Before Pilate, the Jews accused Christ. The trial of Christ is a gross violation of the law. A look from a legal point of view. Christ before the crowd

A description of Pilate's trial over Jesus is given in all four evangelists:

Gospel	Description of the court
From Matthew (Matt.)	...and having bound Him, they took Him away and handed Him over to Pontius Pilate, the governor... Jesus stood before the governor. And the ruler asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus said to him: You speak. And when the chief priests and elders accused Him, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him: Do you not hear how many testify against You? And he did not answer a single word, so that the ruler was greatly amazed.
From Mark (Mk.)	Immediately in the morning, the high priests with the elders and scribes and the entire Sanhedrin held a meeting and, having bound Jesus, took him away and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? He answered and said to him, “You speak.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. Pilate asked Him again: “Are you not answering anything?” you see how many accusations are against you. But Jesus did not answer anything to this either, so Pilate marveled.
From Luke (OK. )	And the whole multitude of them rose up, and took Him to Pilate, and began to accuse Him, saying: We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids giving tribute to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King. Pilate asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? He answered him: You speak. Pilate said to the chief priests and the people: I find no guilt in this man. But they insisted, saying that He was disturbing the people by teaching throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee to this place. Pilate, hearing about Galilee, asked: Is He a Galilean? And, having learned that He was from Herod's region, He sent Him to Herod, who these days was also in Jerusalem.
From John (In.)	Pilate came out to them and said: What do you accuse this Man of? They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you. Pilate said to them: Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death, so that the word of Jesus, which He spoke, might be fulfilled, indicating by what kind of death He would die. Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him: Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me? Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what did you do? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here. Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice. Pilate said to Him: What is truth? And having said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them: I find no guilt in Him..

Jesus Christ at the trial of Pontius Pilate

The Jewish high priests, having condemned Jesus Christ to death, could not themselves carry out the sentence without its approval by the Roman governor. As the evangelists narrate, after the night trial of Christ, they brought him in the morning to Pilate in the praetorium, but they themselves did not enter it “ so as not to be defiled, but so that you can eat Passover».

According to the testimony of all the evangelists, the main question that Pilate asked Jesus was: “ Are you the King of the Jews?" This question was due to the fact that a real claim to power as King of the Jews, according to Roman law, was classified as a dangerous crime. The answer to this question was the words of Christ - “ you say", which can be considered as a positive answer, since in Jewish speech the phrase "you said" has a positive constative meaning. In giving this answer, Jesus emphasized that not only was he of royal descent by genealogy, but that as God he had authority over all kingdoms. The most detailed dialogue between Jesus Christ and Pilate is given in the Gospel of John (see quote above).

Jesus Christ at the trial of Herod Antipas

Only the Evangelist Luke reports about the bringing of Jesus to Herod Antipas. Pilate, learning that Jesus from Herod's region, sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem these days(OK. ). Herod Antipas heard a lot about Jesus Christ and had long wanted to see him, hoping to witness one of his miracles. Herod asked Jesus many questions, but he did not answer them. Afterwards, as Luke reports,

It should be noted that the Romans wore white (light) clothing for candidates for any leadership or honorary position. Thus, Herod, by dressing Jesus this way, wanted to express that he perceived him only as an amusing contender for the Jewish throne and did not consider him a dangerous criminal. This is probably exactly how Pilate understood Herod, since he referred to the high priests that Herod did not find anything in Jesus worthy of death.

Desecration of Jesus Christ

After Pilate first brought Jesus to the people who demanded His execution, he, deciding to arouse compassion for Christ among the people, ordered the soldiers to beat Him. They took Jesus into the courtyard and took off His clothes and beat Him. Then they dressed Him in the king’s jester’s outfit: a scarlet robe (a cloak of a royal color), they placed a wreath woven from thorns (“crown”) on his head, and gave him a cane and a branch (“royal scepter”) in his right hand. After this, the warriors began to mock him - they knelt down, bowed and said: “ Rejoice, King of the Jews!", and then they spat on Him and beat Him on the head and face with a cane (Mk.).

Christ before the crowd

Pilate twice brought Jesus out to the people, declaring that he did not find in Him any guilt worthy of death (Luke). The second time this was done after His torture, which was intended to arouse the pity of the people by showing that Jesus had already been punished by Pilate.

In the words of Pilate " behold, Man!“One can see his desire to arouse compassion among the Jews for the prisoner, who, after torture, does not look like a king in his appearance and does not pose a threat to the Roman emperor. The very appearance of Christ after the mockery of him became the fulfillment of one of the prophecies of the 21st Messianic Psalm: “ I am a worm, not a man, reproach among people and contempt among the people"(Ps.).

The people did not show leniency either the first or the second time and demanded the execution of Jesus in response to Pilate’s proposal to release Christ, following a long-standing custom: “ You have a custom that I give you one for Easter; Do you want me to release the King of the Jews to you?" At the same time, according to the Gospel, the people began to shout even more let him be crucified. Seeing this, Pilate pronounced a death sentence - he sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, and he himself “ washed his hands before the people, and said: I am innocent of the blood of this righteous one" To which the people exclaimed: “ His blood be on us and on our children"(Matt.). Having washed his hands, Pilate performed the ritual washing of hands customary among the Jews as a sign of non-involvement in the murder being committed (Deut.).

Apocryphal tales

Pilate's trial is described in the apocryphal "Gospel of Nicodemus". In it, in addition to the information contained in the canonical Gospels, the author makes additions emphasizing the messianic status of Christ (for example, the episode with the worship of Christ banners in the hands of standard bearers). Pilate's trial begins with a dispute about the legality of the birth of Jesus, which ends with a dialogue between Pilate and 12 men who were present at the betrothal of the Virgin Mary and who testified to the legality of the birth of Jesus:

The Gospel of Nicodemus records Jesus' answer to Pilate's question. what is truth?"(the question according to the Gospel of John remained unanswered): "Jesus said: “ Truth is from heaven“. Pilate said to Him: “ Is there no truth in earthly things?“Jesus said to Pilate: “ Listen - the truth is on earth among those who, having power, live by the truth and create righteous judgment“».

Witnesses in the defense of Christ at the trial are the sick who were miraculously healed by him: the paralytic, the man born blind, Veronica, the bleeding wife; residents of Jerusalem remember the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus. In response to this, Pilate, on the occasion of the holiday, invites the people to release Christ or Barabbas to their choice, and subsequently the apocrypha repeats the canonical gospel text, with the exception of Jesus being brought out to the people after the reproach.

In fine arts

In the iconography of Jesus Christ, there is an image of him after torture, dressed in a scarlet robe and crowned with a crown of thorns. In this form he is depicted in front of the crowd to which Pilate ordered him to be brought out. From the words of Pilate spoken to the people, this iconographic type got its name - Ecce Homo (« behold, Man»).

There are images where Jesus simply stands before Pilate during interrogation, as well as scenes of scourging. Rarer subjects include compositions with Jesus at the trial of Herod Antipas.

Various details in court scenes are given symbolic meaning. So the darkness around the throne of Pilate symbolizes the darkness of paganism, and the bright light of the praetorium where Christ is taken away to be mocked is the light of the Christian faith; the dog at Pilate's throne is a symbol of wickedness.

Characters

Pontius Pilate

He is often depicted sitting on a throne with the attributes of royal power (a crown, diadem or laurel wreath), which he, as a Roman governor, did not actually have. In the scene of washing his hands, Pilate is depicted sitting in the judge's chair, one servant pours water on his hands, and a servant may be depicted nearby conveying to him the request of Claudia Procula, his wife, or holding out a scroll with her message.

Jesus Christ

The iconography depends on the scene in which Christ is depicted: tied hands are characteristic of his first appearance before Pilate, after the trial of Herod Antipas, white clothes appear on him, after the reproach - a scarlet robe and a crown of thorns.

Herod Antipas

Always depicted according to his royal status, crowned and seated on a throne. A figure of a warrior with white robes prepared for Christ is placed nearby.

Write a review of the article "Pilate's Trial"

Notes

Links

Averky (Taushev), archbishop.



Events

Places

Jesus and disciples

Jews

Romans

Items

Iconography

Excerpt characterizing Pilate's Trial

At such moments, a feeling similar to the pride of a victim gathered in Princess Marya’s soul. And suddenly, at such moments, in her presence, this father, whom she condemned, either looked for his glasses, feeling near them and not seeing, or forgot what was just happening, or took an unsteady step with weak legs and looked around to see if anyone had seen him weakness, or, worst of all, at dinner, when there were no guests to excite him, he would suddenly doze off, letting go of his napkin, and bend over the plate, his head shaking. “He is old and weak, and I dare to condemn him!” she thought with disgust for herself at such moments.

