Kirill (Gundyaev), Patr. Jesus Christ before Pilate. Crucifixion

Pontius Pilate, trial of Jesus

“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! They will remember me, and now 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 with whips to the bones, 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 which 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.

The leader of the expedition, A. Frova, published the inscription as follows:

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

. . . . . .PON]TIVSPILATVS

PRAEF]ECTVSIVDA[EA]E . . .

According to A. Frov, the first line can be restored as [Caesarien]s(ibus) Tiberieum - “Caesarean, i.e. Caesarian Tiberieum.” In the second line, before [Pon]tius Pilatus there was his personal name (praenomen), which remains unknown to us. The third line reads his position: [praef]ectus Iuda[ea]e - “prefect of Judea.” In the fourth, the letter “E” is restored, which was part of a certain word, for example [d]e[dit]. 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.

Chapter 18 / 5. Pilate's Court

28They took Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. It was morning; and they did not enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover. 29Pilate came out to them and said, “What do you accuse this man of?” 30They answered him, “If He had not been an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him to you.” 31Pilate 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,” 32 so that the word of Jesus, which He spoke, might be fulfilled, indicating by what kind of death He would die. 33Then Pilate again entered the praetorium, and called Jesus, and said to Him: Are you the King of the Jews? 34Jesus answered him, “Are you saying this on your own, or have others told you about Me?” 35Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Your people and the chief priests delivered You up to me; what did you do? 36Jesus 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. 37Pilate 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. 38Pilate 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. 39You have a custom that I give you one at Passover; Do you want me to release the King of the Jews to you? 40Then they all shouted again, saying, “Not Him, but Barabbas.” Barabbas was a robber.

“They took Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium”

The interrogation of Jesus by the high priest Caiaphas is described in detail by the Evangelical Forecasters (Matthew 26:57–68). According to their story, this interrogation took place in the presence of members of the Sanhedrin - the supreme court, which, according to later evidence, consisted of the high priest and seventy members. John omits this episode entirely, perhaps because he was not an eyewitness to this interrogation.

Who brought Jesus to Pilate? The predicate “commanded” has no subject, however, since earlier we were talking about a detachment of soldiers and ministers (John 18:3), and then about the high priests Annas and Caiaphas (John 18:13, 24), it can be assumed that to Pilate Jesus was brought in by a mixed group consisting of members of the Sanhedrin and their ministers, accompanied by Roman soldiers.[1] The fact that “they” did not enter the praetorium implies that we are talking about devout Jews - those who rendered a verdict regarding the guilt of Jesus.

Let us remember that John, unlike the weather forecasters, did not say anything about the content of the Sanhedrin court, mentioning only that Jesus was taken from Anna to Caiaphas, and from Caiaphas to the praetorium (John 18:24, 28). Is this silence explained only by the fact that John, knowing the synoptic Gospels (or at least one of them, or the source on which they were based), did not want to repeat what they said? Or can this be explained by the fact that he was not present in the palace of Caiaphas, and therefore decided not to describe what he himself did not see? In this case, his absence of an account of the trial of the Sanhedrin serves only to confirm that he could have been present in the praetorium at the moment when Jesus was brought there, and witnessed what he describes in such detail.

The word "praetorium", which is also found in Matthew (Matthew 27:27), means in this case the Jerusalem residence of the Roman praetor, or prefect. The prefect's main residence was in Caesarea, but on major holidays he came to Jerusalem and stayed in a residence, the exact location of which remains a matter of debate. Modern guides to Jerusalem point to Herod's palace as the place where the residence of the prefect was located, who occupied one of the premises in this palace[1]. According to another hypothesis, the prefect could be located in the nearby Antonia fortress, built by Herod the Great around 19 BC and named after Emperor Mark Antony[2]. Both buildings are mentioned by Josephus:

Castle Antonia with two galleries on the outer temple square, western and northern, formed a corner. It was built on a cliff that was steep on all sides, fifty cubits high. It was the creation of King Herod, with which he predominantly proved his love of splendor. First of all, the rock from its very base was covered with smooth stone slabs, partly for decoration, and partly so that those who tried to climb up or climb down would slide off it. Then, in front of the castle building itself, a wall rose three cubits, inside which the castle itself rose forty cubits. The interior was distinguished by the spaciousness and structure of the palace; it was divided into chambers of different types and purposes, into galleries, baths and spacious royal chambers, so that the furnishings with all the amenities gave the castle the appearance of a city, and the splendor of the structure - the appearance of a royal palace... Where the castle came into contact with the temple galleries, from it to the latter there were stairs along which the soldiers of the Roman legion, which was always quartered in the castle, descended armed, in order to, stationed in the galleries, supervise the people on holidays in order to prevent rebellious unrest... In addition, the Upper City had its own citadel - Herod’s Palace[3].

Indirect evidence in favor of Herod's palace as the place where Pilate could have been the night before Jesus was brought to him can be the historian's story about the last procurator of Judea, Hessia Florus. There are many details in this story that are reminiscent of the story of the trial of Jesus as told in the fourth Gospel:

Florus spent the night in the royal palace, and the next day he ordered a judge's chair to be placed in front of the palace, which he ascended. The high priests and other high-ranking officials, as well as all the nobles of the city, appeared before this court. Florus then demanded that they hand over those who had insulted him, adding the threat that, if they refused, they themselves would pay for the perpetrators. They, on the contrary, pointed to the peaceful mood of the people and asked them to forgive those who sinned with their speeches... This answer only increased his anger; he loudly gave the order to the army to plunder the so-called upper market and kill everyone who fell into their hands... They captured many also calm citizens alive and dragged them to Florus, who ordered them first to be scourged and then crucified... The misfortune, unheard of before, was further aggravated by Since then the Romans have had fanaticism; Florus dared to do something that none of his predecessors allowed himself to do: persons of the equestrian class, although of Jewish origin, but who bore the Roman honorary title, he ordered to be scourged before the tribunal and crucified[1].

