Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>It seems to me that Pilate, trying to wash his hands of the whole thing, 
>allowed Jesus to be crucified, not due to any official leagal position or 
>specific crime, but because he simply can see no other choice.

Correct.  It was to placate the crowd.

>I can find no Biblical mention of the charges under Roman Law for which Jesus 
>was executed.  Help?

Correct.  There are none.

/john

    Jim,
    
    	Not a trick question:  What did the sign indicating Jesus' crime
    say that the Jewish authorities found so objectionable?
    
    	Also, it's helpful to keep in mind that the Romans did not use
    crucifixion as a blanket punishment for all kinds of crimes.
    
    	Jesus may have died for our sins, but he was crucified as a
    political prisoner.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 481.0

>Yes, there are several passages that show Pilate trying to identify Jesus as 
>"King of the Jews", but that seems quite thin.  It doesn't appear that Pilate 
>ever took that claim very seriously, certainly not as any threat to the power 
>of Rome.  What threat would a king be whose own subjects wanted him dead?

Er...right on, Jim!

Upon rereading .0, I see you've actually addressed what I was asking in .2!

Granted, the evidence was flimsy.  Granted the charges were trumped up.
I agree that the Roman Procurator did not see Jesus so much a threat as
did the Jewish authorities.

Peace,
Richard

    The the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate.  And they
    began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man

    subverting our nation

    He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar

    and claims to be Christ a king" Luke 23:1 NIV

    These three charges under Roman law constitute insurrection and were
    punishable by death.  Of course, the charges were false, but there were
    charges.

    Matt. 26:65 shows that the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of blasphemy.  John
    5:18 discloses their basis for the charge.  John 5:19 and 14:28b reveal
    Jesus' attitude and prove the charges to be false.  The Romans would
    not recognize the charge of blasphemy, so the Sanhedrin had to accuse
    Jesus of the things they did at Luke 23:1, hoping that the Romans would
    do their dirty work for them.  John 8:44 points out the real source of
    all the accusations which led to the partial fulfillment of the Bible's
    first prophecy at Gen. 3:15.
    
    
    Steve

Hmmm, it's getting interesting...

Pat, I can see your point in .4.  Yes, the people had made up charges against 
him, so in a way there were charges, but was that really why he was crucified 
under Pontius Pilate?  I'm curious as to how Roman law functioned.  Today, I 
might make up a charge against a person (perhaps libelously or slanderously), 
but that is a far cry from formally submitting those charges to the 
authorities and starting proceedings to prosecute them.  It sounds like Pilate 
never let the people's claims ever get that far, so from my perspective, I see 
no real charges.

At Richard's request I read what was written and affixed to the cross...

To be short about it, Matthew 27 and Mark 15 present almost identical 
accounts.  After much mockery (robed in scarlet and crowned with thorns, 
the soldiers gave him a staff and knelt, saying "Hail, King of the Jews!"
Then they returned his clothes and beat him with the staff) they crucified 
him.  Above his head they placed the written charge against him:  This Is
Jesus, The King Of The Jews. 

Luke has more detail...23:20-24 (NIV)

Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them [the chief priests, the 
rulers, & the people] again.  But they kept shouting, "Crucify him!  Crucify 
him!"

For the third time he spoke to them: "Why?  What crime has this man committed? 
I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty.  Therefore I shall have 
him punished and then release him."

But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their 
shouts prevailed.  So Pilate decided to grant their demand.

[the soldiers mock him and he is crucified...]

Verse 38 reads "There was a written notice above him, which read"  This Is The 
King Of The Jews.

Luke also makes no reference to who wrote the sign.  In these three accounts 
I find it very easy to see the sign as simply another element of mockery.

Finally in John 19, we again see the solders mock Jesus, and Pilate repeatedly
finds no basis for a charge against him. 

Verses 19, 21, & 22 are quite interesting...

Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross.  It read:  Jesus Of 
Nazareth, The King Of The Jews.

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."

This final answer of Pilate sounds very much like Yahweh's self proclamation,
"I am what I am".  I get an inkling here that in the end perhaps Pilate truly
understood Who Jesus was, and while some protested, and some saw the statement
as a charge agains the man Jesus, Pilate wrote the sign as a statement of
Divine Truth. 

Thanks for an interesting discussion!

Peace,

Jim

    The memoirs of Pilate or his wife Claudia would be a fascinating
    document if they wrote them and history preserved them.

    We don't know if Pilate repented and sought the forgiveness of God for
    what he had done.  Jesus forgave him on the Cross.
    
    One of the infinite activities in Heaven will be to communicate with
    the saved of that period.

I've been told that crucifixion was reserved for specific infractions,
that it was not customary to crucify thieves.  Crucifixion was not
unusual, however, as the penalty for crimes against the state.

Typically, those about to be crucified were paraded through the streets
of Jerusalem with a sign declaring what the condemned one was about to
be crucified for - paraded through Jerusalem, not the short way, but the
long way - thus, serving as a warning and, theoretically, a deterrent to
any of the locals who might consider rebellion.

Peace,
Richard