Was Pontius Pilate really a bad guy?

[callmeChris]

I really could never wrap my head around Pilate’s intentions. Was he really villainous or was he a scape goat? Compared to the Scribes and Herod he seemed more “innocent” (i dont even wanna use that word lol) Exactly what was his sin? Was it pride? or was he simply scared out of his whits?

 

[thegoodgirl101]

This is one of those questions where you can’t say yes or no, so you have to say yes AND no umm… Yes because killing people, of course is not the right thing to do but no, because at that time, it seemed like it was right for him to do it. He was not a good man in conclusion but I guess that was God’s will… God Bless

 

[callmeChris]

Th.is question arose in my mind after reading Sunday’s Gospel. Also in the Movie “The Passion Of Christ” he gave off a serene image. I mean he literally didn’t want to send Christ to the Cross, he saw no wrong in him. It boggles my mind :hypno:

 

[JerryZ]

I really could never wrap my head around Pilate’s intentions. Was he really villainous or was he a scape goat? Compared to the Scribes and Herod he seemed more “innocent” (i dont even wanna use that word lol) Exactly what was his sin? Was it pride? or was he simply scared out of his whits?

First of all you have to wrap your head around the “mentality” of the person in relation to the “time” in which he was alive.

He was the locally designated ruler for the area representing the Roman emperor.
As such he was directly responsible for anything and everything that happened in his area of responsibility.
The Roman empire was NOT managed by commitee, if you screwed up your head was on the line. Therefore anyone that wanted to alter the “Pax Romana” was dealt with severely.

He was coerced into killing Jesus to avert a possible riot by the population.

It is the proverbial catch 22 situation or damned if you or if you don’t.

Kill an innocent to appease a mob and avert a riot for which he would probably have to answer to Ceasar or risk his own life to save an obscure rabbi from Galilea?

You do the math I wonder what would YOU have done in His place.

 

[littlenothing]

His sins were ambition and cowardice, I think. He wanted to keep his post more than he wanted to even TRY to know the truth. He was afraid of reprisal from Rome and a revolt from the Jews. He tried to pawn the whole affair off on Herod, which shows cowardice rather than an actual belief that it wasn’t his jurisdiction.

I feel sorry for Pilate for the most part, because I think (as evidenced by Jesus not ignoring him like He did Herod) that there was a flame of good alive in his soul. What troubles me most is that the Gospels also tell us that “from that day forward he and Herod, previously enemies, were friends”. (Maybe I shouldn’t have used quotes-I was parapharasing).

He’s a lot like many politicians we see these days who cave on abortion, gay “marriage” and the like. A weak and worldly man with a shell of a conscience who could have encountered the Mercy of Christ like Dismas did, but, perhaps missed his chance.

 

[jimcav]

I’ve pondered this question also.

My conclusion, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that Jesus saw no real good in Pilate, hence He gave him the silent treatment and didn’t try and convert him. Jesus knew He would be talking to somebody that in his heart-of-hearts, would never believe in Him and only use His words against Him. Pilate was also a murderous Roman with much blood on his hands.

I agree though, the Rabbi’s and scribes kind of get off easy…

 

[alokin123]

I’m no expert but from my reading Pilate, like so many of us, was in a position of power and had a responsibility to be just and fair. One could argue that he didn’t execute his office of authority in the case of Jesus as he should have. Pilate said “I find no guilt in this man” but still handed him over to be crucified. He is a good example of not being able to serve two masters. He has his duty to the state but he wants to appease the crowd who are calling for blood.

What’s more, he sent Jesus to Herod because he didn’t want to have to make a decision (which is another indicator to his character), and Herod didn’t find Jesus guilty of any crime. So even after Herod exonerated Jesus and Pilate not finding him guilty, he still condemned him and tried to wash his hands of any involvement. Just some things to think about in relation to Pilate.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

He was the locally designated ruler for the area representing the Roman emperor.
As such he was directly responsible for anything and everything that happened in his area of responsibility.
The Roman empire was NOT managed by commitee, if you screwed up your head was on the line. Therefore anyone that wanted to alter the “Pax Romana” was dealt with severely.

He was coerced into killing Jesus to avert a possible riot by the population.

It is the proverbial catch 22 situation or damned if you or if you don’t.

Kill an innocent to appease a mob and avert a riot for which he would probably have to answer to Ceasar or risk his own life to save an obscure rabbi from Galilea?

You do the math I wonder what would YOU have done in His place.

Hence, the dirty nature of politics. I think Pilate is a good example for religious types who naively seek office for the first time. You’re not going to change things as they are by playing Mother Theresa. It takes a Christian of a different brand of spirituality that has more guts and cunning (two often conflicting elements).

On further reflection, I would have like to know if Pilate had a standing army that could suppress a rebellion stemming from a seemingly trivial decision. That should definitely have been a point of consideration. (I’d have all rioters slaughtered for trying if it were up to me.)

