FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (2)
[p. 11] FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (2)
JT We scarcely touched on the passages read this morning, but what was said as to the prophetic utterances of the Lord is of importance, because prophetic ministry has acquired a place amongst the brethren, and it helps us to have understanding of the times. What Caiaphas said in John 18: 14 is on the same line; he “counselled the Jews that it was better that one man should perish for the people”. That was a prophetic word from him. We also noted Peter’s negation of the light that came out by using a sword, and we should keep that point before us because it really enters into all that is before us at these meetings. The Lord told him to “put the sword into the sheath”, adding, “the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” (verse 11). There are many who correspond with Peter, notwithstanding that much light has come down from the previous war; there are those who advocate joining in with the claims of the government to the fullest extent. The effect of Peter’s use of the sword was not remedied. According to John; and then he went to further extremes in denying the Lord, so that where we give way on one point we are likely to go further. Thus things in our day are going on to the end unremedied, and we are reminded of the danger of leading in error to an error to any extent, not knowing how far it may go.
JWD Do you think we can apply the thought of the cup, which the Father gave Him to drink, in any crisis that might be linked on with governmental difficulties?
JT Quite so; the Father’s will is the immediate issue. It is “the cup which the Father has given”
here. “The Father” is John’s way of presenting God in the economy of grace; the Father’s will extends to us throughout the dispensation.
RWS Will you enlarge on that suggestion about the ear not being healed according to John, and Peter’s case being left?
JT I think it is a solemn matter that the Lord just left these facts. At least, the Spirit of God does not record through John that the ear was healed, and Peter’s denial is not pursued to its full sequel as in Luke. I think it is to remind us of the seriousness of any overt acts of sin, however spiritual we may have been. In the government of God they may be left and they may extend beyond anything we might have intended.
ANW The probing at the end of the gospel has some reference to these matters: “Lovest thou me?” three times repeated.
JT That comes into our enquiry. What shall I be when I am old? The Lord says to Peter, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and bring thee where thou dost not desire”, John 21: 18. He referred to the death he should die, that he should be a real martyr.
SJH Would you say a word as to why, in John, it is the kinsman of the one whose ear he cut off that raises the issue with Peter in the palace court? “One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” — as if he had become prominent in that way.
JT Quite so. It would indicate that, as we have said, wrong things done may stand, and spread too. There is the spreading of the thought in the fact that this kinsman would notice him. The confessions that have been made today in regard to the truth are spreading, people are hearing things they never [p. 13] heard before; but then on the other hand, if we fail in the testimony, the right testimony, as Peter did here, that effect will spread. Great damage has been done through certain ones denying the real point at issue in these recent matters. The authorities make much of contradiction among those who are nominally of the same view, the same faith, as they would say. So that Peter’s course here points to serious conduct of any kind, especially the denial of anything that has been clearly set out as a principle. In the previous war all this matter of conscience was clearly set out. Never before, so far as I know, was the matter an issue in Great Britain, because there had been no conscription there.
RA What is the position of the sword today?
JT It is in its sheath. Peter had it. The point would be that it will be used again, but the extraordinary circumstances now preclude its use. What Jesus calls His kingdom is a new thing come in as different from other kingdoms, and the sword is precluded from that kingdom. He says “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom; if my kingdom were of this world my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom not from hence”. I would call it a provisional kingdom, not in keeping with the wars that were waged before Christ, and with wars that will ensue after His second coming. When He comes out to deal with the nations the sword will be used again: but not now. It is a provisional state of things, and the fact that it is such and not accredited as David’s kingdom was for instance, makes it difficult for those who confess this kingdom at the present time. It is difficult because men do not understand it. I think that is why John is used of the Spirit of God to record these conversations between the Lord and Pilate. They have an inwardness and a depth that do not appear in the other gospels; and I believe the allusion is to [p. 14] what God has brought about in these last days, spiritual conditions wherein these inward things are discerned and held, although others do not understand them.
AAT Would you call Peter an extremist, that is, not well-balanced in regard to the question we have before us?
JT I think he must have taken up literally the Lord’s words in regard to the sword as spoken in Luke, and therefore used the sword.
ANW Regarding the inability to explain to men the difference between David’s kingdom and the Lord’s kingdom, would the best explanation be to be prepared to go to the wall?
