When the Executive Looks the Other Way ...

We rely on our President to take action, set policy, and improve the state of our country.  But what happens when things go from bad to worse to even worse still?  Most folks in our country think of themselves as either Republicans or Democrats.  Even those who consider themselves Independents usually have a leaning one way or the other with the major two parties (on policy if nothing else).  So it is not surprising that when a Republican President is in office, whatever policies are being followed are considered the “correct” ones by Republican voters.  The same is true of Democrats when a Democratic President is in office.  You could call that bias one way or the other.  The more interesting phenomenon is when one policy is followed and advocated by one side – then carried on or adopted by the other side during a different administration – that both sides switch their perspectives on the same policy.  The former advocates now become the nay-sayers.  And the former nay-sayers now see the light and become advocates.  The policy is the same.  But whether or not you support it, may have more to do with who is in the White House, and what team you align with, than with the policy itself.

Case in point; George W. Bush (Republican) started a policy of using drone strikes internationally to take out “terrorist” targets.  It was a response to 9/11 in our nation.  Americans embraced this policy because it looked like the only way we could reach people that were “guilty” with minimal risk to our own troops.  But therein lies the problem, how do we truly “know” who is “guilty” with so little human intelligence on the ground.  In truth it has to be our best guess, with a best guess level of certainty.  The actions of the drone however are unmistakable.  People die.  Not just the target but anyone in the near vicinity, drones use bombs not bullets.  So then that begs the question, is it “worth” killing the target, even if you have to kill other presumably innocent people to get him?  The decision was yes.  Even at a wedding? Yes.  Anywhere?  Yes.  So while the policy was clearly not a good thing, Americans accepted it as the price of war.  Hoping that one day it would end.

President Obama (Democrat) is elected 8 years later.  Democrats who generally did not favor blatant use (or indiscriminate use) of the drones breathed a sigh of relief, expecting this practice to be reduced or disappear.  It did not.  It got worse.  Much worse.  But Republicans did not champion Obama because of it.  Nor did Democrats criticize Obama because of it.  Both just stayed quiet, and looked the other way.  Enter President Trump (Republican) 8 years later.  Nobody even knows the state of this policy today; but given everything we have seen and heard about Trump’s feelings, you can bet this policy is still alive and well and probably even worse that it has been up to now.  The morality of it is just not examined.  The Christianity of it, by supposedly three Christian President’s on both sides of the aisle is just not examined.  It is just American vengeance we visit on those we presume guilty whether they are or not, and whether we knowingly kill innocents with the “guilty” or not.  A terrible price of war that gets worse no matter who is in charge.

You could argue this is a military decision and bad things happen in war.  Ok, then take a look at deportations of illegals across our southern borders.  George W. Bush did plenty.  Obama did more, way more.  Trump does many, does them with cages and family separations, and reduces the incoming out of fear (which worked, but at a horrible moral cost to families).  Deportations increasing from Bush to Obama did nothing to garner praise from Republicans or criticism from Democrats.  Both just stayed silent and looked the other way.  Because Trump still does them, and added new levels of pain in the mix, it has only been seeing the children in cages that finally stoked criticism; nothing about our broken legal immigration system, insecure borders, and the fact the by far, most illegals come thru visa overstays at US airports and are not Mexicans or South Americans that focuses our attention.  Just two examples of steady policies that survive and thrive across three different administrations (18+ years now) where allegiance to them, is determined at the moment and based on who is President at the time.  Better to have an Executive that “does the right thing” no matter how it has been done in the past.  But what Executive has the courage to do this, and face the criticism of the crowd?

A problem that has existed since the formation of governments themselves, and has a particular example on display in the life of Christ, or rather, the death of Christ.  George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, and Donald Trump could take a lesson from Pontius Pilate.  And the American People (us voters) could take a lesson from the crowd and the religious leadership at the time.  Matthew relays the account of what happens when religious fervor is brought to gain an alliance with the power of the State in chapter 27 of his gospel.  Religion, the common man, governmental leaders, even the military all have different primary motives and desired outcomes. 