The trial described - or rather, a parody of it - takes place in front of the palace of King Herod; those whom the Evangelists call collectively “high priests and elders” appear before the procurator; Flagellation and crucifixion are mentioned twice. In its format and result, the trial held by Hessius Florus is very similar to the trial of Pilate described in the Gospels - with the only difference that there the high priests and elders demanded a death sentence for the Prisoner, and the Roman prefect opposed, while here, on the contrary, they are trying to intercede for the guilty , and the procurator becomes even more angry from this.

“It was morning; and they did not enter the praetorium, lest they become defiled."

In the narrative of the Evangelist John, as in the story of the trial by Gessius Florus, the Jews do not enter the praetorium, but the prefect himself comes out to them. John explains this by saying that they did not want to be defiled by being in the same place with the pagans, which would make it impossible for them to eat the Passover lamb. The bitter irony of this remark of the Evangelist is that the Jews do not consider direct participation in the shedding of the blood of the Righteous to be desecration. For them, defilement is only a formal violation of the instructions of the Mosaic Law and the “traditions of the elders.” Jesus, while still at large, tirelessly denounced this formalism in His speeches against the Pharisees and scribes.

“Pilate came out to them and said...”

Why did the high priests need the help of the Roman prefect? Only John gives a clear answer to this, citing the words of the Jews: “We are not allowed to put anyone to death.” Jews under Roman rule were allowed to have courts, but were not allowed to carry out death sentences. This is indirectly confirmed by a number of sources. In particular, Josephus mentions a certain Yeshua, the son of Anan, whom the Jews wanted to put to death, and therefore brought to the Roman procurator Albinus[1]. This would not have been necessary if the Jews could deal with him on their own. The intervention of the procurator saved Yeshua, just as the intervention of the Roman commander saved the Apostle Paul from the lynching that the Asian Jews intended to inflict on him (Acts 21:27–36).

In the first half of the twentieth century, some scholars tried to prove that the Sanhedrin of Jesus' time had the right to impose death sentences[2]. However, if the Sanhedrin had such a right, then why didn’t it use it? The scientific debate around this issue lasted several decades, with scientists' opinions divided[3]. In the end, the prevailing view was that the Gospel of John contained historically accurate information: the Roman prefect received the power to pronounce the death penalty from the emperor himself, and this power, called jus gladii (literally, “the right of the sword”), could not be transferred to anyone. [4]. Recent detailed examination of available sources, including rabbinic sources, has reinforced the view that the Sanhedrin of Jesus' time did not have the power to impose the death penalty.[5]

“What do you accuse this Man of?”

Pilate demands that the accusation be formulated. Noteworthy is the vagueness of the wording: “if He had not been a villain, we would not have betrayed Him to you.” The accusation is so unconvincing for the prefect that he proposes to return the case to the Sanhedrin and judge Jesus not according to Roman criminal law, but according to the Law of Moses. He obviously assumes that guilt does not deserve the death penalty.

It made no sense for the Jews to accuse Jesus before Pilate of what, in their opinion, was His main guilt: blasphemy. For Pilate this argument would not have been convincing. It was necessary to find another reason. The expression κακὸν ποιῶν (“evildoer,” lit. “one who does evil”) was meant to indicate a political crime, for example, organizing a rebellion against the Romans.

The accusation is formulated more specifically in Luke's version: “And they began to accuse Him, saying, We have found that He corrupts our people and forbids us to give tribute to Caesar, calling Himself Christ the King” (Luke 23:2). Blessed Augustine on this occasion [1].

The expression “corrupts the people” is general, but the reference to tribute to Caesar is quite specific and obviously points to the episode told by all three weather forecasters in which Jesus is asked whether it is lawful to give tribute to Caesar (Matt. 22:15-22; Mk. 12:13–17; Luke 20:20–26). This episode was discussed by us above, and we remember that Jesus not only did not forbid giving taxes to Caesar, but, on the contrary, answered: “Render the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, and the things that are God’s to God.” Nevertheless, before Pilate, Jesus is accused of something that is the opposite of the direct meaning of his answer.

Finally, the main accusation: He calls Himself a king. It is this accusation cited in Luke that explains why in John Pilate asks Jesus: “Are you the King of the Jews?” The accusation should have sounded a signal to the prefect, whose main task was to ensure the stability of Roman power over rebellious Judea. The guarantor of this stability was the king, appointed by the Roman emperor. Repeated attempts throughout the 1st century to overthrow or otherwise shake the royal power were brutally suppressed by both the king himself and the Romans.

As far as we know, there have been several such attempts. Two of them will be mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles when presenting Gamaliel’s speech before the Sanhedrin: “For not long before this, Theudas appeared, posing as someone great, and about four hundred people adhered to him; but he was killed, and all who obeyed him scattered and disappeared. After him, during the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and carried away quite a lot of people with him; but he perished, and all who obeyed him were scattered” (Acts 5:36–37). Both mentioned rebels are historical characters, only in reality the uprising of Judas the Galilean preceded the speech of Theudas[2].

Judas the Galilean was the son of the rebel Hezekiah (Hezekiah), who was executed by Herod the Great when he was ruler of Galilee around the year 46. After Herod's death, Judas gathered a mob and seized the king's armory at Sepphoris. He is mentioned by Josephus, along with other rebels: Simon, who gathered a crowd of followers who proclaimed him king and burned the royal palace in Jericho, and Afrong, who decided to seek royal power. “Judea was full of bandits,” writes the historian. “Wherever a crowd of dissatisfied people gathered, they immediately chose a king for themselves, to their common destruction.” True, these kings caused minor harm to the Romans, but they were rampant among their own.

own fellow tribesmen"[1]. The uprising of Theudas is also mentioned by the historian[2], although it happened after the execution of Jesus.

