1

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Pontius Pilate: Tyrant, Coward, or Man of the World?

Submitted to Dr. R. Wayne Stacy, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the completion of the course

NBTS 515 D03

New Testament Orientation I

by

Norman H. Althausen

August 10, 2014

 Table of Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

Socio-Political Background.2

The Jewish Background...2

The Roman Background..6

Portraits of Pilate.7

Secular Sources8

Biblical Sources.13

Conclusion.19

Bibliography..21
 Introduction

I believe in God, the Father Almightyand in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, who

was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was

crucified, died, and was buried These opening lines from the Apostles Creed, recited in

countless churches around the world, have immortalized the name of a man who, apart from his

role in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, would have been lost in obscurity. Pontius Pilate, the

fifth Roman prefect, or governor, of the province of Judea, held that office from 26-36 A.D. But

outside of the Bible only two archeological relics, a stone with his name and office engraved on

it, and some coins that he had minted; and three secular documents, Tacitus, Philo, and Josephus;

are the only evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. Nothing is known for sure of his birthplace,

family, military career, or how he came to be appointed governor by the emperor Tiberius. Yet

his crucial role in the trial of Jesus has led to much speculation about his character and motives.

Was he a Jew-hater and a brutal tyrant who tried to provoke the Jews whenever he could, or was

he in league with Jewish high priests and the Sanhedrin in order to maintain the societal status

quo? Was he weak and indecisive, bullied by the Jewish leadership into delivering up Jesus to

crucifixion when he believed him innocent, or was he a typical Roman official, dedicated above

all to serving the emperor and keeping the peace with a subjugated people? This paper will

defend the thesis that Pilate was, in fact, convinced that Jesus was not a political threat to Roman

rule and actually desired to release Jesus, but because of his lack of awareness of several Jewish

cultural factors and vulnerability to political pressure, he placed himself in a no-win situation at

the trial, and committed an act of moral cowardice and injustice in order to expediently resolve a

politically difficult situation.

 The research methodology of this paper first considers several important social, political

and historical backgrounds of both first century Intertestamental Judaism and the Roman

Imperial system that have a bearing on the trial of Jesus. Next, each of the primary sources will

be examined and scrutinized for the portrait each writer conveys about Pilate. Finally, the

question will be addressed of whether sense can be made of all of these disparate views to arrive

at a defensible understanding of Pilates person and actions in the trial of Christ.

Socio-Political Background

Background is extremely important in any kind of analysis as it provides the context

needed to make sense of the data. First, Intertestamental Judaism, also known as Second Temple

Judaism, is crucial for an understanding of the social and political climate in which the main

events of Pilates life take place, and are necessary to understand some of Pilates

misconceptions that led to the deteriorating situation at the trial. Second, a basic understanding of

the Roman Imperial system including its relations with subjugated peoples and Roman law is

necessary to successfully interpret the individual primary sources.

The Jewish Background

Galilee and Judea

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the province of Judea, but he was raised in Nazareth in

the province of Galilee. When he began his ministry, he made Capernaum, on the north shore of

the Sea of Galilee, his base of operations.1 Consequently he was known as the Nazarene

(Mt 2:23) or the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee (Matt 21:11). Most modern readers assume,

as very likely Pontius Pilate did as well, that all Israelites were essentially the same. However, as

R. T. France explains, It is commonly assumed that the Jews were an undifferentiated

1 Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 2nd Ed. (Nashville:
Broadman and Holman, 2003), 191.
community living amicably in the part of the world we now call the Holy Land, united in their

resentment of the political imposition of Roman rule to which all were equally subject. One of

the more significant gains of recent NT studies has been the increasing recognition that this is a

gross distortion of the historical and cultural reality.2 Galilee was distinct from Judea in at least

seven ways. France elaborates:

Racially[Galilee] had a more mixed populationGeographically Galilee was

separated from Judea by the non-Jewish territory of Samaria, and from Perea in the
southeast by the Hellenistic settlements of Decapolis. Politically Galilee had been under
separate administration from Judea during almost all its history since the tenth century
B.Cand in the time of Jesus it was under a (supposedly) native Herodian prince, while
Judea and Samaria had since A.D. 6 been under the direct rule of a Roman prefect.
Economically Galilee offered better agricultural and fishing resources than the more
mountainous territory of Judea, making the wealth of some Galileans the envy of their
southern neighbors. Culturally Judeans despised their northern neighbors as country
cousins, their lack of Jewish sophistication being compounded by their greater openness
to Hellenistic influence. Linguistically Galileans spoke a distinctive form of Aramaic
[that was] the butt of Judean humor. Religiously the Judean opinion was that Galileans
were lax in their observance of proper ritual3

The Synoptic Gospels follow Marks plan of emphasizing Jesus ministry in Galilee in the

beginning that was generally well-received, and ending in Judea and Jerusalem where he

encountered more opposition. Understanding the Galilee/Judea division helps to make sense of

what takes place in Jerusalem and the trial before Pilate.

