A Petty Rebellion

Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross.  It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.  Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.  The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate,  “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”

Pilate answered,  “What I have written, I have written.”  John 19:19-22.

It might seem like a moot point to rebel about, but Pilate probably felt he had lost the war and decided to be tweak the noses of the Jews by winning a small skirmish through the sign.  He couldn’t win the battle over Jesus living or dying but he could show his own conviction they were doing so unjustly—and to their own king no less.  At this point I believe he was pretty well convinced of Jesus’ identity, though why he continued to move forward with the death sentence is, as I’ve said, something of a mystery or a subject for speculation.

Still, Pilate was willing to burn it into the minds of the Jews they might be able to bring enough pressure to bear to push through an unjust death, but they couldn’t stop the truth from getting out. Another thing that should be mentioned is:  How big was that sign?  He had it written in 3 languages, so for it to be visible from the road it had to be larger than just a 5×8 placard.  On the other hand, most people in that era (and for nearly 1900+ years following) didn’t read, meaning the ones who saw it were educated and the dig at the Jews went unnoticed by the general public.  Many Jews were taught to read, though, in the synagogues and schools for the purpose of helping the men bar mitzvah.  As usual, the ability to read depended on one’s station in life and the wealth acquired from either inheritance or business.

Coming, as he did, from a pagan POV Pilate’s outsider status left him a little control over the matter in one way, though with less understanding of what was at stake.  Knowing the general form of something from the outside doesn’t always give us a good sense what its purpose is until we go inside.  Pilate could see from the outside of the Jewish community what they stood for through contact and observation, but it’s doubtful his understanding got anywhere near a real grasp of who God is or the purpose of Jesus.

And this brings up an issue close to my heart.  Too often we judge those outside the community of believers (and new converts as well) by a standard we grew into through teaching and osmosis.  I find it frustrating in the extreme when established believers hold the world to a standard of Scripture it cannot comprehend much less know about.  Those outside the faith have no point of reference except our example, and if that is tainted with bad judgment or condemnation, what can they know about Jesus except what we show them?  Plus, the gospels and all other Scripture cannot be understood by the light of human reasoning alone, for Jesus said the truth is only revealed when we submit to the Holy Spirit.  In other words, we won’t grasp the purpose of the Word unless we are taught the meaning by the Holy Spirit.  Still, we don’t practice what we preach in a lot of ways.

For example:  We preach the Golden Rule yet practice the exact opposite.  Jesus commanded us to “Do to others as you would have them do to you” yet we don’t take this into consideration when we push for public laws nor do we think past our own wants as Christians.  In an attempt to create a Christian utopia many have pushed for laws that rule the conscience of other religions or ethics not reflected in Christ’s teachings.  In other words, we require of those who don’t believe in Jesus or acknowledge Him as Lord to adhere to His teachings as though they do anyway through legislation.  This method tells the world we don’t care about them or the rights God gave them starting at the two trees in the Garden, just so long as they don’t practice their views where we can see them.  Jesus never commanded us to conquer the world by either military might or legislative power, rather we were to go into the world and make disciples.  A disciple is one who is educated in the disciplines of the teaching, therefore to make someone a “disciple” they would have to be willingly submissive to the disciplines of the faith.

If the rule of do to others as you would have them do to you upholds forcing those who oppose us to capitulate, then I don’t understand it very well.  If the Gay community passed laws forbidding Christians calling them “sinners,” what would the Christian community do?  O, wait, Canada already has such laws and there are ministers in prison right now who spoke out against homosexuality.  Right.  If we preach freedom of religion, practice of lifestyle and thought, we have to allow for those who disagree with our ethics.  Sure we might do our best to contain the abortion rate by putting contingencies into the law which forbid the medical community from performing them willy nilly and demand counseling for those who are considering it but it won’t stop abortion.  In the end, no one can’t stop either a belief system or moral “deviance” (meaning a practice which goes against the cultural majority) through legislation because eventually that legislation will overwhelm us.

If we limit the freedom of another, eventually they might grow strong enough to return the favor in kind.  And it is slowly, inexorably, steadily going against the Christian mores and will eventually make those who differ from the mainstream of society criminals for doing so.  In my grasp of the situation this comes as a direct result of not standing firm for the freedom of religion.  Most people want freedom to be what they want to be and usually resent anyone outside that said ethic.  I don’t mind being on the outside of the popular mores of the day because I see no reason to conform to anyone’s preferences besides the ones I choose to believe.  That said, I can’t understand how religions in general within the American constitution can ever think true freedom is only for some and not for others.  What adults do in the privacy of their own community is none of my business nor do I desire for them to interfere in mine.  But if I interfere in theirs in an attempt to rule them by my own ethic, will they not have the same right to try by force to rule me?