The leaders of the uprisings that periodically broke out in Judea and Galilee, as a rule, declared themselves (or were declared) kings or prophets. They opposed both the royal and Roman authorities[3], which made them popular in the eyes of the people, but dangerous in the eyes of representatives of both authorities. Although there is no evidence that they declared themselves messiahs, their appearance was in tune with the messianic expectations of the common people, for whom both the royal and Roman authorities were equally hated.

“Are you saying this on your own behalf, or have others told you about Me?”

What language did Pilate and Jesus speak? There are four options: in Greek, in Latin, in Aramaic, through a translator. If you choose one language out of three, the first option seems preferable[4]. Pilate hardly knew Aramaic: even if he knew it, it was unlikely that he knew it well enough to conduct an interrogation in it. Latin was not in use in Judea, and it is unlikely that Jesus spoke it. Greek, on the other hand, was widely used and was the official language spoken throughout the empire. It was owned by many in Judea and Galilee. The possibility of using an interpreter, however, cannot be ruled out, given the official nature of the trial.

Jesus, according to the Gospel, answers Pilate in His characteristic manner: with a question to a question. Pilate, in turn, also responds with a question that demonstrates his contempt for the Jewish people. This contempt is attested by other sources, including the above excerpts from Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.

The further conversation between Jesus and Pilate, right up to the direct answer “you say that I am a King,” is interpreted by some modern scholars as a product of the Evangelist’s imagination: the source used by John supposedly contained only a direct answer, and the Evangelist made up the rest[5]. It is noted that the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate corresponds to the general style of the Gospel of John, reflecting, among other things, the apologetic motives of the late 1st century, when Christians were forced to prove their loyalty to the emperor. The statement that the Kingdom of Jesus is “not of this world” supposedly corresponds to the realities of life in the Christian Church at the end of the 1st century, and not to the situation in which Jesus found himself[6].

All these arguments are based on the firm belief that no one could in any way know the content of the conversation between Pilate and Jesus inside the praetorium. However, there are no sufficient grounds for such confidence. Translators could take part in the conversation; it could be recorded, and the records could subsequently become available to the Christian community; random or non-random witnesses could be present. We don't know, but we can't rule it out. The dialogue, in any case, did not take place in a prison cell, and the publicity of the event is clear from all four gospel accounts.

In modern scientific literature, the most common view is that only the most general historical outline of this process could be known to the Evangelists, while all the details, especially the dialogues between Jesus and Pilate, are a figment of the imagination of the authors of the Gospels. This applies especially to the Gospel of John, which contains a very detailed and detailed account of the conversation between the Roman prefect and Jesus.

Even well-intentioned scholars such as R. Brown, a leading Catholic authority on the Gospel of John, believe that the New Testament evidence for the trial of Jesus should be approached with caution: its purpose is not so much to present facts as to explain the religious significance of Jesus' condemnation. The differences between the gospel narratives, according to the scientist, reflect, first of all, differences in theological views through the prism of which events are described. So, for example, if in the stories of the weather forecasters Jesus is silent almost all the time, then in John He answers Pilate at length. But what He says reflects the themes that interested the “Community of John” at the time his Gospel was written (presumably many decades after the events described). As for Luke, he includes in his narrative the meeting of Jesus with Herod for the reason that he sees in Pilate and Herod judging Jesus a parallel to Festus and Agrippa as judges of Paul in chapters 25-26 of the Book of Acts[1].

Thus, we are essentially invited to consider the gospel testimonies about the trial of Pilate as a literary fiction, although based on facts, but created primarily in the interests of specific church communities of the late 1st century. However, the theory itself, according to which the Evangelists “modeled” the image of Jesus for their church communities, is currently receiving less and less support in the scientific community, since none of the scientists has been able to find clear evidence of the existence of such communities. Moreover, to reduce the gospel narratives solely to attempts to present certain theological premises through fictitious accounts is to undermine their authority as testimony.

We, for our part, believe that the historicity of the facts stated by the Evangelists, including dialogues between participants in the events, cannot be questioned. These dialogues may not be accurate

transcript of a trial (similar to the early Christian martyrdoms), but they may quite accurately reflect the essence of what Pilate said, what Jesus answered, what the religious leaders of the people of Israel insisted on, what the crowd shouted.

The question is raised: which of Jesus’ disciples could have witnessed what was happening? Who, for example, could have “overheard” the conversation between Jesus and Pilate, which took place inside the prefect’s palace while the Jews stood outside, refusing to go inside, “so as not to be defiled, but so that they could eat the Passover” (John 18:28)? We cannot name the names of the witnesses, but we can make some assumptions.

Firstly, the entire process took place in an atmosphere of publicity. In addition to the Jews who did not want to go inside, there were soldiers, guards, and other strangers present there. Why couldn’t any of them, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, tell what they saw and heard? Why could someone not believe, just as the Roman centurion and the guards would believe when they witnessed the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:84). One of these believers could well have subsequently become a member of the church community and told the apostles about what he saw and heard.

Second, although Matthew and Mark say that “all the disciples left Him and fled” (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50), they then specify that Peter followed Jesus from afar (Matt. 26: 58; Mark 14:54). Luke testifies to the same thing (Luke 22:54). And from John's account we learn that, in addition to Peter, at least one other disciple, most likely John himself, followed Jesus (John 18:15). If this disciple made it to the high priest's court, why couldn't he then follow the crowd to Pilate's palace and witness what happened there, and then write it all down in his Gospel? As for the words about the flight of the disciples, they only say that the disciples fled at the time of Jesus’ arrest and that they did not take an active part in his trials. But this does not mean that none of them observed, at least from a distance, what was happening.