Jewish Sects

The Pharisees and Sadducees were the most commonly named of the Jewish sects in the

New Testament. The Pharisees were devout followers of both the written and oral law, often

called the tradition of the elders. They tended to oppose Hellenization and cooperating with the

2 R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), 5.

3 Ibid., 6.
Roman political system.4 The Sadducees were much more secularized than the Pharisees. They

did not believe in the resurrection, or angel, or spirit (Acts 23:8). According to J. Julius Scott,

By the time of the New Testament the high-priestly family and their Sadducean supporters

appear to be the majority of the SanhedrinThe Sadducees had supported those interpretations

and procedures which enhanced the prestige, power, and finances of the priestly temple cult and

the aristocracy. The Pharisees took the opposite position.5 Citing Josephus, Scott also states,

Though few in number, they included men of the highest standing. They had the confidence of

the wealthy, but not the populace.6 Two other sects were the Essenes and the Zealots. Following

the three possible ways of relating to the Romans, the Sadducees cooperated, the Essenes opted

out of any involvement, and the Zealots resisted their oppressors. Roman policy consisted of

forming alliances with the wealthy and powerful in their provinces in order to maintain the

peace. Scott comments, A reading of Josephus and the New Testament indicates considerable

interrelationship between the economically rich and the religious establishment. As might be

expected, they either held or were closely aligned with the political power. Their actions were

frequently designed to protect their wealth and privileged status.7 This situation has important

implications for Pilates actions at the trial of Jesus.

Resistance

4 J. Julius Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1995), 206.

5 Ibid., 208.

6 Ibid., 207-208.7 Ibid., 238.

7
As opposed to the Sadducees, the Zealots attempted to resist and even overthrow their Roman

oppressors. In 4 B.C., following the death of Herod the Great, a series of violent outbreaks

occurred. Josephus recounts how on the Feast of Pentecost, a large number of Jews besieged the

procurator, Sabinus, in Jerusalem. The Roman troops eventually prevailed, killing many of the

Jews.8 He also mentions three other revolts led by Judas the son of Ezekias, Simon, and

Athronges. Concerning these Brian C. McGing states, Horsley has argued convincingly that

these three men were posing as messianic pretenders in the ancient Davidic tradition of popular

anointed kingship. Whatever the precise nature of their movements, from the Roman point of

view they were rebels who claimed the title of king and engaged in open warfare. They had to be

destroyed.9 McGing describes several other uprisings also recorded in Josephus. Judas, the

Galilean, in A.D. 6, encouraged the Jews to revolt.10 Acts 15:37 states he was killed by Rome.

Acts 5:36 mentions an impostor named Theudas who raised a crowd of four hundred to follow

him to the Jordan River. The governor, Cuspius Fadus, sent the Roman army out. Many were

killed, and Theudas was captured and executed.11 A similar event happened during the office of

Felix with many being killed on the spot, and the leaders captured and executed. Another

messianic pretender gathered a crowd who were met and destroyed by Roman troops under the

governor, Porcius Festus. McGing summarizes, Men who attract large crowds in the Judaean

countryside, perform (or promise) miracles, and claim kingship invariably meet a violent end. A

8 Josephus, Antiquities 17.10.2.

9 Brian C. McGing, Pontius Pilate and the Sources, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 3 (1991), 419

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., 420.
clear and consistent Roman policy emerges of suppressing such movements and executing their

leaders.12 The question that arises is, does Jesus fit this pattern, or more importantly, would

Pilate have looked at Jesus as a political threat like these examples?