If left to the Religious leadership of the day, everyone would have submitted to their authority.  Control was of paramount importance.  But it was under the masquerade of serving the one true God.  The common man had little time for religion (of any kind), they were more interested in eating, living, loving, and repeating these things until a ripe old age.  No gods ever did much to help them with that before.  The leader of the Government wanted peace above all.  Not for the sake of peace, but for the sake of a continual consistent flow of taxes back to Rome.  In this, promotion was to be had, and a much more pleasant venue would be sought.  And the military, they just would have preferred slaughtering everyone of Jewish descent and be done with it.  This way, they could go home, and pursue the life of common men.  While stuck putting down constant insurrections, they would never reach home, and could die in the process.  Stir this mix with demons bent on finally killing Christ, and you get a perfect storm.

Matthew begins the account picking up in verse 11 saying … “And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.”  Pilate gets right the heart of the matter as far as Rome is concerned.  Is this person, going to be another threat, like all the other would-be Messiahs had been, and would be going forward.  Pilate could care less about the question of Jesus being divine, Pilate did not believe that divinity was contained in a single one true God.  It was spread out across the entire pantheon of Greek gods, adopted and renamed into Roman ones.  The concept of a demi-god (half god, half man) was a common idea in Roman culture and so Pilate could have accepted this about Christ without even a second thought.  But man, God, or demi-God, the question Pilate cared about was … are you a threat to the peace, or a threat to Rome.  So he poses the question to Jesus about being a “new” King of the Jews.  The response and manner of Jesus quickly answer this question for him.  He isn’t.

Matthew continues in verse 12 saying … “And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. [verse 13] Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? [verse 14] And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.”  Next, Pilate would care about whether Jesus was actually guilty of some crime that would spark the need to kill Him, and have one less Jew to contend with.  So the Religious leadership present a myriad of accusations and false witnesses and Pilate sees right through their fiasco, identifying it for what it is.  But what is new, is the idea that a man on trial for His own life, would say nothing throughout all the horrible accusations they made about Him.  Most men, would be crying out to be heard, denying everything that was said, whether it was true, and especially if it was false.  But not Jesus.  He stood there already beaten and bound.  But was as quiet as a lamb.  Offering no defense.  Saying nothing.  And Pilate quickly surmised this farse for what it was – this was the problem of Pharisees wanting a popularity that Jesus had, and they did not.  Jesus was only a threat to their control over religion and worship, nothing else.  At this Pilate was stunned and amazed.

So Pilate determined to let Jesus go.  To that end, he needed a mechanism that would justify it to the people so that no one could question it.  Instead of taking the power of the Executive to do it, worry has already caused him to compromise what he knows the right thing to do is.  Matthew continues in verse 15 saying … “Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. [verse 16] And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. [verse 17] Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? [verse 18] For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.”  Pilate stacks the deck.  Barabbas was a scumbag, and his victims were not just Roman, he killed, stole, raped, murdered – because he liked it, because it pleased him.  No one was safe with Barabbas out of prison.  Little children would live in fear.  Women would live in fear.  Unarmed men would live in fear.  It was the equivalent of letting Joseph Manson out of jail, loose in a city full of potential victims and no one able to stop him.  This was a choice Pilate gave the crowd of common men, between the worst criminal they would ever fear, and Jesus who presented no threat at all, loving everyone including the Romans who He considered no enemy at all.

Pilate thought for sure this would solve the problem.  This was a clever trick, and surely advanced intellect can solve any problem right?  But things were worse than he had imagined.  Matthew continues in verse 19 saying … “When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.”  The Holy Spirt sent to Pilate, the only real person that could ever influence him, his wife.  If Romans understood superstition, then a message they would understand would be sent.  Dreams, or rather night terrors or nightmares, were the tool of choice to brand it across the mind of Pilate’s wife that Jesus was innocent.  Pilate creating clever situations was not enough.  Looking the other way would NOT be accepted.  For Pilate to keep his hands free from the death of Jesus, he must be proactive.  The wife of Pilate understood this.  She delivered her message to protect her husband and herself.  History would have been different if this Executive had listened.  Jesus would still have died, the Jews would have seen to that.  But Pilate would have remained actually innocent of His blood.   Unfortunately that would not be how it worked out.

