Skip to main content

Jesus Comes To Pontius Pilate (John 18:28-37)

 The guards then took Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Jesus met Pilate at his residence. The guards did not go in, because they did not want to be unclean for the Passover. Pilate wanted to know what Jesus had done. At first, they deflected the question, and they suggested that they wouldn't have bothered him with something trivial. But that was not the question that Pilate asked. He told the people to handle it themselves, but they both knew that the people had no authority to execute someone themselves.

Jesus had predicted that he would be handed over and killed. St. John sees in the words that Pilate spoke the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Pilate wanted to know with what they were charging Jesus. To this point, no one is answering directly. It must have been that Pilate heard people say that Jesus claimed to be a king. He came back in and asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus wants to know where he heard that, but Pilate isn't talking. He essentially says, "What do I know? I'm not Jewish." Pilate wants to believe that the opponents of Jesus are reasonable people, so he says to Jesus basically, "There must be some reason why you are here."

Jesus answers by saying that his kingdom is not of this world, otherwise the apostles would fight to free him. St. Peter made the mistake earlier, but Jesus rebuked him right away. They will not be spreading the message of Jesus by force.

Pilate, meanwhile, seems to be a guy trying to get an explanation that makes sense. Jesus is a king, but not like any other king in the world. But Jesus does admit to being a king. Jesus says he has come into the world to bear witness to the truth, and anyone who is "of the truth" listens to him.

Maybe Pilate doesn't believe in objective truth, or maybe he is frustrated with a religious debate he can't solve, but he changes the subject, when Jesus stops talking.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...
Post a Comment
Read more