(In other words, Jesus was murdered by an Anti-Semitic governor whom full well knew that He was innocent and wanted to try to get us to start a riot. Once we told him, "We have no king but Caesar," he went from bad to worse and made us look like we had the mens rea, which we didn't.
(The longer story is as follows—and by the way, yes, I'm a Jewish Christian, in case anyone was wondering.)
"[T]hat for envy they had delivered him"—i.e., "The Jews—
"As he was aware—delivered him because of corruption
"[Dia fhthonos, "δια φθόνος"]."
Now, "fhthonos" comes from "ftheiro"
Or "φθείρω", meaning "dereliction"
Such as in this verse that everyone knows—
Or at least should know!
"All we like sheep did go astray,
"We turned every one to his own way;
"And the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all."
Pilate was well aware that the Jews in his day
Believed that a Suffering Servant was still far away.
"We have no king but Caesar," thus they thought
Because the description and Jesus seemed to fit like naught
That could fit together. Besides, what kind of man would
Not listen to his very wife whom warned him that he should
"Have...nothing to do with that just man"—and why should she care?
Her claim wasn't even that she saw that he was innocent when she was there.
"For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."
He apparently took it as a woman's whim
At the very least, but then again
What kind of irreligious Roman
Would be appointed a governor over a province?
Did he have no respect, no deference
For what could be taken as an omen?
After all, the Romans believed in omens and such.
Nonetheless, just as much
He did believe Jesus to be without guile
And hated him and the rest of Israel—
Or did he? In either case,
He showed a bold-faced
Anti-Semitic sentiment
Even as he did cement
A friendship with a certain Edomite named Herod—
Whom conspicuously enough was like many an Arab
Of today is, as many an Arab harbor against many a Jew
What his fathers harbored against Jacob, and Herod against Pilate, too:
"And the same day
"Pilate and Herod were
"Made friends together:
"[F]or before they
"Were at enmity between themselves."
And so, if one continiously delves
Into the New Testament, he or she will see
That a man who had no mens rea—i.e.,
A man who had no malicious intent—
And truly cared that Jesus was innocent
Would not have allied
Himself with a certain Edomite,
Much less sent him to be tried
By him. The whole time, spite
Was what drove a certain Roman governor,
Whom'd also have said, "And of Caesar:
"Do you believe that he'd approve
"That I would prosecute
"A man in whom I find no fault,
"Much less allow that someone else ought?"
Pilate also "washed his hands before the multitude, saying,
"I am innocent of the blood of this just person," though were he
He would have persevered in insisting
That the blood of a just person not be
Shed, and he instead
Treated with contempt
The very blood of the same
And even did attempt
To cast the blame
Of murder on that man's countrymen,
Of whom that man said unto
God, "Father, forgive them;
"[F]or they know not what they do."
Is this not implied when Paul is recorded
To have wished, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean:
"[F]rom henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles"?
Is this not implied when Paul later reported
His intent to "provoke to emulation them which are my flesh," which means
That he wanted the blood to which Pilate responded with denial
To be accepted by and cover all of Jacob, as the blood of a ram
Covered a certain son of Israel named Aharon ben Amram:
"The ram... its blood...put...upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron,
"[A]nd upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon
"[T]he thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot,
"[A]nd...against the altar round about"; so, why not all of the royal priesthood?
"[T]he house of Jacob...a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation."
"His blood be on us, and on our children", therefore
Was then not an admission of deicidal murder
But an unknownst "Hosheinu!", as Paul clarified:
"For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according
"[T]o knowledge. For they being ignorant
"[O]f God's righteousness,
"[A]nd going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
"[T]hemselves unto the righteousness...." And as he to Timothy testified
"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord,
"who hath enabled me, ....[w]ho was before
"[A] blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious:
"[B]ut I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."
Indeed, a record that Paul could bear and bore
From experience! And who could likewise have said
To bear Pilate such record? For every word that Paul wrote
"[N]either received it of man, neither was...taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
And what other apostle or disciple wrote down any word that would've read
As in any way exculpatory of a certain Pontius?
By the way, some who continue to push the claim
That the New Testament states that Pilate deserved no blame
Use a story about certain Samaritans as apparent evidence
To refute it—"it" being the New Testament itself.
Maybe now, though, after reading even this
They'll pull the New Testament off of the shelf
And read it again, and not dismiss
That Pilate's subsequent treatment of the Samaritans
Actually gives credence to what it really states about his intentions—
That is, that his intentions were to make Israel look to be
A deicidal laughingstock. Incidentally,
What, I wonder, has since
Become of Pilate other than what the Scriptures reveal
About anyone whom does the kind of evil
That Pilate did? If nothing else, Pilate ended up
The very laughingstock that he tried to make Jacob,
As he took counsel against the LORD's anointed in both senses—
That is, Jesus per the first significance, and all of Israel per the second significance.
No comments:
Post a Comment