JT That is what we have to do, because our statements are highly objectionable to some; and others who would be more or less favourable cannot see the point that is made, which the Lord brings out here. And that is why spirituality is so essential to this matter. The Spirit of Christ is always a testimony. The Spirit of Christ is seen especially in this section of John’s gospel. When the Lord speaks about “My kingdom” and says that His servants would fight if it were of this world, Pilate enquires, “Thou art then a king?”
RWS There are certain imitated features of this, are there not, certain who will not take up arms who know nothing as to this kingdom?
JT That is another matter, and it makes a real difficulty. It beclouds the real issue, because these persons are not spiritual and hence do not commend the truth. Quakers — Friends, as they are called in the United States and England — have great influence in this matter. Governmentally they have helped, but as to the inwardness and spirituality of the truth involved, they do not understand.
WR Would you say in connection with the bondman of the high priest whose ear was cut off [p. 15] that Peter could hardly preach the gospel to that man effectively?
JT He could not. He had denied the dispensation.
SJH Does it ensue that if anyone belongs to this world he should fight, but if he takes the ground that he does not belong to it, that he is a stranger here, he should not fight?
JT Yes. As Christians we have definite principles which we have learned from the Lord, and those who have not got them we just leave, as we seek to make our position clear. They are of this world and the sword belongs to them. We have to suffer, as people do not understand us. That is the attitude we have to take up; that is the attitude the Lord took up here.
JWD “The powers that be” are God’s servants in government, and we regard them in that sense and pray for them. That is another matter.
JT That is what Pilate represents in this passage. Matthew makes a little more of Pilates official place because he says, “Jesus stood before the governor”, Matthew 27: 11. That is the position. He stood before the governor. Matthew makes much of the governor because government is a point with him, and Pilate represented the empire; he had the official title of “governor”. His wife sought to dissuade him from interfering with the Lord: “Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man”, she says. Matthew 27: 19. The nearest person to him, his own wife, suffered because of Jesus. We may count on that sort of thing among those in authority; someone may have sympathy with what is right. That is what Matthew presents to us. John is dealing with the more spiritual side of the thing. The Lord reserves this matter of heaven and the authority that Pilate has almost to the end of the conversation, because John is dealing with the inwardness of things, and we [p. 16] have just to accept that they do not understand us. It is impossible for them to understand us really, and yet some see that the position is logical. But we must make it a matter of the truth of God; it is not simply that we have that view — it is a system of teaching inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ that had not existed before and will not be in force after He returns. It is a provisional teaching, and the kingdom involved in it is for this dispensation. We must thus enlarge on this dispensation, what it is in relation to all other dispensations.
AEH The Lord seems to turn this occasion into an opportunity to view Pilate, not so much as a governor, but as a man. Do you think that He is dealing with Pilate as to his own soul? He says, “Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me?”
JT I think that is right. He says further to him, “He that has delivered me up to thee has the greater sin”. The Lord considered for Pilate in a marked way. Pilate abstractly regarded the Lord as righteous, as wholly innocent of the charges against Him and, as far as the passage is concerned, he never lost that view. He wrote a title and put it on the cross: “Jesus the Nazaraean, the King of the Jews. This title therefore many of the Jews read, for the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was near; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, [and] Latin. The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Do not write, The king of the Jews, but that he said, I am king of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written”. I believe that he got light in spite of himself by what had passed. Toward the end of the conversations the word came to him that the Lord Jesus said He was the Son of God. Pilate said, “Take him ye and crucify him, for I find no fault in him”. Then the Jews say, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to [p. 17] die, because he made himself Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard this word, he was the rather afraid, and went into the praetorium again and says to Jesus, Whence art thou?” Where is this man Pilate in his soul? Is he simply sitting in a seat of authority or is his soul being touched? Is there light current even for Pilate? Is it not so that light is for all? You have that always in mind and so are not afraid to touch the deepest things, things now that relate to the deity of Christ. Pilate feared. There was a struggle in him in favour of Christ, but the sequel does not indicate any permanent result.
ANW Luke tells us the Lord made no answer at all to Herod. Are we confronted with any element like that today?