In 1811, in Moscow there lived a French doctor who quickly became fashionable, huge in stature, handsome, as amiable as a Frenchman and, as everyone in Moscow said, a doctor of extraordinary skill - Metivier. He was accepted into the houses of high society not as a doctor, but as an equal.
Prince Nikolai Andreich, who laughed at medicine, recently, on the advice of m lle Bourienne, allowed this doctor to visit him and got used to him. Metivier visited the prince twice a week.
On Nikola’s day, the prince’s name day, all of Moscow was at the entrance of his house, but he did not order to receive anyone; and only a few, a list of which he gave to Princess Marya, he ordered to be called to dinner.
Metivier, who arrived in the morning with congratulations, as a doctor, found it proper to de forcer la consigne [to violate the prohibition], as he told Princess Marya, and went in to see the prince. It so happened that on this birthday morning the old prince was in one of his worst moods. He walked around the house all morning, finding fault with everyone and pretending that he did not understand what they were saying to him and that they did not understand him. Princess Marya firmly knew this state of mind of quiet and preoccupied grumbling, which was usually resolved by an explosion of rage, and as if in front of a loaded, cocked gun, she walked all that morning, waiting for the inevitable shot. The morning before the doctor arrived went well. Having let the doctor pass, Princess Marya sat down with a book in the living room by the door, from which she could hear everything that was happening in the office.
At first she heard one voice of Metivier, then the voice of her father, then both voices spoke together, the door swung open and on the threshold appeared the frightened, beautiful figure of Metivier with his black crest, and the figure of a prince in a cap and robe with a face disfigured by rage and drooping pupils of his eyes.
- Do not understand? - the prince shouted, - but I understand! French spy, Bonaparte's slave, spy, get out of my house - get out, I say - and he slammed the door.
Metivier shrugged his shoulders and approached Mademoiselle Bourienne, who had come running in response to the scream from the next room.
“The prince is not entirely healthy,” la bile et le transport au cerveau. Tranquillisez vous, je repasserai demain, [bile and rush to the brain. Calm down, I’ll come by tomorrow,” said Metivier and, putting his finger to his lips, he hurriedly left.
Outside the door one could hear footsteps in shoes and shouts: “Spies, traitors, traitors everywhere! There is no moment of peace in your home!”
After Metivier left, the old prince called his daughter to him and the full force of his anger fell on her. It was her fault that a spy was allowed in to see him. .After all, he said, he told her to make a list, and those who were not on the list should not be allowed in. Why did they let this scoundrel in! She was the reason for everything. With her he could not have a moment of peace, he could not die in peace, he said.
- No, mother, disperse, disperse, you know that, you know! “I can’t do it anymore,” he said and left the room. And as if afraid that she would not be able to console herself somehow, he returned to her and, trying to assume a calm appearance, added: “And don’t think that I told you this in a moment of my heart, but I am calm, and I have thought it over; and it will be - disperse, look for a place for yourself!... - But he could not stand it and with that embitterment that can only be found in a person who loves, he, apparently suffering himself, shook his fists and shouted to her:
- And at least some fool would marry her! “He slammed the door, called m lle Bourienne to him and fell silent in the office.
At two o'clock the chosen six persons arrived for dinner. The guests—the famous Count Rostopchin, Prince Lopukhin and his nephew, General Chatrov, the prince’s old comrade in arms, and young Pierre and Boris Drubetskoy—were waiting for him in the living room.
The other day, Boris, who came to Moscow on vacation, wished to be introduced to Prince Nikolai Andreevich and managed to gain his favor to such an extent that the prince made an exception for him from all the single young people whom he did not accept.
The prince’s house was not what is called “light,” but it was such a small circle that, although it was unheard of in the city, it was most flattering to be accepted into it. Boris understood this a week ago, when in his presence Rostopchin told the commander-in-chief, who called the count to dinner on St. Nicholas Day, that he could not be:
“On this day I always go to venerate the relics of Prince Nikolai Andreich.
“Oh yes, yes,” answered the commander-in-chief. - What he?..
The small company gathered in the old-fashioned, tall, old-furnished living room before dinner looked like a solemn council of a court of justice. Everyone was silent and if they spoke, they spoke quietly. Prince Nikolai Andreich came out serious and silent. Princess Marya seemed even more quiet and timid than usual. The guests were reluctant to address her because they saw that she had no time for their conversations. Count Rostopchin alone held the thread of the conversation, talking about the latest city and political news.
Lopukhin and the old general occasionally took part in the conversation. Prince Nikolai Andreich listened as the chief judge listened to the report that was being made to him, only occasionally declaring in silence or a short word that he was taking note of what was being reported to him. The tone of the conversation was such that it was clear that no one approved of what was being done in the political world. They talked about events that obviously confirmed that everything was going from bad to worse; but in every story and judgment it was striking how the narrator stopped or was stopped every time at the border where the judgment could relate to the person of the sovereign emperor.
During dinner, the conversation turned to the latest political news, about Napoleon's seizure of the possessions of the Duke of Oldenburg and about the Russian note hostile to Napoleon, sent to all European courts.
“Bonaparte treats Europe like a pirate on a conquered ship,” said Count Rostopchin, repeating a phrase he had already spoken several times. - You are only surprised at the long-suffering or blindness of sovereigns. Now it comes to the Pope, and Bonaparte no longer hesitates to overthrow the head of the Catholic religion, and everyone is silent! One of our sovereigns protested against the seizure of the possessions of the Duke of Oldenburg. And then...” Count Rostopchin fell silent, feeling that he was standing at the point where it was no longer possible to judge.
“They offered other possessions instead of the Duchy of Oldenburg,” said Prince Nikolai Andreich. “Just as I resettled men from Bald Mountains to Bogucharovo and Ryazan, so he did the dukes.”
“Le duc d"Oldenbourg supporte son malheur avec une force de caractere et une resignation admirable, [The Duke of Oldenburg bears his misfortune with remarkable willpower and submission to fate," said Boris, respectfully entering into the conversation. He said this because he was passing through from St. Petersburg had the honor of introducing himself to the Duke. Prince Nikolai Andreich looked at the young man as if he would like to say something to him about this, but decided against it, considering him too young for that.
“I read our protest about the Oldenburg case and was surprised at the poor wording of this note,” said Count Rostopchin, in the careless tone of a man judging a case well known to him.
Pierre looked at Rostopchin with naive surprise, not understanding why he was bothered by the poor edition of the note.
– Doesn’t it matter how the note is written, Count? - he said, - if its content is strong.
“Mon cher, avec nos 500 mille hommes de troupes, il serait facile d"avoir un beau style, [My dear, with our 500 thousand troops it seems easy to express ourselves in a good style,] said Count Rostopchin. Pierre understood why Count Rostopchin was worried about the edition of the note.
“It seems that the scribblers are pretty busy,” said the old prince: “they write everything there in St. Petersburg, not just notes, but they write new laws all the time.” My Andryusha wrote a whole lot of laws for Russia there. Nowadays they write everything! - And he laughed unnaturally.
The conversation fell silent for a minute; The old general drew attention to himself by clearing his throat.
– Did you deign to hear about the latest event at the show in St. Petersburg? How the new French envoy showed himself!
- What? Yes, I heard something; he said something awkwardly in front of His Majesty.
“His Majesty drew his attention to the grenadier division and the ceremonial march,” continued the general, “and it was as if the envoy did not pay any attention and seemed to allow himself to say that in France we do not pay attention to such trifles.” The Emperor did not deign to say anything. At the next review, they say, the sovereign never deigned to address him.
Everyone fell silent: no judgment could be expressed on this fact, which related personally to the sovereign.
- Daring! - said the prince. – Do you know Metivier? I drove him away from me today. “He was here, they let me in, no matter how much I asked not to let anyone in,” said the prince, looking angrily at his daughter. And he told his whole conversation with the French doctor and the reasons why he was convinced that Metivier was a spy. Although these reasons were very insufficient and unclear, no one objected.
Champagne was served along with the roast. The guests rose from their seats, congratulating the old prince. Princess Marya also approached him.
He looked at her with a cold, angry gaze and offered her his wrinkled, shaved cheek. The whole expression of his face told her that he had not forgotten the morning conversation, that his decision remained in the same force, and that only thanks to the presence of guests he was not telling her this now.
When they went out into the living room for coffee, the old men sat down together.
Prince Nikolai Andreich became more animated and expressed his thoughts about the upcoming war.
He said that our wars with Bonaparte would be unhappy as long as we sought alliances with the Germans and meddled in European affairs into which the Peace of Tilsit dragged us. We did not have to fight either for Austria or against Austria. Our policy is all in the east, but in relation to Bonaparte there is one thing - weapons on the border and firmness in politics, and he will never dare to cross the Russian border, as in the seventh year.
- And where, prince, are we supposed to fight the French! - said Count Rostopchin. – Can we take up arms against our teachers and gods? Look at our youth, look at our ladies. Our gods are the French, our kingdom of heaven is Paris.
He began to speak louder, obviously so that everyone could hear him. – The costumes are French, the thoughts are French, the feelings are French! You kicked out Metivier, because he is a Frenchman and a scoundrel, and our ladies are crawling after him. Yesterday I was at a party, so out of five ladies, three are Catholics and, with the permission of the pope, on Sunday they sew on canvas. And they themselves sit almost naked, like signs of commercial baths, if I may say so. Eh, look at our youth, Prince, he would take the old club of Peter the Great from the Kunstkamera, and in Russian style he would break off the sides, all the nonsense would fall off!
Everyone fell silent. The old prince looked at Rostopchin with a smile on his face and shook his head approvingly.
“Well, goodbye, your Excellency, don’t get sick,” said Rostopchin, getting up with his characteristic quick movements and extending his hand to the prince.
- Goodbye, my dear, - the harp, I will always listen to it! - said the old prince, holding his hand and offering him a cheek for a kiss. Others also rose with Rostopchin.