There are, of course, some rules which just have the ring of truth to them, like children should not be required or forced into slave labor or sexual situations.  But, see, the average person agrees with this ethic.  There might be pockets of dissent but in America they are the minority, so using those on the fringe as a means of legislation is foolish.  A law that states,  “No person shall be forced into sexual contact against their will.  Neither shall one be required to labor for another against their will unless they have been deemed criminal and must make restitution to society, a business or an individual they have wronged.”  Oddly enough these two concepts are reflected in most religions including our own, as well as the constitution of the USA.  So those general rules cover enough territory to make it illegal for a child to be molested, a woman to be raped or anyone to be forced to work without pay.

All this to say, Pilate judged the Jews from his cynical perspective and may even hated them for their Aryan tendencies.  Yet, his own nation held some of those same views about themselves—they considered themselves favored by the gods and anyone who was not Roman was treated with either contempt or condescension.  The Jews judged Pilate as heathen, therefore outside the mercies, blessings and favor of God.  Which, if you consider the popular teaching of the day, didn’t make much sense because Pilate was powerful, rich and successful at the time.  Yet incongruities are a part of being human as we know—as much as anyone with a brain will complain about them (the incongruities).

Pilate realized he couldn’t save Jesus, though I think he really wanted to, so he did what was left for him to do…put his mind on paper.  He stood up to the objections of the Jews in way that said,  “You get to kill Him; I get to speak what I believe.”

Capitulation

Then Pilate took Jesus and had Him flogged.  The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head.  They clothed Him in a purple robe and went up to Him again and again, saying,  “Hail, king of the Jews!”  And they struck Him in the face.

Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews,  “Look, I am bring Him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against Him.”  When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them,  “Here is the man!”

As soon as the chief soon as the chief priests and their officials saw Him, they shouted, “Crucify!  Crucify!”

But Pilate answered,  “You take Him and crucify Him.  As for me, I find no basis for a charge against Him.”  John 19:1-6.

I find it weird Pilate flogged Jesus even though he didn’t think He was guilty.  I don’t know where he was during the abuse which followed the flogging—or if he even witnessed the flogging—but it’s amazing to me what happened to even an innocent man under his leadership.  He had Jesus flogged, beaten and humiliated  to appease the crowd.  I see in this more as a sign of those times rather than anything indicative of Pilate’s character.  The upper classes treated the lower with indifference and disdain.  To be born in the lower class meant the gods didn’t favor you—this POV permeated even Jewish society—to the point that abusing a lower class person seemed natural and right.  Using them till they dropped was not being inconsiderate in the upper class’ mindset but simply thinking of them as tools to be used at a particular person’s pleasure.

The fact that Pilate could allow Jesus to be abused so has caused much discussion amongst modern thinkers.  Some have used it as an example of man’s inhumanity to man; some have used it as a means to decry social injustice and push for change; others preach it in a dramatized manner in order to manipulate those listening.  There are more of these type of interpretations, of course, and they fall into a line of thinking where the cross becomes a symbol/metaphor for whatever cause the group or person is championing at the moment.  The cross is definitely awful, the beatings terrible, but worst of all was the fact of what humans were willing to do for the sake of political or religious gain.  Jesus’ trials—both before the high priest and Pilate—were little more than jokes of justice.

Pilate used the scourge as a lesser of two evils.  The cross and death were definitely worse options than a cat ‘0’ nine tails.  He let the soldiers have their “fun” out of it as well, for they must have heard the news about Jesus’ claims through the priests and officials, otherwise how would they know to make a crown of thorns, clothe Him in purple and hail Him as “king of the Jews”?  No, they were aware enough, probably given to mockery anyway and with a disdain for the Jews and all other nations as inferior to their own Roman heritage.  In their minds Rome ruled by dent of the gods’ favor, therefore they were better than other men.  Pilate, on the other hand, was half convinced Jesus’ claim was true, but not enough to keep him from appeasing the blood lust of the mob outside his judgment hall.

So Jesus got whipped 40-minus-1 for just being a nuisance to the Roman government and a threat to the Jewish leadership—at least, that was their reasoning.  In the real world, the character of the leaders of both parties were used against them to accomplish the goal of salvation.  Yet what does it say about a person when their very weaknesses can be used to predict an outcome?  Pilate may not have been a weak willed man, but the political pressure of the times, his own missteps and the Jew’s tendency to riot at the drop of a hat, knocked his usual resolve.  He capitulated to the crowd in a spiritual chess game he was primed for but not able to play to win.

The nature we feed will be the nature which rules in time of crisis.