JT I think so. There are such as are given up by God — apostates. The Lord did not answer Herod. There are persons as to whom the matter is settled. But He spoke to Pilate. The authority of the four monarchies, that is, of the last one, is still existent, and the Lord is bringing that forth here; the representative of that power is being searched in his soul by the Son of God before whom he stood And what am I in the presence of those men who represent government? What is any of us who are called to witness before them? Is it the Spirit or Christ that is seen in us? This is no mere special view that I have, but it is a consistent system or teaching that is provisional for the present time and gives character to our dispensation.
CAM I suppose that is what Peter would call as a Christian. Would you say a word about the fact that as God’s ministers, there are those that use the sword?
JT Romans teaches that most plainly. The great initial epistle of Paul asserts in the plainest possible way that the powers that be are ordained of God. He enlarges on that more than the Lord does here — “it is God’s minister to thee for good”, Romans 13: 4. That is a very important side to the position; it ought to be made plain in speaking to men of authority. But this inner, spiritual side of the truth that we are looking into in this section of John is of the utmost importance, because it lends body to the whole truth of the dispensation and presents to people something that they cannot overcome.
CAM Men generally quite misunderstand. They would say, Help in the cause, assuming that God is in it as He is in Christianity, not seeing that God as God is governing the world with a view to the preaching of the gospel and maintaining the assembly in it; but that He is doing this providentially and indirectly, whereas He is in the assembly directly.
JT They have Christianized their nations largely, simply adding on nominal Christianity, and are doing their best, as the leaders will show in what they say; but what the Lord is speaking of here in John is an inward spiritual thing which is beyond them altogether.
RWS If I am speaking to a man on the street I must be careful what I say about the gospel; I would speak to him about the gospel as to a sinner. But to a man in an official position might I be free to speak about the assembly, as making the general position clear, conveying the idea that we hold nothing back as to the divine system?
JT It ought to be made clear that Christianity is a system of teaching. Paul says, “But thou hast fully known my doctrine, my manner of life” 2 Timothy 3: 10. “My doctrine” — that is a system of teaching. The Lord is presented in John as a Teacher. The first followers of the Lord in John call Him Teacher. The last one in this gospel who calls Him Teacher is Mary Magdalene; she calls Him, “Rabboni”, — ‘my Teacher’. You cannot make Christianity fit in with man’s mind, and that may cause you suffering; Christianity is a mystery, and the Lord is on that line here. The mention of the Son of God causes fear in the heart of Pilate. If you follow the creeds you will make the truth of Christ’s Sonship fit into the natural mind. The real truth of the Son of God will not fit in with the creed at all, and therefore it comes into what the Lord has been helping us on, that it is an inward thing, a spiritual thing, and you cannot make it fit in with man’s mind. Pilate is before Christ; he is at the divine bar really and he fears. Abstractly he would not crucify the Lord, but another thing comes up: he is a politician and he has to give way. As to his own soul he was convicted, not converted. How solemn it is for a man like that to come face to face with the light of God and not bow to it!
JRH Would you say his inward judgment was nullified by the outside influences?
JT Yes, the outside influences were greater than the inner convictions.
JRH He seemed to get on with the Lord talking with Him alone, but each time he goes out he is put to the test again: it happens four times.
JT He should have stayed in the praetorium. The proceedings should have been there. The Lord was there apparently until Pilate brought Him out Pilate went out to those who could not go into the praetorium for religious reasons, because he was politician. That is the danger in all such men. They have political importance, so that they give way to the voice of the people.
JWD “He who restrains” — does that work through spirituality in those who are in the truth?
JT We may not think of it at a meeting like this, but there is at all these meetings an influence bearing against apostasy. Thus we ought not to [p. 20] shrink from bringing the truth out, in its inwardness, in dealing with people.
Ques Is that why the kingdom comes in here? Not only are the saints not of this world in a negative way, but being of the kingdom we have something positive to bring before people.
JT You notice it is “My kingdom”; that has to be fitted with other references to the kingdom. It is a phase of the kingdom in a general way that is provisional, and those who are in it, the Lord’s disciples or servants, are not of this world. They are not governed by the principles of this world and hence do not use the sword.
JWD Luke mentions Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, and different tetrarchs (Luke 3: 1), as if in the sphere of the glad tidings these authorities set up by God were to be influenced by it, wicked men though many of them were. Would you go with that?
