Pontius Pilate: On Trial?
One could wonder if Pontius Pilate was ever allowed to go on trial for the death of Jesus Christ, if he would have been able to receive adequate counsel for his defense and an unbiased group of twelve jurors who were unfamiliar with the case? Ironically “twelve” is the same number of disciples that followed Jesus. The number of jurors was implemented by Welsh King Morgan who established jury trials in 725 A. D. for that very reason. Being that King Morgan came after Jesus, we are using a little creative license to suppose that Pilate would be in a similar court situation.
No doubt Pilate would have had the most expensive lawyer money could buy for that time. His defense team would have rivaled that of O.J. Simpson’s
“Dream Team” thousands of years later. However, in the case of the “State vs. Pontius Pilate”, I doubt his lawyer would have allowed Pilate to reenact the “washing of his hands” in the bowl confiscated from his palace and collected as evidence to show that their client distanced himself from the decision to crucify Jesus? If the “hands are dry, you must let him fly”, probably would not have had the same effect as it did for O.J. Simpson when trying on his leather shrunk glove and the catch phrase; “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit?
Allow me a moment to go one step further and fast-forward Pilate’s trial into today’s society of the “Fake News-Snap Chat- Tweeting-Instagram” obsessed world. What would that have been like? Let’s see, you had all the elements of a classic media frenzy including its grand share of controversy; beginning with the arrest of an innocent man and popular leader, Jesus Christ; betrayal with the pay-off of Judas, and political pressure by Jewish Leaders to bypass the execution of an actual criminal in Barabbas, because they were afraid of Jesus’s popularity and growing influence. Do I dare say, “#Pilate Punchless”? Haters would have harassed apologists along with Trump’s nightly tweets such as “@ Trump; Pilate welcome at White House to explain himself…Jesus has to share in some blame….” You don’t think Trump would have passed on a chance to poke a little jab at Jesus Christ do you? Or, he could go the other way, @Trump; “The only one that should be allowed to take a knee is Christ, not the NFL.”
The Talk Show circuit would have lit up with Network battles highlighted by Megyn Kelly climbing over GMA to have the first interview with Pilate and his Lawyer. Or “The View” airing an exclusive interview with Pilate’s wife, Claudia Procula, about the dream she had and her request for her husband not to crucify Jesus. Nothing like a bunch of Atheist Liberals to set the record straight about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
“Megyn Kelly climbing over GMA to have the first interview with Pilate”
The central figure in this sensational trial would be the lazy and luke-warm leader in Pontius Pilate. Before Christ was brought before Pilate, the stubborn inflexible leader was only interested in keeping himself in power for forever and looked forward to being a lifetime bully to the Jews. Any interruption in this well-oiled machine was burdensome. Additionally, Pilate did not see the value in executing Jesus simply because Christ irked the Jews so much they wanted to rid themselves of any competition. Therefore, that was not a matter that Pilate needed to be concerned with since Jesus didn’t conflict with his own interests. The added bonus here was that Jesus was a “thorn” in the Jews side (no Pun intended with the thorn). Oh yeah, and what should have been the most important point in all of this was the fact that Jesus had not committed any crime, so crucifying an innocent man was not good for Pilate’s continued reign. Pilate may have killed innocent, nameless and faceless citizens, but then again, they were nameless and faceless. This unsolicited publicity of executing a popular leader like Jesus Christ was ruining Pilate’s groove!
“Jesus had not committed any crime, so crucifying an innocent man was not good for Pilate’s continued reign.”
Pilate tried in vain to push away his burdensome responsibility of deciding death between Barabbas and Jesus by using the “Passover Celebration” as an excuse to pardon one of the two brought before him. As Jewish Tradition noted, you were allowed to free one prisoner in honor of the Passover Festival. Ironically, this is the very festival that Pilate year after year would interrupt purposely with violence and death because of his hatred for the Jews. So now Pilate wanted to use the Festival as a means to slither away from the unpopular execution of Christ. However, the Jewish Leaders were not buying his “loop hole” tactics.
