On Pontius Pilate

Why is Pilate the only normal human being to be mentioned in the Nicean Creed? It’s an interesting selection of detail in a short and technical statement of theological belief to focus on the colonial governor who, under substantial local pressure, sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion. For 1,700 years, Christians the world over have repeated every Sunday the words “crucified under Pontius Pilate”. A solid explanation is dating. Rather than using numbers to construct a timeline, Romans dated events through reference to who was in the locally important office that year. This reference in the Creed to Pilate can therefore be seen to situate Christ’s Passion firmly in the historical timeline - both the precise date, and the more general fact that this took place in the historical timeline at all, in the world of men. This isn’t abstract theology, this actually happened. More importantly for ritual purposes, however, this reference also sucks us into the narrative. It places us at the moment where Pilate has to make a difficult decision, where matters of spirit have suddenly intruded on his daily struggles in matters of state. It’s clear that Pilate did not want to execute Jesus - he did his best to come to a compromise, give Jesus a way out, pass on responsibility, and generally fudge the issue. In the end, though, killing Jesus was the easy option, preventing a rebellion in a generally difficult imperial province, maintaining relationships with local power structures, avoiding failure in Tiberius’ eyes. To help understand the situation Pilate faced, we dig into the evidence for his period as Prefect of Judea under Tiberius - the Pilate Stone, coins, references in Roman texts - and try to think through the events of the Gospels from a Roman point of view. Pilate comes across as a military man, both a result of his position in what was certainly a military post and due to his nickname Pilatus, meaning “skilled with a javelin”. We know he initially intended to rule with an iron fist in the manner Tiberius would expect before coming face to face with the Judeans’ stubbornness and thereafter having to take a more crafty and pragmatic approach. He was in post for ten years, a long time indicating a high degree of competence, before being recalled to Rome having brutally put down a rebellion. Albeit reluctantly, Pilate ended up putting temporal concerns above the spiritual. He took the easy, pragmatic way out, kept the peace, but committed an enormity at the same time. Who among us can say with confidence that we would have done differently?