Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Matthew 27:24 Pilate washing hands.

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by LittleLambofJesus, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Member since March 7 2006

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    Matthew 27 shows the trial of our Lord Jesus and one thing I notice "Pilate" doing is washing his hands before giving his own verdict on Jesus to the people who gave Him up to the Judean Rulers and Romans.

    Another passage I found similar in the OT/OC was in Psalms 26:6 concerning "washing hands in innnocense"

    Was it a Roman tradition to wash their hands at trials like this? I have a lot more to say on this particular passage but would like to hear views concerning this event. Thanks

    Matt 27:24 Being aware yet the Pilate, that nothing it is benefitting but rather a tumult, is becoming getting water he washes the hands in front of the throng saying "innocent I am from the blood of this One, ye shall be seeing to it.
    25 And all the people answering said "His blood be upon us and upon our offspring!"
    [Matt 23:34/Reve 18:24]

    NKJV) Psalms 26:6 I will wash my hands in innocence; So I will go about Your altar, O LORD,
     
    One day at a time likes this.
  2. MrPolo

    MrPolo Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    16
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I think it was a sign that he insisted he was not culpable for Christ's death, i.e. he "washes his hands of the guilt." In fact, there are a number of websites, like this one, that say this is the origin of the phrase, to "wash one's hands" of a matter. The idea is also seen in baptism in 1 Peter 3 when he speaks of baptism being not a washing of dirt, but a washing of guilt.

    :)
     
  3. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Member since March 7 2006

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker

    Would you then say that our Lord was holding the murderous Judeans that gave Him up for trial as "more culpable" of His death than He did with the Romans?

    Anyone see the similarity of Luke 23:30 and Revelation 6:16? I view both of these as the coming destruction of those murderous, corrupt Judeans' City and Temple/Sanctuay.
    Another words, I view this as fulfilled. Thoughts?

    Luke 23:30 "Then they shall be beginning to be saying to the mountains 'be falling upon us' and to the hills/bounoiV <1015> 'cover us'".
    [Hosea 10:8/Reve 6:16]

    Reve 6:16 And they are saying to the mountains and to the rocks 'be falling upon us! and hide us! from Face of the One sitting upon the Throne, and from the wrath of the Lambkin
    17 that came the day, the great, of the wrath of Him, and who is able to stand'.
    [Hosea 10:8/Luke 23:30]
     
    One day at a time likes this.
  4. Tangible

    Tangible 100% Saint & 100% Sinner

    Messages:
    8,694
    Likes Received:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Lutheran
    I feel a pogrom coming on ... :eek:
     
  5. BobW188

    BobW188 Growling Maverick

    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Actually, I think you'll find he places most blame on "the one who betrayed me": Iscariot; but Pilate - who really is in a bind here - hardly escapes unscathed.
    What's important is that we all contribute to the crucifixion. Pilate - raised to Roman standards of law and justice - won't risk using the authority Rome has vested in him. He can no more "wash his hands" of blame than a judge today could escape blame for letting a lynch mob take a defendant out of court by taking a shower.
     
  6. MrPolo

    MrPolo Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    16
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I think Jesus answers that Himself with "yes." :)

    John 19:11 Jesus answered [Pilate], "you would have no power over Me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."
     
  7. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Member since March 7 2006

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    :thumbsup: :pray:

    They are also the ones I view in Revelation :thumbsup: :blush:

    John 18:31 Saying then to them, the Pilate "be taking Him ye-selves and according to the Law of ye judge ye Him".
    Said then to him the Judeans, "to us not is permitted to be killing no-one"

    Reve 12:10 And I hear great voice saying in the Heaven "Now became the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of the God of us, and the authority of the Christ of Him, that was cast the Accuser/kathgoroV <2725> of the brothers of us, the accusing/kathgorwn <2723> (5723) them in sight of the God of us day and night. [John 5:45]
     
    One day at a time likes this.
  8. One day at a time

    One day at a time Always in a state of change.....

    Messages:
    18,712
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I know I said this to you LLOJ....but is one sin considered greater than another? Doesn't God consider all sin equal.....isn't that what we teach?
     
  9. New_Wineskin

    New_Wineskin Contributor

    Messages:
    11,081
    Likes Received:
    83
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    I googled the topic and couldn't find anything about it being a ancient Roman custom .

    Either way , Pilate and Rome was completely guilty of putting the Lord to death . He had the authority to pronounce innocence or guilt and sentencing . He found the Lord innocent and had Him sentenced as though guilty . Washing hands does not absolve him . His being afraid is no excuse . If the people of jerusalem did anything , the Roman army would make them an example to all .
     
  10. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Member since March 7 2006

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker

    My goodness bro....why aren't you saying anything concerning the Judeans having responsibility putting Him to death!

    After all, He was THEIR Savior/Redeemer as much has He was to the Romans and rest of the Gentile world.

    The Romans barely gave Jesus a second look until He was brought to them by the corrupt murderous Judean rulers. They were no better than the Romans!

    Btw, does Matt 23:35 ring a bell ;)

    Matt 23:35 so that may be coming on ye all blood Righteous being out-poured upon the land, from the blood of Abel the righteous until the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom ye murder between the Sanctuary and the altar".
     
  11. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    There is a concept that Pilate 'handed over' Jesus to be executed. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Pilate governed the province for 10 years. Most governors lasted three to four years apart from Pilate's immediate predecessor, Giaus. So Pilate did not do too much wrong according to Rome. Josephus records some of Pilate's acts which indicate a pragmatic yet forceful governor. He was nobody's pushover.