The Roman Background

The Roman Imperial system consisted of a highly stratified social structure in which a relatively

small number of elites controlled all the wealth and power.13 Warren Carter describes the Roman

system:

Legitimated by the gods, the emperor shares the benefits and rewards of this great power
and wealth with the small, ruling elite. He appoints them to serve as political officials,
military leaders, and religious officials just as the emperor Tiberius appoints Pilate
provincial governor of Judea. As a governor, Pilate represents and enforces the empires
control through tours of his province, administering justice, collecting taxes, deploying
troops, and securing alliances with local landowning and religious elites.14

One can see the system at work in the governor of Judeas right to appoint the high priest. In

A.D. 15 the high priest, Annas, was deposed by Pilates predecessor, Valerius Gratus, for

ordering an unapproved execution. Caiaphas, Annass son-in-law, was appointed high priest and

served for the entirety of Pilates governorship.15 It becomes clear why the Jews could not just

12 Ibid., 421.

13 Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 35.

14 Ibid., 36.

15 R. Larry Overstreet, Roman Law and the Trial of Christ, Bibliotheca Sacra 135, no. 540 (1978), 326.
execute Jesus on the religious charge of blasphemy, but had to create a political charge and get

Pilate to order the crucifixion.

R. Larry Overstreet lists four factors of the Roman legal system that related to Pilates trial of

Jesus: the governors authority, the rights of Roman citizens in contrast to non-citizens, the

relationship of Roman law to the people of a province, and the punishment for treason or

sedition.16 It was the normal policy of the Roman legal system to allow each province to follow

local law with little Roman interference. The main exception to this was the use of capital

punishment which was left to the governors authority.17 The rights of individuals depended

completely on whether they were Roman citizens or not. Citizens had the right to appeal both

floggings and execution. Non-citizens essentially had no rights, however there was a recognition

that even non-citizens should be extended natural principles of equity common to all nations.18

However Overstreet emphasizes that the Roman governor had absolute legal authority to deal

with non-citizens, such as Christ, and to prescribe the death penalty, without fear of having his

authority challenged.19 Furthermore, As far as the procedure which a governor would follow is

concerned, it is documented that he could deal with crime inquisitorially, i.e., by investigating

on his own initiative and by any means at his disposalIt is this fact which enables the

flexibility and informality in Pilates dealings with Christ to be understood. There was nothing

16 Ibid., 325.

17 William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 547.

18 Ibid., 327.

19 Ibid., 328.
improper or unusual about it.20 Finally crucifixion was generally reserved for rebellious slaves

and non-citizens convicted of sedition, not only when the life of a Roman authority was

threatened, but also even to words spoken that appeared disrespectful.21 In light of the types of

revolts that were broken up by the Romans, and the immediate execution of the leaders, it is

clear why Pilate virtually ignored all charges against Jesus except his claim of kingship. If Pilate

had determined that Jesus was a political threat to Rome, there would have been no hesitation in

ordering the crucifixion.

Portraits of Pilate

The only literary evidence for Pontius Pilate is three secular sources, and the Bible in the

gospels, and several other brief mentions of him in the Bible. One of the secular sources, the

Roman historian Tacitus, only makes a brief mention of Pilate: Christus, the founder of the

name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by the sentence of the procurator

Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment22 This document

confirms the historicity of Jesus, Pilate, and the crucifixion. Each of the other sources will be

examined for how the author portrays Pilate. The secular sources of Josephus and Philo will be

discussed first, followed by the biblical sources. Josephus will be taken first, even though he

wrote some forty years after Philo, because the events he describes occurred before Philos event.

Secular Sources

20 Ibid., 328.21 Ibid., 329.

21

22 Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.

Josephus narrates three different events, and Philo one, in which Pilate comes into conflict with

the Jews. Each of these events reveals some of Pilates character and tendencies. Both are more

critical of Pilate than the gospel writers.

Josephus

Josephus describes three different situations in which Pilate comes into conflict with the

Jews: the introduction of the Roman standards into Jerusalem, the use of the temple tax to build

an aqueduct, and Pilates slaughter of some Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim.

In probably the first year of his governorship, Pilate sent the Roman army from Caesarea

into Jerusalem for winter quartering. The army entered at night with their standards that

contained pagan symbols on the poles which were covered. No other governor before him had

done this.23 Most likely these were brought to the Antonia fortress that was the highest point on

the temple complex.24 When the Jews discovered this in the morning, they demanded the

standards be removed because Jewish law forbade the making of images as well as the fact that

the army would make sacrifices to their gods around the standards. Pilate stubbornly refused.

The Jews sat down at his residence in Caesarea for five days while Pilate did nothing. Finally he

ordered the army to surround the protestors and was prepared to kill them if they did not leave.

