Question for the group.

Today's reading included John 19. Now from other accounts and lessons, I've heard that Pilate was harsh and equally sinful/guilty for condemning Jesus, but reading these verses, I question that a bit.

Yes, he gave in to sin not fighting back to the Jewish leaders, but he shows a lot of questioning and doubting their motives (verse 6 - "I find not basis for a charge against him", verse 12 - " From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.")

Anyone have any more context for me on this one?

I wouldn't call it "equal" sins/guilt because they were definitely different. The Jews had hate in their heart, Pilate as a civil leader condemned an innocent man. Both are wrong.

Peter blames the Jews and Romans, but in different ways:
Acts. 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

I remember asking this question to my religion teacher in catholic school in ~4th grade 20+ years ago, and I still remember the answer. Pilate could have put his foot down and didn't. He let the Jewish leaders have their way when he could have done more. It's like disapproving of someone littering, but not caring enough to go back and pick it ip yourself. The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Job security is why Pilate did what he did. His sin was fear of loss of Job and unbelief in the Lord Jesus. Other than that he was a good guy .

Look at it this way. Pilate met Jesus and was not able to find him guilty of any crime. The Jewish leaders still wanted Jesus dead due to their perceived violation of Jewish law. However, only the Roman Empire had the power to sentence someone to death, and Pilate was highest ranking Roman around. The implication is the he feared civil unrest and maybe revolt if he didn't appease the Jewish leaders.

To restate it bluntly, Pilate knowingly sentenced an innocent man to death for purely political reasons. No reason to give him a pass on this.

His position is certainly understandable and relatable, but the more I read and study the more relatable everyone in the story becomes, including Judas and the Sanhedrin.

Quote:

---

rambln_ag02
His position is certainly understandable and relatable, but the more I read and study the more relatable everyone in the story becomes, including Judas and the Sanhedrin.

---

Oh very much so. However the process started out, it seems pretty clear Caaiphas believed Jesus genuinely guilty of blasphemy by the time of the Sanhedrin `trial'. If he was wobbling any way one way or another, that moment comes across pretty strong as "Oh, so it is true, no question." That is, since it was clear he avoided the other possibility --- that Jesus was telling the truth.

If you look at the Mideast today so much is similar still it will help you to understand; that and what came after the year of the Crucifixion. The Sanhedrin was playing a flawed balancing game between trying to be `native enough' to lean on Rome in favor of various Jewish concessions, but also to put a lid on the terroristic Zealots and other increasingly revolutionary factions. I say flawed because some were bad self-serving men, "vipers" and others just venal hypocrites "whited sepulchers" and others just indecisive, and a few who would make a stand. (Gamaliel). That's much like today's Congress. The Sanhedrin was trying to keep Judea from being destroyed by Roman wrath if it revolted--- and that is precisely what did happen, twice, so you can see what they were trying to prevent.

Now as to Pilate, Bryanisbest said:

Quote:

---

Job security is why Pilate did what he did. His sin was fear of loss of Job and unbelief in the Lord Jesus. Other than that he was a good guy .

---

Good guy is going way too far. Not because we know for certain, but in history when you don't have some kind inside character evidence or clues, you can only judge by actions. Pilate seems to have been a pretty average ambition type, and prone to default to impulsive displays of force, while trying also to balance. He governed 10 years, so knew his job well enough to not be like some of the Prefects and governors that botched it quickly and were recalled. But that day he risked more than loss of `job' --- in the context further unrest in Judea was likely to have gotten him recalled by Tiberius and possibly executed, more probably dispossessed and banished to Gaul. Pilate had already had a string of incidents, and was on thinning rope. Events back in Rome had become far more dangerous for him since 31 AD/CE as well. (Oh, its worth pointing out, in 35-36 Pilate would become involved in an upheaval where precisely such a career ending recall happened from Tiberius. His fate is actually uncertain)

Pilate is just like politicians today. Talk a good game but pass the buck. He was not aggressively evil. He was a coward and worried about his job. So he sold out

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

However, only the Roman Empire had the power to sentence someone to death,

---

That little detail didn't prevent the stoning to death of Stephen in Acts, though ...

Bryanisbest said:

---

Job security is why Pilate did what he did. His sin was fear of loss of Job and unbelief in the Lord Jesus. Other than that he was a good guy .

---

That contradicts everything Philo and Josephus wrote about him.

ChemEAg08 said:

---

Question for the group.

Today's reading included John 19. Now from other accounts and lessons, I've heard that Pilate was harsh and equally sinful/guilty for condemning Jesus, but reading these verses, I question that a bit.

