I am preparing my fourth message in the series Eye Witness. The message is entitled “Questions” and centers on the representation of Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of John. I have spoken on Pilate several times, but always from the other gospels. This time I decided to give him a really thorough treatment, so I started doing a little research.

Sources

We really know very little about him. We don’t know who he was other than possibly a descendant of a Samnite general G. Pontius (c. 320 BCE). He appears in no known secular records. The only literary references to him are in the New Testament, the works of Flavius Josephus and the later works of Tacitus.

• The New Testament records are fairly well known (Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 18-19 and a couple of references in Acts and 1 Timothy).
• Josephus makes two direct references to Pilate. We see him succeeding Valerus Gratus in Judea, dealing with Jesus plots and judging Christ and suppressing a Samaritan revolt (Antiquities 18.various, Wars 2.9)
• Tacitus’ reference is only in passing when writing about Jesus. He wrote: auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. Literally translated as, “The source of the name [Christian] is Christ who, during the imperium of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate, suffered the ultimate penalty.)

It is generally concluded that any later references to Pilate draw from these three sources, and even Tacitus may have simply been an expansion of Josephus.

One additional resource has come to light in recent times. In 1961, a block of limestone was discovered in Caesarea that features and inscription in Latin.

[DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIEUM

[PO]NTIUS PILATUS

[PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E

[FECIT D]E[DICAVIT] 

(letters in brackets are conjectured)

The inscription is short, but it does give us one vital clue about Pilate’s career. He is called a prefect in the inscription. This is different from Tacitus, who called him a prelate. Although the two positions were similar, a prelate was a man of senatorial rank while a prefect was equestrian. This will matter in a little bit, so just file it away for now.

His Career

The limited resources we have available keep us from having a better idea of the kind of man Pilate was. He was almost certainly not a senator. He was probably a member of the equestrian class, which was the lower of the two aristocratic classes of Roman citizen. This meant he was probably from one of the old families, but probably not one with the ear of the senatorial families. As mentioned before, he might have been a descendant of G. Pontius.

As an equestrian, Pilate could not hope for any of the truly powerful offices like consul. At best he could attain power as a silent partner in one of the many power deals that took place in the early imperium. Unfortunately it appears that Pilate did not have the proper connections and was left to rot in a distant, troubled province.

Prefect of Iudaea

Josephus tells us that he replaced Valerus Gratus as prefect of Iudaea in 26 CE and ruled there for ten years. The prefecture itself was a recent consolidation of Judea, Idumea and Samaria, completed in 6 CE after the abortive rule of Herod Archelaus. It was one of the few official provinces ruled by a prefect instead of a legate.

This was primarily because it had been formed from some of the remnants of Herod the Great’s kingdom. The other part, Galilee, was still ruled by Herod’s son Antipas. The Romans attempted to institute home rule several times in the first century but eventually converted the entire region to a prelature.

The prefect was a sort of auxiliary governor to the legate. While Pilate was personally appointed by the emperor, just like a legate, he did not have the same powers as a legate and would have had to draw all of his military might from the legate’s legions.

Instead of the three legions available to the legate of Syria, Pilate had only six cohorts (about 3,000 men). Two were permanently stationed at the provincial capital, Caesarea, and two were in Jerusalem. The other two moved around quite a bit, so at any given time, Pilate had no more than 1,000 troops to call upon and none of them were front line soldiers.

The year 26 CE is significant because that was the year that Tiberius Caesar essentially exiled himself from Rome. His son had died in 23 CE, and Tiberius never recovered. Pliny the Elder called him tristissimus hominus, “the gloomiest man.” Tiberius left the imperial administration to his Praetorian Prefects – Lucius Aelius Sejanus and Quintus Naevius Sutorius Macro. It is very likely that these men had recalled Gratus and sent Pilate to Iudaea.

Unfortunately, the increasingly petulant Tiberius had refused to allow the Syrian legate, the respected senator Lucius Aelius Lamia and relative of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, to go to his province. As a consequence, Pontius Pilate went to Iudaea without the power to command a legion or a superior to request a legion from.

Necessity Breeds Destruction

With so little power to enforce his control of a troubled province, it is not surprising that Pilate managed so badly. We know that he was forced to move quite frequently between his capital at Caesarea and the Jewish religious center in Jerusalem. Quite simply, he was spread too thin.

There were a number of Jewish revolts throughout the rule of V. Gratus and P. Pilate. The constant nuisance of putting down rebellions seems to have worn on Pilate. When he heard of a rebel of the Samaritans, he overstepped his authority and called the Roman cavalry into action. They swept down on Mount Gerazim and massacred the Samaritans.