When the order was given for the soldiers to draw their swords, the Jews, as one man, bared their

necks and showed their willingness to die first. Not wanting a bloodbath, Pilate backed down and

removed the standards from Jerusalem.25

23 Josephus, Antiquities, 18.3.1.

24 Carl H. Kraeling, The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem, Harvard Theological Review 35, no. 4
(1942), 280.

25 Josephus, Antiquities, 18.3.1.

Although it is possible that Pilate was unaware that the standards would be offensive to the Jews,

it is not likely. The fact that the standards were covered and brought in at night to avoid detection

indicates he knew full well what he was doing. More likely Pilate wanted to demonstrate to the

Jews that they were no different than any other Roman province where standards were not an

issue. Being in the early part of his tenure, he wanted to show who was boss. This event reveals

several things about Pilate. First he lacked at least some degree of cultural awareness, if not that

the standards would be offensive, at least in misjudging the passion and determination the Jews

displayed about their laws. Second, as McGing observes, The episode shows a curious mixture

of (apparent) provocation, indecision, stubbornness, and finally weakness, a willingness to give

in. Not for the last time we observe Pilate getting himself into an awkward situation over the

matter of loyalty to the emperor.26

A second incident, that is not dated and narrated by Josephus, concerned Pilate using the temple

money to fund the building of an aqueduct. It is not clear from the account why the Jews were

angry about this, but a large number gathered to protest. Pilate stationed soldiers, armed with

clubs, dressed in plain clothes amongst the crowd. Pilate himself addressed the crowd and

ordered them to disperse. But when they continued, Pilate gave a signal and the soldiers began

beating the crowd. Some were beaten so savagely that they died. Josephus states that the soldiers

had laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them.27 This episode

reveals that Pilate, by using undercover enforcers armed with clubs, was not particularly vicious

or bloodthirsty. McGing concludes,

26 McGing, Pilate and the Sources, 429.

27 Josephus, Antiquities, 18.3.2.28 McGing, Pilate and the Sources, 430.

29
Josephus, Antiquities, 18.4.1-2.
 Here Pilate had learned that, in such circumstances as he now faced, the alternatives were
either to send in troops and spill blood or back down. This time in Jerusalem he was not
going to be so shackled. He wanted the option of using force without killing people, and
that is precisely what his use of disguised troops should have given him. He might also
have considered that by mixing with the crowds, his men would have been able to
identify any troublemakers and deal with them effectively. This could well have proved
an effective, and yet not too brutal, means of controlling a disorderly demonstration.28

A third episode described by Josephus revealed a much bloodier and vicious side of

Pilate. This occurred after the crucifixion in A.D. 36. An impostor promised to show buried

sacred treasures of Moses and gathered an armed crowd of Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim. Pilate

slaughtered many, and captured and executed the leaders. The Samaritans petitioned the legate of

Syria, who relieved Pilate of his office and ordered him to Rome in A.D. 36.29 Tiberius died

before Pilate arrived and nothing more is known of what became of him.

Philo

Philo was a Jewish philosopher and leader of the Jewish community in Alexandria Egypt.

He mentions Pilate in the course of an alleged letter that the Jewish King Agrippa sent to Gaius

Caligula urging him not to set up his image in the Jerusalem temple. Philo describes an offense

that Pilate had committed against the Jews in which the emperor Tiberius, when he had been

informed of the matter, had angrily rebuked Pilate. The incident in question concerned the

installation of golden shields in the praetorium, or governors house, which was Herod the

Greats palace when he was alive. The shields had no icons or idolatrous pictures on them, as in

the case of the Roman standards, but merely an inscription honoring Tiberius in the name of

Pontius Pilate.30 Since Philo is not writing history but is writing a hortatory address, he uses

highly rhetorical language. In quoting the alleged letter by Agrippa, Philo uses phrases about

28

29
Pilate such as, [Pilate did this] not so much to honor Tiberius as to annoy the multitudewhile

he [Pilate], naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and restlessness, stubbornly refused [to

remove the shields]he feared that if they actually sent an embassy, they would also expose the

rest of his conduct as governorso with all his vindictiveness and furious temper, he was in a

difficult situation.31 He accuses Pilate of a long list of offenses including, briberies, insults,

robberies, outrages, wanton injuries, constantly repeated executions without trial, ceaseless and

supremely grievous cruelty.32 As McGing comments, This is all expressed in very general

terms; the only hard evidence that Philo (or Agrippa) puts forward is the one incident of the

golden shields. The rest is a string of insults which looks highly rhetorical in nature.33 Philo

vilifies Pilate in order to persuade the new emperor Claudius to not follow Caligulas policies

and to act more like previous emperors, like Tiberius and Augustus, who supported and respected

the Jews. It is difficult to see why the Jews were actually offended by the shields. Philo distinctly

says, they had no image work traced on them nor anything else forbidden by the law34

It is difficult to determine how seriously to regard this description of Pilate. Philos single

incident regarding him is certainly the most hostile of the secular sources. This angry rebuke of

Pilate by Tiberius makes his actions after the threat of the Jews (If you let this man go, you are

30 Philo, Legatio ad Gaium, from Paul L. Maier, The Episode of the Golden Shields in Jerusalem, Harvard
Theological Review 62, (1969), 110.