Enter the influencers of our lives.  Matthew continues in verse 20 saying … “But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.”  The common man would have normally made a normal choice.  Keep the threat in prison (Barabbas), and let the guy who feeds me out (Jesus).  That is the sensible thing to do.  That is the thing in the interest of the common man.  So Pilate’s idea should have worked.  But the Religious leaders had other ideas.  They were bent on the destruction of Jesus, so they set about to influence the crowd (us) to do the non-sensible claiming it was actually in our better interests.  We are to defy common sense (not for God) but actually against God, as prophecy outlined so long ago.  How often is the common man convinced to do the horrific because we ignore our conscience and listen to our leaders?  God says “thou shalt not kill”.  It is so important it is listed as one of the Ten Commandments.  It is a basic tenant of how to love.  Yet Christians have found a way to create a list of exemptions to that fundamental rule to justify an extraordinary level of killing without the slightest conscience prick at all.

We ignore our common sense about the simplicity of “not killing”, and complicate it with scenarios where killing seems like the best choice to do (usually for the greater good).  But what if we extended love into those very same scenarios?  Instead of killing Hitler when he was a baby, what if we surrounded Hitler with loving parents, loving friends, true Christians, and an environment that would bring out the best in any of us.  Doesn’t that solution stop the holocaust just as effectively as murder, perhaps more so.  And if we injected more love into our world today, would it not improve as well?  Preventing the next Hitler, or Isis, or whatever evil we contend with today because we meet hate with greater hate.  Our Religious leaders do not always advocate love (as they should).  They sometimes advocate expedience, or limited death, to solve bigger death problems.  The chief priests in the time of Christ made just such an argument.  To be fair, they had the assistance of Satan, and his demonic hoard as well.  We fight supernatural influence in these matters today too.  It just seems sad that Satan is found to keep lining up with Religious leadership when hate is advocated, and love ignored.

Matthew continues in verse 21 saying … “The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. [verse 22] Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. [verse 23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.”  Pilate does not just accept their answer.  He makes a last stand for common sense and decency.  Imagine that, it is the Roman fighting for decency.  It is the pagan believer fighting to the life of the only Son of the One True God.  The state wants no part in this murder.  But religion is not leaving it a choice.  In a last gasp of frustration, Pilate asks the cutting question “Why? – what evil has He done?”.    There is no answer given.  Only more screaming for the blood of Jesus.  Again to be fair, it is the sound of demons Pilate hears mixed with those of men in this answer.  But the voices of men are there as well.  

It is now, that Pilate will join the ranks of George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, and Donald Trump – he must make a decision that is right but will be hugely unpopular with his constituents.  If Pilate arbitrarily releases Jesus (no matter what he does with Barabbas), the people may riot, perhaps even revolt – all of it on the watch of Pilate.  All Pilate has to do to appease this crowd is look the other way on what is right, and let the crowd do what they intend to do with or without his blessing.  All leaders face this decision every day on a host of issues you and I may never fully understand.  But to be fair, this quandary is not reserved for Pilate and Presidents alone; it is something you and I face all the time.  You can choose to ignore someone in need.  You can choose to judge someone in need (deciding they earned their misfortune and justifiably walking away).  We have all earned our misfortune.  But love overlooks what we deserve, and grants grace in spite of what we earned.  Or if you lack love – it doesn’t.  It is easy to “keep going” and pass by distress and need.  It is much harder to stop, scrap what you in mind to do today, and do something that is needed instead.  A quandary for us all.  Do we look the other way, or do we look to meet the need?  The measure of love in our hearts will answer that question one way or the other.

Matthew continues in verse 24 saying … “When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.”  Notice Pilate calls Jesus just, or in other words innocent.  Pilate makes a public symbolic gesture to note this is NOT what he wants to do.  But the executive who has the power to do something else, will not do it, will not do what is right.  He plans to look the other way and allow these murderers to have their vengeance.  Whether Jesus deserves this or not, and plainly He does not.  Matthew records the chilling response in verse 25 saying … “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.”  His blood be on us.  As American Christians we like to read this text and attribute it to someone else, frankly anyone else.  Some have speculated this is the reason why people of the Jewish faith have been persecuted world wide for only being a member of a faith and a blood line.  But they are WRONG.