JT Yes. That is characteristic of Luke. For him grace reigns. John’s gospel is remarkable, a previous provision especially for the last days. The inwardness of it and the abstract character of it strike you; you get to the roots of things there. Pilate is in the presence of that here. When Pilate heard the truth from the Lord in the praetorium, why did he not stay there? The whole matter is there between himself and Jesus. As for those who would not go in because of religious ideas, let them stay outside. Pilate is in the hall of judgment and he is responsible to judge righteous judgment.
JRH You mean that he would have got divine support if he had stayed in the place of judgment?
JT That is the point. The Lord said, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above”, John 19: 11. He might have added, You want the support of the Jews. But Pilate is in the presence of the King, and [p. 21] he felt it too. The point for us is to keep to the abstract truth: this was placed before Pilate in remarkable clearness.
SJH We need to be governed by inward things; various other things are at work outside. Sometimes we tall into a little trap; I might lose my work, or pay be reduced. Can I carry on? That is all outside.
JT Yes. The Lord distinguishes between persons who believed because they saw miracles and persons who were born again. The former the Lord did not trust (John 2: 23 - 25), and He went on to teach that “except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3: 3 - 6). Christianity implies that those who receive Jesus receive from God a title to take the place of children of God, and that they are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”, John 1: 13. John in his epistle says “See what love the Father has given to us. That we should be called the children of God” (1 John 3: 1) a certain class of people “called the children of God”. “For this reason the world knows us not, because it knew him not”.
SWP Do you think the influence of the three men that have been alluded to, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, spreads out widely? It says the “The satraps, the prefects. And the governors, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men”, Daniel 3: 22.
JT Undoubtedly. You notice there the Son of God coming into view. Who was lie? There is a mystery. Nebuchadnezzar and his counsellors could not understand that. There is mystery and yet saving power connected with the Son of God. Pilate, as we have seen, feared as the Name [p. 22] was mentioned.
GW Paul says to Festus, “For this thing was not done in a corner”, Acts 26: 26.
JT Quite so; that is Paul’s side of the matter, it was not done in a corner. But really he is not thinking of Festus, though he has some thought about Agrippa; and the Lord has some thought about Pilate here. There are men in high places that are capable of being affected by the testimony of God.
AEH Does not the teaching of the Lord provide a basis for the judgment of the apostate system at Jerusalem? The apostasy of the system that has the greater sin would be brought before his mind. There are similar conditions today.
JT Inwardly Pilate judged that the Lord was innocent. What he did in delivering Him over was purely due to external influence over him. He was a politician and he was lost in his politics, and I think the same is true of Agrippa: “Almost thou persuadest me”, Acts 26: 28. That is, the persuasion was there; Christianity is great enough for that. It is not a system of sermons, it is the real thing that affects men’s souls inwardly. But while Agrippa was convicted mentally, we have to say that there is no evidence of his conversion.
HB Why does the Lord not answer Pilate when he says, “Whence art thou?”
JT The Lord knew he was convicted. His silence was according to dignity and would gauge Pilate’s intelligence and motives. All was in infinite wisdom. See what Pilate does as recorded in John 19: 1 - 4: “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers having plaited a crown of thorns put it on his head, and put a purple robe on him, and came to him and said, Hail, king of the Jews! and gave him blows on the face. And Pilate went out again and says to them, Lo, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find in him no fault whatever”. That is the kind of thing we have to deal with in politicians.
RWS I wondered if he thought he could make a compromise to satisfy the Jews by scourging Jesus without going so far as having Him crucified.
JT That is likely. But it shows what an unconverted man is even though he is convicted, when Christ is in question. I suppose Balaam was convicted too; he says, “I shall behold him, but not nigh”. The power of the truth is capable of that, but we cannot rely on the work.
CAM “But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name”, John 1: 12. That seems to be a great help. Often the persons you are talking to say they are Christians just the same as you are, but this inwardness of which you are speaking makes the difference.
JT Yes. John says, “And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith”, 1 John 5: 4. That is the character of his teaching. So we have the things in a systematic way, and we know of what we are speaking. We are speaking logically, so to speak, because of the way the teaching of Christianity is developed in John and in other scriptures, but in John particularly. Our faith, he says, is the victory. They may not understand it, but it is the victory.