31 Ibid., 110.

32 Ibid., 110.

33 McGing, Pilate and the Sources, 431.

34 Philo, Legatio xxxviii, 299-305.

no friend of Caesar (Jn 19:12)), in the trial of Jesus more understandable. Pilate had good

reason not to raise Tiberiuss anger again. Tom Thatcher cautions about reading too much of

Pilates character into this narrative: It should not, however, be used to suggest that Pilate was

too willful or malicious in his dealings with the Jews to be easily manipulated by them. This is so

because all character traits revealed in the Philo pericope are filtered through a highly stylized

context which certainly did not function in the capacity of preserving history.35

Summary of the Secular Sources

Philo and Josephus narrate four incidents in which Pilate clashed with the Jews. These events

reveal Pilate to be culturally unaware or insensitive, at times provocative, stubborn, indecisive,

willing to use violence, hesitant at times to killing, and politically ingratiating toward the

emperor. However, Pilate ruled Judea for ten years, and it is difficult to assess whether these

episodes were typical of his tenure or rare. It is clear that, compared to other Roman provinces,

Judea was a difficult one to govern. It is hard to imagine governing a land where the people

believe they are Gods chosen people, that the land was given to them by God, and their fanatical

worship of one and only one God. It remains to examine the biblical sources for the portraits of

Pilate they convey.

Biblical Sources

35 Tom Thatcher, Philo on Pilate: Rhetoric or Reality? Restoration Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1995), 218.
In addition to the accounts of the trial of Jesus in each of the four gospels, there are six additional

references to Pilate in the New Testament. These brief references will first be examined before

considering each of the gospel authors portraits of Pilate.

New Testament Mentions of Pilate Apart from the Trial

A very brief mention of Pilate, in Luke 13:1, alludes to another episode where Pilate used

violence against the Jews: Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the

Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. There is no known historical

reference that would shed light on this incident. Sherman Johnson believes that this event was

possibly confused with a similar event, described by Josephus, and carried out by Archelaus

around 4 B.C. During a Passover, when many Galileans would have been present in Jerusalem,

Archelaus sent a cohort to quell a riot. The rioters killed most of the soldiers, and Archelaus sent

the entire army in to slay them while they were making their sacrifices.36 Josephus describes,

how they were slain like sacrifices themselves.37 Thus Johnson believes that Luke incorrectly

attributed the event to Pilate rather than Archelaus. However this article, written in 1935, may

not represent current scholarship. Norvil Geldenhuys in his commentary assumes that Pilate

committed the slaughter.38

Three passages in the Book of Acts allude to Pilate. After the blind beggar is healed, Peter

addresses the crowd and tells them, You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him

before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go (Acts 3:13). Here Peter assigns all the blame

36 Sherman Elbridge Johnson, A Note on Luke 13:1-5, Anglican Theological Review 17, no. 2 (1935), 91-92.

37 Josephus, Wars, 2.2.5.

38 Norvil Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 370.
to the Jews and none to Pilate, a common feature in the gospels. Acts 4:27 states, Indeed Herod

and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire

against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. The context of this passage is a prayer

meeting with only believers present. Thus it may more accurately portray how the Christians

viewed the trial and crucifixion. Here the blame is shared with all parties, including Pilate, as

they are described as having conspired together. In Acts 13:28 Paul is speaking to Jews in a

synagogue in Pisidian Antioch. He states, Though they [the people of Jerusalem and their

rulers] found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed.

Again, speaking in public, blame is assigned to the Jews, in particular the Jews of Jerusalem and

their leaders. Pilate only acquiesces to their demand.