To believe persecution is an act of a vengeful God, is to ignore the entire life and example of Jesus Christ.  Jesus did not come to punish anyone, but to save everyone.  “Sin” is the punishment.  Salvation is the only relief from the punishment.  Jesus came to offer us all that.  The blood line of Abraham was offered it first, but that offer has not expired, nor will it ever.  It was sin that caused the holocaust.  The sin of hate of Hitler, that dragged an entire nation down with it.  Only few survived the disease of hate Hitler caused.  And the world suffered from it.  That was not the will of God, nor was it the punishment of God.  Hate itself was the punishment, and Jesus offers the only escape from hate.  More to the point, His blood be on us, is what we say silently, every time we fail and go back to the cross for forgiveness.  For to save us from the death we have earned, Jesus offered His own blood in our place, and we must take Him up on that offer.  We do not escape our sins, until we embrace His sacrifice in our place.  That is not a Jewish thing, that is a believer thing.  That is a love thing.  He loves us that much.

Pilate has one last trick up his sleeve.  Pilate is a former soldier and has seen blood and suffering up close.  Nobody (outside of sociopaths), enjoys watching humanity suffer.  This is the reasons Romans use crosses in the first place.  Death is prolonged.  Families are tormented by the inevitable, while victims are tormented by pain until it finally overwhelms them (much like what sin does to us).  People are repulsed by this, as they should be.  So Pilate decides to whip Jesus one lash short of death.  The agony, the blood, the horror of this will be done to drive this crowd away, satisfying their blood lust, while perhaps not quite killing an innocent man.  It does not work.  It only adds torment to the process.  The common man watches with demonic glee.  Matthew concludes this section of the story in verse 26 saying … “Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”  Having already compromised doing what is right, Pilate now tries a last desperate attempt to save an innocent man through horror.  But one is not saved by hate or horror, one is only made worse by them.

We cannot change history.  We must instead confront history.  Whether Republican or Democrat or Independent; we must embrace His forgiveness, though it comes at the cost of His blood.  We must humble ourselves and realize that our lives, and our salvation, come because our God decided to take on our punishment, what we had earned, for us, instead of us.  The distinctions of party or alignment with policy tend to dwarf next to that common bond.  If we are Christian (believers/followers of Jesus) then we are bonded together by the blood of our God.  That is humbling.  That humility may allow us to love each other in spite of our politics, or any other supposed difference man can invent to divide us.  His blood covers us all, and it is upon us, and our children.  His blood is also highly infectious.  Turn to Jesus, humble who you are in front of Him, allow Him to remake you, re-create you – and that same blood will produce in you a torrent of love for others you cannot fully imagine.  It will change who you are.  And before you know it, the quandary of passing by need or not, will no longer be any kind of quandary at all – it will become a no-brainer even a 2yr-old could easily understand.  We don’t need to look to our Religious leaders, or to our Executives to see change appear – we need to look into our mirrors and see Jesus shining back.  Then the change that happens will be unstoppable starting here and now, and without end.

 

The Blending of Church and State (part 2 of 2) ...

This was a very unfortunate turn of events.  It made no sense to Pilate.  Why kill an innocent man, and let go a known criminal?  Pilate must resort to a plan B now in order to avoid being responsible for the shedding of innocent blood.  If there is hatred for Christ, perhaps Pilate can illicit pity for Him.  So John continues the story in chapter 19 and verse one saying … “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.”  This punishment was the worst the Roman Empire had invented short of death.  A whip was used with broken shards of glass in the tips in order to rip flesh from the body on its return.  39 lashes were given, as 40 killed a man.  Having endured this torture the victim would never be the same.  But from Pilate’s point of view, at least He would be alive.  The Jews would have sympathy and curb their anger having seen this Man so close to death, and enduring so much pain.  Pilate could emerge guilt free as he was now simply picking the best of 2 bad options.

