The Ambivalent Role of Pilate
Through Matthew 27:11-66 it is evident that the governor Pontius Pilate plays a crucial role in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Scholars throughout history have provided support to see Pilate as positive, negative, or neutral role in the retelling of the crucifixion. Warren Carter is one of the many scholars who have taken note of Pilate’s role in history and within the source “Pontius Pilate. Portraits of a Roman Governor” Carter argues that Pilate is a negative character. He goes as far to claim that Pilate was one to actively seek conflict. While Carter argues that Pilate’s role is one of negativity, I would argue, that through a socio-culture view, that Pilate is not a negative figure, but an ambivalent one, …show more content…
He perceived that they were simply jealous of a teacher who was more popular than they were. But when the Jews threatened to report Pilate to Caesar, Pilate became afraid. His job was in jeopardy, Pilate’s main duty was to maintain the peace and in order for there to be peace he knew it would mean shedding the blood of an innocent man. Matthew 27:24 reveals how when making no decision, Pilate made the decision to let the crowds crucify Jesus. Although he washed his hands, the guilt remained. This is a crucial verse to take to into account. Washing your hands of a tough situation doesn’t cancel guilt. It merely gives you a false sense of peace. Pilate should not have made an excuse - he should have taken responsibility for his decision and stood firm in it instead of putting it upon the crowd. Understanding the society, Pilate was ruler and when we step into the role of governor in our own mind it helps with the analysis of Pilate’s train of thought. There are two choices, to appease the crowd or assert authority even though it would go against majority. Socio-culture view challenges us to think about these things and understand what Pilate is going through to understand his decision. As a Governor of that time it is understandable that he went against his beliefs and sided with the majority. He simply did what he had to do to keep the peace, which proves him to be a weak and ambivalent leader. …show more content…
After all, many scholars believe that he was doing a negative thing and murdered Jesus to save himself and that makes him the villain of the passage. Indeed, my own argument that Pilate is a neutral figure seems to ignore the cruelty and anti-Jewish sentiments held by Pilate. Within the source “Pontius Pilate. Portraits of a Roman Governor” Warren Carter argues that Pilate is the villain. Within this very negative verdict it is shown “Pilate’s complicity in Jesus’ death as a consequence of his cruel hatred of Jewish people” (Carter 3). It is highlighted that Pilate was sent by Sejanus, the Praetorian Perfect who commanded the troops in Rome to provoke the Jews into revolt so they could be crushed with military might and the race be exterminated. “Too spineless to stand up to the hateful Jerusalem leaders, he reluctantly allows Jesus to be crucified. Too lacking in intestitudinal fortitude to do the right thing and release an innocent man, he yields tamely to the death demands of Jerusalem's bully-leaders but he is doing exactly what God had planned” (Carter). Claims by Carter also state that Pilate’s weak actions in Jesus’ death result from him trying to secure favor within the Jewish leaders and crowd after the death of Sejanus’. With this idea, it is shown that due to his weakness, lack of conviction, and giving into stronger voices he is nothing but merely a heartless ruler willing to murder an
Through Matthew 27:11-66 it is evident that the governor Pontius Pilate plays a crucial role in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Scholars throughout history have provided support to see Pilate as positive, negative, or neutral role in the retelling of the crucifixion. Warren Carter is one of the many scholars who have taken note of Pilate’s role in history and within the source “Pontius Pilate. Portraits of a Roman Governor” Carter argues that Pilate is a negative character. He goes as far to claim that Pilate was one to actively seek conflict. While Carter argues that Pilate’s role is one of negativity, I would argue, that through a socio-culture view, that Pilate is not a negative figure, but an ambivalent one, …show more content…
He perceived that they were simply jealous of a teacher who was more popular than they were. But when the Jews threatened to report Pilate to Caesar, Pilate became afraid. His job was in jeopardy, Pilate’s main duty was to maintain the peace and in order for there to be peace he knew it would mean shedding the blood of an innocent man. Matthew 27:24 reveals how when making no decision, Pilate made the decision to let the crowds crucify Jesus. Although he washed his hands, the guilt remained. This is a crucial verse to take to into account. Washing your hands of a tough situation doesn’t cancel guilt. It merely gives you a false sense of peace. Pilate should not have made an excuse - he should have taken responsibility for his decision and stood firm in it instead of putting it upon the crowd. Understanding the society, Pilate was ruler and when we step into the role of governor in our own mind it helps with the analysis of Pilate’s train of thought. There are two choices, to appease the crowd or assert authority even though it would go against majority. Socio-culture view challenges us to think about these things and understand what Pilate is going through to understand his decision. As a Governor of that time it is understandable that he went against his beliefs and sided with the majority. He simply did what he had to do to keep the peace, which proves him to be a weak and ambivalent leader. …show more content…
After all, many scholars believe that he was doing a negative thing and murdered Jesus to save himself and that makes him the villain of the passage. Indeed, my own argument that Pilate is a neutral figure seems to ignore the cruelty and anti-Jewish sentiments held by Pilate. Within the source “Pontius Pilate. Portraits of a Roman Governor” Warren Carter argues that Pilate is the villain. Within this very negative verdict it is shown “Pilate’s complicity in Jesus’ death as a consequence of his cruel hatred of Jewish people” (Carter 3). It is highlighted that Pilate was sent by Sejanus, the Praetorian Perfect who commanded the troops in Rome to provoke the Jews into revolt so they could be crushed with military might and the race be exterminated. “Too spineless to stand up to the hateful Jerusalem leaders, he reluctantly allows Jesus to be crucified. Too lacking in intestitudinal fortitude to do the right thing and release an innocent man, he yields tamely to the death demands of Jerusalem's bully-leaders but he is doing exactly what God had planned” (Carter). Claims by Carter also state that Pilate’s weak actions in Jesus’ death result from him trying to secure favor within the Jewish leaders and crowd after the death of Sejanus’. With this idea, it is shown that due to his weakness, lack of conviction, and giving into stronger voices he is nothing but merely a heartless ruler willing to murder an