03 THE ROMAN TRIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EVENTS

CHAPTER - THE ROMAN TRIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF EVENTS THE HALL OF JUDGMENT Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said: THE CHARGES What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death ( John 18:28-31). And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king (Luke 23:2). And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; in so much that the governor marveled greatly (Matthew 27:12-14). THE INTERROGATION Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me’ what hast thou done? (John 18:33-35). THE DEFENSE Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? ( John 18:36-38). THE INTERRUPTED VERDICT And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all (John 18:38). And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time ( Luke 23:5-7).

JESUS BEFORE HEROD And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him ( Luke 23:8-10). THE MOCKING And Herod with his men of war set him at naught, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate. And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves ( Luke 23:11-12).

JESUS AGAIN BEFORE PILATE And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him ( Luke 23:13-15). THE VERDICT REPEATED.

I will therefore chastise him, and release him ( Luke 23:16).

BARABBAS The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus ( Matthew 27:20). And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison) ( Luke 23:18-19).

Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified (Matthew 27:22).

PILATE’S WIFE When Pilate was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him ( Matthew 27:19).

PILATE ABSOLVES HIMSELF When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it ( Matthew 27:24). THE JEWISH CURSE Then answered all the people. His blood be on us, and on our children ( Matthew 27:25). THE SCOURGING AND TORTURE Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him ( John 19:1-6).

INTERROGATION RESUMED The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin ( John 19:7-11). THE THREAT TO PILATE 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.

CLOSING SCENES When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.

Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away ( John 19:12-16). And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired ( Luke 23:25).

PONTIUS PILATE PILATE LANDED IN PALESTINE INA.D. 26 TO ASSUME THE reins of government in Judea. His immediate superior was the Imperial Legate of Syria but Pilate was nevertheless directly responsible to the Emperor for his administration of the province. In him vested the power of life and death. He was both judge and governor. Of Pilate’s origin nothing is known and there is no really authentic account of his death but there are many legends. Probably the most authoritative statement about his death is that which says that after Pilate was recalled to Rome in A.D. 36, to answer the accusations of the Jews, he committed suicide whilst living in exile in Gaul at Vienne, where a monument, fiftytwo feet high, is still shown as his tomb.

CAESAR’S EFFIGIES Pilate despised the Jews, and it was not long before he was in conflict with them. At first he seems to have been minded to abolish the Jewish laws; but he found that this was not possible. Josephus (Ant. 18. 3. 1) tells us: “Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar’s effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images, and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their requests, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them around, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.”

Thus Pilate was worsted in his first conflict with the Jews. THE AQUEDUCT This incident was soon followed by another which ended in much slaughter. It arose out of Pilate’s laudable desire to improve the water supply in Jerusalem; but to pay for it he used the sacred Temple money, no doubt with the permission of the High Priest, but at first unknown to the people. When the people found out, there was a riot. Josephus records the incident as follows (Ant. 18. 3. 2.): “Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water: and many ten thousands of the people got together and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried clubs under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away: but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on: who laid upon them with much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not: nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men who were prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.” Dr. Edersheim was one of those who thought that the Tower of Siloam referred to in Luke 13:4 was part of this work. Jesus said: “Those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?” The point of this observation seems to have been that Jesus was correcting the general opinion amongst the Jews that since the work was being carried out with the sacred money, any Jews who took part in the work deserved to be punished.

GALILEANS KILLED There was also an incident in which Pilate had apparently killed some Galileans while they were actually worshipping in the Temple and their blood had “mingled with their sacrifices.” These Galileans lived in Herod’s jurisdiction, and Pilate’s slaughter of Herod’s subjects may have given offense to Herod as being an infringement of his sovereignty and caused an estrangement between them. Pilate, apparently, was anxious to remove this estrangement; and when he was trying Jesus and heard that Jesus had come from Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Jesus to Herod for trial both as an act of appeasement and in an attempt to be rid of a very troublesome case. At any rate the gesture had the desired effect and resulted in Pilate and Herod being “made friends together” ( Luke 23:12). As the result of these incidents between Pilate and the Jews, the relations between them at the time Jesus was arrested were not a little strained; and the Jews were on the look-out for good grounds for a petition to the Emperor Tiberius for the removal of Pilate from office. Neither of the two principal incidents we have just considered provided such grounds. That which referred to the ensigns glorified Caesar; while the use of the sacred money for the water supply resulted in a benefit to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It was only by yielding to the clamor of the Jews at the trial of Jesus that Pilate escaped an accusation that he himself was guilty of treason to Caesar.

MASSACRE OF SAMARITANS Pilate finally over-reached himself in A.D. 36 when he was responsible for a massacre of Samaritans and was ordered by Vitellius, then President of Syria, to return to Rome to answer in person before the Emperor the accusations of the Samaritans and Jews. Josephus records the incident as follows (Ant. 18. 55, 1, 2): “But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it, was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived everything so that the multitude might be pleased: so he bid them get together upon Mount Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathana, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together: but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village, and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. “But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan Senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been Consul, and who was now President of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed, for that they did not go to Tirathana in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the Emperor the accusations of the Samaritans, So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius which he dare not contradict, but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius was dead.”

