Upload
31songofjoy
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
1/11
Roman Law andthe TriaofChrist
R. Larry Overstreet
The trials of Jesus Christ which preceded His death by cruci
fixion have been the subject of many books and articles. Many of
these deal specifically and in great depth with the Jewish trials of
Christ, but few attempt to deal in any detail with the Roman law
aspect of Christ's trial before Pontius Pilate. It is the purpose of
this article to consider this latter subject.
The approach followed will be to analyze Christ's trial in view
of what is known both of Roman law of that time and of the Roman
governor Pilate. The four Gospels will be allowed to speak forthemselves, and then it will be demonstrated that Roman law coin
cides with the Gospel accounts of the trial of Christ before Pontius
Pilate.
Although it is readily admitted that some of the exact chrono
logical order of the details of Christ's arrest and trials is difficult
to determine, fortunately the general outline is well agreed on by
many writers.1
1 See for example the following works: Johnston M Cheney The Life of
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
2/11
324 / Bibliotheca Sacra October-December 1978
THE MAN PONTIUS PILATE
Before examining how Pilate conducted the trial of Christ, it
will be helpful to gain an insight into the man himself.
Some writers have attempted to develop from Pilate's name
some information related to his descent. The following quotation
is representative of this:
The nomen Pontius indicates the stock from which Pilate wasdescended. It was one of the most famous of Samnite names. . . . Thename is often met with in Rom [sic] history after the Samnites were
conquered and absorbed. . . . The cognomen Pilatus indicates thefamilia, or branch of the gens Pontius, to which Pilate belonged. Ithas been derived from pileus, the cap worn by freedmen; this is improbable, as Pilate was of equestrian rank. It has also been derivedfrom pilum, a spear. Probably the name was one that had descendedto Pilate from his ancestors and had long lost its meaning.
2
In relation to this quotation, it should be noted that there are
examples of freedmen's descendants achieving equestrian rank in
Rome.3
Some even achieved the status of senator. It is possible,therefore, that the derivation from pileus is accurate.
It is clear from historical records that Pilate was the fifth
procurator of Judea, appointed by the emperor Tiberius, that he
was procurator cum pot estt e (having civil, military, and criminal
jurisdiction), that he held office for ten years (A.D. 26-36), and
that in some way, not clearly known, he was subject to the legate
of Syria, which was not uncommon at that time.4
It is also known that Pilate created much antagonism between
himself and the Jews on at least four different occasions. The first
of these was immediately after his being appointed governor when
he and his soldiers brought their standards into Jerusalem, bearing
the emperor's image, and placed them within sight of the Temple.
This so enraged the Jews, who regarded it as idolatry, that Pilate
yielded to them and had the standards returned to Caesarea.5
A
second occasion is recorded in Luke 13:1 which states that Pilateapparently killed some Galileans while they were offering sacrifices.
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
3/11
Roman Law and the Trial of Christ / 325
On a third occasion he used revenues from the Temple to constructan aqueduct. The Jews also objected to this sacrilege, but Pilate
had his soldiers beat the complainers into subjection with staves.
6
On the fourth occasion he hung golden shields, apparently bearingthe name of the emperor as a deity, in Herod's palace. The Jewsobjected so strenuously to this that the emperor himself rebukedPilate and ordered them removed. This event has been dated atA.D. 32.
7
It can thus be seen that Pilate had yielded to Jewish pressureson at least one occasion, and that the emperor himself had inter
vened to reprimand Pilate on another occasion; this latter eventcarries special significance since it occured only about a year beforethe death of Christ. These historical events form an important background for Pilate's dealings with Christ.
THE GOVERNOR AND ROMAN LAW
Four factors have a bearing in Pilate's dealing with Christ:
Pilate's authority, the rights of Roman citizens in a province contrasted to those of noncitizens, the relationship of Roman law tothe local law of provincials, and the punishment for the crimeof treason.
8
LOCAL PROVINCIAL LAW
Generally speaking, Roman law allowed the local law of eachprovince to be exercised without much interference. Kunkel haspointed out that "local administration, the administration of justiceas between the natives of the provinces, and many other tasks werein general simply left to the political organs of the subject people."