 

But the soldiers of Pilate had no philosophical idealism regarding truth.  They were men of blood.  They fought to live, and hated their enemies.  To them, Christ must have been guilty of fomenting revolt or Pilate would have never had Him punished so violently.  So the soldiers took it upon themselves to add to the punishment of their perceived enemy.  John continues in verse 2 … “And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, [verse 3] And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.”  This was not done at the direction of Pilate.  Pilate was looking for a way out of this, not to simply be cruel.  Had cruelty been his goal, he could have simply elected to see Christ die on the cross from moment number one.  Though the acts of the soldiers would only lend credence to his plans now.  He could display the broken abused body of Christ, the humiliation He had endured, and hope to gain sympathy from this accusing crowd.

John continues in verse 4 … “Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. [verse 5] Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!”  Normally this sight would have been enough to turn the stomachs of the average citizen.  Only men of combat were used to seeing this much blood and pain.  This was sure to illicit sympathy, what more could anyone demand where it comes to meeting out punishment?  They responded in verse 6 … “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”  The response of evil to seeing that much pain and blood, was a demand for more.  Evil will never be satisfied until death is its result.  The hunger for more is ever present.  No amount of money, fame, glory, or gratification will ever satisfy the craving of evil, for evil must always demand more.  Where love would look at Christ in pity, even Pilate looked at Christ with pity.  Evil has no pity.  The demand of these men keeping themselves pure to partake of the Passover was for death.

Pilate responds in the same verse, effectively saying, “fine” go do it yourselves then, because I will not condemn him.  Pilate adds He has done nothing wrong, there is no fault in Him.  Even under the duress of the worst punishment Rome could envision before death; Christ has done nothing from which to find fault.  He has confessed no wrong doing, because He has done no wrongdoing.  He is a truly innocent man.  Pilate has never seen this before.  Most of us have done something we are not proud of.  When faced with nearly life ending torture and pain we are more likely to confess it, to get the pain to end.  But Christ had no such option, because He had done nothing wrong.  Pilate could simply not figure out why these men had it in for Christ.  But the Jews began to enlighten him when they responded in verse 7 … “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”

There it is; the reason behind the hatred.  The pious Jews had found someone who they were not holier than.  They did not want to accept that “this” was the embodiment of their God on earth.  Pilate had been informed about the prophecies of the Messiah.  He understood the idea of a God walking among men.  His own Roman religions, based on those of the Greeks that preceded them, told stories of gods among men who carried with them great power.  Jesus had just told Pilate that He was a king, but not a king of this world.  Perhaps Jesus came from another world entirely.  Perhaps Jesus was from Olympus, or Jupiter, or Mars.  Now the miracles made sense.  The Jews believed in only one God and they did not want Jesus to be it.  But Pilate now saw how a diety might be a very real threat to the Jewish religion.  However the worse threat was to Pilate.  Could Pilate judge a real god?

John continues in verse 8 … “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; [verse 9] And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.”  Pilate’s wife had a dream to avoid this man before him.  In Roman culture dreams were valued.  Pilate heard about all the miracles and now feared they were not stories, but in fact were true.  What is worse, what if the Jews were essentially correct?  What if this was the actual son of the only true God?  He asks Jesus to say where He is from.  But this time Jesus is silent.  The silence is worse for Pilate.  He sees He is uncovering truth.  Jesus likely is a god, but what if He is the real God?  Pilate attempts to assert power to get Christ to answer His questions.  He already knows torture won’t work.  Jesus has already been through more of that than any other prisoner he keeps.  So He tries to use the lure of freedom to get Christ to respond saying in verse 10 … “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?”  Pilate could still kill Him, but more to the goal of he wanted to do, he wanted to release Him.

Jesus responds to Pilate in verse 11 … “Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”  He does not deny He is a God.  What if Jesus is the God of Truth?  What if that is His special power?  Jesus recognizes that power comes from God above, and so tells Pilate that he is where he is, because of the power of God.  Pilate now sees that his own life is a result of the plans of God, the blessings of God.  Now stands before him, the God of Truth.   This is an injustice.  This is no longer a question about guilt or innocence.  This has become a quest to see the injustice ended.  Truth must be set free.  Truth must be restored to the world.  Pilate has abandoned completely his role as judge and now seeks to become the advocate for Christ.  He wants to be His defense attorney.  He wants to see Christ set free.  He now seeks every political favor, he employs every ability he has, to see Christ released.  He does not want the God of Truth to be killed by his own edict.  Taxes are just not that important.  It is likely then when he sends Christ to Herod to see if perhaps Herod will free Him.  John does not record this series of events in his gospel, but the mission of Pilot to set Christ free John does record. 

