Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

In addition to narrating "His Last Days," I've been asked to take the
role of Pilate.  What do we know about Pilate?  What kind of personality
do you think Pilate had?  What characteristics would you assign to him
if you were called upon to do a portrayal?

Peace,
Richard

    I've written about this before:

    To me, Judas and Pilate sum up all the sin of the world: the active
    bad, and the passive bad (the failure to do good).

    We don't see into the mind of Pilate, and there are numerous pious and
    impious legends associated with him, we're likely to read of them all
    in this note before long.

    Pilate thought he was avoiding a choice by letting the mob have its
    choice.

    Of course, it helps if you believe that both Jesus and Pilate are
    historic persons and not creations of myth-authors of the 1st century.

    .2
    
    I don't think it's quite that simple, Patrick.  But thank you and
    God bless you.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
     I heard a sermon 15 or 16 yrs ago that *still* speaks to me about 
    your question!
     The minister of our church at that time gave a sermon in which he
    played the role of Pilate. 
    
     Right after the congregation had reaffirmed our faith and beliefs by
    reading the Apostles Creed, he came in from the rear of the sanctuary
    shouting:
     
      "NOW JUST A MINUTE!!  I've been listening to this for 2000 years now
    and it's getting on my nerves!--Every Sunday people all over the world
    say--'suffered under Pontius Pilate..'
      "well,, *I'm* Pontius Pilate,,and you people have the wrong idea ! "
    
      He then went on to describe (with scriptural references) his attempts
    to free Christ,,or to refer the case to Herod,,or at least to get
    Christ to defend himself. 
      He described how Pilate probably felt trapped between the proverbial
    rock and a hard place , with nothing against this 'madman' who had  
    gotten the local religious authorities in such an uproar.
      'Pilate' asked the congregation what we felt he could have done in the
    circumstances,,and then asked us what can you do with a person who's
    only 'crime' seemed to be preaching radical ideas like 'love thy
    neighbor',,and '..heal the sick',,and 'turn the other cheek'...And then
    refuses to defend himself!
    
     The sermon ended with the question  "What do you *do* with someone
                                          like this?"
    
    I left church that day with a new feeling of compassion for Pilate,
    and others in positions of power who find themselves caught up in 
    something they can't control.
    
    
    Doug      

    "...something they can't control"
    
    That's a moral copout.  Pilate had a free will, he had "control" and
    made his decision and faces God's judgment for it.

    My own feelings about Pilate fall pretty much in line with yours, Doug.
    
    I think he was caught between the political pressure from Herod to tow
    a hard line with the "rabble" and the chance that if he followed the
    law to the letter, he could rouse the ire of that very "rabble" he was
    trying to control.  And then there were his repeated attempts to get
    Jesus to say something...*anything* in his own defense.  Unfortunately
    for Pilate, God seemed to have another agenda in mind.
    
    Nanci

    I think Pilate did the wrong thing, but then I would bet that all of us
    have done the wrong thing in difficult situations at various times in
    our life.  It is easy to sit back in judgment of others for having made
    mistakes.  Part of the Christian ethic is to understand that all of us
    do make mistakes.  What we can learn from Pilate is to urge ourselves
    not to make the same kind of mistake, to lift ourselves from
    complacency, not to wash ourselves of the matter--in other words, to
    *act*.  That is I have a problem with contemplative lifestyles that
    practice withdrawal from the world--in a sense, that is simply a
    reiteration of Pilate's sin, it is a washing of one's hands of the
    world.  I admire those who act and respond to every injustice that they
    ever encounter in the world, but I suspect that there aren't many who
    can achieve such a goal.  We can both sympathize with Pilate's error
    and be inspired by it not to make the same mistake.

    -- Mike

.4

Thank you.

I see Pilate as a career military man who was stuck with the nasty job
of maintaining Roman order among foreigners for whom he had little
understanding or affinity.

I see Pilate as a man who was basically objective and just.

