Why is Jesus' response to Pilate such a good one?

[Gift_from_God]

**“You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin”

**

A couple years ago my mother told my father that that was a fantastic response to Pilate saying that he had the power to spare or end Jesus’ life. Can someone tell me why it is such a great one?

 

[Apollos]

"You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin" A couple years ago my mother told my father that that was a fantastic response to Pilate saying that he had the power to spare or end Jesus’ life. Can someone tell me why it is such a great one?

It’s like saying to Pilate, “Look, you’re just doing your job”.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I think Apollos said it well!

I also think that it’s a kinda quick witted response. From memory Pilate questions Jesus’ claim to being the ‘King’ (i.e. his divinity is in question). I think this response is kind of like saying… “Look, you don’t believe I am God, but that’s okay, because you are only doing your job, and in any case, don’t forget that the only power you have is power from above”. Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but if I was in Pilates position I would feel very uncomfortable at that last point. Even if I was 100% sure this guy wasn’t God or some kind of King, that last little bit would make me think twice about my “power” and my final decision.

 

[LilyM]

It’s like saying to Pilate, “Look, you’re just doing your job”.

And additionally ‘Look, you ain’t ‘all that’ - you’re every bit as much a dependent flunky in God’s eyes as the slaves who wash your clothes for you, no matter how much power you think you have’.

 

[colmcille1]

**“You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin”

**

A couple years ago my mother told my father that that was a fantastic response to Pilate saying that he had the power to spare or end Jesus’ life. Can someone tell me why it is such a great one?

Hi Gift from God,
This response reminds me of the appropriate scene from ‘The Passion of the Christ’.
It serves as a sober reminder of the definite border between frail man and infinite God.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Veronica7978]

Hi Gift from God,
This response reminds me of the appropriate scene from ‘The Passion of the Christ’.
It serves as a sober reminder of the definite border between frail man and infinite God.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Exactly. Nothing happens unless God allows it. Pilate wouldn’t have a single breath more unless God allowed it. We have no power; God has all power.

 

[Nita]

**“You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin”

**

A couple years ago my mother told my father that that was a fantastic response to Pilate saying that he had the power to spare or end Jesus’ life. Can someone tell me why it is such a great one?

I’m thinking that - by telling Pilate his authority originated from a higher source (God) - Jesus may have been trying to awaken in Pilate the realization that he would have to answer to God for how he exercised that God-given authority. To abuse that power, to use it for injustice, would offend the God who gave it to him…

The “Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin” clarifies that altho Pilate alone would be the one to make that actual decision to execute, that didn’t make him the only one responsible for Jesus’ death. Those who handed Him (Jesus) over were actually guilty of a greater sin.

 

[Crumpy]

I can’t answer the original question exactly, except to say that it is the best answer because it came from Jesus.

Jesus was mostly silent before Pilate. If anything, this is a thought-provoking answer which should have given Pilate some reason to pause and think about what he was going to do. It hightens Pilate’s guilt.

The more intriguing question is how the gospel writer got close enough to Pilate and Jesus to know the substance of their conversation. I mean, this wasn’t written by CNN, you know.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

The more intriguing question is how the gospel writer got close enough to Pilate and Jesus to know the substance of their conversation. I mean, this wasn’t written by CNN, you know.

Note that Jesus spent 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension with the apostles. I would presume they discussed these things during that time.

 

[steve53]

If you look at the history and politics of the times, I think Jesus’ response is far more literal than is generally accepted.

The Second Temple was a huge money-maker back then, with it’s non-stop parade of festivals and tithing requirements of every Jew. It supported the economy of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was the major economic hub of Judea. The High Priesthood became very wealthy running the temple operation- Ananus and his family especially so.

The Romans only wanted money and peace in the Jewish East. If the Temple priesthood could provide both, they were satisfied. The Roman gave the various Sanhedrin councils a free hand in keeping the population under control. The High Priesthood technically answered to Rome.

But, certainly, Pilate received kickbacks from the High Priesthood for letting them run the affairs of the Second Temple unmolested. Over the years, this made Pilate not only wealthy, but somewhat beholden to the High Priests. When Caiaphas thought Jesus had to be executed, but was rebuffed by the Jerusalem council, he sent Jesus over to Pilate. Caiaphas was so sure that Pilate would execute Jesus that he didn’t even bother to come himself- he sent his underlings. Pilate would not dare “cross” the powerful Caiaphas, and potentially interrupt his money stream.

It was probably common knowledge back then that Caiaphas and Ananus really ran the show. Pilate lived most of the time in Caesarea, and came down to Jerusalem only for the major festivals in order to show a Roman presence and to keep the peace. Realizing this, Jesus knew that he had no chance in front of Pilate. His fate was sealed.

