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

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
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

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more