9
One significant exception to this was jurisdiction on mattersinvolving capital punishment which was reserved to the procurator.
6 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.3.29, Loeb Classical Library, pp. 46-47;Josephus The Jewish Wars 2.9.4, Loeb Classical Library, pp. 391-93.
7 Philonis Alexandrini, Legano ad Gaium, xxxviii, ed. and trans. E. MarySmallwood (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), pp. 128-30. That this event is datedat A D 32 has been adequately presented by Harold W Hoehner "Chronolog
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
4/11
326 / Bibliotheca Sacra October-December 1978
This exception has been set forth by Lyall: "The Romans did, for
example, reserve the right to impose capital punishment, as in the
case of Christ, but the day to day administration was none oftheir concern."10
This particular exception is critically important in the trial of
Christ before Pilate, since the Jews expressly declared, "We have
a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God" (John 19:7); but they also said, "It is not lawful
for us to put any man to death" (John 18:31). While it is true
that some time later the Jews did exercise the power of capital
punishment, illegally, in the stoning death of Stephen (Acts 7:58),
there was a great deterrent in the case of Christ, and that was the
involvement of Annas (John 18:13, 24). In A.D. 15, while Annas
was the Jewish high priest, he led the Sanhdrin to violate this law
when there was temporarily no procurator in Judea. That action
resulted in his being deposed by Valerius Gratus that same year.11
It seems reasonable that Annas would have had a great influence
on the decision of Caiaphas, the high priest during Christ's trial,since he was Caiaphas's father-in-law, and the case of Christ was
one that involved great popular opinion.
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
The rights of individuals within a province varied depending
on whether the person was a Roman citizen or a noncitizen, an
alien. The state of the noncitizen has been explained by Lyall:
The peregrini were subjects of Rome, but not Romans, becausethey were not citizens. They were not liable to military service, butwere subject to supervision, and to the heavy burden of Imperial taxation. In terms of strict Roman law they were rightless and dutiless,existing as objects and not subjects of law.12
Concerning this same subject Garnsey has given a specific
time when citizens were distinguished from aliens in a crucial area,that of corporal punishment. "Corporal punishment was traditionally
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
5/11
Roman Law and the Trial of Christ / 327
citizens the right of appeal against beating as well as execution."13
The only time a Roman citizen was supposed to be subject to
execution without a properly constituted trial was if he had beendeclared an enemy of the state.14 In other instances there was a
clear difference between aliens and citizens in the empire. "Dis
crimination in favour of citizens as opposed to aliens was thus a
permanent feature of the Roman judicial system. It was practised
in all spheres of law where aliens were technically excluded, as
from the ius civile, and where they were not, as in criminal law. . . ."15
However, it should also be noted that from the time of the
Republic onward aliens were supposed to be allowed "natural prin
ciples of equity which are common to all nations."16 It may be
concluded then that aliens and Christ was one of these in relation
to Roman law had no direct legal standing at all; however,
ethically and morally the natural principles of equity should have
been applied to His case, but there was no legal compulsion to do so.
AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR
Since Judea was a province subject to Rome, "the governor
exercised the unlimited jurisdiction of the military Imperium. . . ."17
The governor of a province like Judea would exercise military,
financial, and judicial functions.18 In relation to his judicial func
tions, the provincial governor "exercised both civil and criminal
jurisdiction among Roman citizens, and also among foreigners, so
far as such cases came before him by virtue of the province's
statute (leges provinciae) or by the operation of his discretion."19
While it is clear that the governor's judicial activity would mainly
concern Roman citizens, it is also clear that "if the interests of
Roman sovereignty were involved, no doubt he would also at all
times have summoned provincials to his court."20
The extent of the governor's authority is manifested in the
types of punishment he could legally mete. There is no question but
13 Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire(London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 139.14 Ibid., pp. 74-75.
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
6/11
328 / Bibliotheca Sacra October-December 1978
that he had the power of capital punishment over noncitizens,21
and he could also "execute humbler citizens or send them to the
mines."
