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?
“Suffered under Pontius Pilate” is correct on two counts. First, it happens while Pilate is procurator of Judea, so it’s during his administration, in the same way that we might say, “Under Barack Obama there were two major elections sweeping out Democrats,” though Obama would not have wanted that to happen. Second, the suffering is caused by soldiers who are under Pilate’s authority, and he does order that Jesus be “chastised” before being released, which basically meant getting a whipping just for the halibut.
Because the buck stopped with Pilate. He was ultimately in charge as the Roman governor. He controlled all of the military forces in the region. He could do pretty much whatever he wanted. He could have spared Jesus if he really wanted. But like Peter (who denied Jesus three times), he was weak willed and caved in to the mob.
I don’t think his name is mentioned in condemnation but rather for identification. No matter who lobbied, Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate.
Note the words of the Creed, though... “suffered under Pontius Pilate...”. As you noted... Yup. He did.
Did you watch KILLING JESUS over the past few days? Pilate and his wife were portrayed as real SOBs.
They were portrayed as horrors.
Not the same character as in Passion at all.
Same way with Judas. We needed all of these guys to “do their job” in order to carry out and fulfill the prophesy.
Pilate could have said I release him; give him amnesty.
It seems to me that Caiaphas was evil, and Pilate was the victim of a no-win situation that the high priests set up... so it bothers me that Pilate gets thousands of years of scorn, and Caiaphas skates. The soldiers were acting beyond Pilates orders, so it still seems like Pilate is a victim, not a monster.
However, Gospel verses mention Pilate's reluctance, and his wife's support of Jesus, so I'll stick with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, instead of a modern movie. ;)
And even more, why does only ONE GUY, in all of those bad actors, get 2000 years of weekly "bad press", and nobody else? Especially when he is the ONLY one (other than His followers) getting mentioned as trying to defend Jesus?
(I just kind of empathize with Pilate, I guess, having been in so many no-win scenarios, and being the only one to take heat for events where many participated.)
There are many that say Pontius eventually became a believer as well.He did try to save Jesus IMHO.
I may be tempted to mutter “Caiaphas” instead of “Pontius Pilate” in church on Sunday during the Apostle’s Creed... if mom won’t kick my butt for it, LOL.
“So, again... why do we weekly pour out scorn for Pilate’s name, for millenia, and not Caiaphas?”
Ultimately, he could have told the Jewish leaders “Screw you, I work for Caesar, and this man isn’t guilty of anything except irritating you. Now get out of here before I summon Thugus Maximus and have him feed the cat.” Pilate’s lack of leadership is worthy of scorn, although he was in fact meant to do what he did, so that we could be redeemed.
I am no expert, and perhaps too simple, but I always thought the Apostle’s creed was pretty neutral in the matter. He was the governor, so it was under him. Just add a bit of Bible reading and some history and that provides the background for perspective.
That’s actually a great question. It really was the Jews that condemned him.
But my question has always been why they did not believe he was the messiah?
Off topic but maybe someone has an answer for this also.
BTTT from another who is always skeptical of modern depictions of the Gospel.
Tatt
Pilate deserves more censure IMO than does Caiaphas. Caiaphas acted in the way he thought was right, which was to condemn someone he saw as a heretic and a threat to the religious order. Pilate knew Jesus was not guilty of anything worthy of death, but he gutlessly ordered that the sentence be carried out. It would be like seeing a judge today finding someone innocent, but ordering his execution anyway because "the crowd got ugly".
Pilate was exiled, as it were, to Palestine because of abuses in other regions that he had been in charge of. The Jewish leadership believed that he would acquiesce to their desires because he already had a reputation for cruelty and oppression.
Yes, Pilate seemed to have some real concerns about the guilt of innocence of Jesus, but compare his actions to that of Festus who ended up with Paul under his jurisdiction. The Jewish leadership wanted Paul returned to Jerusalem, but Festus instead required a hearing. Even after Paul appealed to Caesar, Festus still tried to determine what Paul had done to upset the JewishlLeadership. He even asked King Agrippa to hear the charges against Paul and see what he crime against Jewish law Paul had committed. Agrippa and Festus both agreed that is Paul had not appealed to Caesar, they would have freed him.
Pilate could have freed Jesus. He could have examined the case to find if Jesus broke any law. In fact, he did. And Pilate found him innocent. But rather than free Jesus, he handed him over to be executed. He symbolically washed his hands of the death, but the responsibility for Jesus’ death was his alone in the eyes of the law.
I see Caiaphas as a typical entrenched politician and bureaucrat. A man who wanted to preserve his position and leadership who saw Jesus as a threat to his power. He cleverly manipulated Pilate into moving against Jesus claiming that unrest and rebellion would break out if Jesus was not dispatched. Pilate seems to have been motivated to preserve law and order and to crush any potential upstarts and rebellions. Of course the ultimate person who could have saved Jesus was Jesus Himself, who possessed powers far greater than anything Pilate or Caiaphas could ever conceived.
Gibson > O’Reilly
2)Pilate knew that when Caiaphas accused Jesus of trying to make himself King of the Jews that Caiaphas was bearing false witness in order to have the Romans kill Jesus. He knew he was having an man innocent under Roman law condemned, chastised and executed merely as a matter of political expediency.
It seems fairly plain to me that Pilate bears the primary moral responsibility both because Pilate was the authority responsible and because he knew Jesus was innocent.
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.