The last reference apart from the trial narratives is in 1 Tim 6:13, where Paul only makes

a passing reference to Pilate and emphasizes how Jesus made the good confession before

Pilate. Andreas Kostenberger lists three specific ways in which Jesus made the good confession

when questioned by Pilate:

(1) byaskingacounterquestion(Jn18:34:Doyousaythisofyourownaccord,ordid
otherssayittoyouaboutme?);
(2) byprovidinganindirectanswerthatreframestheissueinJesusratherthanthe
questionersterms(18:36:Mykingdomisnotofthisworld)orthattakesthe
conversationinadifferentdirectioninsomeotherway(18:37:YousaythatIama
king.ForthispurposeIwasborn);and
(3) byremainingsilent.39

Mark(15:115)
MarksaccountofthetrialbeforePilateisverybriefandformsabareoutlinewhichMatthew

andLukefollowwithaddeddetails.LaneprovidesinformationonPilate:
Pilatebelongedtoaspecialgroupofimperialadministrators,consistingofmenbeneath
therankofsenator,thesocalledequestrianclassorRomanknights.Thesemagistrates,

39 Andreas J. Kostenberger, What is Truth? Pilates Question in its Johannine and Larger Biblical Context,
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March 2005), 40.
 whoownedamoderateminimumofproperty,wereusedtogovernrelativelysmallareas
thatrequiredcarefulsupervision.TheirofficialtitleintheperiodpriortoClaudiuswas
notprocuratorbutprefect(praefectus).Sofarascriminalandpoliticaljurisdictionwas
concerned,theypossessedpowerssimilartothoseheldbysenatorialproconsulsand
imperiallegates[Pilate]showedhimselfaharshadministratorwhodespisedtheJewish
peopleandtheirparticularsensitivities.40

NochargesarespecifiedinMarksaccount,butPilatemusthavebeeninformedearlierashe

beginshisquestioningwiththeonlychargethatmatterstohim,AreyoutheKingoftheJews?

Jesusanswers,ashedoesinallfourgospels,Yes,itisayousay.InMark,thisisthelasttime

hespeaks.WhenPilateasksifJesuswillanswerthechargesoftheJews,heisamazedathis

silence.AccordingtoLane,thiswasbecauseJesuspresentedadignifiedandserenemanner,

somethinghehadnotwitnessedbeforeincapitaltrials.41However,inlieuofadefensebythe

accused,Pilatemustfindhimguilty.Laneexplains,Tojudgefromearlymartyrtrials,those

whorefusedtodefendthemselvesweregiventhreeopportunitiestochangetheirmindsbefore

sentencewaspassed.Romanmagistrateswereasreluctanttosentenceanundefendedmanasone

whowasinadequatelyaccused(cf.Acts25:16).42ThoughnotrecordedinMark,theremusthave

beenmoretotheirinteractionasPilatedoesnotpronounceaverdict,butusesthePassover

amnesty.HesensesthatthereismoretothistrialthantheJewsbeinggoodRomanpatriots,as

MarkaddsthatheknewitwasoutofenvythatthechiefpriestshadhandedJesusovertohim.

Whenthecrowd,eggedonbythechiefpriests,demandsthatBarabbasbereleased,andthat

Jesusbecrucified,Pilatecapitulatesbecausehewantedtosatisfythecrowd.Therewasno

40 Lane, Mark, 548-549.

41 Ibid., 551.

42 Ibid., 551-552.
requirementthatJesusbecrucified,onlythathereleaseBarabbas.Nonetheless,heaccedestothe

theirdemand.ThusMarkplacesblameontheJews,butstillportraysPilateasacrowdpleaser,

andpossiblyasonewhoworkedwiththeJewisheliteinordertomaintainrelations.

Matthew(27:12;1126)
LikeMarksgospel,MatthewsbeginswithJesusbeinghandedovertoPilate.Butinterestingly,

heinterruptsthetrialwiththestoryofJudasremorseandsuicide.Francecomments,
Thispericopeintroducesathemewhichwillbepickedupagaininvv.2425,the
questionofwhoisresponsibleforthesheddingofJesusinnocentblood.Judastries,
andfails,toridhimselfoftheresponsibility.Thepriestsrefusetoacceptit,butbyusing
thebloodmoneybecomethemselvescomplicit.LaterPilatewillwashhishandsto
disclaimresponsibilityandwillexplicitlytransferittothepeople,whowillformally
acceptit.43

PerhapsMatthewdeliberatelyshowsthatallareguiltyofsendingJesustothecross:Judas,the

people,thechiefpriests,Pilate,and,astheNewTestamentmakesclear,allofhumanity.

