New Thoughts (10/13/12-10/16/12)
It requires a certain degree of investigative effort to sort through the four witnesses to this trial. That effort ought, I think, to provide us at least a little more sympathy with Pilate’s situation. He may well have failed in his office in the end, but there are signs that he actually tried to be a sound judge. At least up to the point where political instinct blinded him. We will have to reconstruct the scene a bit to see this. Consider that when they went out to arrest Jesus they had a sizeable military force accompanying them. The Evangelists refer to this force as a cohort, but that is likely a term chosen in ignorance of actual military terminology. It would be truly shocking to have several hundred men sent out to arrest this one Man, I should think.
The larger point, though, is that there was a military component. The chief priests had already done some negotiating with their Roman overlords, given sufficient reason to Pilate for him to authorize the soldiers who went out with the temple contingent. So, it’s not as though he’s unaware of the ostensible charges against Jesus. They have said something to him that indicated a sufficient threat in the Man that he would act. But, look at the interchange that opens this trial.
First, consider John’s introduction to the scene. They’ve been haggling with Pilate over the force. They’ve gone out with that force and arrested Jesus. They’ve had their mock trial and now they’ve dragged Him over to the Praetorium. But, they won’t go in. They’ll not sully themselves standing on pagan ground. They might have to skip the Paschal meal, should they do so. But, note this: Pilate comes out to them. Let’s stop right on that point for a moment. Pilate, let us give him the benefit of the doubt, is trying to be sensitive to those he must govern. Face it, this was not an easy region to rule. They were not a conquered people after all, merely annexed. And, they were not in any sense quelled by the Roman presence, even if it was a surprisingly strong force for the region. They were a difficult people. They would push for their religious sensibilities, and they had already proven that they were not averse to doing end runs around Pilate to get their way.
Pilate, charged first and foremost with maintaining order in this unruly country, found it necessary to recognize local foibles and make some allowances for them. This was such an occasion. There were these religious practices coming to the fore again, and if they were going to scruple about coming in, he would go out to hear their complaint. Be clear: He didn’t have to. He could have sent them packing and told them to come back when they could see clear to approaching his judgment seat with their issue. Now, he may have meant this as a gesture of good will. But, I dare say those who stood outside the Praetorium saw it as evidence of weakness. They saw opportunity.
Consider: One of the previous situations Pilate had faced, indeed fairly early in his tenure, involved his moving the garrison from Caesarea into Jerusalem. In came the troops with banners held high, and those banners were idols! The very thought! They were bearing idolatrous images right into the holy city, and even up to the very walls of the temple. It was not to be tolerated, and the elders and temple authorities were quick to raise complaint. Indeed, things were bordering on riot. Yet, at the start, Pilate stood firm. He had the might, after all. What was this rabble going to do with this many troops, trained, hardened troops, arrayed against them? But, then he had backed down. The threat of riot was more than he was willing to accept. If news of a riot reached his superiors, they would not remain his superiors for long. His career would be over before it was even well started. So, the rioters won. Not only that, but they knew exactly how to win every time. They knew the man would bend. They knew just how fragile his authority was, and this plays out in what happens on this occasion.
So, then, he comes out, however unwise that may have proven. But, he throws them a curve. “What charges do you make?” I don’t think they were expecting this. They must have already explained to Pilate why they found Jesus worthy of arrest. Why else the soldiers? That question, then, is more than a simple observing of proper procedure. Indeed, it may well have been something of a show of strength, as the NET suggests. The priests are expecting Pilate to simply go along with their judgment. They must surely have explained that Jesus would stand trial before the Sanhedrin. Pilate would know that if He was being brought here, that trial had already transpired. His call for charges, then, suggests his view of just how binding the Sanhedrin’s judgment was. Their authority, in his view, was nonexistent. They may have had themselves a nice little inquiry, but that was neither here nor there. What are the charges?
The shock delivered to the priests is palpable. They get their backs up, seek to reassert their authority. Why, if He wasn’t such a consistent evildoer, we wouldn’t be here. Don’t you question our judgment! But, this wasn’t enough for Pilate. Alright then, you find Him guilty of something in your court, you deal with Him in your court. Oh, but we can’t sir! So much for that show of power. We are at the limit of our authorized power, and we would have Him killed. We must appeal to you for that. Point to Pilate. So, now we can get back to the charges.
