May the light of the risen Christ continue to radiate in our lives. Amen.
Last week’s post examined how Jesus wanted his followers to adopt the evangelisation model of conversion in order to respect the right to freedom of religion and prevent conflicts. Today’s post focuses on Jesus’ response to Pilate’s killing of Jews while they offered sacrifice. In this story, the conflicting parties were Pilate and the Jews. As a Jew himself, Jesus was a party in the conflict. However, as the story shows, the Jews reported to him about the situation. The reason for their report is unclear. Nevertheless, they wanted him to intervene regarding the murder.
Setting
The incident is reported only in the gospel of Luke. The passage reads: “There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1).
At the time of this story, Pontius Pilate was the Roman Governor of Judea. In this story, Pilate sent soldiers to some Galileans to murder them while they offered sacrifice to God. Therefore, their blood mingled with the blood of their sacrifices. Luke 12 records Jesus’ teaching about being ready for the Son of man coming at an unexpected hour. Hence, the narration of Pilate’s murder of Jews was not a recount of the sequence of activities leading to that blood bath and did not necessarily flow from Chapter 12. It was merely a report to Jesus about it to know his reaction to it amidst his teaching.
Biblical commentaries note that the Jewish historian Josephus did not record the story. However, at about that time, Pilate clashed with the Jews, and he sent soldiers to quash a Galilean mob who opposed using temple tax funds to rebuild the water supply in Jerusalem. William Barclays argues that these killings of the Galileans could be the reason for the enmity between Pilate and Herod (Commentary on Luke 13).
The response of Jesus
Since the narration of this murder of the Galileans was merely reported to Jesus while he preached, there is no immediate background to Jesus’ response. Jesus’ answer to the people was didactic about suffering and repentance. He answered:
“Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:2-3). Jesus went further to refer to the eighteen people upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed and maintained that “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:5).
Therefore, in this response, Jesus never addressed Pilate’s motive or justification for ordering the killing. He also did not focus on whether the Jews were right to have done what led to their death. He simply used the opportunity to teach. Many commentaries argue that the Galileans were highly inflammable. Therefore, they may have infuriated the Roman authorities. This would be unsurprising because the Jews were under Roman occupation and sometimes challenged them. We recall the zealots, the Jewish sect that sought Jewish theocracy and resisted the Romans until AD 70.
One also recalls that the Jews expected a political messiah to liberate them from the Romans and were disappointed when Jesus failed to meet that credential. Hence, they quickly asked Pilate to release Barabbas (“And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas” – Mark 15:7) rather than Jesus (Matt 27:20, Mark 15:11, Luke 23:18, John 18:40).
If Barclays’s argument is right, Jesus’ decision not to address Pilate’s motive or justification paid off because Jesus removed himself from being a party in the conflict between the Jews and Pilate. Hence, he supported neither of them and redirected the discussion to teaching about suffering and repentance, totally avoiding the discussion on justification. This was partly why Pilate and Herod could reconcile because of Jesus. Put simply, Jesus was a common enemy.
Lessons from Jesus
(a) We must not engage in every conflict
Conflicts are inevitable. However, while one should pursue certain conflicts, especially when they concern one’s religious, cultural and political identity, it is not expedient to pursue every conflict. Some conflicts are very complex, and engaging them consumes the individual or causes more problems. The story of the murder is an example.
If Jesus had condemned Pilate or supported the Jews, Jesus would have been considered the figurehead for the opposition against Roman rule. This would have made Pilate to arrest Jesus immediately.
(b) Caution when acting on reported speech
We get much vital and truthful information from third parties. Yet, third-party information can also be tricky because the information could have been modified, amplified, undermined, or totally false. Unsolicited third-party information can also be bait because it could be a set-up to extract information from us or to put us in a dangerous situation. It is unclear if the Jews who reported Pilate’s killing had a sinister plan. Nevertheless, Jesus’ comments could have been used against him, especially if they were against Pilate or the Jews themselves.
(c) Abstention is sometimes a good strategy
There are three types of votes regarding resolutions in international politics–yes, no, and abstention. The Yes vote means that the country supports the resolution. The No vote means that the country does not support it. Abstention means that it is neither a yes or a no. It is the middle ground to manage conflicting interests in the resolution process or document. Jesus did something like that. He technically abstained from saying yes or no. Hence, he did not condemn Pilate nor support the Jews for provoking them. Pitching his tent with any group would have been counter-productive to his ministry.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