When L. Aelius Lamia’s replacement, Lucius Vitellius, finally made it to Syria in 36 CE, he found Pilate was overreaching to maintain any kind of order in the provinces. Vitellius immediately dismissed him and replaced him with his friend Marcellus.

Pilate journeyed to Rome to present his case, but Tiberius died while Pilate was in transit. We do not know if Pilate ever presented his case before Caligula, but it is safe to assume that even if he was heard, his appeal was not heeded. Shortly thereafter Caligula appointed his childhood friend, Herod Agrippa, as the King of the Jews and temporarily suspended the Roman prelature. The region was more or less under self rule until they rebelled against Rome and the Roman general Vespasian put down the rebellion. Vespasian’s work was completed with his son Titus’ destruction of the Temple in AD 70. All of Judea was incorporated into the province of Palestine and then Syria-Palestine during the reign of Hadrian.

His Place in the Jesus Story

Pilate’s exchange with Jesus in John 18-19 shows us a lot about who Pilate was. He was clearly intelligent and perceptive. He was also at a tremendous disadvantage when dealing with a troublesome people who wanted Roman protection but not Roman rule.

His own place was precarious, so when he was confronted with this man – Jesus – who he knew had been hailed by the Jews only a few days before, he did his best to manipulate the situation and free Jesus. Unfortunately, Pilate seems to have been a poor politician. He chose to appease the Jews in order to mock them, and his actions (both with Jesus and the later incident with the Samaritans) probably aided in the destabilization of Roman rule in the region.

To John, who provides the most detail about the exchange between Pilate and Jesus, Pilate represents all Gentiles. He asks questions of Jesus while the Jews and Herod Antipas demand things of him. To the Gentile church, Pilate is a symbol of Gentile openness to Jesus’ claims. The Ethiopian church even made him a saint!

More than anything, Pilate is an example of the trap the early believers found themselves in. They were torn in the tension of Judaism, Roman culture, the teaching of Jesus and their own thoughts and ideas. Through Pilate’s interrogation, Jesus remained other – not Jewish or Roman, not rebel or subject. It shows Jesus’ distinction from these powerful influences.

The Easter Season is upon us! On Wednesday, our church observed a special prayer service to commemorate what is known in most of the Christian world as Ash Wednesday. In fact, the Sunday before Ash Wednesday (called Quinquagesima Sunday in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions) we spent some time reflecting on the subject of this special season. The sermon was actually entitled “I gave up Lent for Lent.”

Every Friday during the Lent season, we will be posting a consideration of Lent and/or Easter. During the Passion Week, there will be daily posts on Christ himself and his suffering, journeying through that time. We will then bring everything to a crescendo on Easter Sunday.

Lent and Pentecost

The term Lent is from the Germanic languages. It was the ancient word for the season of Spring

In most of the world, this period of fast is called the tessarakoste - literally, “the forty days.” Its observance shadows the Jewish period of pentekoste or “fifty days.” Like Pentecost, Lent is meant to be a secular observance meaning that it is not accompanied with ritual or liturgy. Both Lent and Pentecost were intended to be times when the adherents would be continually reminded of something of significance while going about their usual routines.

Although there are few original sources on the topic, it is possible that tessarakoste became part of the church tradition when some of the Germanic tribes, like the Lombards, converted to Christianity and brought their Teutonic traditions into the church.

The connection of tessarakoste before Easter and pentekoste after is not accidental. Originally, terrarakoste was part of a larger fifty-day period. Thus, the church had two special secular observances around Easter - one before and one after. Almost a third of the liturgical year revolves around Easter.

Sometime in the 4th or 5th centuries, in the West, the period was shortened to forty days, not including Sundays. Thus, in the Western traditions, it runs from Ash Wednesday until Holy Saturday (the day before Easter). In the Eastern traditions, Sundays are included so the period runs from Clean Monday until Easter Sunday.

The Practices of Lent

The Lent season is marked by four practices intended to bring the believer into a state of preparation for Holy Week, also known as the Passion Week or the Easter celebration. The four practices are:

• Prayer
• Penitence
• Almsgiving
• Fasting

We will look at each practice individually but really they are two sets of two. Prayer will make our sin manifest and thus lead to penitence; and fasting frees us from the need for extras and thus we give it away in almsgiving. All four involve surrendering something that human nature desires in favor of the things God longs for us to do - hate sin and love our neighbors.

Prayer

There were no standard prayers for the time of Lent although it is expected that the believer will make a special effort to engage in prayer during the weeks of Lent.

In more liturgical churches, specific prayers are presented during the Sunday worship gatherings that are meant as anchor points for the individual’s prayer life during this time.