Those charges that are first put forth are clearly designed to manipulate. Oh! He’s teaching the people that they mustn’t pay taxes to Caesar! Let’s stop there for a moment. Forget the business about being a king. This charge quite apart from being a blatant falsehood, is also a blatant attempt to cow Pilate. In fact, it’s so painfully obvious that even Pilate could hardly fail to notice. A Jew complaining about somebody who opposes Roman taxation? These are the same ones who count the tax-collectors in their midst as the chiefest sinners! Honestly, they’re going to offer this tripe up as a reason to crucify one of their own?
Of course, from Luke’s coverage we know full well that Jesus never taught any such thing, and indeed taught the exact opposite. The Pharisees had tried this question on Him, hoping to find cause for an accusation that would get Rome’s attention (Lk 20:22), but Jesus had answered well: Give Caesar what is his, and give God what is rightfully God’s (Lk 20:25). It would not shock me to discover that Pilate had heard news of this exchange. I don’t suppose there was any great love lost between himself and the Sanhedrin. They had been at loggerheads too often. News of them being set on their heals by this Man would have been amusing to him if he heard about it. Regardless, the charge is so preposterous on the face of it, that his doubts are stirred.
Then, there is the other bit: Oh! He calls Himself Messiah, claims to be a king! Now, Pilate was not a Jew, to be certain, but he was doubtless familiar with Jewish thought by this point. He would be well aware of their Messianic hopes. He had, after all, already dealt with a few rebels cloaked in Messiah’s name, hadn’t he? Perhaps I am mistaken about that, but I think so. Again, the charge is of a sort that was hardly likely to have been brought to him by these religious leaders! If this man were truly king of the Jews, and announcing Himself as such, they would be far more likely to be found backing Him than seeking to have Him killed. At least, that would be a reasonable expectation of the religious leadership. But, perhaps Pilate has underestimated the degree to which that religious leadership has been co-opted by Roman practice.
Here’s the thing, though: The chief priests didn’t care if Pilate saw through their game. Indeed, it served them even better if he did. Because, if there was one thing Pilate would realize by now, it’s that these men were perfectly willing to go around him, to make his superiors aware of these charges he had ignored. He knew they were quite adept at causing him trouble, and he knew his career couldn’t withstand too much of that trouble. They knew he could be manipulated. He, I think, knew quite well that he was being manipulated. And, he was looking to find a way to turn the tables on these cantankerous priests. We know, of course, that this didn’t work out, but at least as we see him here, he is trying. He is trying to put them off their game, trying to arrive at a path that would allow him to see justice served for this Jesus, and yet maintain his own well being. But, those who seek to preserve their life will lose it.
So, they have set this charge out there, that Jesus is claiming to be a king, and Pilate now takes Jesus back into the Praetorium for what would seem to be a more private interview. “Are You indeed the King of the Jews?” One wonders if maybe he’d heard a bit about what was going on towards the end of Herod’s reign. With the madness, the slaughter of the children, it would seem likely he had. Had he heard, as well, about that visit from the Magi? We are not told, but it seems a reasonable question.
What we are told is that Jesus at first gives a rather enigmatic reply. “Are you saying this on your own, or did others tell you about Me?” What? Jesus, You were just there. You heard them, even if You didn’t answer. What is this question, then? Of course, they told Pilate. But, the fact that the answer appears so obvious ought give us cause to wonder what exactly Jesus is really getting at here. The Living Bible goes so far as to give us this rendering: “‘King’ as you use the word or as the Jews use it?” While that would seem to be taking liberties with the text, it does seem that there must be some such intent to the question.
The phrase which the NASB offers up as ‘on your own initiative’ is more literally something like, ‘from yourself’. How should we understand that? Let me offer this thought: This is a trial, and one at which, at least as things appear, Pilate sits as judge. Yet, this One before him is the Judge. Given the nature in which Jesus has interacted with people before – the woman at the well for instance – it seems to me that He is trying to move Pilate out of the ordinary course of action and onto the path to salvation. Are you just fulfilling your duty here? Seeking to get Me to acknowledge the charges so we can get on with the execution? Is that all there is to your question, Pilate? Or, are you sensing the Truth? Suppose it’s true. Suppose I am this King of the Jews. Do you realize the full significance of that? Are you ready to bow your knee?