I think Pilate held no personal resentment towards Jesus, but did resent
being put in the position of having to resolve a petty, local problem.

Peace,
Richard

    We cannot judge Pilate because we can't examine the state of his
    conscience at the time he condemned Jesus to torture and crucifixion,
    or if he sought God's forgiveness for his sins.
    
    Having said that, try to convince us that Pilate's execution of Jesus
    was "just" in a moral context.  Of course, it was "just" in that he had
    the legal authority and military power of Rome behind him to do as he
    see fit.

>   try to convince us that Pilate's execution of Jesus
>   was "just" in a moral context.

I believe the death penalty is in itself immoral.  Therefore, in good
conscience, I cannot defend it.

Richard

    
    
      I'd like to point out where I feel Pilate fell short. I feel he
    had too strong a fear of man. As someone in an earlier note brought
    out he kept questioning Jesus. It didn't seem that he was determined
    to execute him, yet fear of the people seemed to keep him for making
    a just decision in this case. Luke 23:14,15 shows Pilate and Herod
    both found no reason to kill Jesus based on the accusations brought
    against him. Yet Pilate gave in. We need to learn from this. A main
    point we can learn and strenghten ourselves with is that we need to
    do what's right in Gods eyes no matter what "man" may do to us. 
    Luke 12:4 and PS 118:6 show we need to fear God not man. This is where
    Pilate fell short.
    
     robin

    Whether or not Pilate sought God's forgiveness for his sins is
    irrelevant to whether or not we should sympathize with his situation or
    forgive him for what he did.  We should do both of those things because
    he was a human being.
    
    -- Mike

    
    		I recently preached a sermon entitled "A Portrait of a Good
    Man".  It was about Pilate and the political intrigue surrounding the
    events of that day.  Historical records bears out the fact that Rome
    was in the habit of putting their best administrators in the most
    troublesome spots.  Judia was one so we can infere that Pilate was well
    thought of as an administrator/governor...some historical records bear
    this out also.  My main point was that "Man" cannot/has not made very
    good religious decisions without basing them on prayerful
    considerations.  
    
    
    Dave

    Whether or not Pilate sought God's forgiveness for his sins is very
    relevant to Pilate himself.  Not knowing this we are not in a position
    to judge him as God has.  We forgive Pilate as we forgive all those who
    trespass against us.

    I don't know what it means to "sympathize with his situation".  Do we
    do the same to Hitler or Stalin, namely "sympathize with their
    situation?"

    Pilate was free to choose.  It's ironic that some earlier notes refer
    to Pilate as "just".  The word "just" was only applied to Jesus, first
    by Pilate's wife and then by Pilate (Mt 27:19)

    Pilate's wife is Claudia, niece to Augustus Caesar.  Pilate's rule of
    Judea didn't do him any credit.  Judea was the place most likely to
    rebel which, of course, it did, 30 years later.
                                                  

    
    		To me, the question begs whether Jesus was "put" to death
    or did he accept it willingly.   I have no doubt that Jesus had the power
    to overcome the trials by Pilate.  That is born out physically when at
    the garden the Roman cohort called out to Jesus and he answered "I am" 
    and the whole cohort went right down by the power of his words. 
    Coupled with Pilate's continued efforts to spare Jesus leads me to
    believe that all of the events were preordained.  So, in my mind, if
    you are looking for the true condemmer of Jesus, you must blame a world
    full of sin....isn't that the ultimate reason why Jesus had to die?  
    
    		Now before I get jumped on about this, let me say that I
    also have no doubt that God did place the "right" people in those
    positions because God knew what the outcome would be.  Judus is another
    good example as well as the weakness of Peter in his denial of Jesus
    right after the cruxification.  
    
    		Caiaphus's statement "If you let this man go then you are
    no friend of Ceaser" cannot be overlooked during these trials.   Pilate 
    had been in "hot water" with Ceaser several times before this because
    of overstepping his authority in Judea.  This statement was a direct
    threat to Pilate so his natural leanings would be to avoid trouble and
    go ahead and do what they wanted.  
    