Princess Marya, sitting in the living room and listening to these talk and gossip of the old people, did not understand anything of what she heard; she only thought about whether all the guests noticed her father’s hostile attitude towards her. She did not even notice the special attention and courtesies that Drubetskoy, who had been in their house for the third time, showed her throughout this dinner.
Princess Marya, with an absent-minded, questioning look, turned to Pierre, who, the last of the guests, with a hat in his hand and a smile on his face, approached her after the prince had left, and they alone remained in the living room.
-Can we sit still? - he said, throwing his fat body into a chair next to Princess Marya.
“Oh yes,” she said. “Didn’t you notice anything?” said her look.
Pierre was in a pleasant, post-dinner state of mind. He looked ahead and smiled quietly.
“How long have you known this young man, princess?” - he said.
- Which one?
- Drubetsky?
- No, recently...
- What do you like about him?
- Yes, he is a nice young man... Why are you asking me this? - said Princess Marya, continuing to think about her morning conversation with her father.
“Because I made an observation, a young man usually comes from St. Petersburg to Moscow on vacation only for the purpose of marrying a rich bride.
– You made this observation! - said Princess Marya.

“Now we will always be together,” a ragged philosopher-tramp told him in a dream, who, in some unknown way, stood in the way of a horseman with a golden spear. - Once there’s one, that means there’s another one too! If they remember me, they will remember you too!”

That's right, thanks to Jesus, the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate went down in history forever.

The Gospels depict a Roman ruler who fell victim to circumstances, forced under the pressure of the high priests and the crowd to send the Jewish preacher Yeshua HaNozri to a painful death. The authors of the New Testament (except for the clearly anti-Roman book of Revelation, written in the heat of righteous anger, after the terrible persecution of the Church), like the famous Jewish historian Josephus, tried to avoid sharp corners in order to survive in a cruel world, where any criticism of Roman power was regarded as an invitation disobedience and was punishable by death. The Christian editors of the Gospel of Matthew completely absolve Pilate of blame for the execution of Jesus:

“Pilate, seeing that nothing helped, but the confusion was increasing, took water and washed his hands before the people, and said: I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One; look you. And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:24-25).

Condemning the entire Jewish people for the death of Yeshua is stupid. More than 99.9% of the Jews living at that time were not present in the ill-fated Jerusalem square, which accommodated several hundred people. And the children of those who shouted: “Crucify” are certainly not to blame, since everyone is responsible for their own sins (Ezek. Chapter 18).

However, it is worth recalling that Jerome of Stridon, a 4th century author, speaks of translating the Gospel of Matthew from Hebrew into Greek. It was probably during the translation process that such overt anti-Jewish passages arose, very characteristic of the second half of the second century. The original was destroyed so that the lie would not be revealed.

“In the Gospel, which is used by the Ebionites and Nazarenes, and which we have recently translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is considered by many to be the original (gospel) of Matthew, a man with a withered hand is called a mason, who made a plea for help in these words: I was a mason and earned my living with my own hands, I ask You, Jesus, restore my health so that I do not beg in shame” (Jerome. Com. in Natth. 12.13).

The fifth procurator of Judea and Samaria, Pontius Pilate, according to Josephus, decided to “begin by demonstrating his contempt for Jewish laws.” He ordered that standards with the image of Caesar be brought to Jerusalem. He went into action like a “thief in the night,” not wanting unnecessary indignation among the city residents. Oddly enough, the Jewish elders showed considerable prudence and restrained the people from violent actions. The Jews tried to explain to the procurator, begging him to refuse to violate the status quo, the situation of which condemned to death even a Roman citizen who entered the sacred territory (250 × 250 m) and thereby violated the sanctity of the Temple. In 1870 and 1936, two signs in Greek and Latin were discovered in Jerusalem warning that non-Jews were prohibited from climbing the Temple Mount on pain of death.

So, the people came to the Caesarea residence of the procurator and settled in the stadium, which has been well preserved to this day.

The Jews, almost two thousand years before the famous Gandhi, offered passive resistance to the invaders: when threatened to put them to death, they “bared their necks and replied that they would rather die than allow their holy and wise laws to be violated.” The prosecutor did not give the order to cut off the heads of the demonstrators. Josephus writes that "Pilate could not help but admire the fidelity of the Jews to their law and ordered the return of the standards to Caesarea." It is difficult to believe the historian's account of Pilate's admiration for the meekness of the Jews and their willingness to yield to the crowd that thwarted his plan. But the fact remains that Pilate ordered the removal of Roman standards from the holy city. Perhaps he received advice not to aggravate relations with the natives, since Jerusalem was on the verge of rebellion.

Pilate once again repeated his attempt to impose alien rules on the Jews. Philo of Alexandria talks about a letter from Agrippa to Emperor Gaius, nicknamed Caligula. Pilate hung “golden shields with inscriptions” on Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, which offended the Jews. A delegation led by four princes from Herod's family asks that the Jews not be led to rebellion. They demand from Pilate to show authority for his actions and threaten to appeal to the emperor, whom they meaningfully call their master. This threat worried Pilate, who feared that his atrocities would become known to Tiberius.

“One of Tiberius’s men was Pilate, who became the governor of Judea, and so, not so much for the honor of Tiberius as for the grief of the people, he dedicated gilded shields to Herod’s palace in Jerusalem; there were no images on them or anything else blasphemous, with the exception of a short inscription: they say, dedicated such and such in honor of such and such. When the people understood everything - and this was a serious matter, then, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were not inferior to the king either in dignity or fate, and his other offspring, as well as simply powerful persons, he began to ask that the matter with the shields be corrected and not touch the ancient customs, which were kept for centuries and were inviolable for both kings and autocrats. He began to persist, because he was by nature cruel, self-confident and unforgiving; then a cry arose: “Don’t start a rebellion, don’t start a war, don’t destroy the world! Dishonoring ancient laws does not mean honoring the autocrat! Let Tiberius not be a pretext for attacks on an entire people; he does not want to destroy any of our laws. And if he wants, then say so directly with an order, a letter, or some other way, so that we no longer bother you, we would elect ambassadors and ask the bishop ourselves.” The latter especially embarrassed Pilate; he was afraid that the Jews would actually send an embassy and discover other aspects of his rule, telling about bribes, insults, extortion, excesses, malice, continuous executions without trial, terrible and senseless cruelty. And this man, whose irritation aggravated his natural anger, found himself in a difficulty: he did not dare to remove what had already been dedicated; besides, he did not want to do anything to please his subjects; but at the same time, he was well aware of the consistency and constancy of Tiberius in these matters. Those gathered realized that Pilate regretted what he had done, but did not want to show it, and sent a most tearful letter to Tiberius. He, having read it, did not call Pilate as much as he did not threaten him! The degree of his anger, which, however, was not easy to kindle, I will not describe - the events will speak for themselves: Tiberius immediately, without waiting for the morning, writes a response to Pilate, where he completely scolds and condemns him for his daring innovation, and orders him to immediately remove the shields and send them to Caesarea, the one that stands on the coast and is named after your grandfather, and there dedicate them to the temple of Augustus, which was done. Thus, neither the honor of the autocrat was shaken, nor his usual attitude towards the city” (“On the Embassy to Guy” 38).

Now about the trial of Jesus. The preacher was most likely arrested not by Roman legionaries, but by temple guards, and interrogated in the house of Hanan (Anna). This high priest gained notoriety among the Jews:

“Curse on the house of Boeth; curse on their spears! A curse on the house of Hanan (Anna); damn his malicious hiss! A curse on the house of Kanfera, a curse on their beautiful feathers! A curse on the house of Ismail ben (son) Fabi, a curse on their fists! For they are the high priests, and their sons are in charge of the treasury. And their sons-in-law are among the rulers, and their servants beat people with stakes” (Aggadic legend).

During the interrogation in the house of the high priest, judging by the Gospels, they tried to accuse Jesus of desecrating the Temple, but they could not prove his guilt, so he was handed over to the court of the Roman prefect, for many heard that Jesus was called: “King of the Jews,” which was a crime before Rome. According to reports of ancient Jewish historians, Pontius Pilate was a cruel, stubborn man who did not disdain bribes and executed the unfortunate without trial.

How would he deal with a man whom the Jewish high priests loyal to Rome accused of not recognizing the authority of Caesar? Could he execute you, or could he, if guilt is not proven, release him? Something similar happened thirty years later to another preacher. A certain Yeshua (an interesting coincidence, the name of Jesus sounded exactly like Yeshua) announced that God would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jewish authorities arrested the troublemaker and handed him over to the Roman procurator, who, after scourging, released the preacher, considering him a holy fool:

“Even more significant is the following fact. A certain Yeshua, the son of Anan, a simple man from the village, four years before the war, when deep peace and complete prosperity reigned in the city, arrived there on that holiday when, according to custom, all Jews build tabernacles to honor God, and near the temple suddenly began to proclaim : “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice crying over Jerusalem and the temple, a voice crying over the brides and grooms, a voice crying over all the people!” Day and night he exclaimed the same thing, running through all the streets of the city. Some noble citizens, annoyed at this ominous cry, seized him and punished him with blows very cruelly. But without saying anything in his own defense, or especially against his torturers, he continued to repeat his previous words. Representatives of the people thought, as it was in reality, that this man was being guided by some higher power, and they brought him to the Roman procurator, but even there, being tormented to the bone with whips, he did not utter either a request for mercy or a tear, but the most in a plaintive voice he repeated only after each blow: “Oh woe to you, Jerusalem!” When Albin, the so-called procurator, interrogated him: “Who is he, where is he from and why is he crying so much,” he did not give any answer to this either and continued to bring grief to the city as before. Albinus, believing that this man was possessed by a special mania, let him go” (Jude. War, book 6. Ch. 5:3).

