The conversation between Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate that is recorded in John 18 has been used since time immemorial to justify a radical separation between God's law and the state. The thinking is that Jesus' words about his kingdom being not of this world means his kingdom is totally irrelevant to rulership and the state on earth. This idea is a mistake. Here is the passage, which records what occurred after Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin and when He was first introduced to Pilate:
"Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."
John 18:29-38. This is the first of several interrogations of Jesus by Pilate. It seems to end well, but that will change. My concern with the passage at this point is the relation between the state and the law of God, Jesus Christ being the representative of God's law and Pilate the representative of the state.
First, and the easiest misinterpretation to refute is the idea that because Jesus' said His kingdom is not of this world, then it isn't in this world. What an absurd argument! It would be akin to saying that because the President of the United States lives in Washington, D.C., he has no authority over Alabama. Jesus Christ's kingdom is the entire universe. "All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto me." Matthew 28:18. His seat at the right hand of God the Father is the most powerful position anyone can have. After giving His life for mankind, "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11.
Like any judge or ruler, His jurisdiction as the Son of God in heaven and as the Son of Man over earth does not depend on his location. He exercises total power and authority over all things from His position in the heavenlies. He also has not lost his position as Son of Man, for His resurrection body is a glorified body of a man. In other words, He reigns now, and there is no limit to His reign in heaven or on earth. Likewise His Kingdom is unlimited precisely because it is "not of this world." No, his authority is based on something much more sure - the decree of God the Father that He rules over all things, and "of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end." Isaiah 9:7. To argue that Jesus' statement that His Kingdom is not of this world means He has no authority over the civil government is to place that sphere of the earth off limits from His power. It is a statement of rebellion against His authority, not a statement as to the other-worldly nature of His power.
Second is the subtlety of Jesus' comments. I had missed it until recently because I honestly sometimes don't understand at what Jesus is getting. Sometimes He seems to be talking about something other than what He was questioned about. Ever notice how Jesus would answer a question with a question or with a statement that seems to not address what the questioner was getting at? Those should be clues to read his comments more carefully and not just take them as idle, off-point proclamations. I finally looked at His words and asked the question why Jesus said what He said. Let's break it down.
Consider the first question and Jesus' answer/question in response. "Art thou the King of the Jews?" The simple answer would have been "Yes." However, "Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" Why did Jesus ask this question? He seems to be probing Pilate - to get Pilate to understand himself, perhaps.
Pilate's answer is telling: "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" He seems offended to have his thinking probed by this defendant standing before him. He also doesn't seem to care about who Jesus is, even though he had just asked him who Jesus was: "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus' words succeed in bringing Pilate back to his judicial role - determining what Jesus had done and whether it was criminal or not.
Pilate's initial question was improper for judging a defendant. Jesus' status as "King of the Jews" was irrelevant to Pilate's decision regarding His guilt or innocence. Jesus challenged Pilate at that point with his question because Pilate was acting outside his authority. He righted himself quickly, however, and returned to the judicial role he held as Procurator in the circumstance of the Jewish leadership bringing him someone accused of a capital crime. Jesus did not put up with people who acted outside of or beyond their authority when asking him questions. Just see his conversations with the scribes and Pharisees as related in the gospels.
After correcting Pilate, who then asked Jesus an appropriate question, Jesus veered away from answering directly. Jesus was not avoiding the question. He was answering it more completely than Pilate's question demanded. And he went to the next question and answered it - the question of intent, a critical aspect of criminal law. A person who doesn't have the intent to commit a crime has not committed the crime. If I go hunting and shoot at a buck in the woods and miss but the bullet hits a man and kills him and I never knew he was there, then I am not guilty of murder, even though I've killed a man.
In answer to Pilate's question as to what Jesus had done, He said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." This is a multitude of answers and shortened his trial before Pilate drastically. If Jesus started telling Pilate all that He had done, all of His deeds being good and none criminal, He would have been there for days. Jesus was being as forthright with Pilate as possible, even going beyond answering the immediate question. He proved his innocence in that one answer. Let's look at it more carefully though.
As explained above, Jesus' kingdom being sourced from another place and not of this world does not reduce His authority in this world, it expands it. Pilate didn't understand, as he shows later in the conversation. But Jesus was teaching compassionately even when he spoke with his enemies, even when rebuking them. Jesus explains that His Kingdom is so powerful that His followers don't need to fight to defend Him. His Kingdom doesn't depend on physical weapons for it to be successful in history and eternity. It is not based on the physical requirements of a kingdom of this earth, which involve force and coercion.