LEGAL PROCEDURE IN ROME AND IN PROVINCES At the trial of Jesus, Pilate did not observe the full legal procedure carried out in the courts in Rome, but he did imitate that procedure to a certain extent. The following extracts from Hunter’s Roman Law, pp. 51 and 52, will help us to understand the procedure. “In Rome the magistrates sat in the Forum or Comitium, on their curele chairs, the lower magistrates on lower seats (subsellia). In the provinces, the president imitated the form at Rome and sat in his court on a curele chair. Later on, the Courts came to be held in the Basilicas, which afterwards formed the model of many Christian churches. The proceedings were conducted with open-doors and the practice of setting up a screen before the Judge was severely reprobated in a constitution of Constantine.” (It is interesting to note that most of the Christopher Wren churches are basilican in character.) The general course of procedure in the magistrates’ Courts at Rome was this. “The intending impeacher (it was now open to any citizens to prosecute) applied to the president of the Court that took cognizance of the charge to be brought, for leave to prefer an accusation (postulatio). If two or more persons made simultaneous application, a jury decided which of them should be the impeacher (divinatio). The impeacher then formally stated the name of the accused and the crime to be charged against him (nominis or criminis delatio). The accused was next cited before the Prator and the charge was preferred against him in person (citatio): upon which he was interrogated for the purpose of eliciting admissions, so as to narrow the issues to be tried (interrogatio); and a formal charge was then drawn up (inscrifitio) and signed by the impeacher and his supporters (subscriptio). The judge then formally registered the name of the accused (nominis receptio) and appointed a day for the trial, which, unless fixed by the special law regulating the quastio, or varied by other special circumstances (such as difficulties in procuring the evidence), was generally the tenth day following. On the day of the trial, the jury was chosen by ballot from the available list, unless the special law regulating the quastio ordained otherwise: and, if any of them failed to appear when called, the judge had power to enforce their attendance or to punish their absence. If the impeacher did not appear, the accused was instantly discharged: but a fresh process might be instituted. If the accused did not appear, sentence was pronounced against him, late in the day, in terms of the special law of the Court. Both impeacher and accused might conduct their own case, or obtain the assistance of counsel and friends. “On the conclusion of the evidence, the jury gave their verdict, at first openly, but after the lex Cassia (B.C. 1 37) by ballot. It might be expressed in any one of the three forms — Not Guilty (absolvo), Guilty (condemno), or Doubtful (non liquet). Equal votes were construed favorably to the accused. In case of ‘Doubtful,’ the judge said ‘amplius’ (‘ Further’, ‘More Fully’), and the cause was heard a second time, or oftener (ampliatio), until the jury were able either to acquit or to condemn” (Hunter, pp. 58, 59). In view of the fact that Jesus was accused before Pilate of treason against the Roman Emperor, the following extract from Hunter (p. 67) indicating that during Christ’s lifetime on earth there was an increase in prosecutions for treason and that the crime was of an elastic character, is of interest: “The mantle of assumed moderation and humility fell from Augustus on the shoulders of Tiberius A.D. 14-37. Under him, however, the popular election of magistrates was transferred to the senate, which was further occupied in busily pronouncing sentence of death for the elastic crime of treason.” As we have seen, each procurator sent to Palestine was vested by the Emperor with absolute power of life and death. When trying a non-Roman citizen in his province he was not obliged to follow the procedure of the court in Rome. He had full discretion in the matter. He was judge and jury combined. No Jew had a right of appeal to Caesar unless he was also a Roman citizen. His life was absolutely in the hands of the procurator, who in addition to being judge was governor of the province and responsible for maintaining law and order therein. He was permitted and allowed himself complete discretion in all matters appertaining to the Jews. In practice the procurators were content for the provincials to govern themselves provided they did nothing to impinge upon the authority of Imperial Rome. The Jewish Law Courts were allowed to function and the procurators declined to try cases involving questions of Jewish law. But any conviction by the Sanhedrin on a capital charge had to be referred to the procurator for ratification or quashing. Sometimes the Romans would arrest a Jew and hand him over to the Sanhedrin for trial without any previous Roman trial (Acts 22:50) and sometimes the Jews would bring a Jew before the Roman judgment seat without any previous Jewish trial (Acts 18:12). THE PRAETORIUM In the provinces, the Praetorium was always the quarters occupied by the Roman Governor. From Josephus (Wars,11,14,8) we learn that the Roman procurators resided in Herod’s palace and took their seat in front of that palace on a raised pavement to pronounce judgment. Thus: “Now Florus took up his quarters at the palace; and on the next day he had his tribunal set before it, when the high priests and the men of power, and those of the greatest eminence in the city came all before that tribunal.” The pavement was an elevated spot with its floor adorned with the tessellated pavement of marble and colored stones, characteristic of the Roman buildings of this period, and especially of a Praetorium. The bema was a portable seat, chair or throne, placed upon this pavement for the occasion. When Pilate was at his administrative headquarters at Caesarea, he lived in the palace of Herod. When he visited Jerusalem he had a choice between the fortress of Antonia, in which lay his legion of 6,000 men, and the magnificent palace of Herod. When he was accompanied by his wife he would no doubt choose to stay in the royal Herodian palace rather than in the fortress.

PILATE’S FUNCTIONS Did Pilate know that the Sanhedrin had already tried and condemned Jesus? Did Pilate try Jesus as a Court of “First Instance”, or as a Court of Appeal? Did Pilate “review” the proceedings before the Sanhedrin with a view to quashing or confirming the Jewish” convictions”?

Lord Shaw (pp. 31-34 of his book) says: “What was the nature and the relation between these two — the Hebrew and the Roman Courts? It is a point of jurisprudence worth considering. The one was the Sanhedrin presided over by Caiaphas, the High Priest. The other was the Court of Pilate, the procurator of Tiberius, in the Praetorium, on the seat of Roman justice. “To begin with, Caiaphas was not conducting a preliminary investigation as an examining magistrate. He was conducting a real trial under the forms and sanction of Hebrew law. Before the subjection of Palestine by Rome condemnation would have been followed not by sentence alone but by execution. But now Rome had intervened. After all, the accused was a subject of the Emperor, and he and such as he should not die without the protection of the Emperor’s representative and the warrant of the law of Rome. The one trial, a complete trial, was ended. The punishment of death was remitted elsewhere. “But when Pilate accepted the remit, he did not do so as a Court of Appeal. Jesus Christ had made no appeal. Nor did Pilate act as a mere executive officer presiding over a tribunal of sentence. He could, and he was bound to, review the proceedings themselves which had brought the accused citizen to this pass. I declare that I think the nearest present-day analogy that can be found for his legal situation is the power of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in regard to crime within a dominion of the Crown. like, say, India. Over and over again the Committee has protested that it is not a Court of Criminal Appeal. Yet it has reserved to itself the fundamental fight to prevent a violation of natural justice, as, for instance, by corruption in the judge, or such a denial of fight as prevented the accused from his defense, or — I should presume — of trying as a crime what is not a crime. “Pilate had this power; but he had undoubtedly more. He could not only hear both sides, but he could add to the sum of his knowledge by personal interrogation of the accused. I incline to think, further, that he could, in order to get to the bottom of the dispute, have convened witnesses before himself. Before ratifying the condemnation he had at least these rights: he stood free to review the whole proceedings, to decline execution of sentence, and to set the accused at liberty, declaring that he had done nothing worthy of death. “Finally to this power of administering Roman justice and conserving the liberty of the subject were added the requirements of order which as a Roman administrator he was bound to consider.

He was Judge and Secretary of State in one. Thus he was vested with a power of mitigation and mercy to the condemned. With him also lay the defense of public order against local violence, at the call of administrative safety — a review punctured by expediency. But beyond all question these administrative considerations could not, dare not, be reached till the jural question was settled: was this man a guilty or was he an innocent man? If he were guilty he might be forgiven, or a mitigation of sentence made; but if he were innocent the stage of administrative expediency was not reached, the innocent must go free. If not, death was murder, and that quality attached not because a Governor was strong or a Governor was weak, but because he was wicked. “This was the situation of Pontius Pilate, when in the early Passover morning he was confronted by the urgent remit of the hierarchy of Palestine, that he, in his Court, should sentence to death a prisoner whom they, in their Court, had convicted and condemned.”

Schurer (see pp. 187-188) observes: “There is a special interest attaching to the question as to how far the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin was limited by the authority of the Roman Procurator. Inasmuch as the Roman system of provincial government was not strictly carried out in the case of Judea, as the simple fact of its being administered by means of a procurator plainly shows, the Sanhedrin was still left in the enjoyment of a comparatively high degree of independence. It had the power of finally disposing, on its own authority, of such cases as did not involve sentence of death ( Acts 4:5-23; Acts 5:21-40). It was only in cases in which such sentence of death was pronounced that the judgment required to be ratified by the authority of the procurator. Not only is this expressly affirmed with regard to the Jews in the Gospel of John (John 18:31) but it follows as a matter of certainty, from the account of the condemnation of Jesus as given by the Synoptists. Besides, a reminiscence of this fact has survived in Jewish traditions. But it is at the same time a fact worthy of note, that the procurator regulated his judgment in accordance with Jewish law.”

Then by way of apology for Pilate’s action, he adds, “only on this assumption could Pilate have pronounced sentence of death in the case of Jesus. It is true the procurator was not compelled to have any regard to Jewish law in the matter at all, but still he was at liberty to do so, and as a rule he actually did so.”