Mark and Matthew report that Pilate also scourged Jesus: “He beat Jesus and delivered him up to be crucified” (Mark 15:15; Matt. 27:26). And, by the way, Jesus of Nazareth spoke about the destruction of the Temple and predicted grief for Jerusalem (Matt. 23:2; Matt. 24:2)

Let's say Pilate sympathized with Jesus, then why did he give the order to beat him half to death and put him to a cruel, painful execution?

Maybe the evangelists are right after all, and Pilate considered Jesus’ crime not worthy of painful death? The punishment of the Roman whip, a multi-tailed whip with weights woven into it, tormenting the flesh to the bones, is enough for him. And after the execution (if he survived) he intended to free Jesus, but, heeding the demands of the crowd, dissatisfied with the insufficient punishment, he gave the order to execute the preacher. “And Pilate decided to comply with their request” (Luke 23:24).

John tells in detail about the trial of Jesus. Pilate, wanting to save Jesus from death, punishes him and brings him out, beaten and bloody, to the high priests and the crowd, hoping that the conflict is over. However, the crowd, seeing the one with whom they had hoped for liberation, in such a deplorable state, was indignant. The high priests threatened Pilate to report what had happened to Caesar, because according to Roman laws, Jesus must be crucified as a state criminal. And so the procurator gives the order to execute the preacher.

In principle, a tradition in special cases to heed the demands of the people could exist; gladiatorial games are a vivid example when it depends on the will of the crowd who lives and who dies.

Why did the Sanhedrin, which started the proceedings, by the way, in violation of existing Jewish legal norms, hand over Jesus to the authorities of Rome? After all, the Court had the power to execute, remember Stephen, accused of blasphemy, and the murder of Jesus' brother James. Moreover, Jesus could have been killed on the orders of the tetrarch Herod, who, according to the Pharisees, wanted to destroy him (Luke 13:31). However, Herod not only did not put Jesus to death, but did not even punish him. Possible reason - Jesus is the spoils of Rome. The appointment of someone as king of Judea according to the laws of the Roman Empire was an integral part of the rights of Caesar. By Senate decree, at the proposal of Octavian Augustus, Herod the Great was appointed king; later, by order of Emperor Claudius, Agrippa. Anyone who declared himself king without the approval of the emperor was considered a violator of the main law of the empire “On lese majeste” (the law of Octavian Augustus) and was subject to torture so that the defendant would confess and betray his comrades. This was followed by execution by crucifixion - for the law did not know a lesser punishment for this crime.

“For he had already restored the law of lese majeste, which, in former times bearing the same name, pursued something completely different: it was directed only against those who caused damage to the army by treachery, to civil unity by unrest, and, finally, to the greatness of the Roman people by evil government" (Tacitus. Annals. Book I 72).

A report to Emperor Trajan (111-113 AD) from one of the Roman judges, Pliny the Younger of Asia Minor, provides interesting details about the fight against “malignant superstition”:

“I ask them if they are Christian. If they confess, I repeat the question two more times and explain that this crime is punishable by death. If they do not renounce their religion even then, I order their execution. Those who deny that they are Christians or have ever been Christians, and repeat after me the spells of the gods and worship your image, Emperor, pouring out a libation of wine and incense, and in the end, curse Christ, that is, those who doing what no Christian would agree to do even under torture, I justify and release. Those who first admitted to belonging to Christianity and then renounced their words—I subject them to torture in order to find out the truth.”

Some historians argue that there were no two punishments, beating or execution, one or the other, so Luke's account of Pilate's attempt to save Jesus is credible.

However, this is not quite true. In Roman law, two types of flagellation were accepted.

The first is investigative flagellation: torture to force the accused to tell the truth. “A trial without flagellation was considered an exception to the general rule.” The second scourging is part of the general punishment of the sentence. The laws of the XII tables commanded “to put in chains and, after scourging, to put to death the one who set fire to buildings or stacks of bread stacked near the house, if [the culprit] did this intentionally. [If the fire occurred] accidentally, i.e. by negligence, the law prescribed [that the culprit] compensate for the damage, and if he fails, he is subjected to a lighter punishment” (Gai, I. 9. D. XLVII. 9).

It is quite possible that such a rule applied not only to arsonists, but also to those who insulted the greatness of the emperor.

Could Jesus have been tortured? Quite. Pilate asks: “Are you the King of the Jews?” (John 18:33). Jesus, like a true Jew, answers the question with a question: “Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?” (John 18:34). This answer did not bring clarity, so it could have been followed by torture, which John kept silent about.

Paul's letter to Timothy talks about Jesus' confession of faith before Pontius Pilate. The apostle knew as a result of what conversation the preacher, who did not renounce his convictions, was crucified.

“Fight the worthy battle of faith, take possession of the eternal life to which you have been called! After all, you worthily confessed your faith before numerous witnesses. And now I adjure you by God, who gives life to all things, and by Christ Jesus, who worthily testified to the same faith before Pontius Pilate” (1 Tim. 6:12-13).

It is quite possible that Jesus wanted to explain to the prefect that he does not claim secular power: “My kingdom is not of this world” - and provides proof: “If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me” (John 18 :36). Jesus does not deny that he is a king, but not of this world, because none of his supposed subjects stood up for him.

However, such a revelation could serve as a verdict, because Jesus, through his words, claimed divine royal authority, which only the emperor possessed and no one else.

Pilate repeats the question a second time, sounding like a sentence: “So, are you a King?” Jesus answers: “My kingdom is the kingdom of truth.” To which Pilate, who has not delved into the words of Jesus, says with a tinge of disdain: “What is the truth.” It no longer makes sense to explain; Jesus, as in the case of Herod, does not answer the procurator.

Eusebius of Caesarea, a Christian historian (c. 263-340 AD), blames Pontius Pilate for the death of Jesus, calling the procurator’s action villainous. Eusebius reports the suicide of Pilate under Emperor Gaius (37-41 AD), citing certain Greek writers:

“It is worth noting that the same Pilate, who lived during the time of the Savior, fell, according to legend, under [Emperor] Gaius into such troubles that he was forced to commit suicide and punish himself with his own hand: God’s judgment, apparently, did not delay overtake him. This is told by Greek writers who celebrated the Olympics and the events that took place during each of them. Pilate, the governor who pronounced a guilty verdict against Christ, after he had caused and endured much unrest in Jerusalem, was overwhelmed by such anxiety emanating from Gaius that, piercing himself with his own hand, he sought a reduction in torment in a quick death. Pilate did not go unpunished for his villainous crime - the murder of our Lord Jesus Christ: he committed suicide."

It is worth telling about a significant archaeological find confirming the existence of Pontius Pilate.

In 1961, during excavations in Caesarea (Israel), carried out by Italian archaeologists, a fragment of a granite slab with a Latin inscription containing the names of Tiberius and Pilate was found on the territory of the ancient theater. The inscription, apparently consisting of four lines, is badly damaged by time; the first three lines have been partially preserved, but the last line has been destroyed almost completely - one letter is barely legible.

. . . . . . . . . .]STIBERIEV

PON]TIVSPILATVS

PRAEF]ECTVSIVDAE . . .

According to A. Frov, the first line can be restored as s(ibus) Tiberieum - “Caesarean, i.e. Caesarian Tiberieum.” In the second line, before tius Pilatus there was his personal name (praenomen), which remained unknown to us. The third line reads his position: ectus Iudae - “prefect of Judea.” In the fourth, the letter “E” is restored, which was part of a certain word, for example [d]e. Apparently, this is a dedicatory inscription installed by the Roman governor in the so-called Tiberium, a religious building in honor of the Emperor Tiberius, which was located in front of the theater building. It is worth paying attention to the title “prefect of Judea”. Before the discovery of the Caesarea Inscription, it was believed that the judge of Jesus, according to the Annals of Tacitus, was a procurator. In the Gospels he appears under the title "ruler". Josephus calls him ruler, commissioner, manager.

In Greek literature contemporary to the Gospels, a prefect is a governor of an imperial province (praefectus civitatis) invested with military power. As for the term “manager,” it often meant the imperial procurator (procurator Caesaris), the tax commissioner. Both of these positions were occupied by persons from the equestrian class. Since Judea was not an independent province, but was included as a separate region in the Senate province of Syria, the position of procurator was more suitable for Pilate. However, due to the special military-political situation in Judea, Pilate was also given the functions of prefect.

Holy Week (Week; passion in the central word - suffering, Greek Μεγάλη Εβδομάδα - Megali Evdomada, Great Week) - the last week of Lent, preceding Easter, during which the Last Supper, presentation to judgment, suffering and crucifixion are remembered, burial of Jesus Christ.

Passion of Christ (anonymous artist 15th century, Netherlands)

Pilate's Court- the trial of the Roman procurator of Judea Pontius Pilate over Jesus Christ described in the Gospels. The Judgment of Pilate is included in the Passion of Christ.