22
Indeed, the evidence indicates that the governor couldinflict capital punishment on any Roman citizen, but "custom seems
to have directed that the governor should remit capital cases of
Roman citizens to the home government. . . ."23
It may be concluded, then, that the Roman governor had
absolute legal authority to deal with noncitizens, such as Christ,
and to prescribe the death penalty, without fear of having his
authority challenged.
As far as the procedure which a governor would follow is
concerned, it is documented that he could "deal with crime inquisi-
torially, i.e., by investigating on his own initiative and by any means
at his disposal. . . ."24
It is clear that "judicial administration in the
provinces was much less precise and technical than that which was
required in Rome itself. . . ,"25
It is this fact which enables the
flexibility and informality in Pilate's dealings with Christ to be
understood. There was nothing improper or unusual about it.
CRUCIFIXION AS A PUNISHMENT
Since Christ was crucified as a result of Pilate's final decision,
it is needful to examine this mode of punishment and the people on
whom it was used. In general, the mode of crucifixion was adopted
by the Romans "to inflict the death penalty upon rebellious slaves
and seditious provincials."26
Concerning crucifixion, Garnsey wrote,
"Crucifixion was the standing form of execution for slaves. . . .Furthermore, in the reign of Nero, Gessius Florus scourged and
crucified some Jews in Jerusalem, including some equestrians. On
other occasions, Jewish rebels suffered crucifixion. . . . A political
charge was at least aired in the trial of Christ. . . ."27
It is obvious from the Gospels that Christ was charged with
sedition or treason (Luke 23:2; John 19:2). The law on treason was
21 H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law(Cambridge: At the University Press, 1954), p. 412.
22 Garnsey Social Status p 121
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
7/11
Roman Law and the Trial of Christ / 329
not specifically delineated but was capable of wide interpretation.
Indeed, in the time of the empire, "the law was extended not only
to all attempts on the life of the reigning prince, but to all acts andwords which might appear to be disrespectful to him,"28 and it was
regarded as a capital crime. In the case of Christ, the evidence
indicates that He "was on trial for his life before the Roman gov
ernor and the basis of the prosecution was his danger to the Roman
state. The very means of execution shows that Jesus died as an
offender against Rome, not the Jewish nation."29
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TRIAL
The object here is to present an analysis from the viewpoint
of Roman law to determine whether Pilate acted legally or illegally.
It is readily admitted that the four Gospels do not deal directly with
this subject. Evidently, they "are far more interested in Pilate's
character than in the judicial principles by which the trial was
conducted."30
Some writers maintain that Pilate acted illegally. Clark is arepresentative of this position:
The trial before Pilate was illegal because it was an appeal andyet a new charge of treason was presented by the chief priests. At thebeginning the trial was marked with regularity and solemnity. Butwhen Jesus returned from Herod, Pilate became afraid of the people.He listened to the mob there was no order and no regularity.31
In response to Clark's position it should be observed first thatthis was not an appeal. The Jews brought Christ to Pilate because
they were forbidden by law to put Him to death themselves. Second,
it should be remembered that a provincial governor had the legal
freedom to conduct a trial as informally and with as little set pro
cedure as he wished. Clark's objections may hold good in relation
to twentieth-century American jurisprudence, but they completely
miss the mark of Roman jurisprudence.
Several observations may be made concerning Pilate and the
legality of the trial of Christ First since Pilate was governor of
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
8/11
330 / Bibliotheca Sacra October-December 1978
declining to hear the case, since the first charge was so vague
(see John 18:30). Third, he acted in accordance with Roman law
when there was an indictment for treason leveled against Christ(Luke 23:2), and he questioned Christ privately concerning this
matter, deciding He was innocent. At this point Pilate had the legal
authority to release Christ, but he did not. Instead, he once again
went to the Jews, for which he has been criticized as acting illegally.