Mr. Taylor Innes (pp. 75-81) says: “What was the relation of the two powers, the Jewish and the Roman, to each other at this time? This broad historical question lies at the root of the views which may be taken of the legal point — views which have sometimes been extremely contrasted. In the controversy between Salvador and Dupin, the former (true in this to the sad claim of some of his nation of old, ‘His blood be on us’) urged that the Sanhedrin had full authority to try even for capital crimes, and that their sentence of death required only the countersign or endorsement of the Roman Governor. His opponent held that the Jewish court had no fight to try for grave, or at least capital, crimes at all; that their whole procedure was a usurpation; and that the only real or competent trial was that which we are about to consider” (i .e . The Roman Trial). “I have no intention of going into the great mass of historical investigation which has been accumulated on this confessedly difficult point. There seems no one consideration which is quite conclusive upon it. Whether it was legitimate or not for the Jews to condemn for a capital crime, on this occasion they did so. Whether it was legitimate or not for Pilate to try over again an accused whom they had condemned on this occasion he did so.

There were certainly two trials. And the dialogue already narrated” (i .e . between Pilate and the Jews) “expresses with the most admirable terseness the struggle which we should have expected between the effort of the Jews to get a mere countersign of their sentence, and the determination of Pilate to assume his full judicial responsibility, whether of first instance or of revision. The reluctance of the Jews on the present occasion was no doubt prompted, not so much by their usual ecclesiastical independence as by their dread lest inquiry by Pilate should prevent his carrying out their scheme.”

JESUS BEFORE PILATE It was some time after daybreak that the chief priests led Jesus bound before Pilate. It seems that although the news of the arrest of Jesus and His “trial” by the Sanhedrin could not be known to many, a crowd had already begun to assemble before the Praetorium. Perhaps this was because it was an established custom that “at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would,” and it so happened that the Romans had in custody at that time “a notable prisoner, called Barabbas” ( Matthew 27:15-16). Now “Barabbas. lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection” ( Mark 15:7). No doubt he was a leader among the Zealots or Assassins, and had murdered a Roman. He would, therefore, be popular with a substantial section of the population; and those who sympathized with him and his activities would want to go to the palace to shout for his release. But when they arrived they found something vastly more important going forward. To their astonishment, the Great Prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, was on His trial. Only the day before, many of them had been searching for Jesus, particularly in the Temple, anxiously inquiring of each other, “What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?” They had retired to rest mystified at His disappearance. Now here He was before the judgment seat of Pilate being accused by the Chief Priests.

Having arrived at the Praetorium with ‘their prisoner’, the Chief Priests waited outside. It was the time of the Passover; they would not enter the heathen judgment hall lest they should be defiled — another example of “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” Although, apparently, they hoped that Pilate would forthwith agree with their desire that Jesus should be put to death without inquiry, they came ready to perjure their souls by giving false evidence and to prefer charges some of which they knew to be false and unarguable; yet their religious scruples would not permit them to enter the heathen building during the Festival.

Pilate did not follow the procedure, usual in Rome, of fixing a future date for the trial and giving public notice thereof, he exercised the discretion undoubtedly vested in him to hear the case forthwith.

WHAT ACCUSATION?

Respecting their scruples, “Pilate then went out unto them, and said, ‘What accusation bring ye against this man?’ They answered and said unto him: ‘If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.’” It would appear from Pilate’s question and the insolent reply, that Pilate intended to try the case in due form of law, and that for some undisclosed reason the Jews had not expected him to adopt this attitude. They were taken aback. They appear to have expected a different kind of reception, as if they had reason to suppose that Pilate knew quite well why they brought Jesus before him and thought that all that would happen would be that he would ask them what they wished to be done with Jesus, whereupon their request would be granted without further discussion. Who had given preliminary notice of their intention to bring Jesus before Pilate and what had been said and perhaps agreed? What had Pilate been told about the case and by whom? Had Caiaphas interviewed Pilate? Pilate and Caiaphas were on good terms; they held office together for ten years. No matter how often the Jews might revolt, Caiaphas was not removed from office, as were his predecessors and Pilate seems never to have held him responsible for what occurred. Had Caiaphas visited Pilate after the Grand Consultation in the early morning and told him as much as he thought fit and no more of what had happened during the night? And did he impress upon Pilate his view that it was expedient for the Romans’ as well as for the Jews that Jesus should die, and as soon as possible? Did Caiaphas report to the Sanhedrin that Pilate appeared to agree with this view of” expediency”, and that when Jesus appeared before him no questions would be asked and that the governor would at once exercise his power and deliver Jesus to death forthwith? And that therefore all that the Chief Priests would have to say to Pilate was that they, as Rulers of the Jews, brought before him a Jew whose political activities rendered him worthy of death and that He should therefore die? Unless something of this sort took place it is difficult to understand the reaction of the Chief Priests to Pilate’s question. Perhaps Pilate had given Caiaphas the impression that there would be no formal trial and that he would ask but few questions. But that on reflection, perhaps after consultation with his wife, he had decided that there must be a proper trial.

Whatever the truth and the fact was as to what, if anything, had taken place between Pilate and Caiaphas, when Pilate went out to meet the Jews, he made it plain to them that there was to be a formal trial; and in accordance with the Roman procedure he demanded, “What accusation bring ye against this man?”

It will be noted that there is nothing in the opening exchanges between the judge and the accusers which gives any hint that Jesus had already been tried by the Jewish Courts. Later on in the Gospel records it is stated that Pilate knew they had delivered Jesus “for envy”. It is not dirtiest to understand what Pilate’s reaction would have been if he had been told that the Sanhedrin had tried and condemned Jesus by night. He would, of course, be well aware of the fact that according to the Pharisaic law a trial by night on a capital charge invalidated the proceedings and on that ground alone he might have quashed the conviction. Pilate’s conduct throughout the trial seems to indicate that he was under the impression that no other trial had taken place; that having arrested Jesus and the charge being treason, the Jews had brought Him forthwith at the earliest moment before him. Further, Pilate’s question does not lend support to the view, so widely held, that Roman soldiers had taken part in the arrest. If they had, there would have had to be a charge and Pilate would know from the officer in charge of the Roman troops what that charge was. All he seemed to know at the beginning of the case was that this was another squabble between the Jews concerning some question of their law and that the Chief Priests were envious of Jesus. To the insolent reply of the Chief Priests, Pilate replied: “Take ye him and judge him according to your law.” This observation also does not support the view that Pilate knew that the Jews had already tried Jesus; indeed, it suggests the contrary. Certainly the Jews did not reply. “We have already tried Him and convicted Him of blasphemy and we want that conviction confirmed.” Instead they answered, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” a clear admission that the Romans had deprived them of the power to execute anyone condemned on a capital charge in their own courts; and, coupled with their previous statement, a request that Pilate would now give the necessary authority for Jesus to be executed by his officials. THE CHARGES Realizing that Pilate was going to insist on a formal trial the Chief Priests began to accuse Jesus ( Luke 23:2), “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.” “And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; in so much that the governor marveled greatly” (Matthew 27:12-14). “PERVERTING THE NATION” Some have dismissed the allegation of “perverting the nation” as one which Pilate ignored; but Pilate in fact attached great importance to it. The way the Jews seemed to put the case before the Procurator was this: “He perverteth the nation by refusing to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.” This view is supported by the fact that towards the end of the trial, when announcing for the second time that he found no fault in Jesus, Pilate said, “Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people.” This was, indeed, an accusation of treason, or at the least, sedition, and the other two accusations specified acts which the Jews relied upon as overt acts in treasonable activities, viz ., forbidding to give tribute to Caesar and claiming to be a king. The innuendo was that Jesus claimed to be a rival with Caesar for the allegiance of the people. Pilate would be aware that the Zealots openly and boastfully opposed the Roman occupation and refused to pay tribute; the Jews would know that one of the disciples of Jesus — Simon — was a Zealot. The Jews were holding Jesus up before the Procurator as an enemy of Caesar and hoped Pilate would associate Jesus with the malcontents.