Christ before Pilate (Master Bertram of Minden, c. 1390)

Icon "Christ before Pilate", c. 1497, from the Assumption Cathedral of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery

A description of Pilate's trial over Jesus is given in all four evangelists: GospelDescription of the trial
From Matthew
(Matt.27:11-14)
...and having bound Him, they took Him away and handed Him over to Pontius Pilate, the governor... Jesus stood before the governor. And the ruler asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus said to him: You speak. And when the chief priests and elders accused Him, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him: Do you not hear how many testify against You? And he did not answer a single word, so the ruler was very surprised.
From Mark
(Mark 15:1-5)
Immediately in the morning, the high priests with the elders and scribes and the entire Sanhedrin held a meeting and, having bound Jesus, took him away and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? He answered and said to him, “You speak.” And the chief priests accused Him of many things. Pilate asked Him again: “Are you not answering anything?” you see how many accusations are against you. But Jesus did not answer anything to this either, so Pilate marveled.
From Luke
(Luke 23:1-7)
And the whole multitude of them rose up, and took Him to Pilate, and began to accuse Him, saying: We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids giving tribute to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King. Pilate asked Him: Are you the King of the Jews? He answered him: You speak. Pilate said to the chief priests and the people: I find no guilt in this man. But they insisted, saying that He was disturbing the people by teaching throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee to this place. Pilate, hearing about Galilee, asked: Is He a Galilean? And having learned that He was from Herod’s region, He sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem these days.
From John
(John 18:29-38)
Pilate came out to them and said: What do you accuse this Man of? They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you. Pilate said to them: Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death, so that the word of Jesus, which He spoke, might be fulfilled, indicating by what kind of death He would die. Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him: Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me? Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what did you do? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here. Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice. Pilate said to Him: What is truth? And having said this, he again went out to the Jews and said to them: I find no guilt in Him.

"Christ before Pilate", below the death of Judas
(Rossan Codex, c. 550)

Jesus Christ at the trial of Pontius Pilate

According to the testimony of all the evangelists, the main question that Pilate asked Jesus was: “Are you the King of the Jews? " This question was due to the fact that a real claim to power as King of the Jews, according to Roman law, was classified as a dangerous crime. The answer to this question was the words of Christ - you speak. In giving this answer, Jesus emphasized that not only was he of royal descent by genealogy, but that as God he had authority over all kingdoms. The most detailed dialogue between Jesus Christ and Pilate is given in the Gospel of John.

Tintoretto. Christ before Pilate

Evangelist Matthew reports that during the trial of Jesus, Pilate’s wife sent a servant to him to say: “Do not do anything to that righteous one, because now in a dream I have suffered much for Him” (Matthew 27:19). According to the apocrypha, Pilate's wife's name was Claudia Procula and she later became a Christian. In the Greek and Coptic churches she is canonized, her memory is celebrated on November 9 (October 27, old style

Desecration of Jesus Christ

Flagellation Column
After Pilate first brought Jesus to the people who demanded his execution, he, deciding to arouse compassion for Christ among the people, ordered the soldiers to beat him. They took Jesus into the courtyard and took off his clothes and beat him. Then they dressed him in the king’s jester’s outfit: a scarlet robe (royal-colored cloak), placed a wreath woven from thorns (“crown”) on his head, and gave him a cane and a branch (“royal scepter”) in his right hand. After this, the soldiers began to mock him - they knelt down, bowed and said: “Hail, King of the Jews!”, and then spat on him and beat him on the head and face with a cane (Mark 15:19).

When studying the Shroud of Turin, identified with the burial shroud of Jesus Christ, it was concluded that Jesus was struck 98 blows (while the Jews were allowed to apply no more than 40 blows - Deut. 25: 3): 59 blows of a scourge with three ends, 18 with two ends and 21 - with one end

Christ before the crowd

"Christ before the people"
(Quentin Massys, c. 1515)

Pilate twice brought Jesus out to the people, declaring that he did not find in him any guilt worthy of death (Luke 23:22). The second time this was done after his torture, which was intended to arouse the pity of the people, showing that Jesus had already been punished by Pilate. Pilate again went out and said to them: behold, I am bringing Him out to you, so that you know that I do not find any guilt in Him. Then Jesus came out wearing a crown of thorns and a scarlet robe. And [Pilate] said to them: Behold, Man!
(John 19:4-5)
In the words of Pilate, “Behold, Man!” one can see his desire to arouse compassion among the Jews for the prisoner, who, after torture, does not look like a king in his appearance and does not pose a threat to the Roman emperor. The very appearance of Christ after the mockery of him became the fulfillment of one of the prophecies of the 21st messianic psalm: “But I am a worm, and not a man, reproached by men and despised by the people” (Ps. 21:7).

Hieronymus Bosch
The people did not show leniency either the first or the second time and demanded the execution of Jesus in response to Pilate’s proposal to release Christ, following a long-standing custom: “You have a custom that I release one to you for Easter; Do you want me to release the King of the Jews to you? At the same time, according to the Gospel, the people began to shout even more loudly let him be crucified. Seeing this, Pilate pronounced a death sentence - he sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, and he himself “washed his hands before the people and said: I am innocent of the blood of this Righteous One.” To which the people exclaimed: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:24-25). Having washed his hands, Pilate performed the ritual washing of hands customary among the Jews as a sign of non-involvement in the murder being committed (Deut. 21: 1-9).

Albrecht Altdorfer. Washing Pilate's Hands

"Ecce Homo"

"Ecce Homo" (Quentin Masseys, 1526)
There are also images where Jesus simply stands before Pilate during interrogation, as well as scenes of scourging. Various details in court scenes are given symbolic meaning. Thus, the darkness around the throne of Pilate symbolizes the darkness of paganism, and the bright light of the praetorium, where Christ is taken away to be mocked, symbolizes the light of the Christian faith;

"What is truth?"
(Christ and Pilate)
(Nikolai Ge, 1890)

Pontius Pilate

"Pilate washes his hands"
(Duccio. “Maesta”, detail)

Jesus Christ

Material from Wikipedia

For 2000 years, historians, writers, and artists have been trying to discern and study the image of this man. We pronounce his name daily in the “Creed” prayer - “... crucified for us under Pontius Pilate”... Even people who are far from the Church and have never read the Gospel know about Pontius Pilate from Mikhail Bulgakov’s famous novel “The Master and Margarita.” What was the man like who sent the Savior to Calvary?

Pontius Pilate. Fragment of the painting Christ before Pilate by Mihaly Munkácsy

A little history

(lat. Pontius Pilatus) - the fifth Roman procurator (ruler) of Judea from 26 to 36 AD, Roman horseman (equitus). His residence was located in the palace built by Herod the Great in the city of Caesarea, from where he ruled the country.

In general, not much is known about Pontius Pilate. Today, one of the most important sources about him are the Gospels and the works of the Roman historian Josephus. There is also written evidence from historians such as Tacitus, Eusebius of Caesarea and Philo of Alexandria.

According to some information, Pontius Pilate was born in 10 BC in Lugdunum, in Gaul (now Lyon, France). Pontius is, apparently, the family name of Pilate, indicating his belonging to the Roman family of Pontius.He was married to the illegitimate daughter of Emperor Tiberius and the granddaughter of Emperor Augustus Octavian Claudia Procula (she later became a Christian. In the Greek and Coptic churches she is canonized as a saint, her memory is celebrated on November 9 (October 27, old style)). Being the most humble servant of his father-in-law, the emperor, Pilate went with his wife to Judea to become its new Roman prefect. For 10 years, he ruled this country, prevented impending uprisings and suppressed riots.

Almost the only characteristic given to Pilate by his contemporary are the words of Philo of Alexandria: “naturally tough, stubborn and ruthless... depraved, brutal and aggressive, he raped, abused, repeatedly killed and constantly committed atrocities.” The moral qualities of Pontius Pilate can be judged by his actions in Judea. As historians point out, Pilate was responsible for countless cruelties and executions committed without any trial. Tax and political oppression, provocations that offended the religious beliefs and customs of the Jews, caused mass popular uprisings that were mercilessly suppressed.

Pilate began his reign in the Holy Land by bringing into Jerusalem standards with the image of the emperor. So he tried to demonstrate his contempt for the Jews and their religious laws. But in order not to put Roman soldiers at unnecessary risk, this operation was carried out at night. And when in the morning the inhabitants of Jerusalem saw the Roman banners, the soldiers were already in their barracks. This story is described in great detail by Josephus in The Jewish War. Afraid to remove the standards without permission (apparently, this was just what the legionnaires were waiting for in their barracks), the residents of Jerusalem went to Caesarea to meet the new governor of Rome who had arrived. Here, according to Josephus, Pilate was adamant, because removing the standards was tantamount to insulting the emperor. But on the sixth day of the demonstration, either because Pilate did not want to begin his assumption of office with a massacre of civilians, or because of special instructions from Rome, he ordered the standards to be returned to Caesarea.

