for anyone with any responsibility.
If he had released Jesus there would have been a up rising that the High Priest most assuredly instigated ( community organizers instigators ).
Doesn’t matter if Pilate was even a strong leader, Caesar warned him about another up rising, it either could have been his job, or his life at stake.
He was placed in a no win win situation.
Luk_23:12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.
Thanks. You beat me to it, though. :)
Pilate was placed between a rock and w hard place.
One fact, detail many are forgetting is Pilate’s wife Claudia had a dream the night before and told Pilate that this man Jesus was innocent.
I am sure that played on his mind and decision.
However Caeser punishing Pilate for not keeping order and shut down any uprising was also playing on his mind.
No doubt the High Priest stoking up the flames of rioting ( Ferguson MO comes to mind ) didn’t help much.
All in all this was God’s plan of redemption for us.
21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? 23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
John 19:
8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; 9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. 12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
A hack politician doing what is expedient is still worthy of scorn- check out Pontius Pence in modern times for a good example.
This is pretty much the bottom line. The rest is academic.
Yeah, it’s like He miraculously cured this poor guy’s hand, and the Jews, instead of being amazed and happy about this, griped that He healed on the Sabbath! Talk about missing the point. All I can figure is that it was all meant to be, so they pretty much HAD to not believe in Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.