WITCHCRAFT AND RELIGIOUS OFFENSES Pilate would also have to consider whether a charge that Jesus was “perverting the people” alleged an offense against the Roman laws in respect of religion and witchcraft. This would only be the case if the expression “the people” included Romans in Judea as well as Jews. The Romans worshipped many deities. It is said that ancient Rome contained as many as four hundred and twenty temples and that in the dwelling of every wealthy family there was a private chapel in which they worshipped their household gods. Their ministers of religion did not form a distinct order of citizens, but were chosen from the most virtuous and honorable men of the state. The teaching of “Christianity” to Romans in Judaea would be undoubtedly an offense against Roman Law. The Roman Law concerning offenses against witchcraft and religion are summarized in Hunter’s Roman Law, p. 1066, as follows: “Prophets were to be beaten and expelled from the city; if they came back they were to be imprisoned or deported. Persons consulting with reference to the life of the Emperor were punished with death. Those who took part in the exercise of magical and diabolical arts were to be crucified; the magicians themselves, to be burnt alive. Even to keep books on the subject was a crime; the books were to be burned and the owners severely punished. Paul (a Praetorian prefect) says that persons introducing new kinds of worship, unknown to custom or reason, disturbing weaker minds, were to be punished, if persons of rank, with deportation; if not of rank, with death”.

Pilate seems to have been satisfied that the expression “the people” did not include Romans and the trial Proceeded on the basis that it referred only to the Jews. This was obviously the intention of the accusers:

Therefore Pilate ruled out of his mind any question of Jesus being accused of an offense against the religious laws of the Romans and he fastened upon the allegation that Jesus claimed to be a king. This allegation could only mean that the Jews were charging Jesus with the crime of treason that is, majestas, or, to give the full title erimen laesae majestas, i .e ., “high treason”. The implication of the accusation would also be that out of loyalty to Caesar they had arrested Jesus for the offense of treason, and having no power to try such an offense they naturally brought Him before the Procurator for trial.

It will be observed that they said not a word about having tried Jesus in their own Court and convicted Him of “blasphemy”; at no time throughout the trial before Pilate did they mention this fact or ask Pilate to “ratify the conviction.” Treason was a charge which Pilate alone could try and one he could not shirk. It was his bounden duty to investigate it and he proceeded to do so.

TREASON In both Roman and English law, treason is the breach of the duty to render allegiance. It is a duty which is always owed by a national to the country of his Birth and sometimes by an alien to a country not his own. The principal Roman statute on treason was the Lex Julia Majestatis, 48 B.C. This statute made it an offense to engage in any activity against the Emperor or the Commonwealth. It was liberally construed by the Roman Courts and in the time of Jesus almost any insult to the Emperor, or seditious activity, was regarded as treason. In particular, the dominion of Caesar being world-wide, no kings could reign without his consent, “Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar” ( John 19:12). The penalty for treason was death and the memory of the convicted person was con-condemned even after death. “In ancient times such an offense was called perduellio : under the Emperors, however, more generally crimen laesae majestatis . “The crime of treason had certain peculiarities; there was no action or penalty for malicious prosecution and persons prohibited from being accusers could prosecute for treason. The defendant, of whatever rank, could, if necessary, be put to the torture. Slaves could be examined against their masters. The prosecution went on after the death of the accused, in order that the exchequer might obtain his property if he were found guilty” (Hunter, pp. 1065-6). From the Roman point of view Jesus was an alien, but as a Jew living in Palestine, He owed allegiance to Caesar. Also when in A.D. 6 the Emperor agreed to the Jewish request to make Palestine a Roman Province, the Jewish nation, save some 6,000 Pharisees, expressly gave allegiance to Caesar (Ant. 17, 2, 4); thereafter, any breach of that duty by a Jew was treason.

SEDITION It is not always easy to distinguish between conduct which is seditious and that which is treasonable; the two offenses have much in common. In English law, “Sedition embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which fall short of high treason but directly tend to have for their object to excite discontent and dissatisfaction; to excite ill-will between different classes of the King’s subjects; to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitution of the realm, and, generally, all endeavors to promote public disorder. Or to incite people to unlawful associations, or assemblies, insurrections, breaches of the peace, or forcible obstruction of the execution of the law, or to use any form of physical force in any public matter connected with the State” (Archbold, Criminal Practice , 30th Edition, p. 1,128). In Roman law there seems to have been even more affinity between treason and sedition than is the case in English law. Thus under the heading of “Offenses against Public Tranquillity” were cited “A seditious gathering or conspiracy”; “when an armed assembly takes possession of any public place”. Under the heading” Offenses against the Public Force” were cited “Desertion by a soldier”, “Soliciting or exciting soldiers to make tumult or sedition” (Hunter, p. 1,066). Apparently, all these offenses were both sedition and treason. It is noteworthy that although Barabbas had made “insurrection” ( Mark 15:7) against Caesar, he was apparently charged with sedition, not treason.

TRIBUTE The payment of tribute to Rome from Judaea began in 63 B.C., when Pompeii settled the dispute between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus about the fight to the kingdom and made Judaea a tributary to the Republic, exacting from the people the sum of ten thousand talents (Ant. 14, 4. 5). The nation-wide refusal to pay tribute to Caesar which took place a few years after the Trial of Jesus was one of the precipitating causes of the great conflict which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. We have already referred to the incident mentioned in Matthew 22:1-46, Mark 12:1-44 and Luke 20:1-47, which occurred only two days before the arrest when the Rulers tried to entice Jesus to say something about not paying tribute to Caesar which could be used in evidence against Him at His trial and we have noticed how signally they failed in the attempt. Therefore in accusing Jesus of “forbidding to give tribute to Caesar” they were saying that which to their certain knowledge was false. The New Testament and Josephus tell us of various taxes payable by the Jews, such as a poll-tax payable in connection with the famous “census” ( Luke 2:2) a property-tax, to which the High Priest Joazar induced the people to submit (Ant. 18. 1, 1.), a special house-duty in Jerusalem (Ant. 19. 6, 3); also the toll or customs referred to in Matthew 17:25 and Romans 13:7. Matthew and Zacchaeus were both tax-gatherers, the most detested class of the Jewish community. In addition to these taxes, each Jew had to pay a half-shekel towards the services of the Temple at Jerusalem (Exodus 30:13; Exodus 38:26; Matthew 17:24-27). The fact that Jesus consorted with such persons as Matthew and Zacchaeus and “publicans and sinners” generally was one of the reasons for the enmity of the Rulers against Jesus; but the reply of Jesus to such taunts was that He came “not. to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” ( Matthew 9:13). While the Judaeans were heavily taxed the Romans paid no direct taxation and this fact was a constant source of friction. In these circumstances any Jew who went about “forbidding to give tribute to Caesar” would be guilty of treasonable or at least seditious activities. THE INTERROGATION The charge of High Treason having been made in the presence of the Accused outside the Praetorium, the next step in the trial was the interrogation, the Examination of the Accused.

