Category: Trinitarian Commentary

Hello everyone. Tonight we’re going to continue our look through the book of Acts. Now what I’m going to get into tonight I believe does have some eschatological significance, but I will not be discussing eschatology tonight due to my stance on not discussing secondary issues. (And yes, I’m somehow going to pull that off when I get to the book of Revelation.) We’re going to be covering the reaction to Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7 and we have two parts to look at on this one. Tonight we’ll be looking at Acts 7:54-56.

⁵⁴When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. ⁵⁵But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

I’ve heard this one from both Mormons and JWs. In fact, I’m dialoguing with someone now who is stressing that God is seen as separate and distinct from Jesus in the NT. I wonder what the problem with this is. God when spoken of of YHWH in the NT often refers to the Father and of course the Father is distinct from the Son. Whatever could be the problem?

Tonight’s verse is along those lines with the JWs. The Jehovah’s Witnesses will point to a passage like this with the clear anthropomorphisms and state that based on that passage, it is obvious that Jesus cannot be God since he is on the right hand of God.

The Mormons, on the other hand, will use this to point to God being in a body since it speaks of the right hand of God. I believe this is a vision however. Those interested can consider what vision this might be a reference to because I believe the case is strong that Stephen has in mind a certain OT vision. Consider it some fun for you the readers to try to figure out which one it could be. Since that is the case, I do not believe a vision is meant to give us a literal picture but to paint an image of something in a way we can understand.

Now moving back to the JWs, when we go to the text, the text does indeed say that Jesus is standing at the right hand of God to which I say “Yeah. He is. Your point?” There is a consistent problem with JWs and other cultists that when they want to deny the deity of Christ, they do not go to passages that speak of ontology. They go to passages that speak of function and argue an ontology from there. If you want to know who Jesus is, the best place to go is to passages that speak of his ontology. Now you later figure out his function in relation to that or how Jesus can submit to the Father and be ontologically equal to him, but you don’t draw the ontology from the function.

Furthermore, since God usually refers to the Father, what else do we expect? The Arian still comes with the assumption that God is one person only and only one person can be in the divine identity. Well if that’s true, then Jesus is definitely out, but that’s the assumption and it has yet to be proven. You should not approach the text with that assumption. Approach the text and see what it says and then make your ideas fit the text instead of making the text fit your ideas.

Tonight, we’ve answered the objection. Tomorrow, we’ll give the argument in this passage for who Jesus is.

We’re going through the New Testament now here at Deeper Waters trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the book of Acts for the moment. Now the majority of our time has been spent in the New Testament looking at the deity of Christ. Tonight, we’re going to look at the deity of the Holy Spirit, which is also essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. We will be looking at Acts 5:1-11.

¹Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. ²With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.³Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

⁵When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. ⁶Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

⁷About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

⁹Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

¹⁰At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

If you’ve done any Trinitarian apologetics, you should know this passage. It is one of the main ones used in defending the deity of the Holy Spirit and not only his deity, but his personality, contrary to the idea of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Holy Spirit is a force.

The charge is that you don’t lie to a force and I agree with that. We’ll see throughout the epistles especially that the Holy Spirit is spoken of in personal terms and when we come to passages that seem to indicate he’s less than personal, we’ll show that this is not so.

The charge in this passage is a strong one as Ananias and Sapphira have been caught making false claims in the early church. Now the problem was not that they kept money for themselves. There was no wrong in that. The problem was how they wanted to appear to the early community.

Such an offense was taken seriously I believe to show that God did still take sin seriously in the New Testament. This would go against any idea that Christianity means you can do whatever you want and there are no consequences. God was still wanting his people to live holy lives, not for their salvation, but because that was what they were meant to be and that was something that Christ had revealed to them.

Peter tells Ananias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit and later that he has lied to God, a way of putting them on an equal playing level. He later tells Sapphira that she has tested the Spirit of the Lord. Combined together, we have a case that these two chose to challenge God but in this case, Peter referred to indicate the ministry of the Spirit.

The Spirit of the Lord knew what was going on and would not allow it. Ananias and Sapphira paid the price for wanting to have a show of religion while denying the message of truth behind that religion.

Let’s make sure we aren’t doing the same today.

We’re going through the New Testament and trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our walk through the book of Acts. The reference tonight will be Acts 4:12. However, I am going to begin at verse 8 so all can be sure I do have the proper context to the passage.

⁸Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!⁹If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, ¹⁰then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. ¹¹He is
” ‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. ¹²Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

The scene is that Peter and James and John are brought before the Jewish authorities after the healing of the cripple in Acts 4. Why didn’t this happen when Jesus was on the Earth? It’s happening afterwards because Jesus had been condemned by these same authorities as a blasphemer to the God of Israel. To be healing in his name after such an event is seen as to be a supporter of one who had gone against the grain already and something that needed to be dealt with, especially since the Jews did not want trouble with Rome or an uprising involving an attempt to make Jesus the king of Israel and challenge Rome.

We’ve all heard Acts 4:12 numerous times and know how politically incorrect it is in our world. However, do we consider why Peter quoted the verse that he did before he made that statement about Jesus being the capstone and the one that the builders rejected? Peter is talking about salvation through the God of Israel and is saying that the stone the builders rejected is Jesus and in rejecting Jesus, they are rejecting salvation. Then comes the logical conclusion that there is no other name given under Heaven by which we must be saved.

Let’s clear something up first. When I see “name” there, I don’t take it to mean the phonetic name. Jesus is called “Jesus” here in America in English. In other languages, they’d use different letters to say his name, but it would point to the same person. I don’t think there’s anything in the letters that make up the name “Jesus” or the word “Jesus.”

What I do believe is that this is referring to the authority behind that name. Without the blessing of Christ, there is no way anyone will be saved. You cannot turn to anyone for salvation. This is quite astounding since a passage like Isaiah 43:11 says:

I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.

Jews all their lives had known that YHWH was the savior. Now Peter is standing up and pointing to Jesus as the one by whose name we must be saved. Peter certainly had a high view of Jesus where he was definitely seen as equal to YHWH in some way. Now when I make these statements, I don’t mean to say that Peter and the others quoted the Nicene Creed, but I do believe they had a concept that was Trinitarian in mind and would later be developed throughout the centuries as Jesus was immediately seen as included in the divine identity.

Some of you might be wondering about the politically incorrect aspects of this verse. Those wondering about that can see my blog earlier on a most hated verse, John 14:6, located here: http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/a-most-hated-verse/

The same concepts would apply. For us tonight, let us consider the high view of Jesus. What does it mean when a Jew says that this person who came to reveal YHWH is actually the only name by whose authority we  must be saved? While Jews had a veneration for Moses, it did not reach the level that Peter had here. Peter had a high Christology early on. Maybe the reason for this is given in Acts 4:13.

¹³When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

After living with Jesus as his disciples for three years, these men knew their Scriptures and knew the identity of Christ. Do we owe Jesus any less today?

We’re continuing our look through the New Testament tonight in wanting to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the book of Acts and tonight, we’re going to look at another passage that I’ve heard used to argue against the deity of Christ. It’s Acts 3:13, but we’ll be looking at Acts 3:11-16 as a whole for the context:

¹¹While the beggar held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. ¹²When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? ¹³The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ¹⁴You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.¹⁵You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. ¹⁶By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.

A miracle has just been done in the healing of a crippled man at the gate called Beautiful. Peter is testifying about the miracle and telling them that it is in the power of Jesus, the one whom the Jews had crucified earlier, that this man was made to walk again. As I said, the verse used is Acts 3:13. What’s the problem?

It will be said that we believe in one God and that one God is Trinity and that that God is the God who revealed himself in Scripture. If that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, how can that God glorify Jesus? Is that not implying that Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

It sounds impressive at first, but upon closer scrutiny, it’s still the same argument of unipersonalism. When the word “God” used in the Bible, we sometimes do have to get a greater context. It can refer sometimes to just the Father. It can refer to the entire Godhead. It can refer to one of the persons. (Most of the time in the NT, it will refer to the Father. It seems the writers wanted to differentiate and avoid confusion by calling the Father God and calling Jesus Lord.)

Now is Jesus the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Yes and no. If you mean he is included in the divine identity, yes. If you mean is he all that there is to God, then no. This could be said of each person in the Godhead however. It is true to say Jesus is God in that Jesus has the full nature of God. It is false to say God is Jesus, as if Jesus was the entirety of the Godhead.

With that being the case, it’s quite proper again to speak of one person with such a title and having him glorify another person who happens to be God. This is something I am quite sure Jews would have an easier time understanding than we moderns do today as our mode of thinking is quite different from theirs. It is not a valid objection to the Trinity or the deity of Christ however.

We shall continue going through Acts tomorrow.

Thanks to Dan for his comment on a previous recent blog. He has given a good insight. We should be gentle with those who doubt as Jesus frequently was in the gospels. Doubt is not the same as denial. Jesus had no patience with those who denied the evidence outright. He had comfort on those who were asking honest questions.

We’ve been going through the New Testament lately wanting to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Tonight, we’re going to be starting the book of Acts and our first passage will be one JWs use to deny the deity of Christ. The verse is 2:36, but we will begin at verse 29 to avoid being accused of taking the verse out of context.

²⁹“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. ³⁰But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. ³¹Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. ³²God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. ³³Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
” ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
³⁵until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

³⁶“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

The JW will say that at this point, Jesus was made Lord. If he was made Lord, then that would mean he was not Lord at his birth or even prior to that. (To be there, some might dispute this claim, but they’d have to say when it happened. Their book “What Does The Bible Really Teach?” even says Jesus became the Christ at his baptism. It’d be good to tie both together and ask the JW when Jesus became Lord and Christ.)

We’re going to look at some verses in Luke’s gospel since Acts is also by Luke and is his second work. Let’s look at Luke 2:8-12.

⁸And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. ⁹An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. ¹⁰But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. ¹¹Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. ¹²This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

This would indicate that Jesus was Lord and Christ even at his birth. I simply challenge the reader at this point to go to a Bible online and look up the words “Lord” and “Christ” in the gospels and see how many times Jesus was called that.

Some of you are thinking “Well and good, but that still doesn’t explain the verse.”

Correct. What did Peter mean? He did not mean become. The word “made” in this case would indicate a declaration more than anything else. Because Jesus rose from the dead, he has thus been vindicated in his claim to be Lord and Christ. The resurrection is God’s act of declaring that all Jesus said about himself is true. Hence Peter’s appeal, “He is going to take his throne and you all better get right. After all, he is the one YOU crucified.”

The message is still true today. Jesus is Lord and Christ, and the message of repentance is still there also. Have you responded?

We’re going through a study of the doctrine of the Trinity and going straight through the Bible to do so. Tonight, we’re going to finish off the gospel of John. We’ve been studying this book to understand the way Jesus saw himself and how his contemporaries saw him as well as some dynamics of the relationship of the persons of the Trinity to each other. Tonight, we’ll be looking at John 20:30-31.

³⁰Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

I have been dealing with someone recently who has been saying John 3:16 is enough for salvation and that’s all anyone needs to affirm. Now I do agree that John 3:16 is the gospel in minitaure, but keep in mind that John 3:16 is to be understood in light of the book of John as a whole, which is the way any line should be taken in any work of literature. If there is an interpretation that goes against the whole of the work of John, it is not a valid one. John assumes that you will understand what is meant by the declaration of who Jesus is.

This passage can be seen as the main conclusion of the book. The whole work has been a cumulative case up until the very end when Thomas makes his grand confession. It is the point John wishes to take the reader to. He has written this book so you may make the same confession that Thomas has made.

Some make the mistake of saying that this is written so you may believe Jesus is the Son of God but not God himself. This is the kind of error in the thinking of Jehovah’s Witnesses, not realizing that the term “Son of God” when used of Jesus does speak of his deity. It tells of him as the eternal Son of the eternal Father.

It is also so you may have life in his name. John has had an emphasis on life throughout the book and now he makes the final plea. Have life in the name of Jesus. When we get to the epistles that he wrote, this will be even more striking as we will see the tender heart of one of the ones Jesus named a Son of Thunder.

So where has this book brought us? We saw in the beginning that Jesus and the Father have the same ontological nature. We saw Jesus as the one through whom the creation came about. We saw him coming and dying so that we can live. We see that he is the revelation of God and that he is the one who has come to reveal the Father to us. John has said all of this and now he brings the point home to the readers with Thomas’s final confession and asks, “Can you make that same confession? Are you going to? Are you ready?

Well?

First off, our thanks to Fred who responded and it’s a pleasure to hear that Deeper Waters has helped you answer an objection. Hopefully tonight’s will do the same. We’re going through the New Testament to see what it says about the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re almost done with the gospel of John. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at John 20:24-29.

²⁴Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. ²⁵So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”²⁶A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” ²⁷Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

²⁸Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

²⁹Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

This passage should be seen as the grand climax of the gospel. All throughout, John has been giving clues of who Jesus is, which are quite explicit, but here at the end, he is going to put the confession on the lips of one of his fellow apostles.

Thomas was the only one present when Jesus appeared and he’s doubtful. He won’t believe until he sees the marks where the nails were and puts his hand in his side, he won’t believe it. Little note here for when you dialogue with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The text says nails, and there wouldn’t be a mention of nails if he had been put on a stake instead of a cross.

Jesus then appears to them and tells Thomas to put his hand in his side and to see where the nails were. What was Thomas’s problem? It wasn’t that he wanted evidence. There’s nothing wrong with wanting evidence, especially with an event like the resurrection. The problem was he had it in the testimony of the men he’d spent three years of life with and still didn’t believe.

Thomas’s exclamation is here and it is clear from the text that he is addressing Jesus and the text would most literally be translated as him saying to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” This would also be seen as a challenge to Caesar since this was how Caesar was to be addressed.

John leaves this as the final testimony to who Jesus is. When you reach this point, you are to realize that Jesus is the Lord and the God of this world. By his resurrection, all of the claims that he’d made in earlier chapters were true. Had he not risen, we could have easily identified him as a blasphemer and that would be that.

This is also a test I give of Christianity. If you can’t look at Jesus and say what Thomas said to him, then I see no reason you should call yourself a Christian. (Of course, I don’t mean physically look at him.) Jesus is to be our Lord and our God, in the Trinitarian sense of course.

Tomorrow, we shall conclude this gospel.

Hello everyone. As I said, we’d not cover anything we had earlier in our study of the Trinity and I’m persuaded that we have. I’d like to move on to what is unique in John in the resurrection account. For those just joining us, we are going through the New Testament trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at one of the so-called “problem verses” that is frequently used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. That will be John 20:17.

¹⁷Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ “

So the text says that Jesus has a God and that God is his Father. Now if Jesus has a God and Father, it should be clear that he can’t be God.

I hope many of you who have been reading along for awhile in this series see the problem that’s shown up.

Whenever I get this verse, I always like to ask the person who presents it something. Why did Jesus say what he said? Wouldn’t it have been easier to say “Our God and Father?” Instead, Jesus seems to be going a long way and saying “My God and your God. My Father and your Father.” Why?

Jesus is not primarily making a statement about his deity. He is making a statement about what he has just done. Jesus has always been the Son by his nature. He has also lived a life in full submission to the Father and can be just as easily said to have a God then. After all, Jesus is not an atheist.

What we have, we do not have by nature. In John 8, we were told that the Jews were children of the devil. Paul will tell us in the epistles that we are children of wrath. None of us is a child of God by nature. (The passage in Acts 17:28 best refers to us as offspring and does not speak of our nation but simply saying that all mankind comes from God.)

But didn’t Jesus pray “Our Father” in the Lord’s prayer? Yes he did, but do note that that is how he taught his disciples how to pray. He was not including himself in that group. For the first time, Jesus is making a distinction and bringing them together.

Jesus is saying that he has been the Son by nature and been in fellowship with God from time eternity by nature. Now, that is being extended. The way to be adopted into the family of God has come about because of the resurrection of Christ. The way to be able to call God your God is there because of the resurrection of Christ.

In conclusion, we see that a verse that supposedly is to be a problem for us is nothing of the sort. Instead, it is the same error of unipersonalism that keeps coming up from those who deny the Trinity.

Hello everyone. We’re going to continue our look into the doctrine of the Trinity today as we’re going through the Bible seeing what it says about the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and especially in the gospels looking at the self-understanding of the Son. Now some might think we might not find as much in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation. That would be incorrect. We’re going to find a lot in them. Right now, we’re entering into the crucifixion account and we’re going to skip anything that has been covered in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Tonight, we’re going to be seeing what the gospel of John says about the charge that was brought against Jesus. The text is John 19:4-7.

⁴Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” ⁵When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

⁶As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

⁷The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

I have included the earlier verses in order to give some context. Of course, anyone who wants to can go and look at the chapter as a whole or at least the section if they want to make sure I’m being faithful to the text. If you ever think I’m not, do let me know. Feedback is always good to have.

The Jews were wanting to crucify Jesus, but a religious charge would not have been enough to do it. As the case in Acts 18 shows, Roman rulers weren’t really interested in getting involved in Jewish affairs. Now in Jerusalem, they had to, but when it was abroad, they tended to let the Jews manage their own law.

Later on in this chapter, they will tell Pilate that if he lets Jesus go, then he is no friend of Caesar, which is what seals the deal as it were. However, at this point, they are telling the true reason. Jesus proclaimed himself to be the Son of God.

Blasphemy? Well lets look at other ways the term is used.

It is used in Luke 3 to refer to Adam. However, if Jesus was claiming to be a man like Adam, chances are the Jews would not really care.

It is used in Job to refer to angels. If Jesus was claiming to be an angel, the Jews might have thought he could be a little bit crazy, but they wouldn’t have paid him as much heed. Some could have believed that miraculous powers could be working in an angel giving a new message, but they knew an angel would not make the claims Jesus made.

The Genesis 6 passage is the trickiest one. Some say it refers to angels. Some say it refers to the godly line of Seth. Some say it refers to the rulers on the Earth at the time. Either one of these would not meet the reaction that Jesus needed to be crucified.

Well then, is there any that does?

Could it be the orthodox position? Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. What was his blasphemy? Claiming to be equal to God. I don’t say “Claiming to be God” simply because I’m wanting to be more fully Trinitarian in my terminology and not give the impression that Jesus is claiming to be the Father or the Trinity. He is claiming instead to have the exact nature as the Father does.

It has to be granted that that would be a blasphemous thing to do with one exception.

It would not be blasphemy if it was true.

Again, it comes down to what happens in the end. Either Jesus was a wicked blasphemer as the Jews said and the crucifixion put to death the most wicked man who ever lived and was an incredibly righteous act, or the Jews were wrong and Jesus was right and the crucifixion put to death the most righteous man who ever lived and is thus the most wicked act ever done.

The choice is yours.

We’re going through the New Testament right now and trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the gospel of John and tonight, we’re going to wrap up the 18th chapter. We’ll be starting at verse 33 and going through verse 40 as we see what happens in John’s gospel when Jesus is on trial before Pilate.

³³Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

³⁴“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

³⁵“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

³⁶Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

³⁷“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

³⁸“What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. ³⁹But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”

⁴⁰They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.

Jesus is a most intriguing character in this dialogue. Ravi Zacharias has read a poem about this event and how while supposedly Jesus was the one being questioned, it seems more often that Pilate is the one who is on trial. Jesus does not beg. He does not plead. He does not admit anything wrong. He does not bribe. He simply states the facts.

Jesus wants Pilate to really see who he is in all of this. He is confronting Pilate with the questions and seeing what he really believes. Is he going to get his information about him solely from his opponents, or is he going to be willing to hear from Jesus himself who he is.

It also depends on what kind of king Jesus is being said to be. Is he a rival to Caesar? No. Is he the true king of Israel? Yes. However, it is not his people that have handed Jesus over. Those who have rejected him are not his people. He does have people, such as the apostles, but his goal at this time is not to set up a government on Earth in a theocracy. His goal is to bring about God’s kingdom which is not a political reign at this point at least, but is rather the reign of YHWH over the hearts of men.

Jesus does say the reason he came is to set up this kingdom. For Jesus, those who are on the side of truth truly listen to him. The reason the Jews are not listening then is simple. They are not on the side of truth.

Pilate asks “What is truth?” and walks away. If only he had stayed for the conversation! How much we would love to have seen the answer Jesus would have given. However, we can easily guess what it would have been. He would have pointed to himself. Pilate was on trial before truth.

The account with Pilate ends here, as does our blog for tonight. Tomorrow, we shall continue in this gospel.