Christian Forums

I think Christianity put a bad reputation on this feller.. What do you think?



In all four gospel accounts Pilate lobbies for Jesus to be spared his eventual fate of execution, and acquiesces only when the crowd refuses to relent. He thus seeks to avoid personal responsibility for the death of Jesus. In the Gospel of Matthew, Pilate washes his hands to show that he is not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.[7] The Gospel of Mark, depicting Jesus as innocent of plotting against the Roman Empire, portrays Pilate as reluctant to execute him.[7] In the Gospel of Luke, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee, also finds nothing treasonable in Jesus' actions.[7] In the Gospel of John, Pilate states "I find no guilt in him [Jesus]," and he asks the Jews if Jesus should be released from custody.[8]

But! Pilate is held responsible--

Talking about being caught between a rock and a hard place!

Any thoughts on Pilate?

Yes I agree, he was warned by his wife, and as you say he was stuck in the middle. I don't think he can be held responsible at all, it was the baying crowd who sent him to the cross.

I think Biblical evidence is outlined so that as we study we are to know who the real perpetrators were in Christ's sentence.

I've not heard anyone with any reasonable amount of scriptural knowledge point to Rome as being responsible for the death of Christ, most know full well it was the fear of breaking the traditions held by the Jews that put Christ on the cross.

It was Rome ( Pilate) that had the final say so. It was Rome ( the soldiers ) that enjoyed bullying and tormenting Jesus. It was Rome that imployed death by crucifixtion..

The historical perception of Roman officials were that they were spineless, corrupt men, who were bankrupt of moral character. Pilate was not a figure in history who is seen as being sympathetic.

It's very ironic that it was the church that spearheaded the crucifixion of Christ...

Yes the Romans mocked, ridiculed, and tortured Christ but it wasn't the decision of Rome to crucify Him, had Caiaphas not been so adamant on executing Jesus there would have been no crucifixion. 

Rome was a vessel to fulfill the inevitable.

I have always felt badly for him...but...that's what happens when you want to please everyone.  You can't go with your own gut and sense of right vs. wrong. 

Quote from: Jd34 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 08:37:36
It was Rome ( Pilate) that had the final say so. It was Rome ( the soldiers ) that enjoyed bullying and tormenting Jesus. It was Rome that imployed death by crucifixtion..

The historical perception of Roman officials were that they were spineless, corrupt men, who were bankrupt of moral character. Pilate was not a figure in history who is seen as being sympathetic.

It's very ironic that it was the church that spearheaded the crucifixion of Christ...

Not sure what you mean by "the church" here.  Are you speaking of the Jews?

Quote from: Catholica on Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 10:57:23

Quote from: Jd34 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 08:37:36
It was Rome ( Pilate) that had the final say so. It was Rome ( the soldiers ) that enjoyed bullying and tormenting Jesus. It was Rome that imployed death by crucifixtion.

The historical perception of Roman officials were that they were spineless, corrupt men, who were bankrupt of moral character. Pilate was not a figure in history who is seen as being sympathetic.

It's very ironic that it was the church that spearheaded the crucifixion of Christ...

Not sure what you mean by "the church" here.  Are you speaking of the Jews?

Yes the Jewish priests.

Rock and a hard place is right... Gotta remember that Pilate wasn't a believer, merely an official commissioned by Rome. He thought it was unreasonable for a mere teacher to be tried and convicted as a Traitor, the Jews rile up and pretty much threatened to revolt if He wasn't convicted. Can you imagine what Pilate would face from his superiors if that happened? I doubt it'd be anything good. Nonetheless, he chose to save himself and prevent potential chaos by giving Jesus to be crucified. I know he said he wasn't responsible, but even with an intent to free Him he still made the choice to give Him up.

JD, what you just mentioned, the Church spearheading it, you're not far off...

Lots of opinion here.  What does the Bible say?

Quote from: Matthew 2711 Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor questioned Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said to him, "It is as you say." 12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He did not answer. 13 Then Pilate *said to Him, "Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?" 14 And He did not answer him with regard to even a single charge, so the governor was quite amazed.

15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the people any one prisoner whom they wanted. 16 At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17 So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18 For he knew that because of envy they had handed Him over.

19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him." 20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death. 21 But the governor said to them, "Which of the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." 22 Pilate *said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all *said, "Crucify Him!" 23 And he said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they kept shouting all the more, saying, "Crucify Him!"

24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves." 25 And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

Notice verse 25?  The Jews said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" Seems to me they were taking responsibility for Jesus' death and absolving Pilate.

Quote from: MeMyself on Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 10:53:00
I have always felt badly for him...but...that's what happens when you want to please everyone.  You can't go with your own gut and sense of right vs. wrong.

It came down to Jesus' life or his.  And I can see his reasoning. 

Rome was very insistant on "Pax Romana; " or the Peace of Rome.  It tolerated no "civil dosobedience" or riots.  (remember that is mentioned in Acts a few times?)   A civil uprising would have required bringing in the Legion to violently suppress it. (massive bloodshed) That happening during a Holy Day could have sparked MORE uprisings, more troops and more bloodshed.

So as the governing official, it was Pilate's responsibility to defuse any potential situation that could lead to civil unrest.  His failure to do so would have made his superiors send him to the executioner.  He probably thought that if he released Jesus when there was such a public outcry against Him, that He would have died at their hands immediatly anyway. (maybe true...)