Looking at the reaction from Pilate, this begins to make more sense to me. “I’m not a Jew, am I?” Yes, I think he had heard about that incident with the magi. I think he had become aware of the prophesies, those very ones which had brought the magi looking into this Jesus. A star shall rise in Judah. And, it had. He shall reign forevermore. And here He was. Pilate, what are you going to do. Shall you cling to Caesar, or shall you pursue the true King? But, his reaction was vehement rejection. “Am I a Jew that I should even care whether or not You claim to be a king?” It matters nothing. I am Rome!
Indeed, his disbelief of the charges the priests have proffered in this case shows as well. What have You done, that has these priests so riled up against You? It’s not this business of being King, or they’d be following You rather than turning You over to me. What’s the true story, here, Jesus. Maybe I can help. I’m certainly none too fond of those who brought You to me. Look at them! Can’t even be troubled to come into the court. Vile creatures, really.
Jesus, I think, is a bit sad as He answers. Yes, I am a king. But, My kingdom isn’t a matter of this world. If it were, rest assured, they would never have managed to get Me here before you. See? He’s back at that same question. Are you asking as a matter of this court proceeding, or are you asking because you know your own need for a savior? My kingdom, you see, isn’t a matter of power politics and watching your back. My kingdom is another matter altogether. It’s not too late for you to find your own place in this kingdom. But, Pilate’s stuck in the world. “So, you admit it! You are claiming to be a king! Can’t say You look the part.”
And Jesus, being Truth, refuses to prevaricate. You are correct, sir. I am a king. Now, as concerns the rest of the sentence, I’m not too certain of the proper punctuation, for there seem to be two thoughts expressed. There is first that acceptance of the title. Yes, I am a king. I was born a king. Then there is that followup point about the Truth. “I have come to bear witness to the truth.” Is this all one thought, or is it two? And, to which half ought we properly to assign the clause, “for this I have come into the world”? As the NASB and most others have it punctuated, it seems like He accepts the title of King, and then launches off on the second thought. “For this I have been born and have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth.” What? Is it simply that He has come to bear witness to the Truth of the fact that He is a King? No. He came for far more than that, although His Kingship, indeed His stance as God Incarnate, is a necessary part of His being our Savior.
I’m more inclined to find two statements here, although I cannot swear to the validity of my opinion. “I am a king. For this I was born.” Then, “For this I have come into the world: To bear witness to the truth.” OK. A third option comes to mind just now, which is that the, “For this I was born” part applies not to His being a king. It was enough to say that this is so. No. It applies to this court scene! It applies to the coming Crucifixion. It applies to the betrayal by His own people. It applies, most specifically, to that which would be accomplished by His faithful pursuit of that purpose. The last part, “I bear witness to the truth,” while it speaks volumes to us, could at least have been heard to imply that what He was saying to Pilate was entirely trustworthy.
It could also be heard as urging Pilate to catch the deeper significance, to stop thinking about kings and Caesars and petty earthly politics, and contemplate instead that prophetic Messiah that I have little doubt Pilate had heard about. I testify the Truth, and all who are of the truth hear Me. Can you hear Me, Pilate? Can you understand? Can you accept what is being offered you? But, he cannot. And, so he dismisses this whole mess with a question aimed solely at avoiding the issue. “Bah. What is truth?”
Before I concern myself with that question, I do need to back up for just a moment. In first explaining the nature of His kingdom, Jesus makes another rather curious statement. “But now, My kingdom is not of this realm.” That word ‘now’ can be taken as, ‘at this present time,’ or, ‘as things stand.’ From anybody else, I could pass over that choice of words as being insignificant, a verbal tic of some sort, about as meaningful as the ums and ahs of the politician. Just creating space to get my words in order before I go on. From Jesus, though, I find it hard to accept such a thing. Nor would the authors of the gospels have been particularly inclined to transcribe every um and ah into memory, let alone into the written account.
