Originally, the Jewish authorities brought Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, and wanted him to condemn him to death, simply because they found Jesus guilty of a crime that demanded the death penalty, according to their own traditions (John 18:29-30). But, why the evasiveness? Why weren’t they forthcoming with the charge against Jesus for which the high council of the Jews demanded the death penalty? The reason is their verdict charged Jesus guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:63-64; Luke 22:71; Leviticus 24:16). The problem for the Jewish authorities was twofold. First, years ago, Rome had taken away the court’s right to execute anyone (John 18:31b), and secondly, Rome wouldn’t have considered blasphemy a charge that demanded the death penalty (cp. Acts 25:16-21).
Pilate simply refused to sanction the Sanhedrin’s verdict without further information (John 18:31). Pilate knew the Jewish authorities were being evasive, and he made a point to say he would not kowtow to their desires and do their dirty work for them. I’ve heard it said in discussions that Pilate was a bigot and hated the Jews. So, why should he care for a Jew like Jesus? While it is probably true that Pilate had anti-Semitic views, the more important consideration would be, why would an anti-Semitic allow himself to be manipulated by the very people he despised? Therefore, it is more logical to accept Mark’s testimony here than to believe Pilate would be more likely to accept the gift the authorities offered him, in order to vent his bigotry upon one defenseless Jew.
Mark’s testimony has Pilate immediately taking Jesus into the judgment hall and interrogating him about the charge that he is the King of the Jews (Mark 15:2). Obviously, Mark is giving us an abbreviated account of what occurred, so it would behoove us, if we wish to understand the whole truth, to consult all four witnesses to what had occurred. For example, Luke tells us that the Jewish authorities began accusing Jesus of perverting the nation against Caesar and making himself king (Luke 23:2), while John tells us that Jesus wasn’t even present when those charges were leveled against him. He was already in a holding place within the Antonia. Afterward, Pilate entered the judgment hall to interrogate Jesus who was then brought before him (John 18:33-35).
As we read the Gospel narratives, we need to keep in mind that each witness tells his story in his own way, mentioning the events and writing what he considers important to the point he wished to make. Mark’s narrative is the shortest of the four, and all four autographs were originally written on scrolls. This means there was only so much space available for each narrator to witness to what he saw and heard. He couldn’t add a few more pages, if more space were needed, as one might do today. Instead, choices had to be made, concerning what would be told and what would be left out. Therefore, the accounts are not exact copies of one another. While some things may be similar, even using many of the same words, indicating a common source for some events recorded, everything was told according to the specific purpose of the narrator of Jesus’ words and deeds.
Mark continued his account of Jesus’ civil trial as though Jesus was always present with the Jewish authorities and they with him. Nevertheless, the chief priests and those with them refused to enter the gentile judgment hall, because it was unclean and, by doing so, they wouldn’t have been legally able to partake of the Passover meal to be eaten after sundown (John 18:28). The meal, itself, commemorated their being led out of Egypt, the house of bondage. Therefore, if Pilate tried Jesus in the judgment hall, but then wished to speak with the Jewish authorities, he would have had to come out to them, as he did when they first brought Jesus to him (John 18:29).
Notice, that the Jewish authorities began accusing Jesus of many things, but Jesus answered nothing (Mark 15:3). Therefore, everyone, including Jesus, was at this time outside the Antonia. Not only so, but Pilate had just told the Jews that he found nothing worthy of death in Jesus, and he found no grounds for their accusation of him that he made himself a king (John 18:33-38). Thus, although Jesus admitted to being King of the Jews, he told Pilate it was a spiritual kingdom, not of the present state of things in the world. Rather, his kingdom witnessed of the truth. Therefore, Pilate didn’t believe this kind of kingdom was a threat to Caesar, so his verdict was that Jesus was innocent of the charges leveled against him by the chief priests, and members of the high council (Luke 23:4).
Smoodock's Blog 