As we approach Easter it might be worth reminding how — and no matter one's own religious beliefs — the crucifixion of Jesus was essentially a political manoeuvre designed to avoid further escalation of an imminent rebellion happening in the region. Thread.

In 30 AD Judea was under Roman occupation, and although the population living in the area was allowed a certain independence (notably in terms of religion) this only happened under the condition of keeping people under control. Herod ruled over Galilee but still answered to Rome.

Enter Jesus Christ and his teachings, which although arguably more spiritual-oriented in nature were seen as a two-fold attack to the establishing order, eventually precipitating the rise of many enemies from very different fronts:

on one hand, he preached poverty, forgiveness, and individual prayer as a direct connection to God, which menaced traditional religion; on the other, he was seen as a dangerous political leader instigating liberation from Rome.

This explains why the Priesthood sought to have him locked up after having initially dismissed him as harmless: they were not only afraid of his attacks on established religion but also of an escalation of events leading Rome to forbid Judea's relative independence.

Pilate, however, wanted nothing to do with it. He was bored, hated the region (his post was pretty much low prestige), but also knew that should the tiniest sign of rebellion arrive to the ears of Tiberius in Rome and he'd be deported to an even worse place.

Following the first accusations, he too dismissed Jesus as "a harmless lunatic" and tried to avoid getting tangled up in the process — that's also why he initially sent him to Herod, showing he didn't consider him enough of a menace to Roman sovereignty.

Herod also wanted nothing to do with it and was little more than a puppet in the hands of external influences (Herodias/Salome anyone?). He eventually got fed up with Jesus's silence and unwillingness to defend himself or put on a show, resending him back to Pilate.

At this point, Pilate was pretty much coerced into taking matters into his own hands, knowing that dismissing a crime of sedition (instigating rebellion against a monarch by declaring oneself king) could be seen by Rome as political laxness and precipitate post reassignment.

Although Pilate tried to minimise his influence on the final verdict (even allowing the crowd to choose between freeing Jesus and another prisoner) he was pressured into condemning Jesus since Roman representatives were the only ones with enough power to enforce a death sentence.

[this thread was done with no blaming intentions whatsoever, and purely to show how such an impactful event in history and religion could have been brought about by socio-political circumstances. here's a chocolate egg for you.]