He’s a lot like many politicians we see these days who cave on abortion, gay “marriage” and the like. A weak and worldly man with a shell of a conscience who could have encountered the Mercy of Christ like Dismas did, but, perhaps missed his chance.

Neither your country’s politicians nor my mine are under the pressure of death from the Big Cheese. Big difference.

Besides, you don’t see politicians making the same action as ‘washing off one’s hands.’ Then again, I’m sure minority votes feel just as coerced when they can’t convince the majority.

 

[Southern]

And What did Jesus Say? “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.” God Bless!!!

 

[minion]

It’s kind of awkward to admit this, but I couldn’t help but empathize with Pilate when he stated to Jesus:

"What is truth?"

To some, that comment may sound like a sarcastic retort, or the answer from a trained rhetorician, but to me that is the question of someone who wants to know truth but is cautious and skeptical of anyone who claims to have it. To me the silence of Jesus in response, resounded of the silence of God in our daily life.

I hope he found his way…that would bring hope to the rest of us who wrestle with our faith, and have made grave mistakes in the process.

 

[littlenothing]

I’ve pondered this question also.

My conclusion, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that Jesus saw no real good in Pilate, hence He gave him the silent treatment and didn’t try and convert him. Jesus knew He would be talking to somebody that in his heart-of-hearts, would never believe in Him and only use His words against Him. Pilate was also a murderous Roman with much blood on his hands.

I agree though, the Rabbi’s and scribes kind of get off easy…

That’s not my take-Jesus didn’t give Pilate the silent treatment, that was Herod. He engaged Pilate and even told him the one who handed Him over was guilty of the greater sin.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Th.is question arose in my mind after reading Sunday’s Gospel. Also in the Movie “The Passion Of Christ” he gave off a serene image. I mean he literally didn’t want to send Christ to the Cross, he saw no wrong in him. It boggles my mind :hypno:

He was a political figure,turning Christ over to be crucified was to save hos political keister.

 

[Mosley]

I really could never wrap my head around Pilate’s intentions. Was he really villainous or was he a scape goat? Compared to the Scribes and Herod he seemed more “innocent” (i dont even wanna use that word lol) Exactly what was his sin? Was it pride? or was he simply scared out of his whits?

With the Roman Government in mind Romans 13:2 says

“*The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves *”

Pilate was just trying his best to control civil unrest and prevent an imminent insurgency.

 

[littlenothing]

Hence, the dirty nature of politics. I think Pilate is a good example for religious types who naively seek office for the first time. You’re not going to change things as they are by playing Mother Theresa. It takes a Christian of a different brand of spirituality that has more guts and cunning (two often conflicting elements).

On further reflection, I would have like to know if Pilate had a standing army that could suppress a rebellion stemming from a seemingly trivial decision. That should definitely have been a point of consideration. (I’d have all rioters slaughtered for trying if it were up to me.)

Neither your country’s politicians nor my mine are under the pressure of death from the Big Cheese. Big difference.

Besides, you don’t see politicians making the same action as ‘washing off one’s hands.’ Then again, I’m sure minority votes feel just as coerced when they can’t convince the majority.

Im not sure of your point. Our countries don’t exactly matter in this. Didn’t Putin’s enemy recently die in a bathtub? Reagan was short. Kennedy assassinated. Our presidents have secret service to protect their lives. We don’t necessarily know if they fear for their lives, or just for their livelihoods. As I said, I feel pity for Pilate. What a position to be in! But Christ was right there before him offering him the truth. He seems to have decided to tale the cowards way out. I am not saying he went to Hell. We don’t have that information. We don’t see them washing their hands, true, but I don’t know what that has to do with the general idea that politicians likely have a great temptation to cower to popular wishes and demands. Itty a temptation that, thankfully, I don’t have to face. Pilate did. And he seems to have failed in his test.

 

[JohnTomHoc]

I’ve heard that there’s a folk tradition that Pilate actually converted eventually, but I’m not able to find it via google.

St. Luke 23:11-12 briefly tells of the mockery Herod had Jesus subjected to, sending him back to Pilate, and that they were friends thereafter; but it doesn’t say exactly whether it was because Pilate shared the mockery, or because Herod was helping Pilate politically by trying to make light of the accusations.

 

[littlenothing]

I’ve heard that there’s a folk tradition that Pilate actually converted eventually, but I’m not able to find it via google.

St. Luke 23:11-12 briefly tells of the mockery Herod had Jesus subjected to, sending him back to Pilate, and that they were friends thereafter; but it doesn’t say exactly whether it was because Pilate shared the mockery, or because Herod was helping Pilate politically by trying to make light of the accusations.

I’ve heard that too. Louis De Wohl in his book The Spear references it and it doesn’t contradict anything in Scripture.

No one knows why they were friends, or even if they were friends or “friends”, but it must mean something to have been included. It always made me worry that it was somehow evidence that Pilate’s unfortunate choice sealed his will for ill. I hope not. I think he was in the worlds most unenviable position.

 

[aspirant]

I do not think John portrays Pilate in a positive light.