To understand the possible mechanisms of information transfer, we can compare what happened a little less than two thousand years ago with what is happening today. Times have changed, morals have changed, the possibilities for transmitting information have expanded immeasurably, but the course of some events can still be reconstructed only on the basis of testimony, which sometimes differ very significantly from each other. And even regarding many events that took place in front of thousands of people and were filmed by many television cameras, there is no consensus, but different versions are put forward regarding their causes, participants, and consequences.

An example is the assassination of US President John Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963. This event was filmed on television, shown live on American television, and was witnessed by thousands of people. And yet, the controversy surrounding the Kennedy assassination does not subside: in addition to the official version, there are many unofficial ones. The place and time of the murder are known, many details are known, but the question of who the actual killer was, what the motivation was, who the orderer was remains debatable, and many accompanying circumstances remain unclear.

The controversy surrounding Jesus' trial is unlikely to ever subside. Meanwhile, considering the narrations of the Evangelists about the meeting of the Sanhedrin, we saw that while there were some minor disagreements in details, there were no differences in substance between them; we will see the same thing when analyzing the narratives about Pilate's trial. The overall picture is reconstructed on the basis of four pieces of evidence, but essentially these pieces of evidence do not contradict one another, but only complement each other. The degree of coherence between them is much higher than the correspondence between eyewitness testimony relating to the Kennedy assassination. And therefore there is no reason to doubt their historical authenticity.

"You say that I am the King"

How can we explain the difference between the testimony of Matthew and Mark that Jesus was silent, and the testimony of John that He answered the prefect's questions? The simplest explanation is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke convey only that part of the interrogation that took place outside the praetorium, in the presence of the Jews. John talks about what was happening inside and what Jesus’ accusers could not hear. Another explanation: the weather forecasters gave only the essence of Jesus’ answer to Pilate, while John deciphered it. Ultimately, he leads to the same affirmative answer “you say” that we find in other Evangelists. The coherence of all four pieces of evidence is beyond doubt.

A much more significant factor for us seems to be the fact that in a conversation with Pilate, Jesus sets out in a concise form His teaching about the Kingdom. In the Gospel of John, the Kingdom of God was mentioned only twice up to this point, and both times in a conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:3, 5). However, for the Synoptic Gospels, the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven, is the concept that is used constantly in the speech of Jesus. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:12): these were the first words with which His preaching began. And further in His parables and teachings He likened the Kingdom of Heaven to one or another object or phenomenon from earthly life (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33, 44–48). He talked about what could be an obstacle to entering the Kingdom of God, and what could contribute to this. But he never explained this concept in positive terms.

In his conversation with Pilate, He does not give an exhaustive definition of the Kingdom: he speaks only of what it is not. It is not of this world, that is, it has nothing to do with the range of concepts that were the subject of concern for the Roman governor. This Kingdom does not exist on the earthly plane; it has nothing to do with a political regime or civil power. It is in another dimension. Jesus makes this clear by example: If He had political power or desire for it, His servants would do everything to prevent Him from falling into the hands of the Jews. It is emphasized that He was in their hands voluntarily.

It is unlikely that Pilate could understand what Jesus was talking about. Apparently, he was far from philosophical issues and was hardly interested in issues of a religious nature. He was interested in one thing: whether Jesus lays claim to royal power or not; Is he really the troublemaker that the high priests and elders make him out to be? Therefore, he again asks a direct question that requires a direct answer: are you still the King? And this time Jesus answers in the affirmative, although he could have answered in the negative. Yes, He is the King. Just not in the sense in which this concept is applied to earthly kings.

As in other episodes from the Gospel of John, including conversations with Nicodemus (John 3) and the Samaritan woman (John 4), not to mention disputes with the Jews (John 5, 6, 7), the dialogue is conducted on different levels: Jesus says one thing, the interlocutors hear something else; He speaks about heavenly things, his interlocutors hear about earthly things (John 3:12). Despite the misunderstanding, Jesus never lowers the bar: He conducts the conversation on His level, without trying to lower himself to the level of the interlocutor. He always says what he wants to say, and never what the interlocutor would like to hear from Him.

And to Pilate - this hardened cynic (as historical sources portray him) - He speaks about the truth. We can remember one of the conversations with the Pharisees when they said to Him: “You testify about Yourself, Your testimony is not true.” He answered: “If I testify about Myself, My testimony is true; for I know where I came from and where I am going.” And then he reminded about the rules of judicial procedure: “And in your law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I testify of Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies of Me” (John 8:13–14, 17–18). In another conversation, He told the Jews: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:31-32).

In his conversation with Pilate, Jesus operates with the same concepts and the same ideas. And he does not make allowance for the fact that Pilate will not understand Him: He simply sets out the essence of His teaching - and not in order to justify himself before the Roman governor and receive liberation, but out of love for the truth. We can recall the words of the Apostle Paul, unexpectedly appearing in his 1st letter to Timothy: “Before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, who testified before Pontius Pilate with a good confession, I charge you to keep the commandment purely and blamelessly, even until the appearance of the Lord our Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:13–14). What kind of “good confession” does the apostle mean? Is this not evidence of truth that remains ununderstood?

“What is truth?”

Having heard about the truth, Pilate asks a question to which he is sure there is no answer: “What is truth?” It is obvious that Jesus and Pilate have different meanings for the concept of “truth”.

To understand what the Romans meant by truth (veritas), one can turn to the works of a contemporary of Pilate and Jesus, the Roman philosopher Seneca. Truth is identified by Seneca with the correct judgment about man and the world:

There is one good - virtue, and besides it there are no goods; virtue lies in the best, that is, the rational, part of our being. What is this virtue? True and unshakable judgment[1]; from him the soul receives all impulses, through him all those appearances from which the impulses come become clear. To hold this judgment means to consider everything to which virtue is involved as good, and all goods as equal[2].