I find it, actually, a bit startling that so much of modern news coverage feels it necessary to record every such interjection, every stutter, every repeated word, in the name of accuracy. Really? Well, I understand that they fear to be accused of editing the statement and taking things out of context, but honestly, it seems more geared towards making the speaker appear less of a speaker.
Let me get back to my point. “But now, as things stand in this present age, my kingdom is not of this realm.” I have, in my own paraphrasing of this scene, taken liberties, with this point. Recall that Pilate has just pointed out how His own people turned Him in, His own priests (this priest-king Messiah) had requested His execution. And, what we hear from Jesus is in response to that point. “As things stand, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Notice what precedes. My servants would be fighting to see to it that I am not delivered up to the Jews. Up to those you referred to as My own people. But now, My kingdom is elsewhere. Do you see what begins to appear with that connection?
The question I find arising is whether that now of which Jesus speaks is in contrast to the past or the future? Perhaps it most properly addresses both? These were My people, but now My kingdom looks elsewhere. Or, is it that My kingdom is purely of another realm for the present, but it will encompass not only Israel, but all the world. Our theology certainly admits of the second statement, and history would seem to uphold the validity of the first. “Alas, Jerusalem, for I would have taken you under My wing, but you would have none of it.” And some very few decades hence, the temple would lie in ruins, the Sadducees would cease to be a factor in Judaism, and Israel as a nation would cease for centuries to come.
Yes, the people of God had, as their prophets had long warned, become, ‘not My people.’ Yet, by the mercy of our Lord, it will not always be so. There is yet to be a reconciliation. They are still, in spite of their rejection, the apple of God’s eye. But now… You can hear that as the final hope cut off, or you can hear it as the promise of a future. Thayer’s seems to suggest that the ‘now’ is indeed to be taken as contrasting with the future. So, yes, let us hear the hope in that statement. As things stand, My kingdom is not here, and My enemies will succeed in seeing Me slain. But, it won’t hold. The future remains, and I shall reign victorious. Pilate, you still have time, though not much. You could be with Me. But, Pilate has only that, “what is truth?”
What is truth? The very question would appear to declare the problem. If you have no belief in truth, no means to define what is true and what is false, then what does anything matter? This is the mindset that proliferates in our time. How can one pursue an education with this underlying belief that it’s all no more than opinion? To what end does anybody argue their point, if it’s all pointless? But, then one doesn’t usually think it through quite that far. Truth, so long as it is my truth, is entirely valid and exceedingly significant. It’s your truth, or anything that runs counter to mine, that is meaningless and unimportant.
Is this what Pilate is expressing? Certainly, given the display from those priests of the true God out beyond the courtyard, he had reasonable cause for doubts. After all, their accusations were patently false, and their intentions painfully obvious should he fail to pretend they weren’t. What is truth? Maybe he was trying to be helpful, to point out to Jesus that philosophical niceties weren’t going to win His case against the likes of those outside. They clearly had no interest in the truth. Or perhaps he really was so jaded by his experiences that he had no further use for truth.
I find, as I think on this scene, that the old “Jesus Christ, Superstar” musical has far more influence on how I read this passage than it ought. One recalls the lines pretty clearly from that show. “What is truth? Is mine the same as yours?” Well, that’s certainly the question today. But, I’m really not so certain it’s what Pilate was driving at here. Really, one finds him trying in some way to protect Jesus, to keep Him from becoming a victim of whatever was eating at the priesthood. As I’ve noted a few times now, he had not failed to note the improbable nature of their complaints. Clearly they were up to something, something about which they had no intention of telling him the truth. What about this Jesus? Was He speaking the truth? Sure, He claimed to be. Who wouldn’t in such a predicament? What criminal ever failed to plead that it was God’s honest truth that he hadn’t done the thing? Hardly grounds for establishing a credible alibi. But, he goes out on that note and tells those outside that their charges appear to be baseless. There’s no evidence for what they say.