Pilate therefore re-entered the Praetorium, leaving the Jews outside, as they refused to enter, and sent for Jesus; Jesus and Pilate were thereupon face to face.

Pilate commenced the interrogation by asking Jesus “Art thou the King of the Jews?” to which Jesus replied, “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” This is as if Jesus were saying “In what sense do you use the word ‘king’? Are you asking as a Roman Judge if I claim to be an earthly king setting myself up in opposition to Caesar, or are you merely repeating a question put into your mouth by my fellowcountrymen who know quite well that I do not claim to be that sort of king? Before I can answer your question I must know in what sense you use the word king’.”

Pilate cleared up the point by his answer “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me what hast thou done?” That is to say “I am repeating the charge as laid by your fellowcountrymen.

You and they are Jews; you must know the sense in which they use the expression and you will understand that sense better than I who am a Roman. What exactly have you done?”

Having received this explanation Jesus thereupon entered his plea to the charge. It was a plea which English lawyers might regard as roughly comparable to a defense of “Confession and Avoidance “a common defense in a civil action. “In addition to or instead of denying the allegations made in the statement of claim, the defendant may in his defense set up an affirmative case, either by stating his version of the facts and showing that the plaintiff has no cause of action on the true facts, or he may plead in confession and avoidance and show that notwithstanding the facts stated by the plaintiff he has a defense.” (Bullen and Leake’s Precedents of Pleadings, 6th Edition p. 531.) THE DEFENSE Jesus said in effect, “In answer to the charge, I ‘confess and avoid’; that is to say, I admit I made and do make the claim alleged against me; I assert that that claim, in the sense in which I made it, is true in substance and in fact. I do not, however, make the claim in the sense alleged by my accusers. I admit that I claim to be a king, but not the sort of king alleged by the Chief Priests. I make no claim to be a king, a rival to Caesar. I am not guilty of treason against the Emperor. I admit and assert that I have come to found a kingdom but not an earthly one; My kingdom is not of this world if my Kingdom were of this world , then would my servants fight , that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now , My Kingdom not from hence .”

Pilate seized on the point of kingship and said, “Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?” ( John 18:28-38). This then was the defense of Jesus to the charge of majestas . He claimed to be a king but He claimed no earthly kingship. The kingdom He came to establish was no earthly kingdom. It was a spiritual kingdom. It existed in the hearts and minds of men. It involved a particular “way of life” and attitude to God. It was not concerned with material things. It was a spiritual kingdom within an earthly kingdom. Caesar’s kingdom could continue and Christ’s kingdom could exist within that kingdom. It was “the kingdom of heaven” preached by John the Baptist, who also announced the advent of the king. He had never perverted the people by stirring them up against Imperial Rome. He had never forbidden to give tribute to Caesar, as his accusers well knew. He had taught the exact opposite (See Matthew 17:24-27; Matthew 22:1-46). Those who gave allegiance to Him, could still render allegiance and pay tribute to Caesar.

He had never sought to seduce one Roman soldier from his allegiance to Caesar. When He had healed the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-15) He did not make it a condition of the healing that the centurion should resign his commission in the Imperial army. In making the accusation about forbidding tribute, His accusers, whose religious scruples would not allow them to enter the Praetorium during the celebration of a Jewish Feast, had committed willful and corrupt perjury. “WHAT IS TRUTH” Pilate’s soliloquy “What is truth?” seems to indicate that at that stage of the proceedings, he was concerned to do right and justice to the Accused.

Here was no “jesting” Pilate. He was plainly pressed by the anxiety experienced by every conscientious judge and magistrate in the discharge of his judicial duties, to know the truth of the cause before him. It has been well said that” Truth is justice in action “, and that “Truth is conformity to fact or reality”. Justice and truth have so close an affinity as to be almost indistinguishable. If justice be truth in action, then a judge or justice is required to seek to be the personification of truth in action. Jesus was “the Truth”. He alone personified “the Truth”. Pilate clearly wanted to know the truth of the case he was trying, hence his anxious inquiry — addressed to himself as much as to the Accused.

Pilate appreciated the explanation Jesus gave and as he reflected upon it he was convinced that Jesus was no traitor to Caesar. The defense prevailed.

Jesus was not guilty of the accusations made against Him, and he would so rule. THE INTERRUPTED VERDICT Rising from his seat Pilate went outside the Praetorium where the Chief Priests and other accusers were waiting. In the meantime the crowd had no doubt swollen to huge proportions. By this time the news that the Great Prophet was on trial before the Procurator must have spread like wildfire throughout the city.

Pilate appeared before the crowd, followed no doubt by Jesus, guarded by His jailers, and announced his decision. “I find no fault in him “. It was a clear verdict of “not guilty”, a verdict of acquittal. The judge had spoken, “Absolvo ”, “Not guilty”. The trial was over. The Accused having been acquitted, it remained only for Him to be discharged.

MASS HYSTERIA The verdict of “not guilty” seems to have sent the Jews into a paroxysm of rage. It appeared to them that all their machinations had been defeated, that all their carefully-laid plans had miscarried. It was their fears, not their hopes, that were being realized. Jesus of Nazareth was supping through their fingers after all. While they had been waiting for Pilate’s decision, they had busied themselves stirring up the multitude against Jesus. They met with considerable success. The Praetorium rang with the cries of the multitude. The crowd was seized with mass hysteria. “The chief priests accused him of many things”. Amid the shouts and the tumult, Pilate discerned a voice, crying “He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place”.

Pilate perceived a way of escape from his dilemma. The accused was a Galilean. He had committed the offenses complained of in Galilee as well as in Judea. Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee; he had come to the Feast and was close at hand. Apparently Pilate had previously offended Herod by killing some Galileans in the Temple. He would not increase this offense by dealing with this Galilean — either by condemning Him or releasing Him. He would suspend his verdict and remit the case to Herod. In this way he would offend neither the Jews nor Herod. Whatever the fate of Jesus might be at the hands of Herod, he, Pilate, would not be responsible for it. Therefore, to Herod Jesus should go. “And. he sent him to Herod”. THE REMISSION TO HEROD It is a nice legal point, whether Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, could hold lawful Court in territory, i .e ., Judea, not in his jurisdiction, even though the offenses charged against the Accused were alleged to have been committed within his jurisdiction. However, Pilate had no objection to Herod trying in Judea an offense alleged to have been committed in Galilee; and if Pilate did not object there was nobody else who could. Pilate not only did not object but deliberately invited Herod to discharge his judicial functions within Pilate’s jurisdiction. This was an act of great courtesy and a very diplomatic gesture on the part of Pilate; it was received as such by Herod, with the result that the two “were made friends together” ( Luke 23:12).

It is generally, but perhaps erroneously, supposed that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod for the purpose of enabling Herod to try the very charges Pilate had investigated and dismissed. Surely this cannot be so. Herod had no power to try offenses committed in Judea, which was Pilate’s jurisdiction; and Pilate had no power to try offenses committed in Galilee, which was Herod’s jurisdiction. What probably happened was that when Pilate heard the allegation that Jesus had been “teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee” he decided to send Jesus to Herod, so that Herod might try the offenses alleged to have been committed in Galilee. He does not appear to have invited Herod to try offenses alleged to have been committed in his, Pilate’s, jurisdiction.

