“Suffered under Pontius Pilate” is correct on two counts. First, it happens while Pilate is procurator of Judea, so it’s during his administration, in the same way that we might say, “Under Barack Obama there were two major elections sweeping out Democrats,” though Obama would not have wanted that to happen. Second, the suffering is caused by soldiers who are under Pilate’s authority, and he does order that Jesus be “chastised” before being released, which basically meant getting a whipping just for the halibut.
Because the buck stopped with Pilate. He was ultimately in charge as the Roman governor. He controlled all of the military forces in the region. He could do pretty much whatever he wanted. He could have spared Jesus if he really wanted. But like Peter (who denied Jesus three times), he was weak willed and caved in to the mob.
I don’t think his name is mentioned in condemnation but rather for identification. No matter who lobbied, Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate.
Note the words of the Creed, though... “suffered under Pontius Pilate...”. As you noted... Yup. He did.
Did you watch KILLING JESUS over the past few days? Pilate and his wife were portrayed as real SOBs.
They were portrayed as horrors.
Not the same character as in Passion at all.
Same way with Judas. We needed all of these guys to “do their job” in order to carry out and fulfill the prophesy.
Pilate could have said I release him; give him amnesty.
There are many that say Pontius eventually became a believer as well.He did try to save Jesus IMHO.
I may be tempted to mutter “Caiaphas” instead of “Pontius Pilate” in church on Sunday during the Apostle’s Creed... if mom won’t kick my butt for it, LOL.
“So, again... why do we weekly pour out scorn for Pilate’s name, for millenia, and not Caiaphas?”
Ultimately, he could have told the Jewish leaders “Screw you, I work for Caesar, and this man isn’t guilty of anything except irritating you. Now get out of here before I summon Thugus Maximus and have him feed the cat.” Pilate’s lack of leadership is worthy of scorn, although he was in fact meant to do what he did, so that we could be redeemed.
I am no expert, and perhaps too simple, but I always thought the Apostle’s creed was pretty neutral in the matter. He was the governor, so it was under him. Just add a bit of Bible reading and some history and that provides the background for perspective.
That’s actually a great question. It really was the Jews that condemned him.
But my question has always been why they did not believe he was the messiah?
Off topic but maybe someone has an answer for this also.
Pilate was exiled, as it were, to Palestine because of abuses in other regions that he had been in charge of. The Jewish leadership believed that he would acquiesce to their desires because he already had a reputation for cruelty and oppression.
Yes, Pilate seemed to have some real concerns about the guilt of innocence of Jesus, but compare his actions to that of Festus who ended up with Paul under his jurisdiction. The Jewish leadership wanted Paul returned to Jerusalem, but Festus instead required a hearing. Even after Paul appealed to Caesar, Festus still tried to determine what Paul had done to upset the JewishlLeadership. He even asked King Agrippa to hear the charges against Paul and see what he crime against Jewish law Paul had committed. Agrippa and Festus both agreed that is Paul had not appealed to Caesar, they would have freed him.
Pilate could have freed Jesus. He could have examined the case to find if Jesus broke any law. In fact, he did. And Pilate found him innocent. But rather than free Jesus, he handed him over to be executed. He symbolically washed his hands of the death, but the responsibility for Jesus’ death was his alone in the eyes of the law.
Gibson > O’Reilly
2)Pilate knew that when Caiaphas accused Jesus of trying to make himself King of the Jews that Caiaphas was bearing false witness in order to have the Romans kill Jesus. He knew he was having an man innocent under Roman law condemned, chastised and executed merely as a matter of political expediency.
It seems fairly plain to me that Pilate bears the primary moral responsibility both because Pilate was the authority responsible and because he knew Jesus was innocent.
The Jews didn’t want Jesus’ death on their hands, especially during Passover. So they tried to pass the responsibility over to Pilate. Although Pilate found there were no facts to condemn Jesus under, he sentenced him to crucifixion anyways.
The manner of Jesus’ death itself shows he was killed by the Romans, ostensibly for rebellion. (Thus the epithet, King of the Jews.) The Jews would have stoned him to death for blasphemy, but got the Romans to do their dirty work for them.
I may have missed it, but it seems that no one came up with the right answer — only Pontius Pilate could give the death sentence, and he in fact did do just that. The High Priests Council could not carry out the death sentence under Roman rule. It was somewhat lucky (for Pilate) that the flogging itself did not kill Jesus — there were 302 different whip marks on Jesus, if you believe the Shroud of Turin was in fact Jesus’ burial shroud (which I do). It was so brutal that Pilate was quoted in the Gospel as being surprised that Jesus had died so quickly on the Cross.
The issue with Pilate is that he four no fault which Christ, but did what was politically expedient:
Luke 23:13-15 — Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death.”
Luke 23:23-24 — But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand.
Matthew 27:24 — When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
In my opinion, Pilate was trying to get the equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I agree: Pilate may have been a weak man, but making him into a monster, as I hear during many Easter sermons, is difficult to understand. As proconsul/prefect of Judea, reporting to the legate (of Syria), maintaing order was an important part of his job. Rebellion among the Jews was an ongoing problem, and one he would have been particularly sensitive to. We know from the historical record that he had committed a number of faux pas that created friction with the Jews because of his lack of knowledge of their customs; he was very likely warned against this by his boss. If he let a minor religious event that he did not understand blow up into an insurrection/rebellion, he could lose his life, or at least be demoted, or marked as a slave. As you say, he tried many times to find a way to free Jesus, without offending the Jews, but ultimately failed. I see him as a man who saw something holiness in Jesus, who did not think that whatever crime he committed merited death, and who did his best to help him. Ultimately, he violated his conscience by choosing his own security instead of doing the right thing. Pilate, being the one holding the buck is the one “legally” responsible for letting our Lord be put to death, but in my opinion there were others who were more culpable morally.
Some excellent and interesting (and educational!) answers. Thanks all!
There are multiple definitions of suffer. In modern times, suffer typically means to be in pain or agony, but the word can also mean to resist or endure. To me the sentence is not blaming Pilate for the agony of torture and death described in the next sentence of the Creed, but rather the Creed is making the point that Jesus was far stronger than Pilate, because Jesus did not break down and beg for his life as Pilate expected.