Pilate also knew this, and that was the reason he sent Jesus over to Herod Antipas, also in town for the Passover. He was hoping that Antipas, the tetrarch of the Galilee, would take Jesus off his hands- perhaps bringing him back to the Galilee and away from the High Priesthood. But Antipas did not take the bait, and Pilate knew what he had to do.

source John Hagan “Fires of Rome”, “Year of the Passover”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

… When Caiaphas thought Jesus had to be executed, but was rebuffed by the Jerusalem council, he sent Jesus over to Pilate. Caiaphas was so sure that Pilate would execute Jesus that he didn’t even bother to come himself- he sent his underlings. Pilate would not dare “cross” the powerful Caiaphas, and potentially interrupt his money stream. . . ."

59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61* and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.’” 62 And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 63* But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64* Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”** 65* Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death**.”…1* When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; 2 and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor.

Matthew 26:59-66, 27:1

55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58* “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” 59 Yet not even so did their testimony agree. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 61 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62* And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. ***…1 And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate. **

Mark 14:55-64, 15:1

66* When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said, 67* “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70* And they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.**” 71 And they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.” **********

1 Then the whole company of them arose, and brought him before Pilate.* 2* And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.”

Luke 25:66-71, 26:1

31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."

John 18:31

I don’t see any evidence that the council din’t want to execute Him. However, they lacked the authority.

 

[a_priori]

He told Pilate that he didn’t have the power to blow his own nose apart from God.

 

[beehumble]

"You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin"

It is great because it so reveals Jesus as God. In this Jesus is saying:

1. Do not flatter yourself Pilate, you did not come upon power over me because of yourself, or because of mighty Rome, but only because God the Father has given you this authority over me, an authority which you are about to abuse.
2. I am innocent (by indicating what Pilate is about to do is a sin for which Pilate and the other will pay.)
3. You have or will decide to kill me, an innocent man, and yes I know you are going to kill me (again by indicating what Pilate is about to do is a sin - showing Jesus as God, with full knowledge of the future, and Pilate’s nature.)
4. You will be responsible before God for doing this
5. The one who handed me to you knows you will kill me, because you are a weak puppet, and so his sin is even greater than your sin.

All this in a quick retort that summarizes the nature of this weak man Pilate standing before his God - **in other words these few words show God - Jesus the Judge - actually judging Pilate instead of the other way around.

 

[steve53]

Matthew 26:59-66, 27:1

Mark 14:55-64, 15:1

Luke 25:66-71, 26:1

John 18:31

I don’t see any evidence that the council din’t want to execute Him. However, they lacked the authority.

In the Book of John, the Sanhedrin Council, or whatever council Caiaphas had put together, didn’t even happen. Jesus was sent over straight to Pilate. Which makes more sense.
It was known that Jesus had secret disciples in Jerusalem, maybe some of them on the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin certainly had the authority to order Jesus stoned to death for blasphemy. But…would anybody line up to throw the first stone?! Would it precipitate an insurrection?
Gamaliel was a part of the Sanhedrin, and he was all for letting these religious challengers alone, as we see in Acts. There were probably many in the Sanhedrin like Gamaliel. so Caiaphas was not assured of a quick conviction by any means.
At the very least, Jesus would have been held over for further investigation and better witnesses by the skeptical Sanhedrin- something that Caiaphas did not want. He wanted Jesus executed NOW.
According to Hagan, the Syrian President Lucius Vitellius was soon to arrive in Jerusalem, and Caiaphas was not taking any chances with Jesus, a perceived Zealot and ringleader.
The the Synoptic accounts of a Sanhedrin trial could have been later embellishments. John, supposedly written by an eyewitness and a former Temple Priest, could have the more veracious account.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In the Book of John, the Sanhedrin Council, or whatever council Caiaphas had put together, didn’t even happen. Jesus was sent over straight to Pilate. Which makes more sense.
. . …

Are you saying that the other three lied??

Just because John omits something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. John wrote much later than the others. He tries to fill in gaps in their narration and skips that which they have covered sufficiently.

 

[steve53]

Are you saying that the other three lied??

Just because John omits something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. John wrote much later than the others. He tries to fill in gaps in their narration and skips that which they have covered sufficiently.

Hm…lied is a strong word. Not on purpose, of course.

If John was written by a young Jewish Priest, he would have known about the Sanhedrin Council and certainly would have reported upon it- especially so if it were as contentious as the Synoptic Gospels claim.

Would he have any reason not to report it?

Perhaps, if in doing so John would compromise those Priests who sided with Jesus, or who wanted more evidence. The High Priesthood or the Jews might seek revenge against them.

But this rationale is not likely. John was written in AD 85 or thereabouts, well after the fall of Jerusalem and the outlawing of the High Priesthood and sacrificial ritual.

The author of the Book of John could be one of the most remarkable men of early Christianity. Was he the young Priest who accompanied Nicodemus to talk to John the Baptist, and later Jesus? John is the only Gospel where John the Baptist is quoted. Did John, the young wealthy Priest, arrange for the meeting room where the last supper was held, and where the Nazarenes stayed after Jesus crucifixion? Was he the one who let Peter into the courtyard of the house of Caiaphas after Jesus’ arrest? Was this John the “beloved Disciple?”