The idea of ​​truth is inherent in all people:

It is not difficult to awaken in the listener a thirst for living correctly: nature has laid the foundations of goodness and the seeds of virtue in everyone; we are all born for it, and when the instigator comes, the good that seems to have fallen asleep in our soul awakens. Haven’t you seen how the theater is filled with screams as soon as they say something with which we all agree and which we unanimously testify to be the truth?[3]

At the same time, only that person whose soul is cleansed from vices can know the truth:

To judge all matters, we need greatness of spirit, otherwise we will attribute our vices to them. Thus, straight objects immersed in water appear to be curved and broken. It is important not only what you see, but also how: our soul sees too dimly to discern the truth[4].

A person who knows what true good is accepts the inevitability of death:

And I wish you to be in control of yourself, so that your spirit, agitated by vague thoughts, resists them, gains confidence and self-satisfaction, so that, having understood what the true good is (and to understand means to master it), it does not need to prolong life[1 ].

However, truth for Seneca is not an absolute, but a relative value. In order to understand where the truth is and where it is not, it is necessary to study the works of ancient philosophers[2]. On the path of searching for truth, some people go ahead, others follow them[3]. But ultimately, there is only one path to the truth[4]: to comprehend everything with your own head, and not to believe what others say[5]. The truth is contained in the works of many philosophers, but each person must find his own truth[6].

Pilate’s question conveys the certainty that absolute truth does not exist, all truths are relative. But for Jesus this is not the case. For him, truth is a concept filled with specific content. God Himself is true, and Jesus is His messenger (John 7:28; 8:26). Being the Son of God, He Himself is “true, and in Him there is no unrighteousness” (John 7:18). He is the personification of truth on earth. He says to the disciples: “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

Jesus stood before Pilate, on whom it seemed to depend whether He lived or died. And Pilate stood before the incarnate Truth, on Which it depended whether he would enter eternal life or not. If Jesus tried to prove or tell Pilate something, it was not to save Himself, but to save him. He always spoke to people only for this purpose. But each of them reacted to Him in their own way. Some “listened to His voice”: these are those who are “of the truth.” Others took a position of active resistance. Still others, like Pilate, remained indifferent.

“I find no fault in Him”

All four Evangelists testify that Pilate, following the interrogation of Jesus, stated His innocence. In Luke he does this three times. In John's account we also find Pilate's threefold assertion of Jesus' innocence. He makes the first such statement following the results of the first round of interrogation, coming out to the Jews from the praetorium. Next, he will repeat the same thing after the scourging of Jesus, and then in response to the crowd’s demand to crucify Him.

After the first statement about the innocence of Jesus, Pilate reminds us of a custom that we also learn about from the Synoptic Gospels: on the holiday of Easter, one of the prisoners is released. However, the Jews choose not Jesus, but Barabbas, about whom John speaks very briefly: “Barabbas was a robber.”

We find more detailed evidence of Barabbas’ crime in the Gospel of Mark: “Then there was a man named Barabbas in chains with his accomplices, who committed murder during the rebellion” (Mark 15:7). Based on this evidence, as well as a parallel passage from the Gospel of Luke (Luke 23:19), it is believed that Barabbas was not just a robber, but a fighter against Roman power:

...The Greek word denoting a robber could have another, specific meaning in the political situation of Palestine at that time. It could mean something like a “resistance fighter”... And if Matthew says that Barabbas was a “famous prisoner” (Matthew 27:16), then this indicates that he was one of the prominent participants in the resistance or even the leader of the uprising . In other words, Barabbas was in a sense a messianic figure... He turns out to be a kind of double of Jesus and, moreover, apparently has the same claims, although he understands them completely differently. Consequently, the choice must be made between such a “messiah”, who becomes the head of the struggle for freedom and his own kingdom, and another - the mysterious Jesus, who preaches self-denial as the path to life. It is not surprising that the masses preferred Barabbas[1].

4. The Second and Third Denials of Peter
Table of Contents

1. Continuation of interrogation and verdict

Jesus Christ before Pilate. Crucifixion

At the trial of the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, it was announced that Christ was guilty of death. But, according to Roman law, in the occupied territories local courts did not have the right to impose death sentences, since this was the prerogative of the Roman procurator. Therefore, the bound Savior was taken to Praetoria, a fortified part of Jerusalem, where the temporary residence of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate was located. Here the Lord appeared before Pilate. The high priests and elders who brought Him accused Jesus of having self-proclaimedly taken upon Himself the name of King of the Jews, and demanded that the procurator impose a death sentence on Jesus.

The scene of the interrogation of the Savior by Pilate is captured on the pages of all four Gospels, and this allows us to get a clear and detailed idea of ​​​​the event that took place.

Accusing the Savior of conferring the title of King of the Jews meant accusing him of rebellion, that is, of attempting to seize the power of Caesar and destroy the foundations of Roman statehood. And the punishment for the rebel and state criminal was the death penalty.

Pilate understands that the accusation brought against Christ is false. He knows that the Savior was betrayed out of envy, and he does not want to take part in the dirty intrigue of the high priests and elders of the Jews. Pilate tries to avoid making a decision.

In addition, during the interrogation, a messenger comes to Pilate from his wife, who conveys to the procurator her words: “Do not do anything to the Righteous One, because now in a dream I have suffered a lot for Him” (Matthew 27:19).

The latter circumstance strengthens Pilate in his desire to quickly end this strange process. But the high priests and elders insist on their own, demanding the death of the Savior.

During the interrogation, Pilate learns that Jesus was from Galilee, and then the procurator hands the defendant over to the Galilean ruler Herod, who was in Jerusalem on the occasion of the Jewish Passover.