If we are going to consider this question of, ‘what is truth’, we might start with asking what the truth is about Pilate. Was he really some ogre? Was he some weak pawn being pushed around? Or, was he no more than a governor trying to do his best? He was a politician, of that we can be reasonably certain. One didn’t reach such an office without this being the case. He had connections somewhere. But, they may not have been the most valuable of connections if this was the best governorship he could come by. The nature of the territory, as Rome viewed it, might be discerned in the size of the garrison they assigned to Pilate, way more than the geographical area should have required. And this garrison was assigned to Pilate for one fundamental reason: Maintain order.
That was rule number one. Rule number two was to make certain the taxes got collected. Keep the money flowing to Rome and the region as peaceful as could reasonably be expected, and it was job well done. Fail in these duties (or for that matter, let Rome but hear rumors that you had done so), and your term in office would be foreshortened. That’s what the Jews understood full well. That’s what shaped their charges against Jesus. He threatens the taxation! He stirs up riots! The business about being a king was really the least of these charges. Honestly, so what? He’s a king. There are plenty of kings currently subjected to Caesar, what’s one more? If He’s got an army, maybe we need to talk. If He’s seeding rebellion, that’s another thing. But, just to be proclaimed king of a subjugated region? Not an issue.
Admittedly, there are notes in the histories regarding Pilate’s suspect reputation when it came to upholding Caesar’s authority. So, yes, these charges are also aimed at boxing him in. We’ll hear it more explicitly later. “You are no friend of Caesar!” That was dangerous talk. That was stuff that could get one killed, true or false. What is truth? These guys don’t care. Truth can’t protect You. Truth can’t protect me. Truth, my friend, just doesn’t enter into it. It’s a matter of pragmatism. For Pilate, the threat of riot on his very porch was the pragmatic issue. Against that, justice done to this one Man counted for very little. In the end, maintaining order was his prime directive, and Truth fell by the wayside.
For us, there is that adage that every man has his price. This is, in its way, a variation on the same point. What is truth, when there’s a profit to be had? How much is truth worth to you? In our day, the answer is most typically that it is not worth very much at all. Truth has been cheapened to merest opinion. There is no fundamental basis for determining what is true and what is false. Why? Because any such fundamental basis must necessarily invoke God, and to have God must necessarily require that I measure myself by His standards rather than my own.
Modern science tries to avoid this conundrum by proclaiming itself the basis. But, scientific opinion changes. The facts as we know them have a stubborn habit of becoming wrong. Consider the headline just recently that all this global warming that we’ve been warned about for years on end actually ceased as a trend well over a decade ago. The facts fell out from under the theory. That’s why it’s a theory in the first place! It’s unproven. The evidence is not sufficient to the case. But, the scientists ask us to take their proclamations as – you’ll pardon the expression – gospel. Mr. Hawkins proclaims that there is no God and only an idiot could possibly continue to hold that there is, and we should just bow to his superior intellect. Why? There was no creation, they say, it’s just that the entire universe suddenly appeared out of nowhere? Explain the difference, please. Why did it appear. If there was nothing anywhere in all of existence, then what, pray tell, caused existence? Yet, they continue to posit this as proof that there is no God. God, I dare say, is highly amused by their nonsense.
What is truth? Who gets to define it? These are serious questions. If the scientists can’t be trusted, perhaps we ought to turn to the historians? It’s been suggested, you know. Yet, we have an almost innate understanding that history is written by the victors in each conflict, and is therefore not necessarily the most reliable testimony. Add to that the propensity for historians to read into the historical record what suits current perspective, and add in those who have been caught flat out fabricating what they put forth as accurate histories. Is this a foundation for truth? Hardly.
Who, then? Shall we ask the philosophers? There was a time when philosophy sought the big answers, and Truth was certainly there as a primary target. But, somewhere along the way, they became more concerned with preserving their right not to believe much of anything. The theologians, then? Well, yes, there are still some amongst their ranks that deserve to be heard. But, as always, there’s also a fair number of imposters, preachers of unbelief wearing the garb of expertise.