Yes, he gave in to sin not fighting back to the Jewish leaders, but he shows a lot of questioning and doubting their motives (verse 6 - "I find not basis for a charge against him", verse 12 - " From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.")

Anyone have any more context for me on this one?

---

There is no doubt Pilate had some guilt in condemning Jesus to death, but was not as guilty as the Jewish religious leaders.

Read John 19:11 to see who Jesus said was more to blame.

Romans typically viewed anyone who was not a Roman citizen as someone who was expendable, beneath them, and unworthy of their consideration except in some rare isolated circumstances.

Pilate as a Roman official would have more than likely had this same view. This is why Paul being a Roman citizen was as important as it was to the early church.

Jesus was a nonroman. There were multiple factions of revolutionaries trying to stir up trouble at the time, and the Jewish leadership was basically holding it over the Roman leaders heads that they were the only thing standing in the way between the Romans and a full on Rebellion.

For any Roman official hoping to move up the ranks, being an official responsible for a province of the Roman Empire falling into rebellion was a black mark you didn't recover from easily.

Pilate's schtick here was to explore and see whether keeping Jesus alive would help prevent a revolt or potentially cause a revolt.

When he tells the Jewish leaders he can find no fault with him, he is testing them to see how far they are willing to take this if he releases Jesus (basically whether he will lose their support if he refuses to step in).

When the Jewish leadership insists that Pilate step in, it becomes clear they are willing to risk repercussions to press the matter. Pilate then takes the case directly to the people: remember the Romans depended on mob rule for their power. That was how they ruled in Rome (manipulating the mob) and unless they chose to completely wipe out or subjugate a people that was how they ran their provinces. if enough of the populace supported Jesus versus the current Jewish leadership and he executes Jesus at the current leadership's behest, then he could spark a rebellion.

However, if enough of the populace supports Jesus and he SIDES with Jesus then he can get rid of the current Jewish leadership and he believes he can use Jesus to keep the populace in line, figuring that if he saves Jesus' life then Jesus will owe him and become his mouthpiece to the Jewish people and keep them pacified.

It's really simple politics. If you know enough about how the Romans worked and plotted and approached political situations, then it becomes relatively easy to read between the lines in how the NT story played out.

Pilate just went through that entire theater to try and determine who it would be more politically advantageous to side with. Jesus simply did not have enough public support to warrant Pilate trying to cut a deal with him and assassinating the current Jewish leaders.

Pilate didn't give a crap about Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. Pilate was not necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. He was a typical Roman who did typical Roman things (namely whatever was politically expedient to do). Some of which were extremely cutthroat in nature. As a Roman as long as he did not do this to a nonRoman he was politically and morally in the clear. And even if this was a Roman, had he done this and it worked in his favor people would not have held it against him long because it was a very Roman thing to do.

Romans admired the hell out of **** like this.

anaag75 said:

---

commando2004 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Job security is why Pilate did what he did. His sin was fear of loss of Job and unbelief in the Lord Jesus. Other than that he was a good guy .

---

That contradicts everything Philo and Josephus wrote about him.

---

And Luke 13 seems to suggest he straight up murdered some people while they were offering sacrifices.

---

That is not exactly what it is saying, not really just some gratuitous action - though the event is unacceptable by modern standards. What it means by "offering sacrifices" appears to be a common way of mentioning the occasion, the context. It may well be the same kind of event as the time described by Josephus during a festival Pilate was visiting Jerusalem from Caesarea. He had recently seized Temple treasury funds in the fiscal equivalent of an imminent domain action to build an aqueduct for the city and the people were outraged and in a rioting mood. Hearing of the danger, Pilate cynically arranged when the day came for soldiers to have pre-mingled among the crowd with hidden clubs. When an uproar started becoming violent, a signal the soldiers drew out their clubs and began to beat protesters with them to restore order--doubtless killing several. Luke 13:1 probably refers to Galileans brained this way or in a similar incident. The other clue is Pilate and other Prefects and Procurators were generally in Jerusalem only for festivals.

Btw, Ags4DaWin's interesting post about Pilate's likely calculation and balancing between alternatives is not unlikely. Whether he was prepared to side with Jesus to the point of deposing Caaiphas and Annas seems more doubtful. But the spirit of the post is one take you can definitely fly. One thing is for sure it is squarely correct here:

Quote:

---

For any Roman official hoping to move up the ranks, being an official responsible for a province of the Roman Empire falling into rebellion was a black mark you didn't recover from easily.

---

Especially for him. He had already ticked off Tiberius with prior incidents. (Luke 13:1 probably one of them).