But the real conflict between the Jews and the Roman governor occurred after Pilate’s decision to build in Jerusalem aqueduct (vodokanal, a structure for the centralized supply of water to the city from country sources). To implement this project, the procurator asked for subsidies from the treasury of the Jerusalem Temple. Everything would have worked out if Pontius Pilate had secured funding through negotiations and the voluntary consent of the Temple treasurers. But Pilate committed an unprecedented act - he simply withdrew the required amount from the treasury! It is clear that on the part of the Jewish population this unacceptable move provoked a corresponding reaction - an uprising. This became the reason for decisive action. Pilate "ordered to dress (in civilian clothes) a significant number of soldiers, gave them clubs, which they had to hide under their clothes." The legionnaires surrounded the crowd, and after the order to disperse was ignored, Pilate “gave the soldiers a conventional sign, and the soldiers set to work much more zealously than Pilate himself would have liked. Working with clubs, they equally hit both noisy rebels and completely innocent people. The Jews, however, continued to stand firm; but since they were unarmed, and their opponents were armed, many of them fell dead here, and many left covered with wounds. Thus the indignation was suppressed."

The following account of Pilate's cruelty is found in the Gospel of Luke: “At this time some came and told Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.”(Luke 13:1). Obviously, we were talking about an event that was well-known at that time - a massacre right in the Jerusalem Temple during the statutory sacrifice...

However, Pontius Pilate became one of the most famous in history not thanks to his cruelty or the construction of the Jerusalem aqueduct. All his cruelty and treachery were eclipsed by a single act - trial of Jesus Christ and the subsequent execution. From the Holy Scriptures we definitely know that the Lord was sentenced to death precisely by Pilate, who at that time represented the highest Roman power in Judea. The death sentence was also carried out by a cohort of Roman soldiers. The Savior was crucified on the Cross, and crucifixion is a Roman tradition of capital punishment.

The Trial of Jesus Christ

On the eve of the Jewish Passover, Pilate received an invitation from the Sanhedrin to Jerusalem for the holiday. His temporary residence in Jerusalem was Pretoria, which was probably located in the former palace of Herod at the Tower of Antony. The Praetoria was a vast and magnificent chamber, where not only Pilate’s home was located, but also premises for his retinue and soldiers. In front of the praetorium there was also a small square where the regional ruler held court. It was here that Jesus was brought to be tried and sentenced.

Pilate's residence in Jerusalem - Praetorium

Preliminary "inquiry" in Anna's house

It all begins on the night from Thursday to Friday, when Jesus Christ was taken into custody in the Garden of Gethsemane after his prayer for the cup. Immediately after his arrest, Jesus was brought before the Sanhedrin (the highest judicial body of the Jews). First, Christ appeared before Anna.

Great Sanhedrin consisted of 71 judges. Membership in the Sanhedrin was for life. We know the names of only 5 members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin: the high priest Caiaphas, Annas (who by that time had lost the rights of the high priesthood), holy righteous Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus and Gamaliel. Before the conquest of Judea by the Romans, the Sanhedrin had the right of life and death, but from that time its power was limited: it could pronounce death sentences, but the consent of the Roman ruler was required to carry them out. The Sanhedrin was headed by the high priest Caiaphas. Among the members of the court, who had great weight, was also the former high priest Annas, who was at the head of the Sanhedrin for over 20 years before Caiaphas.But even after his resignation, he continued to actively participate in the life of Judean society.

The trial of Jesus Christ began with Anna. The high priests and elders wanted the Savior dead. But taking into account the fact that the decision of the Sanhedrin was subject to approval by the Roman procurator, it was necessary to find such accusations that would arouse political concerns among the Roman ruler.The former high priest wanted to bring the matter to the point of accusing Jesus Christ of plotting rebellion and leading a secret community. There was insidious intent in this.Anna began to ask Christ about his teachings and his followers. But Jesus ruined the plan of the retired high priest: He claimed that he always preached openly, did not spread any secret teaching, and offered to listen to witnesses to his sermons. Because The preliminary inquiry failed; Anna, not having the power to pronounce a sentence, sent Christ to Caiaphas.

Meeting of the Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas

The high priest Caiaphas wanted the death of the Savior and made more efforts than others to fulfill this. Immediately after the resurrection of Lazarus, he, fearing that everyone would believe in Jesus, proposed killing the Savior: “You know nothing and will not think that it is better for us that one person should die for the people than for the whole nation to perish”(John 11:49-50).

That night the house of Caiaphas and the courtyard were crowded. The composition of the first meeting of the Sanhedrin, which gathered to judge the Savior, was incomplete. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were absent. The chief priests and elders tried to speed up the trial in order to prepare everything necessary for another morning full meeting of the Sanhedrin, at which they could formally sentence Jesus to death. They were in a hurry to get everything done on Friday, because... the next day was Saturday - it was forbidden to hold a court hearing. In addition, if the trial and execution of the sentence are not carried out on Friday, they will have to wait a week due to the Easter holiday. And this could again disrupt their plans.

The priests wanted to bring two charges: blasphemy (for accusation in the eyes of the Jews) And sedition (for accusation in the eyes of the Romans). “The chief priests and elders and the whole Sanhedrin sought false testimony against Jesus, in order to put Him to death, and found none; and, although many false witnesses came, they were not found"(Matt. 26:57-60). Without witnesses, a judicial decision is impossible. (The Lord, having given the Law to God’s chosen people on Mount Sinai, also established rules regarding witnesses: “According to two witnesses or three witnesses, a person condemned to death must die: he should not be put to death according to one witness.”(Deut. 17:6).

Finally, two false witnesses came who pointed out the words spoken by the Lord when expelling the merchants from the temple. At the same time, they maliciously altered the words of Christ, putting a different meaning into them. At the beginning of His ministry Christ said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”(John 2:18-19). But even this accusation attributed to Christ was not sufficient for serious punishment. Jesus did not utter a single word in His defense. Thus, the night session, which undoubtedly lasted several hours, did not find any basis for the death penalty. The silence of Christ irritated Caiaphas, and he decided to force such a confession from the Lord that would give reason to condemn Him to death as a blasphemer. Caiaphas turned to Jesus: “I adjure You by the living God, tell us, Are You the Christ, the Son of God?” Christ could not help but respond to these words and replied: “You said it!” that is: “Yes, you said correctly that I am the promised Messiah.”, and added: “From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The words of Christ angered the high priest and, tearing his clothes, he said: “What else do we need witnesses for?Behold, now you have heard His blasphemy!” And everyone condemned Jesus for blasphemy and sentenced Him to death.

But the decision of the Sanhedrin, which condemned Jesus to death, had no legal force. The fate of the accused was to be decided only by the prosecutor.

Pilate's Court

Jesus Christ on trial before Pilate

The Jewish high priests, having condemned Jesus Christ to death, could not themselves carry out the sentence without its approval by the Roman governor. As the evangelists narrate, after the night trial of Christ, they brought him in the morning to Pilate in the praetorium, but they themselves did not enter it “so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover.” The representative of the Roman government had the right to approve or cancel the verdict of the Sanhedrin, i.e. finally decide the fate of the Prisoner.

The Trial of Pilate is the trial of Jesus Christ described in the Gospels, to whom Pilate, following the demands of the crowd, sentenced him to death. During the trial, according to the Gospels, Jesus was tortured (scourged, crowned with thorns) - therefore, the trial of Pilate is included in the Passion of Christ.

Pilate was unhappy that he was being interfered with in this matter. According to the evangelists, during the trial Pontius Pilate three times refused to put Jesus Christ to death, in which the Sanhedrin led by the high priest Caiaphas was interested. The Jews, seeing Pilate's desire to evade responsibility and not participate in the matter with which they came, brought forward a new accusation against Jesus, which was of a purely political nature. They made a substitution - having just slandered Jesus and condemned Him for blasphemy, they now presented Him to Pilate as a dangerous criminal for Rome: “He corrupts our people and forbids giving tribute to Caesar, calling himself Christ the King.”(Luke 23:2). The members of the Sanhedrin wanted to transfer the matter from the religious area, which Pilate had little interest in, to the political. The chief priests and elders hoped that Pilate would condemn Jesus because He considered Himself the King of the Jews. (With the death of Herod the Elder in 4 BC, the title of King of Judea was destroyed. Control passed to the Roman governor. A real claim to the power of the King of the Jews, according to Roman laws, was classified as a dangerous crime.)

A description of Pilate's trial of Jesus is given in all four evangelists. But the most detailed dialogue between Jesus Christ and Pilate is given in the Gospel of John.

“Pilate came out to them and said: What do you accuse this Man of? They answered him: If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you. Pilate said to them: Take Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him: It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death, so that the word of Jesus, which He spoke, might be fulfilled, indicating by what kind of death He would die. Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him: Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me? Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what did you do? Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight for Me, so that I would not be betrayed to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here. Pilate said to Him: So are You a King? Jesus answered: You say that I am a King. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice. Pilate said to Him: What is truth? And having said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.”(John 18:29-38)

The main question that Pilate asked Jesus was: “Are you the King of the Jews?” This question was due to the fact that a real claim to power as King of the Jews, according to Roman law, was classified as a dangerous crime. The answer to this question was the words of Christ - “you say,” which can be considered as a positive answer, since in Jewish speech the phrase “you said” has a positive constative meaning. In giving this answer, Jesus emphasized that not only was he of royal descent by genealogy, but that as God he had authority over all kingdoms.

Evangelist Matthew reports that during the trial of Jesus, Pilate's wife sent a servant to him to say: “Do not do anything to the Righteous One, because today in a dream I suffered a lot for Him”(Matt. 27:19).

Flagellation

Before finally yielding to the Jews, Pilate ordered the Prisoner to be scourged. The procurator, as the holy Apostle John the Theologian testifies, ordered the soldiers to do this in order to calm the passions of the Jews, to arouse compassion among the people for Christ and to please them.

