Why the need of a LEGAL process?

[Giuseppe]

Is the process against Jesus (by Pharisees, Herod and Pilate) a simple allegory of the pauline conflict between Torah and grace, work and faith, Law and Spirit?

For Paul, if existed, is still a mystery who is the real giver of the law (evil archons? God? Moses?), but, beyond the different views about Paul's relation with the Law, it's sure that:
1) No one can keep the law perfectly.
2) The law has no claims on one who is pauline Christian.

The Gospel story of process seems to add that the law has no claim on Jesus himself, too (and by implication, on all the pauline Christians that collectively form the body of Christ).



He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(2 Cor 3:6)

What if the emphasis on process by Pharisees, on process by Herod, on process by Pilate, serves only to reiterate the point that Jesus is entirely innocent before the Law?
That according to the Law he is totally innocent and however, despite his innocence, he is condemned because ''the letter'' had to kill him?

The emphasis on a LEGAL process is ignored by who thinks blindly it is only an apologetic to safeguard Christian public relations with Roman authorities (by shifting the responsibility from the Romans on the Jews).

But what if the invention of a LEGAL process was precisely the goal of the first evangelist (beyond who he was truely), in order to insist that Jesus had to be condemned according to the Law by the earthly representatives of the Law (and therefore the latter are only introduced in virtue of that goal, as mere allegorical characters)?

Note the difference between the pharisees, Herod and Pilate.

1) The pharisees: totally devoted to the Law.
2) the king Herod: partially devoted to the Law.
3) Pilate: never devoted to the Law.

It's not a coincidence that the pharisees hate Jesus, the king Herod fears Jesus (by believing him a redivivus John the Baptist), but only Pilate considers Jesus as innocent.

Pilate was chosen and inserted into the narrative because he was a violent transgressor of any moral and divine Law. In this he is strangely similar to Adam (transgressor of the first divine Law) or to Cain. Pilate is so far away from the Law as the Pharisees are very close to the law.


I think that the esoteric meaning of all that emphasis on a LEGAL process is to veichle implicitly that the mission of Jesus at Jerusalem was to overcome the Law.

If you accept this fact, then the first principal effect is the question: who was the giver of the Law, according to the first Gospel?

The process against Jesus may be translated allegorically in a process against the Law: is it really good?