The Book of John is also the only Gospel that describes two earlier Passover’s in Jesus’ Ministry. The Synaptic Gospels talk of one.

So I am going with the Book of John on this one. The Sanhedrin examination of Jesus either didn’t happen (70 men would have to have been present for a formal session), or was greatly exaggerated.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Hm…lied is a strong word. Not on purpose, of course.
. . .

Would he have any reason not to report it? . . .

So I am going with the Book of John on this one. The Sanhedrin examination of Jesus either didn’t happen (70 men would have to have been present for a formal session), or was greatly exaggerated.

So why did the others invent it.

Saint John probably omitted for the reason I stated.

He tries to fill in gaps in their narration and skips that which they have covered sufficiently.

And, as you have noted there was no longer a Temple or priesthood by the time Saint John wrote. They were no longer main actors in the drama.

 

[beehumble]

So why did the others invent it.

Saint John probably omitted for the reason I stated. And, as you have noted there was no longer a Temple or priesthood by the time Saint John wrote. They were no longer main actors in the drama.

1. This is off track from the OP question.so this is the last I will respond to this. Please stick to the point - it is not whether or not Jesus was on trial before the Sanhedrin, but about Pilate and Jesus’ response to Pilate. Perhaps you should open another thread with your concerns.
2. Not everything has to be in every Gospel. To not know that kinda makes me want to say ‘Duh!’ This is basic knowledge about the Gospels.

 

[Light1111]

Question: relating to this OP’s idea.

According to Doctrine, do we view Pilate as being at fault? Meaning, will he have paid for executing Jesus? Or, since he was only “doing his job,” and because Jesus did have to die for our sins --that was the plan-- is Pilate only one of the necessary figures who made the event itself possible?

This question has had me confused for some time. It also goes back to the idea of “Did the Jews kill Jesus?” Certainly they did – but all of the people present at the event, who pushed for it to happen, or who witnessed it – were either Jewish folks, or the invading Romans. Everyone was a Jew, including Jesus. So, what I’ve never understood is, Jesus was supposed to die for our sins – no matter what – yet on the other hand some say “But the Jews killed him, so Jesus’s blood is on their hands.” Can we have it both ways? How could someone (or a group) be deemed responsible for killing Jesus, yet simultaneously we say He was meant to die for our sins? I feel confused by having both things count at once.

Also, somewhat related, but I remember from attending Catholic Church the frequent mention of Jesus’s prayers to God in Gethsemane Garden, prior to the crucifixion. Something along the lines of, “God, I don’t want to have to go through this. But I will do so, if I know it is your will.” Then the debate comes in (or that’s how I remember it): Did Jesus know, beforehand, He would have to die for the sins of the world? Or did events simply unfold and He went along with them? It does appear He was well aware, but I am not certain.

Thank you and peace!

 

[steve53]

If you want an answer according to Church doctrine, I am not your man.

But there is a dimension left out in the crucifixion drama that Hagan in “Year of the Passover” describes. According to Hagan, the Passover year when Jesus was crucified was A.D. 36. That year, Syrian President Lucius Vitellius came to the Passover for two reasons: as a show of good faith towards the Jews, yes, but also to plan for an invasion of Arabia that Tiberius had ordered, and in no uncertain terms (Aretas of Arabia had destroyed Herod Antipas’ army a little more than six months before).

This visit was a semi-surprise, and Caiaphas learned about it only days before Vitellius’ arrival. Vitellius was the second most powerful man in the Roman Empire, and Caiaphas knew that it wouldn’t do to have any hint of unrest or demonstration for the Passover, as he served at the pleasure of Syrian president. So where Jesus before had been tolerated, now he was a marked man, and Caiaphas put out a reward for his arrest.

After the warrant, Jesus knew if he remained in Jerusalem, he would die. Either the Sanhedrin would arrange to have him killed through stoning as a false Messiah, or the High Priesthood would hire assassins to do him in silently and behind the scenes. Knowing this, Jesus could have easily fled to the Galilee as he did the year before- after the execution of John the Baptist. Instead, he chose to remain. Did Jesus think the Angels would rescue him from whatever fate lay in store?

Jesus was probably surprised that he wound up in front of Pilate with the ridiculous charge of trying to replace Caesar. But Pilate was beholden to Caiaphas far more than was generally realized. Pilate was likely paid well with bribes to leave the High Priesthood alone as they ran their various festivals throughout the year. So Pilate had no choice- Jesus had to be crucified on the request of Caiaphas.

Post script…Vitellius arrived after Jesus’ crucifixion, and removed Caiaphas after the Passover was over. Was Vitellius angry over the Roman execution of the holy man for no real political reason? Vitellius would remove Pilate a year later…