AEH As to Pilate’s question, “Whence art thou?” which the Lord does not answer: would this indicate that the system of teaching under which we come on such occasions as this is to stand in its own dignity and power?
JT Yes; so that Mary of Magdala says, “Rabboni” — ‘my Teacher’. The Lord says to her, “Touch me not; for I have not yet ascended to my Father”. That is the inward thing, the heavenly thing. He says, “Go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”. She went, and it says she said these things to them. That is, the things were in her, that is the principle; she was representative. She would belong to the teaching. “My Teacher”, she says; she has got the truth — the systematic truth that the Lord Jesus brought into this world. In result it is the victory. It is the heavenly relationship into which we are instructed and by which we are formed; our life is bound up with it. But the teaching of John 20, although in current ministry for many years, is beyond the understanding of the average believer; but as formed in it and holding it you cannot be overcome.
JRH Is not the great point that all the power of God is behind the witness to the truth?
JT Quite so. It is the divine Presence. That is the point in John 18 when they went backwards and fell to the ground; yet the Lord is asking, “Whom seek ye?”.
SWP Do you think the man in chapter 9 of this gospel comes under the benefits of the teaching?
JT Yes; there you have the idea of the Lord following up the work. He is watching at a distance as to the progress of the truth in that man’s soul until they cast him out. Now he is in a position to get the full thought, and the Lord says, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” The Son of God did not cause fear in that man! He enjoyed the thought of it. “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?”
TLS Is the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God resting upon you in that position?
JT That is the way it would work out. Stephen’s face shone.
SJH Is there any suggestion in the seamlessness of the Lord’s body-coat? By [p. 25] analogy, everything fits together in all this system of God’s teaching.
JT “The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his clothes, and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the body-coat; but the body-coat was seamless, woven through the whole from the top. They said therefore to one another, Let us not rend it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled which says, They parted my garments among themselves, and on my vesture they cast lots. The soldiers therefore did these things”. That is a subject that requires attention — as to how it enters into the system of profession abroad, because there is a division into four parts, and then there is the whole garment that someone has. Someone has a whole idea. God has restored the truth, the whole system of truth, as to the Person of Christ. The brethren, by the Spirit of God, have brought it in, and we are kept in it more or less. The point is to get into it more. But then there is a great religious system that professes to have the whole garment; the Roman Catholic system assumes this. They claim all — and that what others have is spurious, whereas the real ones are those who have the Spirit; such form the body of Christ. It is by the Spirit the good deposit is kept (2 Timothy 1: 14). No one has the full idea of Christ but by the Spirit.
AHP Over against those that claim the Lord’s garments are these persons standing by the cross of Jesus.
JT Yes. “And by the cross of Jesus stood his mother, and the sister of his mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. Jesus therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then he says unto the disciple, Behold thy mother” (verses 25 - 27). You have the beautiful [p. 26] thought of the way of the Lord in dealing with matters; He sets up the loved one, that is, John, in family relation with His own mother. She is to be John’s mother. He does that at the cross. So that at the extreme point of suffering we can adjust matters amongst the brethren in our relations with one another. But as to this whole garment, — someone has it. It is stolen, because it really did not belong to them. If the Lord had made disposition of any belongings He had, He would not have left anything to the system of which we have spoken. Yet they have got everything; they regard themselves as Christianity, and all else from their point of view is just tolerated.
Rem This body-coat would correspond with what you were saying about the inward side.
JT It would remind you of the whole Christ, as it were. Who are worthy of that? The next paragraph is the love circle (verses 25 - 27); the Lord is thinking of them. If He were leaving His belongings, He would leave them with these. It is not said the Lord made a will at all. The idea of a will is your disposition, what your thoughts are about persons in what you give them. Verses 25, 26 and 27 would be the love circle in which the Lord would deposit all that He valued.
What John is doing in his whole gospel is enlarging on the Person of Christ. The Lord says of the Holy Spirit, “He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you”, John 16: 15. What the Spirit brings down to us from heaven is the whole thought, it is by the Spirit that we keep the good deposit.
AEH Would you think the quoting of Scripture in verse 24 would suggest that the divine authority of the Scriptures is supporting the position?
JT I think it is a very important thing in John 5 that the Lord puts Moses’ writing as equal to His own words: “If ye had believed Moses, ye would [p. 27] have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (verses 46, 47). Divine teaching is stressed. As already said, the Lord is regarded as Rabbi by those who followed Him at the beginning, and as Rabboni by Mary of Magdala at the end.
GW Is it not important that he who gets the victory over the world is begotten of God?
JT Yes. And then, “this is the victory which has gotten the victory over the world, our faith”; it is what we have learned.
FKC Would you think that what John’s gospel produces is this matter of inward power? In chapter 20 it says there are many other things that Jesus did “which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”.
JT John is saying that he selected something from infinitude in order to build up our faith. That is the intent, that we should have faith. “This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee... and his disciples believed on him” (John 2: 11); it was that people might believe really, not merely nominally. John tells us further in chapter 21 that “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written”. These works are selected to confirm and exemplify the spiritual system of truth that is to be understood and believed by the saints. Anyone thus instructed is superior to ‘modernism’ and ‘higher criticism’, because these errors are dependent on the natural mind of man which “does not receive the things of the Spirit of God”, 1 Corinthians 2: 14.
RWS “The place of a skull”.
JT That is the end [p. 28] of it.
AHP Over against the idea of “The place of a skull”, is there not the thought that Peter suggests of arming ourselves with the same mind that is seen in Jesus here? “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin”, 1 Peter 4: 1.
JT “The same mind”, that is the contrast to the thought of the skull. The great fact is that we have the mind of Christ — the same kind of thinking power.
The gist of all that has been in mind as to these two readings is the thought of “My kingdom”, which the Lord expressed to Pilate. He makes it a matter personal to Himself. It does not exclude the thoughts of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of the Son of Man, the kingdom of heaven; but the Lord is pleased to make it a matter of His own. It appeals to those who love Him. Are we all with Him in it? It is a heavenly matter, and you are not to use a sword to defend it. You are to pursue this kingdom, as He does here, recognizing the authority in Pilate, but holding to the principles of the dispensation.
HB “My servants”, that is a beautiful expression.
JT It is very beautiful. It ought to touch us if we love the Lord and what belongs to Him.
Ques Are “my brethren” and “my servants” synonymous?
JT Quite so. It is a personal matter between Him and us, and He is telling Pilate what kind of people His disciples are, that they are like Himself. That is proof that we are not deviating from His way as seen in these passages.
JWD It is a remarkable thing that even after Pilate had crucified Christ, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea still refer to him.
[p. 29] JT Quite so; he is still the governor. Men may be quite capable of being affected by the Lord Himself, and yet not be real Christians. But how far they may be able to go in helping us! Pilate granted the request of Joseph of Arimathaea. In this case the word “demanded” expresses a certain equality in Joseph, as if he had liberty in speaking to Pilate (see the Darby Translation note to “beg” in John 14:16).
JWD The expression of government can be recognised in a day of grace.
JT We do not want to antagonize Pilate. If we know him personally and seek his aid to relieve the brethren, we will talk to him personally. Why not, if you can use your influence with that in view in the name of the Lord Jesus? He is “God’s minister to thee for good”, Romans 13: 4. We have these two men in the end of chapter 19; Joseph does not come into Scripture earlier, Nicodemus does, and here he comes in to finish the matter with Pilate; and what they wished is granted. It says, “They took therefore the body of Jesus and bound it up in linen with the spices, as it is the custom with the Jews to prepare for burial”.
WWM “With the rich in His death” — the fulfilment of prophecy. That was ordered too.
JT Quite so.
JRH Do you think the account in John’s gospel of the Lord’s words with Pilate is the witnessing of the good confession?
JT Mainly, I think.
RWS These two, Joseph and Nicodemus, were, as representing God, greater than Pilate.
JT Quite so. It is a beautiful touch that John brings in Nicodemus in this way. Nobody else says anything about him. John seems to recognise every evidence of the work of God.
WR Acts 3: 13 refers to Pilate again: Peter says the Jews denied the Lord “in the presence of Pilate,
[p. 30] when he had judged that he should be let go”. He is a recovered man, and thus free and able to speak in power.
JT The Spirit of God carries through that Pilate was minded to let Jesus go. The practical lesson is that we may count on God to influence people in power to help somebody in need, and God is doing that at this very moment in Christendom.