Evangelist Luke - the only one of the evangelists - reports that the Savior, by order of Pontius Pilate, was sent to trial before Herod, who had heard about the miracles performed by the Savior and had long wanted to see Him. But Jesus does not answer Herod's questions. He's just silent. He remains silent even when “Herod and his soldiers, having humiliated Him and mocked Him, dressed Him in light clothes and sent Him back to Pilate” (Luke 23:11).

White robes meant an acquittal.

“And on that day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for before they had been at enmity with each other,” the narrator makes a significant remark (Luke 23:12).

Pilate is finally convinced that Jesus is innocent and should be released. But the Jews resort to a demagogic argument that contains an unequivocal threat to Pilate himself: “If you let Him go, you are not a friend of Caesar; “Everyone who makes himself a king is adversary to Caesar” (John 19:12).

This sounds like a menacing political accusation against the prosecutor. And then, withdrawing himself from making a decision on the case of Jesus, Pontius Pilate washes his hands, thereby demonstrating that he no longer insists on an acquittal for “The Righteous One.” True, before that Pilate will make one more attempt to save Jesus’ life.

In those days, the Jews had a custom: on the eve of Passover, the Jewish rulers granted freedom to one of the prisoners, whom the people pointed out. At the time described, a man named Barabbas was imprisoned. And Pilate, turning to the Jews, asked: “Whom do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called Christ?” (Matt. 27:17).

This was the last opportunity to snatch Jesus from the hands of those seeking His condemnation and destruction.

“But the high priests and elders stirred up the people to forgive Barabbas and destroy Jesus... Pilate said to them: what will I do to Jesus, who is called Christ? Everyone tells him: let him be crucified.”

Pilate asks again: “What evil has He done? But they shouted even more loudly: let him be crucified.” And after this, the raging persecutors of the Lord themselves pronounce a terrible sentence: “His blood be on us and on our children” (see Matt. 27:20, 22–23, 25).

According to the customs that existed at that time, the death penalty was preceded by torture. Christ also did not escape this fate. The Roman soldiers, who according to the law had to carry out the sentence, mockingly dressed Him in a red chlamys - a scarlet robe, for purple clothing was a sign of royal dignity. The head of the Savior was crowned with a crown of thorns - a terrible parody of the royal crown, and a cane symbolizing a scepter was placed in the hands of Jesus.

“And kneeling down before Him, they mocked Him, saying: Hail, King of the Jews! And they spat on Him and, taking a reed, beat Him on the head” (Matthew 27:29-30).

And when a hail of stick blows fell on the head of the Savior, thorns pierced His skin.

Then they began to scourge the Savior, that is, lash his naked body with a leather whip. Small metal balls were attached to the ends of the straps of this whip, cutting the body of the tortured person until he drew blood and turning him into a bloody mess.

And only after this terrible scourging was carried out on the Savior, He was led to execution. Here is how Evangelist Mark testifies to this: “And they forced a certain Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was passing by, coming from the field, to carry His cross” (Mark 15:21).

Apparently, the Savior turned out to be so weakened by the suffering that He was unable to carry the crossbar on His shoulders to the place of execution, as custom required.

“And they brought Him to the place of Golgotha, which means: “Place of execution” (Mark 15:22).

Golgotha ​​is a rocky hill located outside the walls of what was then Jerusalem, where executions were carried out.

“And they gave Him wine and myrrh to drink; but He did not accept” (Mark 15:23).

Wine with myrrh, like vinegar with bile, is a narcotic drug that dulls physical pain during execution. But the Lord refused to resort to this means and, remaining in full consciousness, endures the suffering of the cross until the very end.

“It was the third hour, and they crucified Him” (Mark 15:25).

They crucified like this: they nailed the hands of the executed person to the crossbar, and his legs to the pillar, and the crossbar was connected to the pillar, forming a cross.

“And the inscription of His guilt was: “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26).

Two thieves were crucified with Christ—one on His right hand, the other on His left. Thus the word of Scripture was fulfilled: “And he was numbered with the evildoers” (Is. 53:12).

The accomplices in the ongoing murder of the Son of God, who insisted on the death sentence and stained their hands with innocent blood, in their insane blindness aggravated their irredeemable guilt by mocking the Crucified One:

“Those who passed by cursed Him, nodding their heads and saying: Eh! destroying the temple, and building in three days! Save Yourself and come down from the cross. Likewise, the high priests and the scribes, mocking, said to each other: He saved others, but he cannot save himself. Let Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe. And those who were crucified with Him reviled Him” (Mark 15:29–32).

The Orthodox cross is not just a reproduction of the instrument of execution of the Savior. The image of the cross also contains other historical symbolism. For the Lord was crucified on Golgotha, which translated means “Place of Execution.” Namely, in the depths of Calvary Hill, according to church tradition, the remains of the first man were buried. The human skull depicted at the base of the Orthodox cross is the head of Adam.

Enduring the agony of the cross, the Lord shed His blood and gave His life for the sins of the entire human race, but above all, in atonement for the original sin committed at the dawn of history.

Saint Gregory the Theologian writes about it this way: “Everything that happened on the tree of the cross was a healing of our weakness, returning the old Adam to where he fell, and leading us to the tree of life, from which the fruit of the tree of knowledge, untimely and unwisely eaten, removed us. For this purpose, a tree instead of a tree and a hand instead of a hand: instead of a boldly outstretched one - courageously outstretched, instead of a willful one - nailed to the cross, instead of one that cast Adam out (from paradise) - connecting the ends of the world together. For this there is highness for the fall, gall for eating, a crown of thorns for the possession of evil, death for death, darkness for light, burial for the return to the earth, and the resurrection of Christ for the resurrection of Adam.”

The Savior’s free sacrifice atoned for the ancient guilt of Adam and Eve, restored their lost sonship of man in relation to God, and again granted eternal life to all people.