    		It is also interesting to note that the trials of Jesus
    (there were three within a 24 hour period) were against the Jewish law
    of the day.  All sentances were to "lay" over for at least a 24 hour
    period in case anyone came forth to provide new information.  Also a 
    unanamous vote (by the Sandhedren sp) was against the law because of
    the fear of "railroading" someone they didn't like.  So if Pilate is to
    be condemmed then these others should be also though I believe that we
    are all guilty of putting Jesus to death.
    
    
    
    Dave

    Surely forgiveness and compassion are not alien concepts to Christians.

    Even if we knew for a fact that Pilate didn't seek God's forgiveness,
    that would make no difference as far as our own compassion for him is
    concerned.  As for sympathizing with his situation, the reality is that
    all of us are capable of doing wrong things, all of us make mistakes,
    all of us commit errors in judgment.  It is easy to take what is
    essentially a holier-than-thou stance, arms symbolically folded over
    chest, and condemn others for making the wrong choices in their lives. 
    But, as a great prophet once pointed out some 2000 years ago, stone
    throwers of right ought to be without sin themselves.  I don't know any
    of us here is who is without sin.

    Do I sympathize with Hitler's and Stalin's situation?  Because I believe
    in compassion for all, the answer must be yes.  It is easy to hate the
    Hitlers and the Stalins of the world; even the tax collectors do that.
    Who knows what led those people to do what they did?  And had their
    life circumstances been different, who knows how their lives might have
    been different.  We all sin, and we all also have that of God within
    us.  It is our recognition of our own frailty, our capacity for error,
    that inspires us to understand when make the wrong choices themselves. 

    I am reminded of the My Lai massacre.  There were a few brave soldiers
    who refused to participate, or who actively intervened to oppose what
    was doing; but they were the minority.  If you take college psychology
    classes, you learn about a famous experiment in which individuals were
    asked to administer electric shocks to another person.  The shocks were
    faked, but the person administering didn't know that.  Even after the
    "victim" screamed for the person to stop, individuals often continued
    anyway, obeying the authority of the person administering the test. 
    The reality is that the capacity to do bad things is within all of us. 
    It would be nice to say that *I* wouldn't be one of those people, and
    if one has such confidence in their own ability to always do the right
    thing, then more power to them.  But I say, and the Christian ethic
    says, that such judgmentalism is unjustified.  All have sinned, and
    fallen short of the glory of God.  To err is human, but to recognize
    that others err and feel compassion for others who do, is an expression
    of our compassion.

    So yes, I do believe that we should sympathize with Pilate's situation.

    -- Mike

    Mike,

    As always, every ready to cast a stone at those who you allege to cast
    stones, and judge those who you allege to judge others.

    At a fundamental level you and I disagree about the nature of sin and
    the response to it.

    Pilate sinned and whether or not we agree that it was a "difficult
    situation".  The point is that all, including Pilate and Judas are
    given the grace from God to avoid sin.

    What you wrote appears to be the equation of compassion with avoiding
    personal accountability for ones actions.

    The experiment you refer to in Stanley Millgram's Obedience to
    Authority experiment.

    Pat, I wasn't disagreeing that Pilate sinned.  In fact, I stated as
    much on several occasions.  Nor am I in favor of avoiding personal
    accountability for one's actions; on the contrary, I think all of us
    have a responsibility to do the right thing at all times.

    What I am referring to is compassion and understanding for others
    *even* when they do the wrong thing.  It means forgiving those who do
    wrong to us, as Jesus taught 2000 years ago.  And it means the belief
    that this compassion should be universal, not just for those whom we
    happen to like.