Since Jesus had declared himself the “King of the Jews” the charge was therefore “Rebellion” which is subject to punishment and sanctioned to be carried out by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. The Jewish leaders went a step further and stated that if the crucifixion was not ordered by Pilate and carried out completely that a complaint would be made to Rome and Caesar. A complaint this serious would have Pilate arrested and he would lose his power.
“Since Jesus had declared himself as the ‘King of the Jews’ the charge was therefore “Rebellion” which is subject to punishment and sanctioned to be carried out by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate.”
The crowd that had gathered outside in Pilate’s courtyard was restless and angry. Therefore, as another way to place the responsibility away from himself, Pilate asked the crowd; “which one should be spared from execution?” “Jesus or Barabbas?” The crowd shouted their request to free Barabbas and not Jesus. Scholars had noted that the Jews had flooded the courtyard with their own servants and henchmen, and thus were able to control the crowd and their bias decision. Pilate was defeated and as a way of distancing himself from the decision of execution, Pilate had a bowl of water visible to the crowd and “washed his hands” of any responsibility claiming he was forced into the decision to free Barabbas and crucify Jesus. In the end, Pilate knew that he would need the influence of Jewish Leaders on other matters for the future and going against them would only isolate him along with possible sanctions from Rome. Pilate would sacrifice his decision to do what was right to preserve his legacy and keep his glory.
“Pilate was defeated and as a way of distancing himself from the decision of execution, Pilate had a bowl of water visible to the crowd and “washed his hands” of any responsibility”
If we are keeping with the theme that Pilate was transported into today’s crazy media society in the same time period of 26 AD to 36 AD. I would imagine that Pilate would have had a high-priced literary agent to help promote his version of events surrounding the crucifying of Jesus. Do we dare say that his book title would be;“What Happened”, “The Real Reason Behind the Crucification of Jesus Christ”?
This would be a behind-the-scenes “blame-game” against the Jewish Leaders absolving himself of any involvement in the decision to crucify Jesus. This of course would have taken place after the death of Jesus in 33 A.D. and before Pilate’s eventual suspension from being Governor in 36 A.D. for cruel and intentional acts of harm on a group of Samaritans. The Samaritans had gathered at one of their holy sites where Pilate ordered the bloodshed. He was suspended and summoned to the Rome to explain his cruel actions and never returned to Judea after 36 A. D..
Where would the trial of Pontius Pilate take place? Would it be Judea where Pilate ruled as a Roman Praefect (Governor)? His advising counsel would have probably preferred this since a jury of twelve would have been local citizens too scared to condemn Pilate fearing retaliation. Or, Jerusalem where Jesus was actually crucified? This would have been a place of many sympathizers of Jesus but also room for a corrupt trial as well. Jewish Leaders would have conspired and bullied their influence for a guilty verdict using intimidation on the innocent jury. Rome would be logical but also enormously bias place to hold a trial since Pilate was a Roman soldier and came from an Equestrian (Knightly) class, one step down from the Senatorial class. Only later to gain additional status when he married his wife, Claudia Procula, the niece of Emperor Tiberius. Rome would have had the overwhelming feel of corruption in either direction, for Pilate due to his military background or for the very city that condemned him. Wherever the trial might have been housed it would have been a spectacle of tremendous proportion.
The Witness list for the Defense and/or the Prosecution of Pilate would have been of celebrity legend. Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples, was paid 30 pieces of silver (equal to two or three month’s laborer pay) to lead Jewish Leaders to arrest Jesus. Later, Judas repented for his sin and tried to return the money but the damage had been done and he could not stop the crucifixion. He would have died the same year Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D. according to Matthew 27:5; Judas hanged himself after betraying Jesus and after repenting his sin of bribary. Therefore, his testimony would have been of compiled evidence and witness accounts into Judas’s betrayal. As stated, Pilate was not arrested until 36 A.D. which was three years after the death of Jesus and Judas. However, if alive at the time of trial, Judas could have been a compelling witness for the defense (Pilate) defending the fact that he himself sympathized with not crucifying Jesus because of him repenting later on. This would have supported Pilate’s original view of not wanting to kill Christ because he felt that he did not commit any crime. The cross examination for the prosecution would have been equally compelling as they would argue that Judas’s intent was that of greed and power the same as Pilate. Although both felt that Jesus was innocent, they both ultimately chose their selfish needs over saving the life of Christ.