Pilate may well have thought that if he let Jesus go, after his verdict of “not guilty “, and it came to Herod’s knowledge that Pilate knew that allegations had been made that Jesus had committed offenses in Galilee as well as in Judea, and notwithstanding this knowledge had not concerned himself to send Jesus in custody before Herod, Herod would have been offended and the breach between them would have been widened.

JESUS BEFORE HEROD Accordingly, Jesus was brought before Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee: the Roman Emperor would not allow him the title of “King”. He it was who murdered John the Baptist ( Matthew 14:10). He it was who thought that Jesus might be John the Baptist risen from the dead ( Matthew 14:2). He it was to whom Jesus referred as “that fox” when certain Pharisees came to Him and Said “Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee” ( Luke 13:31-32). “Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by [Jesus]: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead; and of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again. And Herod said, ‘John have I beheaded’ but who is this, of whom I heat such things?’ And he desired to see him” ( Luke 9:7-9). His wish was now granted. “And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him” ( Luke 23:8-10).

Once again Jesus had no answer for one asking questions out of idle curiosity. He did not condescend to hold converse with Herod. Nothing could have been more galling to Herod than the cold majestic silence with which his questions were received by the Prisoner at the Bar. Herod was infuriated at being so treated in the presence of his subjects and servants, and his fury revealed the meanness and smallness of his character when he “with his men of war set him at naught, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate” ( Luke 23:21). THE TRIAL RESUMED The precise reason why Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate will probably never be known. It would appear that he, as much as the worst of the persecutors of Jesus, desired the death of Jesus. That he had no scruples about putting to death anyone who withstood him is made clear from his murder of John the Baptist. He had no qualms about heaping insults in the most infamous way on Jesus. Why then did he not put Jesus to death when he had Him in his power? We may never know. But perhaps he did not see why he should help his old rival and erstwhile estranged friend out of an embarrassing situation, especially as his conscience, following the denunciations of John the Baptist, was probably giving him no rest. “Conscience doth make cowards of us all”. Perhaps he did not want another murder on his hands; and no doubt he had a wholesome awe concerning the Great Prophet. Let Pilate resolve his own difficulties and he, Herod, would be an interested spectator. Or perhaps he thought that Pilate wished him to return Jesus to him. Apparently Pilate had omitted to make it clear to Herod that if he, Herod, found no fault in Jesus, the Accused should be discharged, as he, Pilate, had found Him “Not Guilty”.

There seems to have been some kind of misunderstanding between Pilate and Herod with the result that Pilate found himself once more face to face with Jesus and with the necessity of either releasing Jesus or acceding to the wishes of the Jews. In these circumstances, Pilate resumed the trial from the point it had reached when he had been informed that Jesus had been perverting the people in Galilee. More than ever it was Pilate, the judge, not Jesus, who was on trial. The Accused dominated the amazing scene, while the harassed judge, relentlessly importuned and, finally, threatened by the angry mob, hurried to and from the Forum seeking for some way of escape.

It would appear that Jesus returned from Herod’s residence to the Praetorium before His accusers. Perhaps they could not force their way through the surging multitude which by this time must have gathered. At last the accusers are again present. In full view of the multitude, and with his mind made up, Pilate ascended his Judgment Seat and probably having obtained some semblance of quiet he addressed the people generally and the Chief Priests and Rulers in particular as follows: THE SECOND ACQUITTAL “Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you have found no fault in this man touching those things, whereof ye accuse him:

No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him, I will therefore chastise him, and release him” ( Luke 23:13-16).

It will be noted that Pilate summarized all the allegations made by the Jews in the phrase “Perverteth the people”. That was really the sum and substance of the case sought to be made against Jesus. It was one way of describing a charge of High Treason — subversive activities directed against the Roman State. So far the Jews had given no hint that they accused Jesus of any offense against their own laws. They knew their Pilate, just as Pilate knew his Jews. They fully appreciated that to make allegations of offenses against Jewish law would be fatal to their schemes; so at first they confined all their allegations to offenses against Roman law.

Clearly Pilate intended this to be his last word. It was the decision he had started to announce, or possibly fully announced, before he sent Jesus to Herod and which was interrupted by allegations that Jesus had been guilty of offenses in Galilee. This was without doubt to be the end of the trial and it was to end in an acquittal.

BARABBAS But no sooner had the crowd divined his meaning and intention than “They cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison).” (Luke 23:18-19). “Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified” (Matthew 27:22-23.) From the Chief Priests’ point of view it was a fortunate coincidence that at that Feast the Romans had bound in prison “a notable prisoner”. No doubt he was awaiting trial by Pilate after the Passover, and had been remanded in custody until Pilate’s arrival at Jerusalem. Or perhaps Barabbas was already under sentence of death.

Barabbas lay bound in prison with some compatriots who had revolted against the Romans and committed murder; presumably they were extreme Zealots, the terrorists of those days. Barabbas would therefore be a popular figure with his fellow countrymen. As his incarceration coincided with the Feast of the Passover and at that Feast it was the custom of the Procurator to release “whom they would” ( Matthew 27:15) he stood a good chance of being set free. It was therefore an easy matter for the Chief Priests to stir up the people to demand the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. “WHAT SHALL I DO THEN WITH JESUS WHICH IS CALLED CHRIST?” For nineteen hundred years Pilate’s question has reverberated in the hearts and minds of countless millions of human beings and each has had to answer for himself before the bar of conscience. It is a challenge none can escape. The multitude at the trial of Jesus chose Barabbas, the man of war, and rejected Jesus, the Mar. of Peace. Mankind in general has re-affirmed that decision, thereby crucifying Jesus afresh, with disastrous results to all.

PILATE’S WIFE And while Pilate was “set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him” ( Matthew 27:1-9). But little is known of Pilate’s wife. According to tradition her name was Procula, and she was a convert to Judaism; she was canonized by the Greek Church. Perhaps she and Pilate had discussed the case before the trial started and having Jesus much on her mind she had dreamed about Him. Upon awaking she scribbled a note to her husband and caused it to be sent to him while he was upon the Judgment Seat. No doubt she was now watching the proceedings from some convenient part of the building. The Romans were most superstitious and attached great importance to dreams. They established a college of augurs, whose business it was to explain dreams, oracles and the like. The message Pilate received from his wife would undoubtedly make a deep impression on his mind. THE WASHING OF HANDS “When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am ‘innocent of the blood of this just person’ see ye to it.” The message Pilate received from his wife seems to have increased his determination to release Jesus. No doubt it would be impossible for his voice to reach beyond those nearest to him, so he performed a symbolic act which could be seen by those on the outskirts of the crowd and beyond reach of his voice — an act the meaning of which they could not mistake.

Saying “I am innocent of the blood of this just person,” thereby using almost the identical expression contained in his wife’s message, he took water, and washed his hands in the presence of them all. As Procurator, Pilate must have been well acquainted with Jewish customs. He would know that when a murder had been committed and the offender remained undiscovered, it was the practice, as laid down in Deuteronomy 21:7, for the elders to wash their hands over the appointed sacrifice, saying “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it”. Those who heard his words or saw his action, understood its significance; its only result however, was to cause them to call down upon themselves a terrible curse, and not only upon themselves, but also upon their children. “HIS BLOOD BE ON US, AND ON OUR CHILDREN” Yes, the furious crowd did not hesitate to call down a curse upon their children. History records the sequel. In A.D. 70, forty years later, Titus destroyed Jerusalem. The Temple disappeared. The sacrifices ceased and have not been resumed to this day; the High Priesthood disappeared, Josephus has recorded in great detail the horrors and desolation which came upon Israel. Over one million Jews perished in the slaughter. From that day to this the Jews have been scattered over the world. All that Jesus uttered but a few hours before His trial concerning the fate of Jerusalem, befell the Holy City. “And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace I But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation” ( Luke 19:41-44).