Penitence

Confession and repentance of sin are supposed to characterize the life of a believer, but at no time is repentance brought to the forefront as it is during lent.

In the Western tradition, formal confession and penitence begins on Ash Wednesday. This gave rise to the wild parties and debauchery of Mardi Gras and Carnival in the day or week prior. Believe it or not, it was the clergy who initiated this practice in the mistaken belief that it was better to sin and get it out of your system and then seek forgiveness rather than sin during the Lenten period!

Fasting

The Roman Catholic tradition commands fasting from eating meat during Lent. Some modern Catholics feel that this is too stringent and only fast on Fridays during the season. They would have been shocked to know that in the ancient church, this Lenten fast was actually just a preparatory fast for the extreme fasts of the Passion week.

The fasting actually derives from an entirely different observance - baptism. When someone professed a faith in Christ, the early church had enacted a rather elaborate series of tests to prevent false believers from being incorporated into the church. The last of these tests was a fast, of varying lengths, prior to baptism.

It made good sense to schedule baptisms for Easter Eve, so eventually the fasts were placed before Easter. After the Nicene Council when Christianity became the “norm” for the Roman Empire, this fast was merged with the secular observance of tessarakoste.

There was considerable debate as to the length of the fast in the ancient church, but eventually the church leaders seem to have settled on forty days because of the recurrence of the time period in the Hebrew Scriptures. By this time, Germanic believers had already introduced their forty day celebration of Lent - or Spring - and the two were simply fused into one celebration.

Almsgiving

As with the other practices, giving to the poor was also supposed to be a regular activity for believers. Unfortunately, it is often neglected. The Lent season, a season of fasting, is the perfect time to reflect on how we are aiding the less fortunate of our society.

Almsgiving serves two functions. Yes it helps the poor, but it helps us to realize how much we actually have and take for granted.

What Are We Doing at Heritage?

For many modern believers, fasting is considered passe. We view it as an ancient practice that we do not need to practice. Likewise, repentance and prayer are viewed as private matters. The translation of that is that we rarely actually fast, repent or pray. And of the practices, almsgiving is perhaps the most neglected.

For most believers, the primary charitable recipient is their church and the amount rarely exceeds the tithe or 10%. We give little or nothing to those less fortunate than us.

This year, I am challenging Heritage (our church) to reduce their food consumption by 1/3 - to either give up one meal per day or simply cut quantities by 1/3. I am also challenging them to convert this to dollars and cents, and set that money aside IN CASH. On Good Friday, we will have a special offering where we will bring this money together, count it and then give it to a worthy cause.

At present, I am considering donating it to a local charity like Food for Children or the NH Food Bank, or a homeless shelter. We will be praying about where to give the money during the Lenten season.

Our modern American culture is one that places an extraordinary value on the enjoyment of privacy. We are literally obsessed with individual accomplishment as gauged by possession. Cars, physical fitness, 401(k) balances, homes, even phones and PDA’S are all indications of one’s accomplishments and thus their success as an individual.

Maybe it is a product of our free market or our pioneer heritage. Who can say what factors have contributed to it? But we pour a tremendous amount of our personal resources into building personal kingdoms within our vast empire network that we call our culture.

We place almost no value on community - not really community anyway. And this is because you cannot truly have interdependent community and individualism at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

While we give lip-service to caring for the poor, loving the needy, and often even do quite a bit to help these people, they are not really part of our world.

Our world revolves around and essentially includes only ME. This world might include those closely connected to those closest to ME, but often reluctantly. Spouses and children are good as long as they give ME what I want, but everyone walks a thin line because if you cross ME, I’ll get rid of you or ignore you.

This obsession with ME, this self-centered existence, is at the core of the reason I believe modern American Christianity is an utter (if not complete) failure.

Allow me a digression into Church History for a moment.

The Apostolic Church (30 - 325)

In the first churches, Christian worship was defined by action and community. It is not hard to see this as you read the book of Acts. Everywhere you see people abandoning individual religion for a community experience in the way of Jesus. We sold what we had; we traveled in community; we gave to those who needed without question. Those who claimed to be Christians and yet thought primarily of themselves were condemned or punished by God himself. [Acts 5:1-11, 8:9-25]

In their letters, the apostles Simon Peter, James and Paul called the churches to a continual commitment to cast aside personal obsessions in favor of the community.

• Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. [Romans 12:13-18, ESV]
• Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. [1 Peter 2:10-11, ESV]
• What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. [James 2:14-17, ESV]

This early church, which really thrived in the first three centuries after Christ, defined worship and Christianity by action. While the core of our beliefs - namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ, was absolutely essential, it was not what defined us. To believe something but not to live it out was the ultimate heresy.

