On Line Bible Study - For the Week September 2 - 8, 2013

Lesson 574

The Roman Trial

Revolt was in the air in early First Century Palestine.  But Raymond Brown makes a strong case to suggest that during the adult life of Jesus, Palestine was ruled in relative peace.  St. Mark tells the story of the Roman Trial of Jesus in 15 verses.  St. John takes 27 verses.

There are four major players in the “Roman Trial” of Jesus:

·         Jesus, the accused

·         Jewish religious authorities, the accusers

·         Pilate, the judge

·         The Crowd (the jury?)

The Accusation

“Are you the “king of the Jews”?  That is the question Pilate puts to Jesus in each of the four gospels.  Matthew tells us that Pilate was aware that “it was out of envy that the religious authorities had handed Jesus over to him.”  But from the standpoint of any sort of trial, envy is not a valid platform upon which to judge a person.  It is in the Gospel of John where the strongest case is made against the accusation that Jesus coveted any sort of worldly power.  There, Jesus asserts that his kingship is not of this world.  (John 18:36.)  Whereas Jesus is silent in the synoptic gospels, it may be that the reason for his stated defense in John has more to do with the community of Christians who comprise John’s audience than with any historical fact of the trial itself.  Christianity was not a threat to civil authority in terms of wanting to overthrow governments.  However, as the texts note, blasphemy against the Jewish God – which was the Jewish reason for the religious authorities’ accusations against Jesus - was not cause for capital punishment in the Roman world (John 18:31).  It is John where we find the two accusations coming together – blasphemy: John 19:7 – He has made himself the Son of God…  and then, in John 19:12  -  "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."  It is the second accusation that tips the balance against Jesus.

The Judge

Almost as much has been written about the character of Pilate and his role in this trial as has been written about the accusations against Jesus.  Was this a “trial” in the true sense of the word?  When we compare the trial of Jesus in the Gospels to that of Paul in Acts 24-26, the differences are startling.  Pilate consults no one.  There are no “lawyers” present (see, by contrast, Acts 24:12).  How is it that Pilate alone has the authority to make a judgment as to Jesus’ guilt or innocence?  A “trial” would be the right of a Roman citizen – which Paul was, and Jesus was not.  Jerusalem and Judea were at the edges of the Roman world, and the majority of its population were not Roman citizens.  Pilate assumes authority for himself that is characteristic of a procedure that was more summary than a trial.  Because this was a time of festival (Passover), and the atmosphere on the street was tense during such times, the procurator would take it upon himself to expedite cases such as the one the Jews brought against Jesus.  Matthew makes particular note of this in his statement that Pilate foresaw the possibility of riots – a situation he desperately wanted to avoid.  (See Matthew 27:24.)

Was Pilate wise in his decision?  Could he truly wash his hands of his involvement?  If he believed Jesus was innocent, but authorized his crucifixion out of expedience to quiet the crowd, what does that say about him as a person?

The Jury

The crowd has tremendous sway in the case against Jesus.  While this would not be true in an actual Roman trial, it was true under certain circumstances in the mid-Eastern world.  It is not, however, how the Jewish Law works.  Justice for Jews was not the result of a democratic process or popular demand.  It emanated out of the Law of God and was to be meted out evenly.  In the case against Jesus, the crowd seems to have unusual influence.  As noted above, the “jury” could make a great deal of trouble for the “judge” in the form of riots and civil unrest.

Thoughts for Reflection

How do we understand the role of the Church in civic society?

How might our honoring of civil authority come into conflict with our giving our full allegiance to a “lord” whose realm is “not of this world”?

Is it possible to “wash our hands” of responsibility for the injustices in the world that we are aware of?

How much influence does “the crowd” really have on us?