John states Pilate’s intent in verse 12 … “And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.”  Something was horribly wrong.  These people hated Caesar.  They constantly looked to revolt against Rome.  For them to be aligning themselves now with the very leader they hated in order to see this innocent man killed, was perhaps the best evidence that what Christ had said, was indeed the truth.  This king from another world, this God of Truth, how could he pose so great a threat to the Jewish religious leadership?  In verse 13 John continues … “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. [verse 14] And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! [verse 15] But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.”

The religious leadership had gone from accusing Christ to now accusing Pilate.  The reports that were sure to travel to Rome were; that Pilate had sided with a revolutionary against Rome, while the loyal priests were faithful to Caesar.  All the attempts to illicit sympathy had failed.  The crowd seemed almost more enraged.  The preparation for the Passover had already begun, yet these “pure” men continued to stay at the judgment hall in order to insure that murder took place, and Pilate did not release Christ while they attended to their religious duties.  No matter what, this Roman authority must be made to have Christ executed.  It was un-nerving to the priests to consider that in His brief time with Pilate, Christ may have made yet another convert to Himself.  If a Roman governor were susceptible to the teachings of Christ, who could possibly be safe.  The leadership had to insure the death of Christ, if that meant publicly declaring an allegiance ONLY to Caesar, then so be it.  The Jews were willing to align themselves to the thing they hated most, to see God die.  It is akin to having Jews with full knowledge of history aligning themselves to Neo-Nazi’s in order to see one of their own put to death.   The people would hate it.  The people would not understand.  But they so needed to see this threat to their control killed, they were willing to say anything, align with the devil himself, to see Christ killed once and for all.

The Jewish religious leaders would allow no compromise.  They would allow for nothing other than death.  So despite his best efforts, the only way to release Christ now, was to start a revolution of his own.  Pilate would be required to give his own life to see Christ released.  The costs were just too high.  Perhaps Pilate reasoned that the other gods might intervene on Christ’s behalf.  But no matter his thinking, whether it was weakness, or just exhaustion that led to capitulation, he finally gave in.  John records in verse 16 … “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.”  It is the ultimate of ironies that in the union of Church and State, it became State who sought desperately to escape the union and see justice and mercy prevail.   Church was bent on murder.  Church ALWAYS is.  The compulsion of the conscience through law has no other end game than the murder of dissent.  State is merely the tool of murder, but it is Church that drives it, and allows for no other outcome.  Had Christ been arrested and tried by Roman authorities without any intervention or interest from the priests, He would have been released, likely without even the scouring.  Pilate was done with the question of His guilt in only a brief initial encounter.  State would have seen Christ set free.  It was Church that demanded He be killed.

When modern Christians seek to reunite Church and State, when they label this effort a return to family values, they put themselves on the same path that killed the Son of God.  A return to the values of God cannot be done by the pen of our lawmakers.  It can only be accomplished by our individual submission to Christ and His transformative love.  Our religious values need no “protection” the State can offer, rather they cannot be bound or benefited by anything the State purports to control.  Pilate had no authority that God had not granted him.  Our religion does not need the shackles of a partnership with the State.  It needs for us to embrace the love of Christ so fully that our very existence changes the world around us, and impacts each life we encounter.  This is the way to change the world for the better, to demonstrate love in action.  Control is not the province of our God.  It is not His way to end conflict.  Love is.  Choice is.  Freedom that results from it is.  Let us abandon the ideas of re-uniting with the power of the State, and seek instead to be re-united with the power of Love that comes from Christ alone.

 

The Blending of Church and State (part 1 of 2) ...

