In the evangelist's account of the Saviour's condemnation, one striking feature is the desire to evade responsibility shown by representatives of both the Temple and the Roman authorities. It is no accident that Jesus refuses to answer the high priest's question about...
In the evangelist's account of the Saviour's condemnation, one striking feature is the desire to evade responsibility shown by representatives of both the Temple and the Roman authorities. It is no accident that Jesus refuses to answer the high priest's question about His teaching and His disciples (John 18:19–21). He understands that there can be no question of a fair trial in this case and that the whole interrogation is intended only to catch Him in His words and find grounds for fabricating a case against Him—one, moreover, on which He could be sentenced to death. In fact, everything had already been decided when Caiaphas considered it permissible to sacrifice One for the welfare of the people as he understood it (John 18:14).
Naturally, however, all those involved in Jesus' trial wanted the decision to be made collectively and with due observance of the legal formalities. Then no particular person could be accused of murder. The representatives of the Temple elite might seem to have had no one to fear, but their religious consciences were probably still uneasy: an ordinary murder would have been a direct violation of the Torah. An execution ordered by the Sanhedrin was another matter. A formally impeccable verdict of that kind would have reassured everyone, since an execution carried out under a court sentence would not, of course, have been regarded as a violation of the Torah.
One very serious obstacle, however, stood in the way of these “judges”: death sentences passed by the Sanhedrin had to be confirmed by the Roman authority, represented in Judea by the procurator. It was to him that they went (John 18:28). The leaders of the Sanhedrin apparently expected the procedure to be a mere formality and at first did not even want to go into detail, assuming that Pilate would sign the sentence without reading it (John 18:29–32).
But Pilate took an unexpected interest in the case and decided to question the accused himself (John 18:33). Jesus, who had remained silent before the Sanhedrin, testified to Pilate about what it was already pointless to tell the Sanhedrin: He answered the procurator's question about His Kingdom (John 18:34–37). Yet while the Kingdom to which Jesus testified seemed hostile to the leaders of the Pharisaic movement and the Temple elite, Pilate was simply indifferent to it, like most pragmatically minded agnostics. Like any agnostic, however, he saw no crime in proclaiming ideas of any kind, even strange or mistaken ones, and proposed that the representatives of the Sanhedrin who had come to him should release an innocent man from punishment (John 18:38–40). When he saw that they would accept no compromise, Pilate apparently decided to limit himself to the punishment prescribed by Roman law for non-citizens who broke local laws, and had Jesus scourged (John 19:1–3).
After this, he considered the incident closed (John 19:4–5). The representatives of the Sanhedrin then had to explain the case to the procurator and tell him what they were accusing Jesus of (John 19:6–7). Their explanation made a great impression on Pilate (John 19:8). The calmness and inner strength of the accused apparently made an even greater impression on him (John 19:9–11). He would probably have released Jesus had the crowd gathered in the praetorium courtyard not accused him of disregarding the interests of the empire by letting Jesus go (John 19:12). The provocation succeeded: unwilling to take responsibility or face possible accusations of sympathising with rebels, Pilate sentences an innocent man to death (John 19:13–16). Thus the cowardice and irresponsibility of some, and the hatred of the Kingdom felt by others, bring the Saviour of the world to the cross.
19