The sum of it is that we, if we will be honest with ourselves, know full well that man is incapable of standing as a reliable basis for determining Truth. If Truth is required to rest upon any work or word of man, then it is sure to totter. It’s no wonder, really, that so many find the very concept of Truth to be rather unreliable. As a society, we have by and large rejected the sole premise upon which Truth can stand, that there is indeed a God, that He is by His very nature Right, True, Unchanging. If we can no longer perceive a viable foundation, who’s going to enter the house of Truth? Who’s even going to believe there is such a place?
This is what we have to deal with, we children of God. This is what we must be prepared to address before ever we can present the God Who Is. Face it, there’s a lot of competition out there in the religious space, and many of them offer a more appealing package. New Age, roll your own religion suits the mindset of the age. All paths lead to God – let’s all just coexist. Devil worshiper or Christian, what does it really matter? The approach of the Universalists seems to have won out in large part: We don’t care what you believe, so long as you believe in something. Worship your chair, for all we care. Just be earnest and committed about it, and that suffices.
But, it doesn’t suffice. Truth is not defined by our whims, not even by our beliefs. Faith may be ever so strong, and yet be placed in something wholly unworthy of faith. Convictions may run ever so deep and yet be absolutely incorrect. What is Truth? Truth is everything! Without it, we have no compass. Without it, we have no communication. Does that sound extreme? Oh, I assure you it is not! The undermining of meaning is one of the oldest tricks in the trade of the deceiver. Did God really say that? Surely, that doesn’t mean what you think it does.
History, while it may not be reliable as a foundation for Truth, still has value to offer. Look upon the history, for example, of the Socialists. Part of their game is to shift the meaning of key terms. Look, for all that, on the practices of the ancients. Why do you suppose they would shift populations into foreign territories, and move foreigners into conquered lands? Weaken the language, weaken the people. Why do you suppose there is this whole business of politically correct speech? Why, for that matter, do you suppose charges of racism and homophobia and the like are tossed about with such abandon? If you cannot speak the words that express your concept, you cannot promote your concept. If the language of faith is sufficiently co-opted, is made officially reprehensible, then faith must eventually die. That’s the goal. And, width faith goes truth, and with truth out of the way, what restraint remains on the worst urges of man?
What is truth? We must ask ourselves if we have any greater confidence that there is a real, unchanging and unchangeable truth than did Pilate. If we do, then there is a necessary followup question: Why do we tolerate the lies? If there is Truth, and we are His servants, how can we accept the falsehood without confronting it? How can we accept that our political classes are so steeped in prevarication that it is considered a primary and necessary ingredient for office? Listen to the debates! Look at the followup. This side says that side was lying through their teeth. That side says this side was speaking contrary to fact. And, frankly, the audience is pretty sure they’re both right. Of course they’re lying through their teeth. They’re politicians. Who would expect anything different? Well, why shouldn’t we expect better? Why shouldn’t we begin to hold these folks more accountable? Why shouldn’t a bold-faced lie be an immediate disqualification?
What is truth? Truth is not what you make it. Truth is not whatever you happen to feel like it should be. Truth, my friend, does not care about your opinion. Truth remains True. That’s the beauty of it. That’s the beauty of God. In Him there is not even the least shadow, the least impression of the possibility of change. He Is Who He Is. He always has been. He always will be. Religious practice may change. Opinions may change. Scientific theory may change. He does not. When the storms are raging all about you, ask yourself where you’d rather have your anchor line attached: To the unchanging and unchangeable Rock of Christ Jesus, or to the shifting sands of man’s intellectualism. As for me, I know which decision I make, and I know why. Now, if I can only shape my life to more fully reflect the Truth I serve.
See, if we want the grammarian’s answer to that question of what is truth, there is this that lies open to us: Truth consists of that state in which reality and appearance are in full agreement. Therein lies the complete absence of prevarications. Therein lies an end to deception. We no longer see the fruit that looks so good and yet is poison to our bodies. We no longer pursue activities that appear to provide pleasure but in reality promote only death. We no longer pursue a piety that’s all about looking good, being seen to do what’s right, but rather pursue a real piety, a character that fully reflects our Lord and God. This is our soul’s longing: To be like Jesus, to be transparent, to be sufficiently progressed in our sanctification that we no longer put on a front, but simply express the reality of who we are. And, we long for that day when who we are is good because our God, our Brother, our Savior, has finished His good work in us.
