Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Jon A. Weatherly on Pilate and Herod's Guilt in the Death of Jesus

  

The pronouncement of Jesus’ innocence by Pilate (Lk 23.4, 14-15, 22) and Herod (23.15a) is commonly seen as exonerating them of any culpability in the crucifixion. In this regard they are frequently compared to the second thief and the centurion who likewise pronounce Jesus innocent (23.41, 47) and are treated sympathetically by the author. But Pilate’s threefold pronouncement of Jesus’ innocence may serve purposes other than Pilate’s own vindication. Luke’s interest in Jesus’ innocence of all charges is clear, as has already been noted. Pilate’s pronouncements make that point plainly but may nevertheless imply nothing about his own guiltlessness. In fact, by pronouncing Jesus innocent three times and then turning him over to be crucified, Pilate appears all the more culpable for having knowingly turned an innocent an over to execution. Herod’s similar pronouncements of innocence is accompanied by mocking and beating (Lk. 23.11). Not only is such treatment hardly commendable handling of an innocent, it also corresponds to the description of Jesus’ sufferings through the agency of εθνη in Lk. 18.32. Even if Herod has Jesus beaten as a troublemaker who is nevertheless innocent of the charges brought against him, his action cannot be positively regarded from Luke’s editorial perspective. Luke is concerned to show that Jesus is innocent before Rome, and that concern may reflect his respect for Roman law. But the implication of the narrative is that Pilate’s actions were a perversion of that law.

 

Furthermore, the verb παραδιδωμι in Lk. 23.35 may carry a sinister connotation. The verb is used 31 times in Luke-Acts, and in 18 of those cases it indicates a giving over in persecution, betrayal, arrest or execution (Lk. 9.44; 12.58; 18.32; 21.12, 16; 22.4, 6, 21, 22, 48; 23.25; 24.7, 20; Acts 3.13; 8.3; 12.4; 21.11; 22.4). Particularly important is the fact that it is the regular verb for betrayal in the passion predictions. And aside from 23.24, in the passion narrative it refers only to the act of betrayal. Furthermore, each time παραδιδωμι appears with a personal object in Luke, it connotes at least callous disregard and at most outright hostility toward its object (Lk. 12.58; 20.20; 22.4, 6; 23.25). Given the circumstances of Pilate’s handing over of Jesus and the consistent use of παραδιδωμι earlier in the narrative, the word may carry this sinister connotation in Lk. 23.25.

 

Other telling details indicate that Pilate has charge over the crucifixion. One is the second person singular verb σταυρου in Lk. 23.21, which clearly implies the crowd’s expectation that Pilate is the one who will crucify. Luke appears to have chosen this form deliberately, since he differs from Mark (15.13-14) in using the present instead of the aorist and from Matthew (27.22) in using the active. In fact, Matthew’s passive rendering demonstrates that Pilate’s involvement could be minimized without eliminating the crowd’s cry. Luke is, of course, readily able to transform actives into passives to suit his purposes (cf. Lk. 18.31-34). But there he makes no effort to efface the suggestion of Pilate’s involvement in the crucifixion. Similarly, Luke follows the traditional account of Jesus’ burial in which Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate for Jesus’ body, it can reasonably be assumed that Pilate is the authority under whom Jesus is executed. Indeed, it is the plan of the conspirators from the beginning to turn Jesus over the ‘rule and authority of the governor’ (20.20, Luke only). Pilate’s concession to the will of the Jerusalemites (23.24-25) does not therefore appear to be an abdication of this authority in Jesus’ execution; it indicates weakness, not innocence. Rome continues to exercise the final control.

 

These considerations, taken together, present a consistent picture. The instigators of the crucifixion are the Jerusalem leaders associated with the temple. They are supported in the decisive moment by the people of Jerusalem. But the political authorities are involved as well. Although they recognize Jesus’ innocence and, in Pilate’s case, seek to release him, ultimately they surrender to pressure and exercise their power against Jesus. Luke may reduce the emphasis on Roman involvement, although such a judgment depends on a thorough knowledge of Luke’s sources which is unavailable to us. In any case, he does not eliminate Roman involvement, and he does sharpen it at some points. What is clearer in his emphasis on the involvement of the leaders of Jerusalem, whose provocation of the crucifixion is always at the forefront of the narrative. (Jon A. Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility from the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 106; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 95-97)