As John tells the story, Pilate and the Jewish leaders have contempt for one another (Pilate would look at them as barbarians, they would view Pilate as a pagan) and they are wrangling with one another over which of them really has (or can gain) the upper hand.

The irony, of course, is that John and his Christian readers recognize that the real King is present among them, unbeknownst to them, about to take his throne and be glorified. In the end, despite their mutual contempt and desire to wrest power away from one another, Pilate and the Jewish leaders come to the agreement that Jesus will die. To them, he is just a political pawn. To John, he is the King, and they’ve unwittingly carried out the means of Jesus’ victory.

I don’t think Pilate’s parts in John’s narrative should be read positively. Apart from trying to discern whether Jesus poses a personal threat to himself, I don’t think Pilate really cares whether Jesus is guilty or innocent or whether he lives or dies.

Pilate shows his contempt for the Jews in several places, such as 18:31 and 19:6. He doesn’t have to be told they cannot execute Jesus themselves; he is reminding them who holds that power. (He also tries this on Jesus in 19:10.) Saying “I find no guilt in him” and threatening to release Jesus is just one more way of rubbing this in and showing off his own power-- it’s a “you’re not the boss of me” gesture. The Jewish leaders, knowing what he’s up to, want to knock him down a peg. In 19:12, they assert that they have more power over Pilate than he realizes: if he doesn’t do what they want, it could spell trouble with his own superiors. 19:15-16 is the turning point in which the two sides reach a strange alliance. The Jewish leaders, despite their previous contempt for pagans such as Pilate (cf. 18:28), betray their faith and acclaim the pagan Caesar. Pilate, despite his previous contempt for barbarian Jewish leaders he thinks should be his underlings, does exactly what they told him to do.

It’s an epically ironic story.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I think he did what many do: to get along with the crowd he sentenced Jesus to be scourged, even if he knew that it was unjust and could not find a reason to. How many people will do something evil just because they are scared of the mob?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Im not sure of your point. Our countries don’t exactly matter in this. Didn’t Putin’s enemy recently die in a bathtub? Reagan was short. Kennedy assassinated. Our presidents have secret service to protect their lives. We don’t necessarily know if they fear for their lives, or just for their livelihoods.

What are you suggesting? That there’s a conspiracy controlling the world’s leaders with a threat of assassination? Sorry but real life tends to be less exciting than that compared to the movies.

As I said, I feel pity for Pilate. What a position to be in! But Christ was right there before him offering him the truth. He seems to have decided to tale the cowards way out.

Ever been in an uprising? Have you lost your family to one? I’m sure our history books can tell us a lot. Bloody affairs aren’t they? Tell me, do you really think it was just Pilate’s life that was at stake? The more power you have in terms of rule, the more delicate your decisions end up. The death of one followed by the rioting chaos of many? I think you’re underestimating the repercussions of allowing mobs become revolutions.

We don’t see them washing their hands, true, but I don’t know what that has to do with the general idea that politicians likely have a great temptation to cower to popular wishes and demands.

Clearly you are either downplaying the symbolism of Pilate’s hand washing or you don’t know what it really means. Washing off one’s hands the way he did is an expression that basically says it’s not on him anymore.

And honestly, without sufficient force of arms, it’s hard to say Pilate really had any much of a choice.

Itty a temptation that, thankfully, I don’t have to face. Pilate did. And he seems to have failed in his test.

Who are you to give a test on a position you never had?

 

[patrick457]

Let’s read things from the horses’ mouth:

Pilate was an official who had been appointed prefect of Judaea. With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than of honoring Tiberius, he set up gilded shields in Herod’s palace in the Holy City. They bore no figure and nothing else that was forbidden, but only the briefest possible inscription, which stated two things - the name of the dedicator and that of the person in whose honor the dedication was made. But when the Jews at large learnt of this action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king’s [Herod the Great] four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation in the shape of the shields, and not to violate their native customs, which had hitherto been invariably preserved inviolate by kings and emperors alike.

When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted: ‘Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient laws brings no honor to the emperor. Do not make Tiberius an excuse for insulting our nation. He does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal to our master by means of an embassy.’

This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid that if they really sent an embassy, they would bring accusations against the rest of his administration as well, specifying in detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once set up, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects, but at the same time he was well aware of Tiberius’ firmness on these matters. When the Jewish officials saw this, and realized that Pilate was regretting what he had done, although he did not wish to show it, they wrote a letter to Tiberius, pleading their case as forcibly as they could.

What words, what threats Tiberius uttered against Pilate when he read it! It would be superfluous to describe his anger, although he was not easily moved to anger, since his reaction speaks for itself. For immediately, without even waiting until the next day, he wrote to Pilate, reproaching and rebuking him a thousand times for his new-fangled audacity and telling him to remove the shields at once and have them taken from the capital to the coastal city of Caesarea …], to be dedicated in the temple of Augustus. This was duly done. In this way both the honor of the emperor and the traditional policy regarding Jerusalem were alike preserved.

• Philo, The Embassy to Caligula 299-305