MatthewfollowsMarkcloselybutaddsseveralimportantdetails.Matthewistheonlygospelto

pointoutthatBarabbasfirstnameisJesus,whichpossiblyexplainswhyPilateasksseveral

timeswhotheywantreleasedastheremayhavebeensomeconfusionbetweenJesusBarabbas

andJesuswhoisknownasMessiah.Francetranslatesthewordenvyusedinmosttranslationsas

rivalry.Heexplains,isnormallytranslatedenvyorjealousy,butthatseemsaweak

renderingherewherethesenseisclearlypolitical.TheJewishleaderssawJesusasathreatto

theirpositionandauthority;itwasamatterofcompetingclaimsandofselfinterestratherthan

envyinthemorenormalpsychologicalsense.44Matthewalsoistheonlygospelthatrelates

Pilateswifesdreamandwarning.ItisasifMatthewishighlightingJesusinnocencebythe

43 France, Matthew, 1038.

44 Ibid., 1046, n. 4.
factthatJudasknewhewasinnocent,Pilateswifeknewhewasinnocent,Pilatecouldseehe

wasinnocent,andBarabbaswasclearlyguiltyoftheverychargemadeofJesus.45Matthew

explicitlystateswhatMarkimplies,Pilatecouldseethatariotwasabouttoensue.Pilategives

thecrowdwhattheywantandthencompletesthefarcebywashinghishandsofresponsibility,

andthecrowdtakesituponthemselves.PilateseemsnottoregardJesusasseditous,butthe

possibilityofariotmakesaccedingtothecrowdtheexpedientthingtodo.
Luke(23:125)
Luke,likeMatthew,followsMarksbasicoutlinebutaddsseveralnewpiecesofinformationthat

areuniquetohisgospel.First,LukespecificallynamesthepoliticalchargestheJewshave

decidedtouseinordertopersuadePilatetoupheldtheirdeathsentenceforblasphemy.Theyare:

1)Jesusissubvertingtheirnation;2)heopposespaymentoftaxestoCaesar;and3)heclaimsto

beChrist,andsothatPilateunderstands,theyaddthatitmeansaking.Pilateessentiallyignores

thefirsttwoandfocusesonthethird.Second,afteraskingJesusandreceivinghisanswer,Pilate

stateshefindsnobasisforthecharges.WhentheyprotestthatJesushasbeenstirringupthe

peoplebeginninginGalilee,PilateasksifheisaGalilean.Thislackofunderstandingofhis

subjectscultureexplainsmuchofwhathappenslater.Hedoesnotcomprehendthetremendous

differencesbetweenGalileansandJudeansandthereforeplaceshimselfindifficultsituation

whenhethinksthatthecrowd,almostcertainlymadeupoflocalJudeansandnotthemostly

Galileanswhocried,Hosannaonlydaysbefore,wouldchooseJesus.Third,notwantingto

havetomakeadecision,PilatesendsJesustoHerodAntipas.46Aftergettingnowhere

questioningJesus,Herodsendshimbackstatinghealsofindsnobasisforthechargeoftreason.

45 Ibid., 1050.

46 Geldenhuys, Luke, 593.

PilatenowhopesthatfloggingJesuswillsatisfythecrowdbuttheystilldemandhis

crucifixion.47MoresothaneitherMattheworMark,LukeportraysPilateasdefinitelybelieving

inJesusinnocenceandwantingtoreleasehim.Pilateactuallystateshisinnocentverdictthree

times.Whythendoeshenotjustdismissthecaseandsendthepeoplehome?Mostlikely,hehas

createdarealdilemmaforhimselfbyhisindecision,miscalculation,andgenuineconcernofa

majorriotthatwouldrequiremuchbloodshedtoend.Bettertogiveuptheonemanandbedone

withit,sohebacksdownashehaddoneinthepast.
John(18:2819:16)
Johnhas,byfar,themostdetailedaccountofJesustrialbeforePilate.ItisJohnwhorecords

thattheJewswouldnotgoinsidethepraetoriuminordertonotbemadeuncleanfortheFeastof

UnleavenedBread,alsocommonlylumpedtogetherwiththePassover.48ConcerningPilate,

Carsonobserves,
Bothfrombiblicalandextrabiblicalsources,historianshavecometoknowhimasa
morallyweakandvacillatingmanwho,likemanyofthesamebreed,triedtohidehis
flawsundershowsofstubbornnessandbrutality.Hisruleearnedhimtheloathingofthe
Jewishpeople,smallgroupsofwhomviolentlyprotestedandwereputdownwithsavage
ferocity.49