They took Jesus into the courtyard and took off his clothes and beat him. The blows were delivered with triple whips, the ends of which had lead spikes or bones. Then they dressed Him in the king’s jester’s outfit: a scarlet robe (royal-colored cloak), gave Him a cane and a branch (“royal scepter”) in His right hand, and placed a wreath woven from thorns (“crown”) on His head, the thorns of which dug into the Prisoner’s head, when the soldiers beat Him on the head with a cane. This was accompanied by moral suffering. The warriors mocked and outraged the One who contained within Himself the fullness of love for all people - they knelt down, bowed and said: “Hail, King of the Jews!”, and then they spat on him and beat him on the head and face with a cane (Mark 15:19).

Pilate brought the bloodied Christ in a crown of thorns and scarlet robe to the Jews and said that he did not find any guilt in Him. "Behold, Man!"(John 19:5), said the procurator. In the words of Pilate "Behold, Man!" one can see his desire to arouse compassion among the Jews for the prisoner, who, after torture, does not look like a king in his appearance and does not pose a threat to the Roman emperor. But the people did not show leniency either the first or the second time and demanded the execution of Jesus in response to Pilate’s proposal to release Christ, following a long-standing custom: “You have a custom that I give you one for Easter; Do you want me to release the King of the Jews to you? At the same time, according to the Gospel, the people began to shout even more "let him be crucified."

In the painting by Antonio Ciseri, Pontius Pilate shows the scourged Jesus to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; in the right corner is the grieving wife of Pilate.

Seeing this, Pilate pronounced the death sentence - he sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, and he himself “I washed my hands before the people, and said, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous One.”. To which the people exclaimed: “His blood be on us and on our children”(Matthew 27:24-25). Having washed his hands, Pilate performed the ritual washing of hands customary among the Jews as a sign of non-involvement in the murder being committed (Deut. 21: 1-9)...

After the crucifixion

In the texts of early Christian historians one can find information that 4 years after the execution of the Nazarene, the procurator was deposed and exiled to Gaul. As for the further fate of Pontius Pilate after leaving Judea at the end of 36, there is no reliable information.

Many hypotheses have been preserved, which, despite the differences in details, boil down to one thing - Pilate committed suicide.

According to some reports, Nero signed an order for the execution of Pontius Pilate as a henchman of Tiberius, after he was exiled to Gaul. Apparently, no one was able to intercede for the former Roman procurator of Judea. The only patron Pilate could count on, Tiberius, had died by this time. There are also legends according to which the waters of the river where Pilate was thrown after he committed suicide refused to accept his body. Ultimately, according to this story, Pilate's body had to be thrown into one of the high mountain lakes in the Alps.

Material prepared by Sergey SHULYAK

For several hours, endure torture from three different authorities - Jewish, Galilean and Roman - for a cause that none of them recognized as their own.

To be persistently accused by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and the people for what the Sanhedrin and all the people were impatiently awaiting.

Find a zealous defender of his innocence in the Roman procurator, who, apparently, was not in favor of the Defendant: His poverty, his silence, the strength of his enemies, and the danger of accusation.

From the lips of the judge to hear repeatedly the solemn confession of His innocence and immediately after this from the same judge to hear the sentence to death on the cross, with the name of the Righteous; to have many natural and supernatural means for His defense and to use them no more than is necessary to discover His innocence - these are circumstances that we find only in the history of the trial of Jesus Christ!

Each trial revealed its own character. In the Sanhedrin, Jesus Christ was judged by His personal enemies - as lawlessness judges. In Herod's palace, His lot was in the hands of a despot who knows no other law for himself than whim, and whose whole justice consisted in not being too unjust.

Pilate's Praetorium could serve as a refuge for human innocence, but could not contain Divine truth. Here, together with justice, the spirit of worldly, pagan power sat, at whose trial the voice of innocence was either not heard, or had to respond with benefit.

Heavenly truth in the person of the Son of God, it seems, has now visited all human courts in order to see “whether there is understanding or seeking the truth.” And now, as in the time of David, it turned out that everyone has turned aside and become indecent: “there is no good thing to do, not even one” (Ps. 13:3).

The blinding and rioting of the Jewish people, especially their leaders, was revealed in all its strength. If John the Baptist had risen, then even now, when all of Judea was filled with the glory of the miracles of Jesus Christ, when the high priests themselves repeatedly heard His conversations, examined His face and work and prepared to lift Him to the cross - and now the preacher of repentance could again tell all the people Jewish: “Behold, there is someone standing in the midst of you, of whom you do not know!” (John 1:26.) - It is impossible to reject the Messiah more treacherously than they are rejecting Him now; It is impossible to persecute Him more cruelly, as they are persecuting Him now.

Let us not suppose that the enemies of Jesus Christ acted against Him contrary to the clear and firm conviction that He was the promised Messiah: this would mean attributing to human nature the malice and bitterness of the devil, who hates the truth because it is the truth.

It must, however, be said that the leaders of the Jewish people did everything so that they would remain unrequited. How unworthily and dishonestly they acted when Jesus Christ was taken into custody!

How recklessly and rashly they decided at their council the matter of the Messiah - the person with whom the temporary and eternal good of all Israel is inextricably linked, in whom they could recognize their King, Judge and Lord! Let us suppose that the poverty of Jesus Christ tempted them: but had they not heard of His miracles?

Wasn’t it almost before their eyes that the resurrection of Lazarus took place in a few days? If this event could not convince the Sanhedrin that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then at least it should have forced it to act more cautiously, not to rush into the execution of a man who, by all accounts, had so many signs of the Messiah. The very slowness with which the trial of the Lord was carried out in the praetorium, apparently, was allowed by Providence so that His enemies would have time to see their mistake and come to their senses.

We can say that Pilate was for them in this case a preacher of repentance. Meanwhile, what base means do the Jewish elders not resort to in order to achieve a goal blindly chosen!

They bribe the disciple, go after the Passover supper with swords and clubs to Gethsemane, gather, like thieves, at midnight for a meeting; moving from one court of justice to another, inciting the people, pretending to be zealous servants of Caesar, threatening the judge with slander, even shouting along with the mob - are these the guards of the house of Israel, the precious stones of the sanctuary, the successors of Moses and the prophets?.. Never has the supreme council of the Jews humbled themselves to such an extent the degree to which he has now humbled himself; so that with his own shame he could buy a dishonorable execution for his Messiah.

It is difficult to imagine that among the crowd of people demanding the Lord’s death, there were no people committed to Him. But their own safety forced them not to declare, at least in front of the high priests, their opinion. Otherwise, they would have become victims of the unbridledness of the servants and minions of the Pharisees, who extended their insolence to such an extent that they began to threaten the procurator himself.

And therefore, the silence of the evangelists that at least one of the Jews volunteered to defend Jesus Christ before Pilate must be taken as decisive evidence that there were no such defenders; and the so-called Nicodemus Gospel, in which Nicodemus, the paralytic of Siloam, the bleeding woman and the Capernaum centurion tell the procurator about the teachings and miracles of Jesus Christ, is not worthy of historical trust.

The crowd that asked for death to the Lord clearly showed what the people's voice means and how easy it is for malicious people to abuse its power. Instead of the voice of the people being the sonorous but peaceful voice of God, it has now become the wild cry of Beelzebub...

Pilate's behavior serves as a clear example of what can be expected from a judge with a weak character, faced with the need to renounce all personal benefits in the name of truth.

The words of the Lord were fully justified over him: the lamp of the body is the eye: “If your eye is simple, your whole body will be light; if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark” (Matthew 6:22-23).

The eye of Pilate's soul - the beginning of his actions - was crafty: not the eternal, immutable law of truth lay in the depths of his heart and dictated the line of his behavior, but impure love for himself, addiction to earthly benefits, covered with love for justice; and so, Pilate’s whole body is dark, all his actions, despite their commendable side, contain something worthy of regret and contempt.

The very first action of the procurator is already marked by betrayal of the truth: he wants to avoid condemning an innocent person, leaving this to the Jews, then to Herod: as if allowing others to commit an atrocity, having the opportunity to stop it, is not the same as committing it yourself! Then, solely to please the eminent and powerful accusers, the Righteous One is subjected to painful scourging.

It doesn’t matter that He could die under the lashes: it is enough for the judge that he wanted to save Him from death. This is the justice of the people of the century. They think that everything has been done on their part, while they do not want to do exactly what should be done. And all of Pilate’s other efforts to free Jesus Christ represent a pitiful struggle between self-interest and a sense of duty.

You see a man who torments himself, rushes in all directions, turns from crossroads to crossroads in order to get out of the abyss into which he entered voluntarily; but he does not want to return to the royal path of truth, which lies right before his eyes and to which his conscience calls.

Finally, fear and self-interest prevailed; but Pilate, having trampled justice, wants to preserve its disguise: the judge washes his hands and thinks to be clean from the blood of the Righteous!.. At this sight, the feeling of regret involuntarily turns into indignation...

However, we do not have the right to extend our judgment about Pilate beyond the sentence that has already been pronounced aloud by the Lord Himself. “More” (in every respect more) “sin is on the one who betrayed” the Lord to him - on Judah, the Jews, especially on the elders of the Jews.