The upper, short crossbar of the Orthodox cross symbolizes the tablet on which, by order of Pilate, the crime of the crucified Lord was indicated in three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.”

“The chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Do not write: King of the Jews.” However, Pilate, annoyed at his powerlessness to prevent the execution of Jesus Christ and irritated by the constant and unceremonious pressure exerted on the Roman procurator by the Jewish high priests, sharply refused them: “What I wrote, I wrote” (see John 19. 19, 21–22) .

The cross, an instrument of painful and shameful execution in the time of Christ, from the moment of the Savior’s crucifixion becomes a symbol of the Lord’s great sacrifice for the entire human race. It is no coincidence that St. Basil the Great convinces us: “All parts of the world were brought to Salvation by parts of the Cross.”

Denial of Peter and death of Judas

Table of contents

Death on the Cross of the Savior

Jesus before Pilate. Condemning the Lord to Death

The content of the article

“When the morning had come, all the chief priests and the elders of the people had a meeting concerning Jesus, to put Him to death; and, having bound Him, they took Him away and handed Him over to Pontius Pilate, the governor. Then Judas, who betrayed Him, saw that He was condemned, and, repenting, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the high priests and elders, saying: I have sinned by betraying innocent blood. They said to him: What is that to us? take a look yourself. And, throwing away the pieces of silver in the temple, Judas went out, went and hanged himself. The high priests, taking the pieces of silver, said: it is not permissible to put them in the church treasury, because this is the price of blood. Having held a meeting, they bought a potter's land with them for the burial of strangers; Therefore, that land is called “land of blood” to this day. Then what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled, saying: And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s land, as the Lord said to me.” (Matthew 27:1–10)

So Jesus is in the ruler's house. Pilate was one of those people for whom personal peace is more valuable than truth, more valuable than anything else. Meanwhile, he had the difficult task of defending Jesus, against whom the Jews were so irritated. Pilate himself did not suspect anything worthy of condemnation in Him and understood that the only reason for the anger against Jesus was religious fanaticism and the envy of the high priests. But he understood the danger to himself from the vengeful spiritual leaders of the Jewish people, who in their bitterness would not spare him. If you go against them, then they will be able to arouse the suspicions of the Roman government itself if they present Pilate as the defender of a Jew, whom the people are ready to recognize as king.

Like any pagan of that time, an unbeliever and indifferent to the sense of moral duty and to any religion, Pilate himself was not an evil person. However, despite all his contempt for the Jews and their religious strife, he becomes an instrument of the Pharisees’ malice against Christ. Pilate does not save their Victim, even innocent in his eyes, but betrays Him completely to the hatred of enraged murderous enemies. And thus he himself becomes guilty of the death of Christ.

-What do you accuse This Man of? - Pilate addressed the obligatory question to Jesus’ accusers.

“If He had not been a villain, we would not have betrayed Him to you,” they arrogantly answered Pilate.

Having finally realized what embittered people he was dealing with, and realizing that it was unsafe to expose himself to the prejudice of Emperor Tiberius against himself, Pilate did not hesitate to give in to them. However, he tried to distance himself from interfering in their obviously unjust cause. “Take Him, and judge Him according to your law,” he decided at first, but the Jews objected to him that they “are not allowed to put anyone to death” without the permission of the Roman authority placed over them.

“Then Pilate entered the praetorium again, 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, finally convinced that the words of Jesus did not contain anything outrageous against the actual power of the Romans, to protect which he was appointed, “he went out to the Jews and said to them: I find no guilt in Him.” (John 18, 29–38)

“But they insisted, saying that He was stirring up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, 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. Herod, seeing Jesus, was very happy, for he had long wanted to see Him, because he had heard a lot about Him, and hoped to see some miracle from Him, and asked Him many questions, but He did not answer him. The chief priests and scribes stood and vigorously accused Him. But Herod and his soldiers, having humiliated Him and mocked Him, dressed Him in light clothes and sent Him back to Pilate. And that day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for before they had been at enmity with each other. Pilate, having called the high priests and rulers and the people, said to them: you have brought this man to me as one who corrupts the people; and behold, I examined before you and did not find this man guilty of anything of which you accuse Him; and Herod also, for I sent Him to him; and nothing was found in Him worthy of death; So, having punished Him, I will release Him.” (Luke 23:5–16)

On the Easter holiday, the ruler had the following “custom of releasing to the people one prisoner they wanted. At that time they had a famous prisoner called Barabbas (who was imprisoned for causing disturbance and murder in the city); So, when they had gathered, Pilate said to them: whom do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called Christ? for he knew that they had betrayed Him out of envy.”

“While he was sitting in the judgment seat, his wife sent him to say: Do not do anything to the Righteous One, because now in a dream I have suffered a lot for Him.

But the chief priests and elders stirred up the people to ask Barabbas and to destroy Jesus. Then the governor asked them: which of the two do you want me to release to you? They said: Barabbas. Pilate says to them: What will I do to Jesus, who is called Christ? Everyone tells him: let him be crucified. The ruler said: what evil has He done? But they shouted even more loudly: let him be crucified.” (Matt. 27, 15–23)

The beating of Christ. Pilate washes his hands

“Then Pilate took Jesus and ordered him to be beaten. And the soldiers wove a crown of thorns, placed it on His head, and dressed Him in purple, and said: Hail, King of the Jews! and they struck Him on the cheeks. Pilate went out again and said to them: Behold, I am bringing Him out to you, so that you may 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! When the high priests and ministers saw Him, they shouted: Crucify Him, crucify Him!

Pilate says to them: Take Him and crucify Him; for I find no fault in Him. The Jews answered him: We have a law, and according to our law He must die, because He made Himself the Son of God.