    Having been aware of what Herod did with that other Messianic prophet that dwelt on the banks of the Jordon, Pilate was not likely to let some wandering messianic prophet upset his governorship - least of all by relinquishing Rome's power and authority by allowing others to carry out some of their own internal incriminations.

    In any event, the Gospels record that Pilate did not hand Jesus over to anyone other than his own soldiers.

    So what are we to make of the record according to Matthew - words which are first recorded in Mark?

    Mark was not written in Jerusalem but probably in the Asia Minor somewhere about 68 BCE, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem. In other words, the author of Mark was probably associated with any of the assemblies establish under the auspices of Paul - well away from Jerusalem. The effect is that the author must be relying on oral tradition - a tradition that was growing increasingly anti-Semitic. The anti-Semitic bias is further cemented through the author of Matthew (written after 70 BCE) who embellishes the story even further.

    It is clear that Paul's message to the Jews and the Gentiles is not working as Paul had envisaged - that distinct differences persisted to the point where there was the increasing likelihood of a complete severance. It is perhaps the authors intention in Matthew to demonstrate that the Jews had not accepted Jesus as the Messiah and constructed his Gospel according to that reality unfolding itself in the life of the early church.

    My point is, Pilate was not the sort of vacillating governor who suffered fools readily. Jesus posed a threat to his security problem and he dealt with that threat promptly and swiftly. The final nail in the coffin, so to speak, was Pilate's order that INRI be place at the top of the cross of Jesus - a message from Rome to all would be kings.

    In this way I question the matter of the 'crowd', the release of any 'prisoner', the 'washing' of any hands. These do not reflect the behaviour of a successful and pragmatic governor. More likely, they reflect the internal bias of the authors of the Gospels.
     
  12. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus Member since March 7 2006

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    2,726
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    Thank you for your response.
    I do not have time to respond to this right now, but I am particular interested in the last part of your post I have bolded.
    Could you clarify more for us what you mean, as I don't know if I have ever heard that mentioned before?

    How much of the Bible would you say is "bias"? God bless
     
  13. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    In connection with this particular passage the words, 'handed over', 'crowd' and 'washing hands' are loaded words. By 'loaded' I mean the words used by the author carry more than the everyday use of the words - they convey another message.

    That message is that Pilate 'handed over' his authority, Rome's authority, to the 'crowd', read Jews, to which he gave his support symbolized by the 'washing of hands'. I would contend that no Roman governor would acquiesce his authority so readily - and Pilate had a good record. It is clear that Pilate did not 'hand over' anything, least of all his authority in that much trouble part of the Roman Empire. It would not have been worth his job.

    Clearly there were other issues at foot and the author was drawing attention to these 'other' issues. One can speculate on what these issues may have been but given what we know, particular from Paul concerning his contentions with the Jerusalem 'dogs' with respect to circumcision and the purity laws, I think it does not take too much thinking to understanding the issue - the Jews were not fitting into the fledging Christian church.

    So it seems that Matthew was creating some 'difference' - some point of division - some distinction between 'us' (Christians) and 'them' (Jews). In other words, rather than blaming Rome for the death of Jesus it was more politically correct to blame the Jews. I suggest that such a change in perspective came about because of political necessity - that it was not a matter of fighting against the rule of Rome, but an increasing awareness that in order to survive in 1st century, it was probably better to appease Rome rather than challenge Rome's obvious supremacy. And given the ensuing centuries it seems this political move was more than appropriate - it worked.

    As to the second part of your question concerning which parts of the Bible are biased I would say, probably all. After all, the scriptures were, through many and varied interests and channels, the word of God as it was made known from generation to generation. In this we should not be surprised. The Bible is not a history book - it is a library of texts created by various authors at different times with different perspectives for a variety of audiences.

    The more important issue here is how that 'bias' and 'agenda' differ from what we might call history. It is in the 'difference' that we, I would argue, begin to understand just who this God is and with whom we wish to walk. In this respect the Bible is radically 'other', just as our God is wholly 'other'.

    I do not pretend to know the answers but I do think about the process and I float those ideas of mine not so much as to convince others but to generate a greater interest in this remarkable tradition with which we are engage.
     
  14. New_Wineskin

    New_Wineskin Contributor

    Messages:
    11,081
    Likes Received:
    83
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    All they did was present Him to the Roman authorities . After that , it was all Rome . Pilate sentenced Him to death after finding Him innocent . He then had Roman soldiers carry out the sentence . After that , soldiers kept watch over the tomb .

    The Jews could have simply stabbed Him on a dark and stormy night . But , the Father wanted Him to be killed by the hands of the Gentiles directly .

    I wrote nothing about the Judeans responsibility because of the OP as well as the fact that the Jews have been pointed at exclusively by the older denominations since they came into power over people to put to death those that opposed them in the same way that those they claimed as their "own" were put to death for the many years before .


    I was discussing the legal aspect since you asked about how washing hands was a part of Roman legal justice . I was surprised that I couldn't find anything .

    I do consider that it was important that Gentiles were the ones given permission by the Father for doing the killing to make the point that Jesus was their saviour , as well . In fact , putting Him to death after finding Him innocent is amazing given the time of the Passover . His being declared innocent by the local authorities carries a lot of weight in showing that He is the saviour of both Jew and Gentile .


    The Romans showed that they were more corrupt and the actual murderers in this instance . The Judeans thought that He deserved it - He was guilty in their eyes . The Judeans wanted blood - the Romans gave it to them on a platter .
     
Loading...