Thus, in His answer, he not only told Pilate that He and His followers were not threatening physical violence or revolutionary overthrow but that He was motivated completely by peaceful means of advancing any Kingdom He might have dominion over. In fact, His intent as a King, which He did not deny that He was and later admitted to being, had nothing to do with undermining or overthrowing Pilate or Caesar. His answer indicated innocence in past action and in present intent. No crimes committed or contemplated, Pilate.
Jesus has again controlled the interrogation by Pilate completely. Initially, he rightfully corrects Pilate by questioning Pilate's motivation in asking Jesus if He's a king. First, the judicial role must be followed by the Judge, in this case Pilate. Jesus does this in one sentence. First things first. But now that part of the trial is over, and Jesus has exonerated Himself, He lets Pilate ask his question again. It's logical because Jesus has mentioned His Kingdom in His answer.
Pilate: "Art thou a king then?" Perhaps Pilate thought Jesus had slipped up in His answer by speaking of His Kingdom. Pilate may have thought: "Aha, He does claim to be a king." Of course, a pagan leader would have a hard time sharing leadership with anyone, no matter how peaceful and non-threatening that person may be in his leadership as a king. Jesus still won't have any part of this attempt to pin Him down as claiming some authority that Pilate might perceive as improper. He first puts it back on Pilate: "Thou sayest that I am a king." Jesus knows Pilate wants an admission that he can use against Him, but for the truth's sake, Jesus cannot be bound by Pilate's definitions. In other words, I won't let your understanding of what a king is label me and my authority.
He could have stopped there, but He went further. And this is where the not so subtle but gentle rebuke occurs. "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." This is the statement that recently caused me to question how I'd looked at this passage in the past. Why did Jesus start talking about truth?
You might posit that Jesus is simply taking advantage of the opportunity to tout His credentials as the Son of God and the proclaimer of absolute truth for the world, but at this moment as He's on trial before Pilate, that seems out of place and somewhat other worldly. We have to look at the words of scripture in their context. Here's Jesus controlling the conversation with Pilate and explaining what real, authentic rulership is all about. He's telling Pilate, the ruler and judge "from hence," who has the power of life and death as a human judge, what is really important. One ruler talking to another.
So, what was He getting at? Pilate's answer gives it all away. He asks, "What is truth?" This is a stunning answer. It tells us so much about Pilate. Here's a judge of highest authority over an entire nation, the nation of Judea within the Roman Empire, and all he can say to Jesus is "What is truth?" If he doesn't know what truth is, then he's completely unfit to judge. He can't tell whether someone else is telling the truth, he can't decide what is right and what is wrong, and he can't impose a proper sentence on a defendant.
What guides Pilate as a ruler then? Fear of a higher authority. That's it. He's afraid of Caesar, his boss. And that's apparently all he cares about. Even after he decides that he should let Jesus go free, the Jewish leadership has one ace up their sleeve, when they say, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." John 19:12b. That was all it took. At that point, Pilate quit trying to release Jesus. He condemned an innocent man, knowing that he was committing an unjust act. He did it out of fear of Caesar and out of spite for the Jewish people, shown when he put a sign at the top of Jesus cross saying "The King of the Jews."
Anyone who could do that is unfit to rule. He proved that he didn't understand justice, the central quality of a ruler and a judge. His concerns were: First, himself and his own safety from the wrath of Caesar, and second, the power of the Roman Empire and its authority, which meant no other kings allowed, not even God, the source of truth and justice. Jesus' words, on the other hand, demonstrated His qualification for rule, for not only did He speak the truth, that's why He came into the world. Truth is the foundation of His Kingdom. And He doesn't have to impose His Kingdom on anyone; all He has to do is speak, and those who hear are also of the truth.
Judges have jurisdiction, a word derived from the Latin words for "law" and "speech." They speak the law. Jesus's power is of that sort but more powerful because He also bears witness of "the truth," not just facts or law. Jesus was politely telling Pilate - by asking Pilate questions and drawing out the answers that were in his heart - that Pilate was not fit for the position of judge in which he served. He was also telling him the key to being a judge and that He, Jesus, was the perfect Judge, deriving His very being and meaning for existence on earth from "the truth."
Therefore, to assert that Jesus was abdicating any and all authority in the sphere of civil governing on earth shows a woefully ignorant perception of what was happening in their conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment