129. Chapter 16 - The Good Confession Before Pontius Pilate
Chapter 16 - The Good Confession Before Pontius Pilate Content of the Good Confession
Upon issuing the invitation to men that they accept Jesus as the Son of God and their Saviour and Lord, we are accustomed to call upon them to make the good confession which the apostle Peter made at Caesarea Philippi. We make a most careful study of that scene, the movement of the ministry of Jesus leading up to it and the psychological background of the apostles and the multitudes as they pondered the person and work of Jesus. We sometimes overlook the fact that Peter did not understand the full import of the confession which he made, as is seen by his horror a few moments later at the idea of Jesus submitting to death at the hands of His enemies. The death and the resurrection of Christ are the very center of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Neither Peter nor the other apostles understood this at Caesarea Philippi. When Peter stood up on the day of Pentecost to lead men to accept Christ as the Son of God and as Saviour and Lord, he did understand it.
Accuracy of the Statement The most surprising thing is the fact that the statement which Peter made at Caesarea Philippi was so all-sufficient that it expressed the full truth of the whole gospel as preached at Pentecost and did not need to be changed in order to encompass the facts of redemption by the death of Christ. Does this help us to sound the depths of Jesus’ joy as He cried, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven”? Not all the meaning which the good confession was ultimately to convey had yet been revealed to Peter, either through the teaching and conduct of Christ or through direct guidance from God, but the statement which he made was sufficient to serve as a vehicle for the full truth which should finally be made known when Peter used the keys of the gospel (the divine plan of salvation) to open the kingdom of God to men.
Other Confessions The solitary emphasis which is so often placed upon Peter’s confession sometimes leads us to overlook other magnificent confessions which are found in the Gospel narratives. Shortly before the scene at Caesarea Philippi, Peter had exclaimed in answer to Jesus’ searching inquiry as to whether they, too, intended to desert Him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God” (John 6:68, John 6:69). A careful analysis of this confession will show how completely Peter identifies Jesus as God, as the sole Saviour of men and sole source of truth and as the Lord and Master of our faith and conduct. This confession, like that which Thomas made to the risen Christ, always stirs our hearts.
Martha’s Confession The confession of Martha is remarkably clear and powerful. Out of the depths of agonized parting with her brother, Lazarus, facing the reality of death and the utter helplessness of man without divine help, she answered boldly the challenge of Jesus. After affirming that He is the “resurrection and the life,” He demanded whether she believed this. “Yea, Lord: I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even he that cometh into the world.” Here again are the divine elements seen in the good confession of Peter. The Greek word “to confess” is a compound verb which means “I say the same thing.” The good confession means more than a mere collection of words, no matter how full of meaning. It means the committal of the whole life. Whatever Jesus says, we will say after Him; whatever He commands, we will seek to do for Him; wherever Jesus sends, we will endeavor to go with Him. Now notice how beautifully the good confession of Martha presents this proposition. Long ago she had made up her mind: “I have believed.” She cannot quite comprehend the depth of what Jesus is saying about being “the resurrection and the life” nor just what He intends concerning Lazarus, but she accepts Jesus absolutely as the Christ, the Son of God, and whatever He says is right and she will avow it whether she can fully comprehend its meaning now or not; whatever He does is right and she will bow to His will. The marvel of it all is that the actual life and teaching of Jesus stand this supreme test. Who can point out one sin in his life or one error in His teaching?
Jesus’ Confession
It is not without reason that we place so much stress upon the confession Peter made. The marvelous condensation and the profound depth of the declaration are joined with a thrilling statement of approval by Jesus and a prediction that upon this sublime truth He is to build His church. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that when the apostle Paul admonished young Timothy to be faithful and steadfast, he did not cite the confession that the apostles made that night when Jesus walked on the water, the confession of Thomas, Martha or Peter. He reminded Timothy of the confession Jesus Himself made: “I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 6:13, 1 Timothy 6:14). This strong reminder to Timothy stirs our desire to study carefully this confession that Jesus made and compare it with the one which Peter made. The statement of Paul moves us to wonder why he said “before Pontius Pilate,” when Jesus made the same confession on the same night before the high priest. Was it because the ecclesiastical trials were so very base and farcical, while the trials before Pilate did at least have some semblance of dignity and fairness on the part of the judge at some phases of the proceedings? Was it because the trials before Pilate furnished the final climax and the legal basis for execution? Is there any vital difference in the confessions that Jesus made before each of the judges? Or did the citation of the confession before Pilate naturally include that which had preceded? At any rate, we shall be compelled to consider both confessions and shall seek to compare both with that of Peter.
It is of supreme import that Jesus did make the good confession and that He made it in the most public manner conceivable and at the cost of His life. Everything that could be devised was brought upon Jesus to make Him recant and deny, but He confessed! The wiles of the devil attempted to weave a silken web about Him in the wilderness as he urged the Son of God to renounce His identity and bow the knee for a joint rule of the world. The cross was then only in distant prospect. Now in the presence of death the devil would use chains instead of silken strands; and all the intimidation that earth could concoct is thrown into the effort to get Jesus to deny instead of confess.
One of the central contentions of the modernists is that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God, but that this “superstitious belief” grew up by gradual accretions and was affirmed later by the writers of the New Testament. This theory is of one piece with their attempts to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus and yet to claim that they accept the New Testament accounts. In each case the fact is so central and is so repeatedly affirmed and so strongly emphasized that when omitted the entire Gospel accounts are left completely without meaning or purpose. The gospel becomes like a circle with the circumference rubbed out and the point from which the radius had been drawn obliterated. Thus do the unbelievers of the twentieth century attempt to obscure with violence to the records the fundamental reason which caused the unbelievers of the first century to use violence in their determination to destroy Jesus rather than believe on Him.
“But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death” (Matthew 26:63-66).
Confessions of Jesus and Peter
Notice the phrasing of the solemn question as the high priest demands that Jesus answer under oath: “The living God,” “the Christ, the Son of God.” See how the very elements included in Peter’s confessions at Caesarea Philippi are here repeated in this final, fatal question of the high priest. This is most remarkable. Peter did not understand all that was included in the confession he made at Caesarea Philippi at the time that he made it. How much did the high priest understand of the deeper significance of what he asked in such careful phrases?
Well could Paul admonish Timothy to give unyielding fidelity to this good confession of Jesus at the trials: Jesus died because of the confession He made. Even in the manner in which the question was phrased there was dramatic emphasis and accuracy. It is idle for us to speculate how the high priest came by such accuracy of statement. We only marvel at it. On another occasion the high priest had spoken words urging the death of Jesus, words which John declares meant much more than he intended or understood (John 11:49-53). The answer of Jesus to Simon Peter had looked forward to the future, to the establishment of the church. He had declared implicit approval of what Peter had said in his confession and predicted not merely the establishment of the church, with the proclamation of God’s plan of salvation, but also His death and resurrection which were to be the very center and substance of the gospel. Now standing before Caiaphas and facing the fulfillment of what He had predicted to Peter, Jesus looks beyond His death and resurrection to the second coming when these wicked men who presume to pass judgment upon God’s Son shall find themselves at the judgment seat of the One they have condemned and crucified.
“Thou Hast Said”
Many have experienced difficulty because Jesus did not give to Caiaphas merely the simple, direct reply: “I am.” Why did He give what seems to be an obscure or even evasive reply: “thou hast said”? One needs to do no more than turn to the parallel account of Mark to assure himself that Jesus did answer in the affirmative: “Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61, Mark 14:62).
Moreover, both accounts show that Jesus not only answered in the affirmative, but clearly and boldly affirmed much more than the high priest had asked. The instant action of the high priest in rending his garments (both hands seized the robe at the neck in front and tore a slight rent in the customary gesture of horror at blasphemy) shows that the answer of Jesus was clearly understood by all as affirmative. Then why does Matthew report that Jesus replied, “Thou hast said,” while Mark records, “I am”? A study of the Talmud and other Jewish writings assists our understanding of the fact that Matthew was reporting the exact language of Jesus as He used a Hebrew idiom. Mark was translating into a phrase which no one could possibly misunderstand. In such mysterious harmony amid diversity did the Holy Spirit guide the testimony for the ages.
Scholars disagree as to whether the Hebrew idiom carried merely an affirmation or a particularly emphatic affirmation. Some speak strongly of no passage having been found in Hebrew literature which shows that this idiom was a particularly strong method of affirming. The fact seems to have been overlooked that the idiom might have been used with special emphasis by Jesus, even though it was not ordinarily so used. If the comparison be not too uncouth in the consideration of so tragic and supreme an act of God, it might be faintly illustrated by citing the modern college slang: “You said it!” When spoken with the characteristic skill and fervor of American college boys, this reply is ever so much more meaningful than a mere “yes” or “I agree,” or “I think so.” A gesture or a subtle intonation may have added terrific power to this statement of Jesus to Caiaphas. In spite of all their nights of deadly plotting to do Jesus to death rather than accept Him as Christ, in spite of all their public bravado in rejecting the miracles of Jesus and His equally divine teaching, in spite of all their efforts to avoid the real issue and to convict Jesus on some sort of trumped-up, perverted testimony of false witnesses, in spite of everything the devil could suggest to them, the high priest had said it He had said it before the world. He had said it so all the ages would hear it. He was about to see to it that no one could ever overlook, conceal or deny that he had said it, for he was about to punctuate his question with the death sentence. Every effort that the devil made to overwhelm the Son of God in shame and oblivion but lifts the higher, to the very heaven itself, the “good confession” that Jesus made.
“Henceforth” The story is told of two intimate friends who were separated for life because one became a business man in America and the other a missionary in the wild sections of western China. After many decades, the cherished dream of a lifetime came true when the business man circled the globe to visit his bosom friend. Swiftly fled the precious days and hours, and the time of final parting had come. The missionary had accompanied his friend to the edge of a sharp valley and from opposite mountains the two friends gazed through their tears and solemnly lifted hands in farewell. The missionary uttered the word of impassioned faith and farewell, “Hitherto”; the traveler replied with grandeur of soul, “Henceforth.” This word “henceforth” in the reply of Jesus is most impressive. According to the plans of the high priest there was to be no “henceforth,” at least only a few hours until the desperate deed was done. How calmly Jesus looks beyond the cross and the tomb to the gates of heaven and the throne beside His Father and to the final consummation when He should return to judge the world! Moreover, the word implies that the very deed the wicked agents of the devil are about to accomplish against God’s Son will be the means by which God’s plan for redeeming from the devil’s clutches all who would return to God may be accomplished. “Henceforth,” from this very hour, out of this very agonized experience of death, which seems to be the end of all, is to be the beginning of all. Out of His death is to come the crowning proof of His deity in His resurrection. Their rejection of Him is to be followed one day by the summons to His throne to answer for their lives. In this magnificent fashion does He affirm His deity. And there is the added reminder in the language quoted from Daniel 7:13 and Psalms 110:1. It is as if Moses and the prophets, speaking across the centuries, cry “Amen” as Jesus makes the good confession before Caiaphas.
Pilate and Jesus
“Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests 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 have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:33-37). As they had sought conviction of Jesus in their own court upon other charges and only brought out the claim of Jesus to be the Son of God as a last resort, so in the court of Pilate, the Jews charged Jesus at first with “perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king” (Luke 23:2). The King
Taking up the most tangible and important of these charges, Pilate began his examination by asking Jesus: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” If we knew more about the mental attitude of Pilate, we could follow more closely the subtle turns of repartee. Did Pilate emphasize “thou” or “king” or “Jews”? Or was the whole question asked in an even voice that as yet did not betray mysterious awe and fear or bewilderment mingled with the customary callous cruelty of this hardened Roman? “Are you a king? You, a poor, defenseless person who enters Jerusalem in triumph on the colt of an ass and who now is betrayed and condemned by his own people?” If Pilate emphasized “Jews,” then he threw the weight of his ridicule at this hated nation of trouble makers. Matthew, Mark, and Luke report briefly the final answer of Jesus: “Thou sayest.” Notice how Jesus again uses this form of affirmation and how clearly the context in John shows that it is an affirmative answer. John gives the trial before Pontius Pilate in much more vivid and detailed fashion.
Pilate on Trial
Jesus answered Pilate’s question with a question which was like a warning flare sent up in the night to warn the lost of deadly peril. It was Pontius Pilate who was on trial, not Jesus of Nazareth. If Pilate was at ease when he asked his first question, he certainly was not when he received the reply. This was part of the purpose of Jesus — to startle Pilate into an immediate realization of the desperate situation the governor was in and the fateful choice he was about to make. Moreover, the question of Pilate was one which did not lend itself to an immediate, categorical answer, because what Pilate understood by “King of the Jews” was different from the royalty of Him who was King of kings. If Jesus answered “Yes,” His reply would lend itself to misunderstanding by Pilate and perversion by the Jewish accusers. If Jesus said “No,” then all the teaching and conduct of Jesus by which He had laid specific claim to be King would have been stultified. If He had asked Pilate for a definition of terms, the trial would have settled into a dull routine of technicalities, from Pilate’s point of view.
Jesus asked His question in such a fashion that it nettled Pilate and shocked him into a partial realization of what he faced. It is as if Jesus turned on Pilate with that greatest of questions: “What think ye of the Christ? Or are you thinking? Do you permit yourself to be made a tool of base men? Or are you conscious that you must speak for yourself and answer for your choice this hour?”
Pilate answers testily, “Am I a Jew?” and cites the strange circumstance of a rebellious nation delivering into his hands one of their own whom they accuse of treachery against Rome. In other words, Pilate complains that he cannot be expected to understand the issues of the hour, he is not a Jew, the questions of their religion and law are not in his sphere. The Confession
Jesus insists in His answer that Pilate cannot avoid the responsibility of searching out the meaning of the charges and the validity of the claims of the One before him. See how clearly Jesus proclaims that He is a King and how Pilate immediately understands Jesus’ answer as affirmative, even though it was couched in language which forced Pilate to think hard and fast: “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.” Some suggest that by the word “servants” (the Greek can be rendered “officers”) Jesus did not refer to the multitude of disorganized, unarmed disciples who would be no match for either Jerusalem or Rome in mere military terms, but that He meant the twelve legions of angels that He could have summoned in a flash. The Roman soldiers in the Garden had heard Jesus declare this (Matthew 26:53).
Pilate’s Dilemma
However Pilate may have understood this part of Jesus’ reply, he quickly took up the confession which Jesus made and asked Him again to make the issue stand out apart from the spiritual declaration of Jesus as to what His kingdom was like: “Art thou a king then?” The answer of Jesus is now categorical, although He couches His reply in such language as to remind Pilate that the circumstances of His public ministry had been such as to compel the Roman governor to phrase the very truth, even though it is in the form of a question: “Thou sayest that I am a king.” Jesus’ declaration that He had come into the world as a king not to enslave men by the sword, but to set them free by the truth, and that any man may become a citizen of His kingdom by accepting His witness and obeying the truth He reveals, stirs memories of Caesarea Philippi.
Even though He was talking to a Roman governor who could not be expected to understand such declarations as Jesus made to Peter after the good confession, yet there is an undercurrent in what Jesus said to Pilate that makes us think of what He said to Peter: A church, a kingdom, is to be set up and people are to be permitted to enter, if they will accept this sublime proposition concerning the person and work of Jesus. In spite of the frank confession of Jesus that He was a King, Pilate went forth to declare he could find no fault in Him and to strive desperately to save Him. When all other charges and issues failed, the Jews were driven again to declare their real charge: “We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid; and he entered into the palace again, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou?” (John 19:7-9). Here was the final, the unavoidable issue. In terms of kingship and of authority the confession had before been made — in such terms as would naturally arise in the court of the Roman governor. Even in such terms the deity of Jesus had been clearly affirmed by Christ and strangely sensed by Pilate. The Son of God As Pilate asked the supreme question, Jesus did not again answer with a question. Pilate’s conscience was already on fire, the spiritual nature of Jesus’ kingdom had already been declared. He remained silent. That silence was awesome. It heightened the alarm of Pilate and concentrated attention upon the solemn affirmation of Jesus which followed Pilate’s bitter protest. “But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore saith unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee? Jesus answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin” (John 19:9-11). In this tremendous assertion, Jesus again declares His deity, His authority, His invincible power. No threats of Rome’s power could stand in the presence of the Son of God. Alone, seemingly helpless, facing the death sentence — yet He calmly affirmed that not even the Roman governor could do aught against Him, “except it were given thee from above.” No more need now be said to Pilate. He is the real prisoner at the bar. If he lifts his hands against the Son of God, he must answer to God. When we make the good confession we “say the same thing” with our Master Himself as He gave His life for us. We affirm both our belief in the great truths concerning His person and work, as the Son of God and our Saviour and King, and we pledge to give our whole lives in daily service to Him. “I charge thee in the sight of God, who giveth life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession; that thou keep the commandment.”