However, when it is remembered that under Roman law a non-
citizen, such as Christ, had no legal rights to begin with, then Pilate
could not have acted illegally. He may be accused of being unethical
or immoral (and rightly so), but he may not be accused of actingillegally under the Roman legal system. He had every legal authority
to continue or not, as formally or informally as he pleased. Fourth,
Pilate did not act in an unusual manner when he sent Christ to
Herod (Luke 23:6-12). Greenidge has pointed out that a provincial
governor had the power to ask anyone he wanted to be his adviser,
and that "it was even possible in an important prosecution to sum
mon expert advice from another province nay, even a neighboringprovincial governor himself. . . ,"
32Herod's refusal to try Jesus indi
cates that in his opinion Jesus was innocent; Pilate used this in his
argument for Christ's release (Luke 23:15).
The remainder of Pilate's legal dealings with Christ may be
considered from the legal basis of a noncitizen having no legal rights
in Roman law.
AN EVALUATION OF PILATE'S ACTIONS
It can be observed that Pilate did attempt to save Jesus from
the cross, by declaring Him innocent, by offering to chastise or
scourge Him, and by offering to release Him as was the custom (but
Barabbas was released instead). Indeed, it has been accurately said
that Pilate "sent Jesus to the cross, but not before he had exhausted
every expedient for saving Him, except the simple and straightforward one of dismissing the case."
33Pilate persisted in trying to
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
9/11
Roman Law and the Trial of Christ / 331
which took place in A.D. 33,35
Pilate had been rebuked by the
Emperor Tiberius concerning the shields he had set up in Herod's
palace which had offended the Jews. Pilate obviously was in noframe of mind at this early time to risk another confrontation with
the emperor, if he thought it could be avoided.
It can also be accurately said that when Pilate delivered Christ
to be crucified he demonstrated "all the cowardice of the judge who
thus declines to act as the protector of innocence,"36 and the natural
principles of equity which should have been allowed to an alien
(although not required by Roman law) were denied. This certainly
constitutes in Pilate an act which is unethical and immoral, even if
not technically illegal.
What could Pilate have done instead of sending Christ to the
cross? He could have displayed the fortitude to do what was morally
and ethically right, and then relied on the emperor's sense of justice
if the matter had been brought before him. The proconsul of
Achaia, Gallio by name, did this very thing when the Apostle Paul
was brought before him (Acts 18:12-17); he refused to hear thecase and literally drove the complainers from his presence. Pilate
could have done this, but instead he chose to follow what he thought
was the politically expedient route and sent Christ to the cross.
PILATE'S LATER LIFE
It is known from history that Pilate was removed from his
position as governor in A.D. 36. The event that led directly to thiswas Pilate's leading his troops against some restless Samaritans on
Mount Gerizim, and conducting a needless massacre. The Samari
tans complained to Vitellius, the legate of Syria, concerning this,
and he immediately deposed Pilate and sent him to Rome to answer
the accusations before the Emperor Tiberius. However, by the time
Pilate had reached Rome, Tiberius was dead, and Caligula was on
the throne.37
35 Hoehner "Chronological Aspects " pp 332-48 Not all will agree with
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
10/11
332 / Bibliotheca Sacra October-December 1978
What happened to Pilate following this is a matter of some
conjecture. Though there are many traditions, Eusebius stated that
Pilate committed suicide.38
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this article has been to consider the trial of
Christ before Pilate from the standpoint of Roman law. The con
clusion was reached that there was technically no breach of Roman
law in the trial due to the special fact that Christ was a noncitizen.
However, it was also emphasized that there was more than thepurely legal aspect which must be considered. Pilate certainly showed
cowardice in the face of the clamoring Jews, and he acted in an
unethical and immoral manner in that he did not release Christ even
though he knew His innocence.
Pilate's character is not to be envied: he appears as a vacillat
ing, compromising individual more concerned with political expedi
ency than with equity at the trial of Christ. His actions may not be
condemned because they were illegal; however, his actions mayjustly be condemned because he acted against his own conscience
(Matt. 27:24), and also against what was morally and ethically
correct.
38 Eusebius The Ecclesiastical History (trans. Kirsopp Lake) 2.7, LoebClassical Library (1926), p. 125.
7/31/2019 Roman Law and the Trial of Christ
11/11
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.