Great topic. In fact Jesus answers this question himself weather or not Pilate was responsible.
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." John 19:11
So Jesus regarded Pilates misguided verdict as a sin. He was indeed pressured by the Jewish elders and Judas had a great amount of sin in this matter more than Pilate according to Jesus.

Also to touch on the nature of the Roman guards. Like the poster above suggested they were a misguided lot. But some of them had redeeming qualities. Like the high ranking Officer who sent for Jesus to heal someone in his house. And Jesus responded by saying is there a man with greater faith in all Judea?  And then theres the officer who saw Jesus on the cross and exclaimed Surely this man was without sin. We all have a choice to make regarding Jesus. We can follow the norm or we can recognize Jesus as our savior the son of God and allow him to affect our lives.   

In the historic document called "The Crucifixion by an Eye Witness" the situation of Pilate is made clear.  He had no reason to convict Jesus and was not willing to do so.  However he was threatened by Kaiaphas that if he did not convict Jesus there would be a report sent back to Rome that Pilate had sided with a man who claimed to be a King.  i.e. was potentially a threat to Caesar.  The punishment for such a crime was the death sentence. Pilate could not risk his own position.  The Jews subsequently put their own spin on the case and pointed the blame towards Pilate.

Quote from: Dr. Alan on Wed Feb 03, 2016 - 17:06:56
In the historic document called "The Crucifixion by an Eye Witness" the situation of Pilate is made clear.  He had no reason to convict Jesus and was not willing to do so.  However he was threatened by Kaiaphas that if he did not convict Jesus there would be a report sent back to Rome that Pilate had sided with a man who claimed to be a King.  i.e. was potentially a threat to Caesar.  The punishment for such a crime was the death sentence. Pilate could not risk his own position.  The Jews subsequently put their own spin on the case and pointed the blame towards Pilate.

Exactly! 

I think everyone has missed the heart of the matter concerning Pilate and even Jesus. Danni18 comes close but still fails to see. The Jewish leaders, Pilate, and the crowd were merely means to an end. God's plan was played out in those instances and by those characters. I don't mean to say that they didn't have a choice, just that God knew, from before creation, exactly what would transpire in the hearts of all involved. That is why Jesus was born into the world when and how He was, Why His ministry lasted exactly as long as it did, and His death occurred when and in the manner that it did. 
It was all in God's time and by His Purpose.

From the musical Easter play "An Old Man Remembers:"

Caiaphas, Pilate, Judas
Used to be popular names;
But after folk see this production
They don't treat us quite the same.

When you're a governor such as I am,
Trying to please the people, what a life!
Special interest groups demanding favors.
Instead, I should have listened to my wife .....

(c) David Simpson 1978

yes, true...  But remember at which time Pilate took to himself the right to condemn Jesus.  It was ONLY after the people told Pilate that they would take it to Caesar did he begin assuming responsibilities for the death of Christ. 

John 19:12
"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."

So:  What made Jesus, The Son of Man, so different from the other 'sons of men'? 

What made The Son of Man so different from Pilate, who was also another son of man?
What made The Son of Man so different from The High Priest, who was also another son of man?
What made The Son of Man so different from those others, sons of men, who wanted to stone the adulteress for 'breaking The Law'?
What made the Son of Man so different from the readers of Scripture in The Temple, who were also other sons of men?

James 4:17
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

And so if we have the foundation, which was laid by The Prophets and The Apostles, and we have the Head, which is Christ, where are we?

Ephesians 2:20
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,..."

Colossians 1:18
'And He is the head of the body, the church:..'


The Prophets would be the Judeo part
And The Apostles would be the Christian part

and together we were given

Judeo-Christian. 


You cannot neglect The Prophets otherwise there would never have been The Apostles.


Deuteronomy 18:15-19
"The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."


And so basically:  If there were no Prophets, there would have been no Christ and then there would have been no Apostles.

Remember what Christ Himself says:  Revelation 22:16
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

The root means the One who was before and Sustainer of.....  and the offspring means the One who came after and honors the ones who came before...


Christ cannot transgress His Own Laws.

James 4:12  "There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"

Who is this One which is able to save and to destroy?? 

John 19:11  Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me unless it were given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed Me over to you is guilty of greater sin."

Jesus did not hold him responsible.

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 03:11:03
Yes I agree, he was warned by his wife, and as you say he was stuck in the middle. I don't think he can be held responsible at all, it was the baying crowd who sent him to the cross.

So if your neighbors drum up a charge and sue you in court and the judge knows you are innocent yet he puts you in jail because he is afraid of your neighbors...you would agree the judge is not responsible for your incarceration?

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Nov 29, 2016 - 10:08:28

Quote from: chosenone on Thu Jun 11, 2015 - 03:11:03
Yes I agree, he was warned by his wife, and as you say he was stuck in the middle. I don't think he can be held responsible at all, it was the baying crowd who sent him to the cross.

So if your neighbors drum up a charge and sue you in court and the judge knows you are innocent yet he puts you in jail because he is afraid of your neighbors...you would agree the judge is not responsible for your incarceration?

You're forgetting how much power the neighbours have in the case, if they threaten to tell the judge's superior that the judge failed to find fault despite the charges being against the state's law, then the judge is basically a puppet.

Evil people could not get much done if it was not for the weak.