SIEGE OF JERUSALEM When the battle for Jerusalem was at its height, the Roman General Titus—he who took part in the Roman campaign in Britain — did his utmost to save the Temple from destruction. As the battle approached the very gates of the sanctuary, the Jewish factions in the city were fighting each other as well as the Romans. They fought in the Temple itself. The Romans were horrified at the desecration. Titus, by his spokesman Josephus, promised to spare the Temple if they would vacate it. Josephus reports his speech to the Jews as follows: “Have you not, vile wretches that you are, put up this partition-wall, before your sanctuary? Have you not put up the pillars thereto belonging, at clue distances, and on it engraved in Greek, and in our own letters this prohibition, That no foreigner should go beyond that wall? Have me not given you leave to kill such as go beyond it, though he were a Roman? And now, you pernicious villains, why do you trample upon dead bodies in this Temple? And why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country and to every god that ever had any regard to this place (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them) I also appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to you yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary; and if you will change the place whereon you will fight, no Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it’ nay, I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or no.” As Josephus explained these things from the mouth of Caesar, both the robbers and the tyrant thought that these exhortations proceeded from Titus’s fear, and not from his good will to them, and grew insolent upon it. But when Titus saw that these men were neither to be moved by commiseration towards themselves, nor had any concern upon them to have the holy house spared, he proceeded unwillingly to go on again with the war against them (Wars,6. 2. 4). In the result Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. THE SCOURGING Having declared Jesus to be innocent, Pilate ordered Jesus to be scourged. His chief concern now seems to have been to stave off a riot of the utmost gravity. The crowd sensed that they had him within their power. His previous encounters with the Jews had not enhanced his dignity. When they had protested against his violations of their sacred traditions by the introduction of the ensigns and had threatened them, they had called his bluff and he had capitulated. When they had rioted against the use of the sacred money in building the aqueduct there had been bloodshed. No doubt Pilate recalled that at the first Feast of the Passover after the death of Herod the Great there had been a riot in Jerusalem in which 3,000 Jews had been killed (Ant. 17, 9, 3). Now he had visions of an even worse riot. His legion in the neighboring fortress of Antonia was vastly outnumbered by the swollen populace. In an attempt to please them, he handed Jesus over to the soldiery to be scourged. Artists have depicted the scene in the barracks. The procedure was for the victim to be tied to a short column, stripped to the waist and flayed. Jesus was scourged. “And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, and said, Hail King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. And they. put. a reed in his fight hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him. and they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head”.

Truly, “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” ( Isaiah 53:5).

BEHOLD THE MAN!

After Jesus had been scourged and tortured by the soldiers, Pilate went out again to the mob and announced: “Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him”. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him , and crucify him : for I find no fault in him .”

Now comes a new allegation. Apparently, it was not mentioned before; they kept it in reserve; it was indeed the cause of their bitter enmity against Jesus. Truth will out! It was a question of Jewish law after all and it frightened the Judge; he was filled with superstitious dread. The Jews answered him; “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself THE SON OF GOD.” There was still no mention of any proceedings in their own Court or that they had condemned Jesus for “blasphemy”.

It will be noted that Pilate now tells the Jews to take Jesus and crucify Him themselves. Pilate indicates that He is prepared to hand over Jesus, “this just person”, to the crowd to be done to death. Perhaps he said it only to test their reaction. He knew the Jewish reluctance to crucify anybody themselves, and perhaps he counted on a refusal of his offer.

However that may be, the offer was in fact refused. This refusal seems to strengthen the view that the Chief Priests, though determined to put Jesus to death, shrank from doing so themselves. They wanted the foul deed done in the name of Rome. Crucifixion was almost unknown among them. Their manner of executing criminals, before they were deprived of the power to do so by the Romans, was by stoning, When a little later on they murdered Stephen, they stoned him. They wanted Jesus crucified because that was the most degrading and insulting method of all; but they refused to do it themselves. Like Pilate they appear to have had a wholesome awe and dread of the Accused. And so, once again, as Jesus came forth, wearing the crown of thorns and on the point of collapse, they cried out “Crucify him, crucify him!. He ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

PILATE RE-ENTERS THE PRAETORIUM “The Son of God.” This was a new accusation. It thoroughly disturbed the judge. First of all the Jews put Jesus forward as “a malefactor” — an accusation which conveyed nothing. When Pilate insisted upon definite charges, they became “perverting the nation”, “forbidding to give tribute to Caesar”, “claiming to be a king”. Now the accusation was, claiming to be “the Son of God”!

All that was superstitious in Pilate seems to have taken possession of his fevered imagination. He was trying One who claimed to be “the Son of God”. And he had just ordered this mysterious person, whom he knew to be a “just man”, to be scourged and tortured by his brutal troops. He must have time to think. He must interrogate the Accused again.

So, for the second time that morning, Pilate re-entered the Praetorium and was face to face with Jesus. Feverishly he asks, “Whence art thou?” but Jesus gave him no answer. Then making an attempt to preserve a show of dignity and authority he says, “Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?”

What a boast, bearing in mind that, notwithstanding he was the Governor, for the last hour or two, the common people and their Rulers had been insolently daring him to deny them their wish.

Whereupon Jesus, the tortured and uncomplaining One, fixing the harassed Judge with His serene gaze, in firm, calm, and authoritative tones replies, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above”, adding, from His understanding and forgiving heart, “he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin”. As if to say, “I do not expect you a Roman, to understand; but, they, should understand.”

Pilate appears to have been reduced to silence, for he is not reported to have made any reply, by such truly royal and judicial behavior in such terrible circumstances. He was dumbfounded. The Accused was more judicial than the Judge! The magnanimity and authority of the reply must have cut him to the quick. He must have been overwhelmed with shame. A conflict seems to have raged within him. Different forces struggled for the mastery. His training as a Judge told him that the Accused was not guilty of any of the charges laid against Him; his judgment of’ men convinced him that Jesus was “a just man”; his appreciation of the situation satisfied him that the Jews had delivered the Accused “for envy”; his contempt for their habit of splitting hairs over the interpretation of their laws both irritated and bored him. His previous clashes with the common people warned him that if he persisted in thwarting their demands, there might be a riot in which blood would flow. His responsibilities made him fearful lest a riot should develop into an insurrection. His sense of expediency urged him to “content the people” by yielding to their demands. The insolent way they had defied him in the presence of this noble Accused angered him and injured his pride. His pagan superstition, coupled with his wife’s dream, made him reel from the act of condemning One who claimed to be “the Son of God”. He was at his wit’s end to know what to do. At last the struggle was over. Was he not a Roman Judge? Was it not his bounden duty to make it plain to the Sanhedrin and to the threatening mob that the fundamental basis of Roman Law was as embodied in the maxim: “Fiat Justitia, Ruat Coelum” “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.” He would make this plain to all concerned. “And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him” ( John 19:12). As Peter said subsequently, Pilate was “determined to let Jesus go” ( Acts 3:13).

PILATE BACK ON THE FORUM Leaving Jesus inside the Praetorium, Pilate went out again to the crowd and “sought to release Jesus”. His efforts were in vain. 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”. “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar” ( John 19:12-15). “And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed” ( Luke 23:23).