    We have a moral responsibility to right wrongs and to defend what is
    right and just.  But we must also do so from a position that recognizes
    that people are imperfect and don't always do the right things that we
    urge them and ourselves to do.  Thus we both urge right, and understand
    that others do not always do the right thing, especially in situations
    that are not as clearcut as we often claim they are.  We thus do not
    judge them, but instead urge them to get off their feet, we lend them a
    hand if necessary.  We also recognize that many issues are often
    difficult, involve conflicting interests and values, and, given the
    upbringing, culture, and life history of others, that others may make
    decisions that we would not make or that we even find immoral.  We urge
    them to reach to a higher morality, we share our conscience with them,
    but we also understand and sympathize with them.  This stance stems
    from a spirit of universal love and compassion.

    As for me "casting a stone at those who allege to cast stones", that
    simply is simply untrue, and misses the point entirely.  You seem to be
    inferring that I believe that one should never criticize wrong when
    they see it, when in fact I believe just the opposite.  The issue here
    is not that we criticize wrongful actions, but that we criticize the
    actions without condemning or judging the individual who commits the
    wrongful acts.  It is a long held Quaker tradition, for example, of
    activism against various social evils.  Quakers were at the forefront
    of criticizing slavery; but in accordance with the spirit of Christ's
    teachings, Quakers worked for the abolition of slavery but did so in a
    way that tried to show love and understanding for the slave owner as
    well.  Quakers did this because it was in accordance with the spirit of
    Christ's teachings.  So if you believe that I am against criticizing
    evil or sin when identified, then you do not understand what I am
    saying.

    If criticizing judgmentalism makes one judgmental, then obviously it
    would be impossible to be opposed to judgmentalism.  According to that
    logic, if, when encountering judgmentalism, one could not criticize
    judgmentalism because one would be guilty of judgmentalism; but if one
    didn't criticize it in order not to be guilty of what one opposed, one
    would not really be opposing it.  This is nonsensical.  It is one thing
    to identify judgmentalism as sin; it is another to recognize that
    others commit this sin and to forgive others for it.  We should not
    avoid our responsibility to identify an evil, but we should love others
    and understand their frail human capacity to commit what we condemn,
    and forgive them for it.

    -- Mike

    
    I was reading the end of Matthew this weekend.  I was intrigued by
    a phrase that repeated itself in the story.
    
    Matt 27:3-4  When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was
    condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver
    coins to the chief priests and the elders.  "I have sinned," he said,
    "for I have betrayed innocent blood."  "What is that to us?" they
    replied, "That's your responsibility."
    
    Matt 27:24  When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that
    instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands
    in front of the crowd.  "I am innocent of this man's blood," he
    said.  "It is your responsibility."
    
    The phrase "your responsibility" really stood out.  Here was
    Pilate giving to the people the same answer the priest and elders
    had given Judas.  Was it passing the buck or was it only taking
    responsibility for their part in it.  I'm really not sure.  But I
    am sure about one thing...the sign above Jesus' head could have
    easily read "The buck stops here."  
    
    Jill

    I'll have to look at the Greek and the Latin to see if 27:4 and 27:24
    use the same word.  What English translation has "responsibility" in
    both places?
    
    Pilate couldn't have avoided responsibility for the execution of Jesus
    by merely washing his hands.

    
    > What English translation has "responsibility" in both places?
    
            NIV.
    
    >Pilate couldn't have avoided responsibility for the execution
    >of Jesus by merely washing his hands.
    
            I completely agree.
    
    Jill

    I could be wrong but my feeling is the religious arguments the accusers
    brought before Pilot were falling on deaf ears.  In other words, Pilot
    was probably thinking...Oooh Go away!!!  What I think turned the tables
    was when they brought up the false accusations of insurrection, I.E.
    Jesus told the people not to pay taxes to Ceaser.  Had that been true,
    it probably would've been the only justification for punishment in the
    eyes of Pilot.
    
    I though Doug brought up some excellent points.  The Sanhedrin actually
    broke some 15 or so laws in just the trial itself.  Most of the Roman
    authority believed in many Gods so religious arguments meant nothing to
    him.
    
    Jack