There are those who believe that morality should be legislated.  They are not content to simply offer laws that prevent one person from damaging another, but rather believe we should extend the laws to make religious doctrine and belief the law of the land.  In effect, they would wish to have the full power of the State, to enforce that in which they believe.  Majority fundamentalist law is not ever a good thing.  Christians despise the idea of having to live under Muslim Sharia law.  But these same Christians see their own beliefs as under attack by atheists and Islamists, and so to “protect” themselves and their way of life, would gladly vote Christian principles and beliefs into our government enforced law.  Neither Christian nor Muslim would enjoy living under the most stringent Jewish fundamentalist laws.  Going back in history when the Catholic Church held heavy influence over the governments of Europe, vast killings were done in the name of God.  Tracing back further, John records the fate of Christ, when the Religion that had its roots and establishment by God through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses joined with the State power of Rome to decide the fate of Son of God.  The results are always the same when control is attempted over the conscience.  To ever have perfect freedom, love must be a choice, not a compulsion.

When we seek to take away the choice of what to believe, by the power of the State, it only ever ends in the death of the opposition.  John records the most poignant of examples in his gospel, chapter 18, and beginning in verse 28 … “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.”  The religious leadership of God’s church delivered Christ to Rome in order to be put to death.  The governor Pilate had not asked for this, he had not sought it.  Christ was brought to him, in order to be condemned to death.  Note that even while conducting a conspiracy to commit murder, the religious leaders are careful to “follow the rules” of their traditions, attempting not to “defile” themselves in order that they may eat the Passover.  As such they do not go all the way into the judgment hall of Pilate where they intend Christ to be condemned.  Observance of the Passover has become a highly regimented event of purported great significance throughout the nation.  It offers the religious elite an opportunity to demonstrate to the rest of the nation why they are holier than them.  It affirms their control over the people.

The words of Christ to the Samaritan woman that foretold the loss of significance about where people worshipped God, would completely undo the influence of the Pharisees over the people.  Without a specific temple, in a specific city, at a specific time – the individualized worship of God – would supplement all the traditions the Pharisees had established over the people to keep them under control.  Take for example the refusal to enter Pilate’s judgment hall.  Since when is entry into any building forbidden by the laws, intentions, and values of God?  The purpose for which we enter a building may run counter to the love of God, but the building itself has no moral significance.  It is merely a structure made of wood or stone.  Examine also the hypocrisy that allows money changers to literally take over the temple, cheating the worshippers and providing kick-backs to the priests during the holiest of feasts.  This practice was not prohibited it was encouraged.  Examine also the hypocrisy of a conspiracy to commit murder that is the purpose of their visit to Pilate, and yet they still believe themselves “pure” enough to partake of the Passover so long as they do not enter a particular structure while accomplishing the goal of murder of the innocent.  This is the extent to which the mind will rationalize its own evil when religion is used to kill others.

The religious leaders have convinced themselves, that as long as they do not personally kill Him, the blood of Christ will be on the hands of the Romans.  They take no personal accountability for the capture and arrest in the garden, for the mocking, insults, and beating during their examination of Him, nor for their complete inability to find one real fault in Him.  They act as if they accidently discovered Christ in the hands of Pilate about to be condemned to death, and they simply had no response to this eventuality; instead of seeing how this entire series of events could not have occurred without them.  They forget the blood money they paid to Judas to betray Him into their hands.  They forget the council meetings they have held where His death was agreed to, planned, financed, and now in the process of being carried out.  Evil does not ever recognize itself.  Evil hides, rationalizes, blames others, pretends to be righteous, and when based on religious fervor – convinces itself it is the will of God.

Pilate, who I imagine was perfectly happy with his own evening’s itinerary is disturbed by this interruption, and is forced to see what the commotion is about.  John continues in verse 29 … “Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? [verse 30] They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.”  Pilate now wants to know why Christ has been brought to him.  The answer they offer suggests that the crimes of Christ are actually against the government of Rome (otherwise why would they have brought Christ to Pilate).  Pilate, thinking that Christ must have simply been a thorn to the Pharisees, suggests the next logical course of action in verse 31 … “Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: [verse 32] That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.”  Pilate is offering the Jewish leaders autonomy to judge a trouble maker and punish Him however they like.  But the Jews are not interested in punishing Christ, they want Him dead.  And they still want to partake of Passover, so they need the Romans to do it.  The typical Roman method of execution was crucifixion and the words of Christ about being “lifted up” foretold this fate. 