Pilate, hearing this word, became more afraid. And again he entered the praetorium and said to Jesus: Where are you from? But Jesus did not give him an answer. Pilate says to Him: Do you not answer me? Don’t you know that I have the power to crucify You and the power to release You? Jesus answered: You would not have any power over Me if it had not been given to you from above; therefore there is greater sin on him who delivered Me to you. From that time on, Pilate sought to release Him. The Jews shouted: if you let Him go, you are not a friend of Caesar; Anyone who makes himself a king is an opponent of Caesar. Pilate, having heard this word, brought Jesus out and sat down at the judgment seat, on a place called Liphostroton (stone platform), and in Hebrew Gavvatha. Then it was the Friday before Easter, and it was six o’clock. And Pilate said to the Jews: Behold, your King! But they shouted: take him, take him, crucify him! Pilate says to them: Shall I crucify your king? The high priests answered: We have no king except Caesar.” (John 19, 1–15)

Then “Pilate, seeing that nothing was helping, 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.”

And then, finally, Pilate “beat Jesus and delivered him up to be crucified.” (Matt. 27, 24–26)

Crucifixion of the Lord

“And when they led Him away, they seized a certain Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the field, and laid a cross on him to carry after Jesus. And a great multitude of people and women followed Him, weeping and lamenting for Him. Jesus turned to them and said: Daughters of Jerusalem! Do not weep for Me, but weep for yourself and for your children, for the days are coming in which they will say: Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that have not given birth, and the breasts that have not nursed! then they will begin to say to the mountains: fall on us! and the hills: cover us! For if they do this to a green tree, what will happen to a dry tree?

They also led two villains with Him to death. And when they came to a place called Lobnoye, they crucified Him and the villains there, one on the right and the other on the left. Jesus said: Father! forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

And the people stood and watched. The rulers also mocked them, saying, “He saved others, let him save himself, if he is the Christ, God’s chosen one.” Likewise, the soldiers mocked Him, coming up and offering Him vinegar and saying: If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.

And there was an inscription over Him, written (by order of Pilate) in Greek, Roman and Hebrew words: This is the King of the Jews.” (Luke 23, 26–38)

“Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was not far from the city. The chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate: Do not write: King of the Jews, but what He said: I am the King of the Jews. Pilate answered: What I wrote, I wrote.

When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took His clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier, and a tunic; The tunic was not sewn, but entirely woven on top. So they said to each other: we will not tear him apart, but let us cast lots for him, whose it will be, so that what was spoken in Scripture may be fulfilled: they divided My garments among themselves and cast lots for My clothing (see Ps. 21:19). This is what the warriors did." (John 19, 20–24)

“One of the hanged villains slandered Him and said: if You are the Christ, save Yourself and us. The other, on the contrary, calmed Him down and said: Or are you not afraid of God, when you yourself are condemned to the same thing? and we are condemned justly, because we accepted what was worthy of our deeds, but He did nothing bad. And he said to Jesus: remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom! And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

“At the cross of Jesus stood His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus, seeing His Mother and the disciple standing there, whom He loved, said to His Mother: Woman! Behold, Your son. Then he says to the disciple: Behold, your Mother! And from that time on, this disciple (John the Theologian) took Her to him.” (Luke 23, 39–43. John 19, 25–27)

Death of the Savior

“At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole earth and continued until the ninth hour. At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice: Eloi! Eloi! lamma sabachthani? - which means: My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?

Some of those standing there heard it and said, “Look, he is calling Elijah.” And one ran, filled a sponge with vinegar, and putting it on a reed, gave Him a drink, saying, “Wait, let’s see if Elijah comes to take Him down.”

“After this Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, I thirst. When he tasted the vinegar, he said, “It is done!” (Mark 15, 33–36. John 19, 28, 30)

“Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said: Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit.” “And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit.”

“And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook; and the stones dissipated; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were resurrected and, coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many. The centurion and those who were guarding Jesus with him, seeing the earthquake and everything that happened, were greatly afraid and said: Truly this was the Son of God.” (Luke 23, 46. John 19, 30. Matthew 27, 51–54)

“And all the people who had gathered to see this spectacle, seeing what was happening, returned, beating their chests. And all those who knew Him, and the women who followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off and beheld this.”

“But since it was Friday then, the Jews, so as not to leave the bodies on the cross on Saturday - for that Saturday was a great day - asked Pilate to break their legs and take them off. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus, when they saw Him already dead, they did not break His legs, but one of the soldiers pierced His ribs with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out. And he who saw it bore witness, and his testimony is true; he knows that he speaks the truth so that you may believe. For this happened, that the Scripture might be fulfilled: Let not His bone be broken (see Ex. 12:46). Also in another place the Scripture says: they will look at Him whom they have pierced (see Zech. 12:10).” (Luke 23:48–49. John 19:31–37) Burial of the Savior

Descent from the Cross

“Then someone named Joseph, a member of the council, a good and truthful man, who did not participate in the council and in their work, from Arimathea, a city of Judea, also expecting the Kingdom of God, came to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.”

“And Pilate allowed it. He went and took down the body of Jesus. Nicodemus, who had previously come to Jesus at night, also came and brought a composition of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred liters. So they took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in swaddling clothes with spices, as the Jews are wont to bury.

At the place where He was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden there was a new tomb (carved into the rock), in which no one had yet been laid. They laid Jesus there for the sake of the Friday of the Jews (and the coming of the Sabbath), because the tomb was near.” (Luke 23, 50–52. John 19, 38–42)

“And having rolled a large stone against the door of the tomb,” they departed. There were also “women who came with Jesus from Galilee, and looked at the tomb, and how His body was laid out; Having returned, they prepared incense and ointments; and on the Sabbath they remained at rest according to the commandment.” (Matt. 27, 60. Luke 23, 55–56)