April 10, 2016 John 18:24 – 19:5
Download discussion questions: John 18_24-19_5 Pilate
“Why did John include so much detail about Pilate?” was the question that started our discussion. This passage and the next several verses spend considerable time describing the time Jesus spent in the custody of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. John gives a brief description of the interaction between Jesus and Annas, the de facto high priest. John says nothing about the time Jesus spent with Caiaphas, the “official” high priest. Instead, he describes more about Peter’s denial (v. 24-28) while Jesus was with Caiaphas. When it comes to Pilate, John writes extensively (over seven hundred words regarding Pilate and about a hundred words about Annas). Why? What’s so important about Pilate?
As usual, our group had a number of ideas. John may have wanted to show without a doubt that Pilate was not the villain of the story. Try as he might (as discussed below) the powerful Roman could not pacify the Jews. John makes it clear that his own countrymen were the human force behind the arrest and execution of Jesus. Another suggestion was to show what one member of our group described as a “confluence of evil.” John has said much about the growing opposition of the Jews to the ministry of Jesus. Perhaps the lengthy description of Pilate’s role was to show that the influence of the corrupt religious community was accompanied by an equally unjust political power. Or maybe the interaction Pilate had with Jesus displays how many people (all of us?) can hear Jesus and still reject Him. All of these comments in our discussion group combined under the general heading of God’s providential working to accomplish His purpose. John shows his readers that even the influence of Rome is turned to God’s sovereign rule.
Opinions differed (not unusual in our discussions) about Pilate’s attitude and how it might (or might not) have changed during his conversation with Christ. Some suggested a continuous, consistent thread of ambition and self-protection in everything Pilate did and said in this passage. Others saw a shift from uninterested annoyance at being bothered by the Jews (v. 29-31a) to concerned curiosity about why this mob wanted the death penalty (v. 31b-33). When the conversation turned to truth, Jesus offered Himself as the source of that truth. Then Pilate seemed (like many others since his time) to try to divert the uncomfortable topic away from the personal to the philosophical, “What is truth?” in verse 38. He repeatedly tells the Jews that Jesus is not guilty (18:38b, 19:4b). He even has the innocent prisoner scourged (or “flogged”) and abused by the soldiers, perhaps in the hope that such brutal but non-lethal punishment would satisfy the Jews. One in our discussion suggested that “Behold the man” (19:5) was in the sense of “Look at Him! Isn’t that enough?”
Another question raised in our group related to the Jewish leaders. Why were they so concerned to take Jesus to Pilate? John reported several previous incidents when the opponents of Jesus were ready to kill Him by stoning (5:18; 7:1; 8:59; 10:31)? Why all the fuss about a Roman trial, especially when they were concerned about the ceremonial issues of Passover (18:28)? We also talked briefly about the irony and hypocritical actions of seeking an illegal execution while trying to preserve ceremonial purity. On previous occasions when the Jews wanted to arrest Jesus, Matthew’s Gospel reports that they hesitated because they feared the people (Matthew 21:26, 46). Maybe the leaders’ strategy was to make Rome responsible for the execution of such a popular figure. They wanted Him eliminated, but they didn’t want the responsibility and the consequences of the possible backlash from the crowds that were beginning to sympathize and follow Him.
Finally we considered how Jesus responded to Pilate. He challenged Pilate’s information about the charge against Him (18:34). The last time Jesus had challenged His questioner He had been slapped by a guard (18:22), but that didn’t affect His boldness with Pilate. He replied to Pilate’s question (“What have you done?” in v. 35) with a provocative statement about His kingdom. What could be more dangerous in a conversation with a Roman official than to suggest sedition or the treasonous idea of another government taking over? The charge Pilate had already heard elsewhere was that Jesus was a new candidate for king, and Jesus did nothing to discourage that accusation. Pilate recognized the implication: “So You are a king?” (v. 37). Instead of debating political offices Jesus tells Pilate about His mission (a recurring theme in Jesus’ words): to testify of the truth. Then Jesus gives the Roman an opportunity, an opening for a conversation that is more personal than political: “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (v. 37b). One comment in our discussion was that this was a “teaser” or a comment to pique Pilate’s interest, to give him an opening to ask more about Jesus and His mission and what a “kingdom not of this world” might mean. Jesus’ words were inviting without being insistent. He was not going to force the conversation into His way onto Pilate, but He offered a provocative comment for Pilate’s response. And Pilate turned that opening into a philosophical detour. He avoided a personal connection. We can learn from Jesus’ example under the most stressful circumstances. He calmly responded to the situation and offered comments that would stir an open heart. He offered an opportunity to take the conversation in a more personal direction without applying pressure for Pilate to respond in a certain way.
The application part of our discussion focused on the kingdom that Jesus contrasted with the kingdom of this world, an especially relevant topic in this election year. There is no clear formula, but the balance seems to lie somewhere between the extremes of avoiding politics altogether and depending on the political process to change society. The consensus of our group seemed to be that how we engage and love individuals is more important than our impact on the political process. Changing laws about abortion or homosexual rights may attract more attention and publicity. But how we relate to a pregnant teen, or to a woman who has had an abortion, or to a friend struggling with same-sex attractions – those are the areas that will most clearly display the “kingdom not of this world” that Jesus came to establish.