Disgusted with her husband’s decision to kill Jesus after her personal plea against it, Claudia Procula, wife of Pilate would have played an important witness. Let’s assume that in Europe there is no “Marital Testimony Exception” where in the United States (depending on the state) a spouse may be excused from testifying against the other spouse. The purpose of this law is to uphold the “sanctity of marriage”. However, in Pilate’s case, Claudia was against her husband’s decision to execute Jesus therefore the court could rule that she would be allowed to testify to determine whether Pilate’s original thoughts of Jesus’s innocents was his true intent or was his decision guided by Greed and Power circumventing the lack of evidence against Christ for his own longevity?
“Disgusted with her husband’s decision to kill Jesus after her personal plea against it, Claudia Procula, wife of Pilate would have played an important witness.”
The remaining eleven disciples, had they all been alive in 36 A.D. or after, would have all been called to testify. “Doubting Thomas”, Thomas
Didymus who was not with the other disciples when Jesus rose from the dead, thus, denying or doubting the rise of Jesus occurred only until Jesus showed himself later in a personal visit to Thomas, would have been the more interesting testimony among the remaining eleven. The defense counsel could argue that the “doubt” that Thomas experienced was a hole in Thomas’s allegiance to Christ claiming Thomas was against Jesus from the beginning and therefore in agreement with the crucifixion. And that his “doubt” was not limited to after the death of Jesus but a betrayal like that of Judas before the arrest. The prosecution would argue that Thomas’s doubt was fleeting and never deviated from his loyalty to Jesus. Thomas’s request for proof from his leader was merely because he was disappointed that he missed the resurrection. Further more, Thomas wanted to have a private conversation with Jesus as closure.
There is some fun in trying to humanize and trend into modern times such a monumental religious experience as the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus Christ. The humor is of no disrespect to the religious event but more of an insight into the true feelings of Pontius Pilate regarding the guilt or innocence of Jesus. Many, including me, did not realize that Pilate wavered on his decision to crucify Jesus? The last word that comes to mind is “sympathy” and the name Pontius Pilate, but after researching the circumstances leading up to the crucifixion, I truly believed that Pilate felt Jesus was innocent. However, in the end Pilate’s greed and love for keeping his power won leaving little room for “sympathy”. Perhaps this is the way God planned it otherwise Jesus would never have died for our sins in the vial and heinous way he did? Could Pilate have surprised God by sparing Jesus and not Barabbas therefore altering how we perceive and receive sin? Difficult to imagine the Catholic religion be based on any other scenario?
Whether a fair trial could have occurred or not has been interesting to explore. The real end to Pilate’s life was not glamorous as he was called to Rome to answer for his massacre of a group of Samaritans who had gathered at one of their holy sites. The resulting massacre aroused so much anger that he was suspended from office.
There are conflicting reports of Pilate’s death. The early church historian Eusebius wrote that he committed suicide in 39 AD. However, according to a legend, he lived until the reign of Nero and then died a horrible death in France. According to some traditions, the Roman Emperor Caligula ordered Pilate to death by execution of suicide. Other accounts have Pilate exiled and committed suicide on his own. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding Pontius Pilate’s death we know he actually existed. During a 1961 dig in Caesarea Marittima, Italian archeologist Dr. Antonio Frova uncovered a piece of limestone inscribed with Pontius Pilate’s name in Latin linking Pilate to Emperor Tiberius’s reign.