Intheensuingscenes,thedislikethateachsidehadfortheotherbecomesevident.TheJews

werehopingthatPilatewouldquicklyratifytheirdeathsentence,andsogaveasnideresponse

whenPilateaskedforthecharges.PilatetellsthemtotryJesusthemselves,forcingtheJewsto

admittheywereunderRomesthumb.ThesceneshiftsbackandforthbetweenPilatespeaking

totheJewsoutsideandwithJesusontheinside.AsPilatequestionsJesus,itbecomesvery

47 Ibid., 594-595.

48 D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 588-589.

49 Ibid., 590.
apparentwhyPilatedidnotviewJesusasapoliticalthreattoRome.Whenaskedaboutwhether

heisaking,Jesussaysyesbutqualifieswhatkindofakingheis:Mykingdomisnotofthis

world.Ifitweremyservantswouldfight.AsJesusexplainsthathecameintotheworldto

testifytothetruth.PilatereplieswithhisfamousWhatistruth?Hecaresnotforesotericthings

liketruth,butonlypracticalmattersthatenablehimtokeeppowerandmaintainorder.Itisquite

clearthatPilatewantstoreleaseJesusrightuptowhentheJewsplaytheirtrumpcardand

insinuatethatifheletsJesusgofree,theyjustmightletitbeknowntoCaesarthathereleaseda

threattoRome.ButPilatecleverlyforcestheJewstobetraytheirownfaithbysayingWehave

nokingbutCaesar.Pilate,notcaringforthetruthiswillingtobetrayhisownconvictionsand

turnoverJesustobeexecutedbecausethedeathofaninnocentJewisnotworththeheadaches

theJewscaninflict.
Conclusion
ManytheorieshavebeenadvancedtoexplainPilatesactions.Hewasacoward,ora

Jewhater,orcollaboratorwiththeJewishelite.Theevidencefromboththesecularandbiblical

sourcestakentogethersuggeststhatnoneofthesequiteexplainshim.Hewasculturally

insensitive,impetuous,stubborn,indecisive,sometimesbrutal,othertimesnot.Hewasshrewd

enoughtoseethroughtheJewspretensions,butmadevulnerabletotheirproteststoRomeby

pastunwisepractices.Heseemstohavebeenatleastofaveragecompetenceasagovernor,

lastingtenyearsinoffice.Intheend,hisdefiningcharacteristicswerepragmatismand

expediency.BelievingJesustobeinnocent,andhavingenoughpridetonotwanttobepushed

aroundbytheJewishelite,heultimatelysacrificedjusticeandintegrityinordertosolveatricky

situationwithoutitcostinghimanything.Itjustdidnotmatterthatthelifeofasingle,

unimportantJewwasworthariotoratriptoRometoexplainhisactions.
 TheimportanceofthisstudyistoseethelargerissueofPilatescynicalquestion.What

PilateandtheJewsdemonstrateistheimpossibilityofbeingneutralwithregardtoJesusandthe

truthherepresents.AsKostenbergerobserves,AneutralstancetowardJesusisadecision

againstJesus,andintheendPilatedoesnothavethestrengthtomaintiainthestandpointhehas

taken,butcastshislotwiththeJewishleadersandtheworldbecausehecannottakehisstandon

thesideofJesus.50Pilateshowshimselftobeamanbelongingtothisworld.

50 Kostenberger, What is Truth?, 52.

 Bibliography

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Carter, Warren. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 2003.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007.

Geldenhuys, Norval. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1951.

Johnson, Sherman Elbridge. "A Note on Luke 13:1-5." Anglican Theological Review 17, no. 2
(1935): 91-95.

Josephus. Josephus: The Complete Works. Translated by William Whiston. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1998.

Kostenberger, Andreas. ""What is Truth?' Pilate's Question in Its Johannine and Larger Biblical
Context." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (2005): 33-62.

Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974.

Lea, Thomas D. and Black, David Alan. The New Testament: Its Background and Message.
Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003.

Maier, Paul L. "The Episode of the Golden Shields at Jerusalem." Harvard Theological Review
62 (1969): 109-121.

McGing, Brian Charles. "Pontius Pilate and the Sources." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 3
(1991): 416-438.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135, no. 540
(1978): 323-332.

Scott Jr., J. Julius. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
1995.

Thatcher, Tom. "Philo on Pilate: Rhetoric or Reality?" Restoration Quarterly 37, no. 4 (1995):
215-218.