While the high priests, apparently, were approaching a terrible extreme (some, perhaps, fell into it) of sin against the Holy Spirit, which, according to the word of the Savior Himself, will not be forgiven either in this age or in the next (Matt. 12:32) , Pilate clearly sinned only against the Son of Man, therefore, he belonged to the number of those sinners for whose salvation the Son of God, condemned by him, now went to the cross.

The magnanimous act of Pilate's wife in some way atones for the base actions of her husband. What a striking contrast between this pagan woman and that Jewish woman, Herod’s concubine, who had so little respect for John the Baptist (Mark 6:17)!

That John was a righteous man, even a prophet worthy of being recognized as the Messiah - everyone believed this; and despite this, Herodia did not hesitate to sacrifice him to her shameless passion. Procula, on the contrary, being a pagan, had an open heart for everything true and good.

She sees an extraordinary dream, takes it for a heavenly revelation and hurries, even contrary to the domestic law, which did not allow wives to interfere in the affairs of their husbands - rulers, to save the Righteous One from death. The difference of religions, which, unfortunately, so often alienates people from each other, does not prevent her from seeking salvation for the Jewish Prisoner.

It was not in vain that she took her dream for an order from above. If he were the result of one imagination, then why did it, on that night, produce a combination of thoughts that so coincided with the position of Pilate and the Lord? No! The imagination would rather imagine that now an opportunity had arrived for her husband, by condemning the poor Galilean to death, to acquire the profitable friendship of the Sanhedrin. But, apparently, such an unclean dream could not arise in the noble soul of Procula.

It is incredible that Claudia Procula was one of the Jewish proselytes. Who could have converted her to Judaism? Such zealots of the faith as the Lord described the Pharisees (Matthew 23:15)? But from these mentors she would not have received a favorable understanding of Jesus Christ and, having been taught by the Pharisees, would most likely have agreed to support them in the fight against the Righteous One.

It is more likely that Procula herself had a noble way of thinking and feeling and was worthy of Providence revealing his will to her, as he once revealed it to other pagans - Abimelech (Gen. 20:3), Job's friends, etc. ( Job 20:7).

“But what came of this dream? - someone will ask, - if it was not a game of fantasy? The warning came too late; it could not change, or at least did not change, the course of affairs.”

Indeed, the dream of Pilate’s wife did not change the fate awaiting the Lord: and, perhaps, if he could change it, he would not have been sent; but, nevertheless, it was needed and did its job.

Pilate's wife, of course, did not remain indifferent to the further fate of the Righteous One, Who so deeply touched her soul; she took part in the subsequent events of Christianity, came into contact with the disciples of Jesus and believed in Him.

A very ancient tradition claims that Procula, found in the Greek calendar, is none other than the wife of Pilate, who converted to Christianity and endured torture for the name of the Righteous One, whom she could not save from execution.

Pilate himself did not remain deaf to his wife’s warning, although, to his misfortune, he did not follow her advice. This probably prompted him, before pronouncing the death sentence, to confirm his confidence in the Lord’s innocence by such an expressive action as washing his hands; it was this that prompted him to solemnly call the Prisoner condemned to death Righteous: this expression, obviously, was taken by him from his wife, who called Jesus Christ that way.

Such a testimony of the innocence of Jesus Christ from the lips of a pagan judge serves to the honor of the Christian religion, stops the lips of the enemies of Jesus and could subsequently influence the hearts of the Jews themselves.

In addition, Providence, by sending down a miraculous dream to Pilate’s wife, showed that He never allows a person to be tempted beyond his strength (1 Cor. 10:13). Pilate faced the greatest temptation: in order to protect the innocent Prisoner, he should publicly refuse to be called Caesar’s friend.

His conscience, weak in itself, without the support of true religion, inevitably had to fall under the weight of this temptation. Meanwhile, Pilate still seems to have followed her faint flicker quite faithfully. And so, Providence sends her reinforcements from above. Pilate did not take advantage of heavenly admonition; but Providence justified its ways.

Without this, some of us might regret that Pilate, who made so many attempts to be just, was left to his own devices in such extreme circumstances.

The Lord appears among His accusers and judges in inimitable greatness of spirit. Plato, perhaps, would now recognize his righteous man, whose image his soul was so full of, if he had witnessed the trial of Jesus.

Now there are no traces of that bloody, exhausting struggle with Himself that He experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Now we see “the lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5), who, being bound by the invisible bonds of heavenly justice, appeared as “a lamb that openeth not his mouth” (Is. 53:7) when they lead him to the slaughter. While judges and accusers took credit for everything, the Lord looks at them as instruments controlled by a higher power. By the Spirit, invisibly, He stood at another judgment - at the judgment of the Father, who “sanctified Him and sent Him into the world, that He might bear in His body the sins of the human race” (1 Pet. 2:24).

This invisible judgment, which took place in the council of the Trinitarian Godhead, no longer concerned only the person of Jesus, but the whole world, the redemption of which the Son of God took upon Himself. Here the enemy of the Lord was the prince of darkness, who was about to lose dominion over the human race (John 12:31-32), the accuser was the very truth of God, who demanded satisfaction for the sins of people freed from eternal death.

Here, before the creation of the world, a sentence was pronounced, which was now carried out in the face of heaven and earth. From this divine height, what did Pilate with his Praetorium, the Sanhedrin with his false witnesses, Herod with his courtiers mean to the Son of God?..

Knowing that the cup of suffering could not pass by, the Lord calmly watched as it filled to the brim before His eyes. However, His holy silence did not in the least hinder the correctness of the trial. To His personal enemies, the high priests and scribes, He twice said more than they wanted to know: that He is the Messiah and that from now on they themselves will see in Him the Divine Judge.

Their blindness was the fault of not paying attention to this dire warning. The killer of John demanded miracles, not words, although he was worth neither one nor the other.

The Forerunner had already told him everything that could instill a love of justice in his heart, and his head, cut off to please Herodias, testified to what should be expected from Herod’s heart. Pilate did not receive an answer only when he asked out of curiosity, and not out of duty, and he knew the truth so much that, even condemning Jesus Christ to death, he was forced by his conscience to call Him the Righteous.

The Roman horseman would have yielded to the necessity of condemning the Righteous One, even though he had heard some of the most eloquent speeches in His defense. “Une, let one die for the people,” was a rule more of Roman than of Jewish rule. In order to prevent the people from becoming indignant, in order to retain the title of friend of Caesar, the Jewish procurator would not have spared either Demosthenes or Cicero...

Jesus Christ's answers to the judges, for all their brevity, constantly express the highest wisdom. The knower of the heart saw the state of their conscience and measured His answers more with it than with their faces and questions. Therefore, some things in His words may not be entirely clear to us; something even, judging by the circumstances in which they were uttered, may seem inappropriate, while in fact all the words of the Lord were strong and convincing, as is best proven by the example of Pilate.

The very appearance of the Lord, despite the torment and reproach, was undoubtedly distinguished by inexpressible greatness and touchingness. If the crowd of people was not as sensitive to Him as one might expect, it was because, instigated by the scribes, inflamed with anger, they did not see, one might say, themselves.

But look at the pagan judge! Each time, as soon as he enters into a personal conversation with the Divine Prisoner, even without receiving an answer to his questions, even being offended by His silence, he always nevertheless returns to the accusers with a new conviction in the innocence of the Defendant.

What replaced words for him in such a case, took precedence over his pride, if not the meek greatness of purity and holiness, shining, despite external humiliation, in the face and eyes of the God-Man? Wasn’t it the same thing that curbed and restrained the Tetrarch of Galilee from strict measures, whose pride suffered so much, not being honored with a single word in response to so many questions?..

In general, the image of the trial of Jesus Christ shows with all accuracy how wisely Providence controls human deeds: how, without violating human freedom, it carries out its destinies through the very persons who oppose this fulfillment.

Apparently, everything happened by chance: everyone acted according to his own will, even according to the most opposite passions: the money-loving Judas receives pieces of silver, the ambitious Sanhedrin takes revenge for offended pride, the whimsical Herod wants to see a miracle, the man-pleasing Pilate fears Caesar, rude warriors indulge in ridicule; meanwhile, “visions and prophets are sealed, eternal righteousness is brought in, the anointing is destroyed, the city and the sanctuary of Judah are destined for destruction” (Dan. 9:24-26).

"No! - we will also say in the words of the famous Viti-shepherd, - it is not people here who swear at God’s majesty, God’s Providence laughs at the riot of man, without violating freedom, forcing him to serve his highest wisdom.

It is not the wicked servants who outwit the Lord: the all-good Father does not spare the Son, so as not to destroy the wicked servants. It is not earthly enmity that wounds heavenly love; heavenly love hides itself in earthly enmity, so that by the death of love it can kill enmity and spread the light and life of love through darkness and the shadow of death. “God loved the world, and gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Also on topic

Quetzalcoatl or Quetzalcoatlus – Quetzalcoatlus – Pterosaurs – Dinosaurs What did the Aztecs say about snakes

The Legend of Geser Khan. L.I. Glushchenko. Geser Khan, Burkhan Bator, Bogatyr. From the mythology of the Mongolian peoples and the peoples of Tibet In modern fiction

The trial of Christ is a gross violation of the law

Characteristics of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov: a sophisticated aristocrat

The concept of “type” and the typological approach Typological approach to the study of personality