Click here to get this post in PDF

It wasn’t just about separation of church & state

The conversation between Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate that is recorded in John 18 has been used since time immemorial to justify a radical separation between God’s law and the state.  Here is the passage, which records what occurred after Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin and when He was first introduced to Pilate:

“Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”

John 18:29-38.  This is the first of several interrogations of Jesus by Pilate.  It seems to end well, but that will change.  My concern with the passage at this point is the relation between the state and the law of God, Jesus Christ being the representative of God’s law and Pilate the representative of the state.

First, and the easiest misinterpretation to refute is the idea that because Jesus’ said His kingdom is not of this world, then it isn’t in this world.  What an absurd argument!  It would be akin to saying that because the President of the United States lives in Washington, D.C., he has no authority over Alabama.  Jesus Christ’s kingdom is the entire universe.  “All authority in heaven and in earth is given unto me.”  Matthew 28:18.  His seat at the right hand of God the Father is the most powerful position anyone can have.  After giving His life for mankind, “God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”  Philippians 2:9-11.

Like any judge or ruler, His jurisdiction as the Son of God in heaven and as the Son of Man over earth does not depend on his location.  He exercises total power and authority over all things from His position in the heavenlies.  He also has not lost his position as Son of Man, for His resurrection body is a glorified body of a man.  In other words, He reigns now, and there is no limit to His reign in heaven or on earth.  Likewise His Kingdom is unlimited precisely because it is “not of this world.”  No, his authority is based on something much more sure – the decree of God the Father that He rules over all things, and “of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end.”  Isaiah 9:7.  To argue that Jesus’ statement that His Kingdom is not of this world means He has no authority over the civil government is to place that sphere of the earth off limits from His power.  It is a statement of rebellion against His authority, not a statement as to the other-worldly nature of His power.

Second is the subtlety of Jesus’ comments.  I had missed it until recently because I honestly sometimes don’t understand what Jesus is getting. Sometimes He seems to be talking about something other than what He was questioned about.  Ever notice how Jesus would answer a question with a question or with a statement that seems to not address what the questioner was getting at?  Those should be clues to read his comments more carefully and not just take them as idle, off-point proclamations.  I finally looked at His words and asked the question why Jesus said what He said.  Let’s break it down.

Consider the first question and Jesus’ answer/question in response.  “Art thou the King of the Jews?”  The simple answer would have been “Yes.”  However, “Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”  Why did Jesus ask this question?  He seems to be probing Pilate – to get Pilate to understand himself, perhaps.  

Pilate’s answer is telling:  “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?”  He seems offended to have his thinking probed by this defendant standing before him.  He also doesn’t seem to care about who Jesus is, even though he had just asked him who Jesus was:  “Art thou the King of the Jews?”  Jesus’ words succeed in bringing Pilate back to his judicial role – determining what Jesus had done and whether it was criminal or not.  

Pilate’s initial question was improper for judging a defendant.  Jesus’ status as “King of the Jews” was irrelevant to Pilate’s decision regarding His guilt or innocence.  Jesus challenged Pilate at that point with his question because Pilate was acting outside his authority.  He righted himself quickly, however, and returned to the judicial role he held as Procurator in the circumstance of the Jewish leadership bringing him someone accused of a capital crime.  Jesus did not put up with people who acted outside of or beyond their authority when asking him questions.  Just see his conversations with the scribes and Pharisees as related in the gospels.

After righting Pilate, who asked Jesus an appropriate question, Jesus veered away from answering directly.  Jesus was not avoiding the question.  He was answering it more completely than Pilate’s question demanded.  And he went to the next question and answered it – the question of intent, a critical aspect of criminal law.  A person who doesn’t have the intent to commit a crime has not committed the crime.  If I go hunting and shoot at a buck in the woods and miss but the bullet hits a man and kills him and I never knew he was there, then I am not guilty of murder, even though I’ve killed a man. 

In answer to Pilate’s question as to what Jesus had done, He said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  This is a multitude of answers and shortened his trial before Pilate drastically.  If Jesus started telling Pilate all that He had done, all of His deeds being good and none criminal, He would have been there for days.  Jesus was being as forthright with Pilate as possible, even going beyond answering the immediate question.  He proved his innocence in that one answer.  Let’s look at it more carefully though.