Thus begins the examination of Christ by Pilate.  The fame of this miracle worker could hardly be ignored, there were political implications to what Pilate would do with Him.  The chief job of the Roman governor was to insure the smooth flow of Roman taxes back to Rome.  Insurrection posed a threat to the flow of money, and thus it would be considered a failure by Rome to have it occur, or last for any length of time.  Pilate knew the crowds of common people sought this man out.  He knew that if the followers of Christ were to become enraged, it could disrupt the flow of taxes back to Rome.  So he begins his inquiry with the most pressing political question of the day.  John records in verse 33 … “Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?”  If Christ intends to accept the coronation of the people, or perhaps if He already has, this is something Pilate must weigh when deciding His fate.  Is He a threat already?   Jesus responds in verse 34 … “Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”  In effect, Jesus asks, did my accusers tell you this, or have you obtained this idea from the witness of the people or perhaps a personal encounter?  The subtlety here in the answer of Christ, is that He has made no such declaration, and His predicament would suggest no earthly kingship.

Pilate responds with a sarcastic comment in verse 35 … “Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?”  Pilate is NO Jew, He is a Roman governor.  Pilate will have had no personal encounter with Christ up to now.  But in any case, the Jewish people have brought one of their own to a Roman for execution.  This is not a common event.  Further the High Priest and leadership of the religion have brought Christ here.  So Pilate wonders what Jesus has done to merit such disfavor among His own people.  Jesus responds in verse 36 … “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  Notice first, that Jesus does not see the need for a fight against Rome even if He had been the king of this people, rather His servants would have fought to keep Him from being delivered to “the Jews”.  Interesting that even if He were the King of these people He intended no threat to Rome.  So even if guilty of what His accusers said, Pilate would have no interest in the accusation as Christ posed no threat to Rome.  But what Jesus was actually saying was something a bit deeper.  He was a King, but not a King over the world of evil in which we live.  His Kingship was over our hearts in order to break our chains to evil, and restore our freedom to love.  That was the perfection He was here to accomplish.  Jesus sees Himself as a King over all people, in that as many as choose to follow Him, and choose to acknowledge Him as their King, He accepts.

Pilate continues the exchange in verse 37 … “Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [verse 38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”  Pilate upon hearing the answer of Christ believes perhaps He is a King, but just not from around there.  Jesus changes the direction of the conversation and reaches out to Pilate in a way his quest for Roman justice would understand.  Jesus says He is here for this cause, that He bears witness unto the truth.  Those who seek truth, listen to His voice.  Pilate, who has sat in the judgment hall many times, and heard the voice of lawyers and witnesses, knows full well that people bend the truth to suit their own purposes.  Witnesses contradict each other without intent to lie, but offer testimony that could not possibly all be true, as they disagree about the facts.  Christian religious denominations study the same Bible, read the same texts, and come to completely different conclusions about what the “truth” is.  Each believing only its version of truth is truth.  So Pilate responds with his most perplexed evaluation of this asking “what is truth?”  The answer was literally standing in front of him.  Christ had said it before; He was the embodiment of truth.  What Pilate was sure of by now, is that there was literally no threat to Rome, nor guilt in the person brought before him.  In short, Christ was not worthy of death at all.

John records that Pilate believed he had a way out from being involved with the condemnation of an innocent man.  The Romans offered the Jews a traditional prisoner release on the occasion of the Passover.  So Pilate attempts to make the choice a simple one.  He will offer the people the most notorious criminal they know.  Pilate will offer them a known murderer, robber, and general criminal that would threaten their very lives if he escaped.  Or, they can have Christ, who from what Pilate can tell, is completely harmless.  So in verse 39 it continues … “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? [verse 40] Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.”  The people would prefer a criminal who intended them harm, than the freedom that Christ would offer.  The choice is no different today for us.  So often we choose the tempter who means us harm, than the freedom from pain Christ longs to bring us.  We like our addictions.  We like our misery.  We revel in it.  And thus we add our voices to those who prefer Barabbas to Christ.  It looks as though Religion is determined to make the State bend to it’s will.

But the trial and the blending of Church and State was not over yet …