There were no church buildings in most of these churches. The church would come together in an assembly, which usually gathered at night. These gatherings were called ekklesia in Greek or synaxis in Latin.

Generally, their liturgy was very simple - observance of the Lord’s Table, recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, singing of Psalms and a brief homily on the Gospels. It did not need to be complex because this was not church. This was simply the gathering of the church.

The church was this committed group of believers loving the people around them. The church was characterized by their work among people. Bishops and lay leaders routinely ventured into places of disease, poverty and war to serve the people. Christians took in orphans and widows. They were found everywhere - from the emperor’s court to the leper colonies. And everywhere they went, they took the message of Jesus with them.

There was no interest in being part of the world. In fact, the Christians had rejected the Empire long before the Empire rejected them. They were content to live under its rule; but they were not part of it. The church was a kingdom of servants, a free theocracy whose only rule was to love others.

This early church was a church defined by action.

The Post-Nicaean Church (325-1450)

After Constantine legalized Christianity, replacing the worship of the Conquering Sun with the worship of the Trinity, the church found itself suddenly extremely wealthy and powerful. Bishops were no longer the humble servants of the word who met with people in the night. They were granted grand temples as church buildings, and their focus shifted from service to symbol.

The ekklesia moved indoor, to these places called kuriakos or “the Lord’s [building].” This shift turned the focus from the people being the Lord’s to the place or, later, the hierarchy being the Lord’s.

The worship of the church developed an intensive liturgy, meant to simulate the glory of the Lord’s presence. Ecstasy replaced work. People flocked to the churches, rather than the church flocking to the people who needed them. We abandoned our place of service for our place of worship.

As bishops became more powerful, the potential for wide scale corruption became all more overwhelming. Once the papacy (in particular, but not exclusively) became a political power, the See of Peter was filled with ambitious politicians and corrupt sycophants rather than by men who loved Jesus.

Especially after the 8th century CE, the Church increasingly became the Empire. The rule of popes and patriarchs were completely intertwined with the rule of secular leaders. In fact, there would have been no distinction made. The idea of separation of church and state was something totally alien to them.

The medieval church was defined by authority and symbol.

The Reformation Church (1450-Present)

Inevitably, parts of the Church rejected this corrupt way of life. They could not claim to follow Christ and the ones who ruled so carnally in his place. But in their rejection of the corrupt, they also rejected their heritage and the richness of the previous 1500 years of Christian worship.

In the place of the authority of the medieval church, the reformers substituted teaching. They exalted the preacher and downplayed the liturgy. Church revolved around preaching and correct doctrine. More than any time in its past, the church became obsessed with being right.

Denominations sprang up as we divided against ourselves on points of belief - both large and small. The Church fragmented into ten thousand shards of glory, each with their pioneering teacher.

The modern church is defined by teaching.

The Problem with all of This

And this is where we are right now. We are the modern church, defined more by what we say than by what we do. We talk and talk and talk.

Is this really what church is? The answer would have to be a resounding NO!

I am a preacher by trade, and it is deeply troubling to contemplate a world without the full-paid clergy or the church buildings that defined us in the medieval period. After all, we are 1800 years removed from the Council of Nicaea and Constantine. That is a long time!

But it seems like our priority is the preaching/teaching/worship thing that our culture reveres. Even in our own church, we invest 90% of our annual budget into a building and a pastor. I enjoy working with our church; I love being a pastor. But I can’t help but wonder if we might not be a better church if we took this same amount of money and invested it into helping people.

Think about it. Our annual budget at our little, little church is over $98,000. That means that we will spend around $90,000 on keeping our rent and salary paid. We will spend less than $8,000 on ministering to others (of which, $7,000 will be spent on things the pastor leads in the building!).

Our church is great with volunteering to do stuff for people, and they really throw themselves into serving the community when given the opportunity; but what if we shifted our focus and simplified our mission?

What if we decided to abandon the whole central building thing and instead worshiped in homes on the weekends?

What if we took all that money we give toward the building (and even ::GASP!:: the pastor) and invested it in repairing homes in the downtown? What if we stopped dumping money into rent and bought an apartment building and worshiped there by meeting for prayer and meditation before going out into the city to make a dramatic difference?

What if we just took the losses, consolidated our resources and devoted 90% of our time to others and used the other 10% for ourselves rather than the other way around?

What if we let go of the security of our UNsupernatural way of doing church and genuinely took a step of radical proportions away from our selfishness and cultural momentum and into the unknown of the ancient church?