CRUCIFY HIM!

Only a few days before, on Palm Sunday, as word went round that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, great crowds had gathered to give Him a triumphal procession. The air was filled with joyful cries, “Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest”. Now no voice was raised in His defense. A complete reversal of popular feeling had taken place. Stirred up by the Chief Priests the crowd cried, “Crucify Him, crucify him”. Now they were angry, indeed, enraged with Jesus. They had trusted that the great wonder worker of Galilee was He who would have redeemed Israel from the foreign yoke; that at this Feast of the Passover, He would crown all His miracles by some stupendous and overwhelming sign that He was the long promised King-Messiah, their political and spiritual Savior. Instead, they saw One who appeared to be absolutely helpless in the hands of the Roman Governor. When the Chief Priests accused Him of many things, He answered nothing. They heard no impassioned defense; on the contrary He was silent. He was not even defiant. He was meek and mild. He made no complaint. He was a Man of Peace. Crowned with thorns, wearing a mock purple robe, scourged, jeered at, insulted, ridiculed and humiliated in every way by the rabble soldiery, He made no protest, but “as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth”. Clearly His kingdom was not of this world. As He stood before the multitude He did not answer to the description of the all powerful, conquering deliverer foretold by their prophets. They had no understanding of a “suffering” Messiah also foretold by their prophets (see pp. 90, 145); they knew nothing of two Messianic advents (see pages 89-91.). They were looking for a national leader whom God would raise up from among their fellow countrymen “like unto Moses” ( Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22); one who would be a great prophet, lawgiver, statesman and warrior, whose leadership, as in the case of Moses, would be divinely attested by supernatural signs, and who would deliver them from the Romans as surely and effectually as Moses delivered their forefathers out of the hand of the Egyptians at the first Feast of the Passover. Up to the time of His arrest, it had seemed to the multitude that Jesus of Nazareth was about to assume this national leadership. They felt that it was only a matter of time before the vital declaration would be made. All the signs pointed to this Feast of the Passover as providing the occasion for the momentous proclamation. The Palm Sunday enthusiasm showed that they were in the mood to receive it with acclamation — provided it was accompanied by some outstanding supernatural “sign”. But the sign was not forthcoming— not then. “The heavens were as brass”. Jesus had said that the “sign” would be His resurrection from the dead ( Matthew 12:38-40); but even His disciples did not understand the meaning or significance of His words ( Luke 18:31-34). In the mystery of Divine Providence the multitude were to help in providing the sign, for they were to be the human instruments to send Him to His death; and His death was the condition precedent to His resurrection. Now all their hopes were dashed to pieces.

He saved others, Himself He could not save. They were stupefied by this sudden change in the fortunes of their Idol. Their stupefaction turned to bewilderment; their bewilderment to resentment; their resentment to anger; their anger to hatred and scorn. They despised Him ( Isaiah 53:3)for His apparent helplessness after having raised their hopes so high; and because they despised Him, they rejected Him as yet another false Messiah and deceiver. The spiritual significance of the transaction upon which they were engaged was completely lost upon them. At this, the most momentous Passover in all their long history, they failed to see in Jesus the very Paschal Lamb ( John 1:29; John 3:16; 1 John 2:1) who, by the sacrifice of Himself would bear away the sin of the world and thus perform the legal act by virtue of which an utterly holy God could grant a free pardon to all who accepted that sacrifice. Therefore to Pilate’s sarcastic questions sarcasm directed more against the accusers than the accused— “Shall I crucify your King?” —they responded with furious cries of “Crucify him, crucify him”. They demanded His death and that without delay.

PILATE YIELDS Pilate had come forth from his last interrogation of Jesus determined to uphold the high traditions of Roman Justice and to persuade the Jews to accept his verdict of not guilty”. He was “determined to let Jesus go” ( Acts 3:13). Then the chief priests let loose their final and fatal shaft. “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend”. The stab went home. Pilate saw the danger signal. He.knew he was defeated. He appreciated the innuendo. The hint was too plain-to be mistaken. If he let Jesus go, the Jews would accuse him before his Emperor of crimen lasae majestatis , the very charge made against the Accused he was trying. The tables were being turned upon Pilate with a vengeance I If he let Jesus go, he would be accused of suffering a rival to Caesar. How could he hope to defend himself successfully on such a charge? It would be given in evidence against him before the Emperor that Jesus had admitted being a king. He would have no defense. It would be useless to explain to Tiberius that the Accused denied being the sort of king alleged by the Jews but claimed to be some other kind of king. A pagan Emperor would never understand that explanation. Yes, he would be without a defense and he would share the fate of all Roman officials who failed their Emperor; he would be ordered to commit suicide to purge his offense. THE TRIAL ENDS And so, with the hypocritical cry of the Jews, “We have no king but Caesar” ringing in his ears, Pilate yielded. He collapsed, miserably, utterly, and hurtled down the slippery slope of self-interest and expediency to his destruction. He abandoned his high duty as Judge to do right and justice to the Accused without fear or favor, partiality, affection or ill-will; in an attempt to save himself from a charge of treason, he gave way to the clamor of the mob. Without rescinding his verdict of “not guilty” he gave sentence that it should be as they required; he “released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus. to be crucified” ( Mark 15:15). In the final analysis it would seem that both Caiaphas and Pilate conceived themselves to be faced with the same problem: a problem in part a personal and in part a public one. Caiaphas envisaged that if Jesus were allowed to live, an insurrection would break out with disastrous results to the Jewish State; and in that case he and his colleagues would lose everything. So, before the trial commenced or even the arrest was made, he advised the Sanhedrin, “It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people” ( John 11:50).

Pilate appreciated that if he let Jesus live, he himself would be accused of treason and would forfeit his life.

Both Judges resolved their respective problems on the basis of expediency and self-interest: neither on the basis of” Justice for the Accused”.

We are constantly reminded in the Apostles’ Creed that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” in truth, Caiaphas “had the greater sin” ( John 19:11).

There is a belief, held throughout the centuries, and shared by Jew and Gentile alike, that the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah and Son of God was thoroughly and patiently investigated by the Jewish Supreme Court and rejected only after mature deliberation. Our study should make it clear that there is no justification for this belief. The Sanhedrin never investigated the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah and Son of God. The Sanhedrin directed all their efforts to securing that the claim was formally made and rejected in the Court “whence the law goes forth to all Israel”. Immediately Jesus made the claim, they denounced it as blasphemy; they dismissed the claim without a hearing. The Sanhedrin merely used their Court as part of the machinery for putting Jesus to death. Pilate thrice declared Jesus to be “not guilty”, then washed his hands of the case and delivered Jesus to be put to death.

Yet Jesus was not the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Neither “legal” nor “natural” justice was done. Legal justice is man-made and can be lawfully altered by the State. Natural justice is the Birthright of every human being; it includes the right to a “fair” trial and an acquittal if not condemned; it is universal, for it knows no territorial limits; it is fundamental to every system of jurisprudence.

Both the Jewish and Roman Courts professed to administer natural as well as legal justice. Neither did so in the case of Jesus; each Court denied Him both kinds of justice.

Justice was not done and was manifestly and undoubtedly seen not to be done. JESUS OF NAZARETH, MESSIAH OF THE JEWS AND SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, WAS MURDERED “And they took Jesus, and led him away” ( John 19:16).