Pontius Pilate on the Couch, Part 3: “WhatI Have Written I Have Written

Brent Pollard

The Final Session: Closing Pilate’s File

We’ve reached our final session with Pontius Pilate. So far, our patient has proven to be an interesting case. In the previous two articles, we saw a man who questions the truth while repeatedly acknowledging it, holds significant political authority yet fears losing it, and knows Jesus is innocent while desperately trying to avoid the consequences of doing what he knows is right.

Seven Observations So Far

Seven observations now fill Pilate’s file. We have seen the skeptic, the political pragmatist, the man who resists pressure until it becomes personal, the increasingly fearful governor, the insecure authority figure, the morally conflicted judge, and, finally, the man strangely drawn to Jesus yet unable to find the courage to act on what he sees. Again and again, the same underlying weakness emerges: self-preservation ultimately matters more to Pilate than truth, justice, or conviction.

Three Traits That Complete the Profile

As Pilate settles onto the couch one last time, three traits complete our profile. We will see how he responds to personal risk when the crowd threatens his standing with Caesar, how he delivers profound irony without recognizing it, and how, after the chief priests force his hand, he expresses resentment through passive aggression. He may surrender, but he will not let them forget who holds the pen.

8. Pilate Is Highly Sensitive to Personal Risk

Eighth, Pilate is highly sensitive to personal risk. The crowd prevails not on the merits of its case, but by threatening Pilate’s relationship with Caesar. As noted, Pilate belonged to the Equestrian rank. Though likely from a wealthy family, he was below Rome’s Senatorial nobility and therefore had to begin in military service. His office as prefect, often compared to a governor, was more precisely a “military governor.” In many respects, he remained a soldier with authority. Lacking political backing in Rome, Pilate depended entirely on the emperor’s personal endorsement and a patron’s support.

Career and Security Over Justice: The Pull of Loss Aversion

Pilate could tolerate theological accusations, an angry crowd, an unusual prisoner, and uncertainty about Jesus’ supernatural origins. But he could not risk the controversy reaching Tiberius, which threatened his standing. Thus, his ultimate priorities may have been career and security over justice. Before condemning Pilate, however, we should recognize how universal his reasoning is: justice often seems abstract, while safety feels concrete. Humans appear wired for loss aversion.

Did Pilate Have Children? Protecting a Family Under Pressure

When I discussed this concept in my adult midweek Bible class, one brother made an excellent point: Pilate’s need to protect his family placed him between a rock and a hard place. Matthew says Pilate had a wife, but did he have children? For a middle-aged Roman equestrian of high political rank, children were socially expected to preserve the family’s inheritance and line. However, Roman historians rarely recorded the children of provincial equestrian officials unless they achieved notable military or senatorial success. Thus, we do not know whether Pilate had children, though saving his own neck may also have meant protecting his wife and children.

When Self-Preservation Becomes Disordered (1 Timothy 5.8)

Self-preservation does not necessarily indicate our fallen nature. The desire to live, protect one’s family, and steward one’s work is laudable. Paul writes that anyone who fails to provide for his household is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5.8). Solomon calls enjoying one’s labor God’s gift (Ecclesiastes 2.24; 3.12-13; 5.18). Thus, the fall did not create these desires; it distorted their order. The self remains necessary, but has become the center around which everything revolves. Consequently, when justice and safety conflict, safety prevails—not because of miscalculation, but because the self has risen to the top of the hierarchy.    

9. Pilate Speaks Irony Without Realizing It: “Behold, Your King!” (John 19.14)

Ninth, Pilate can be ironic without realizing it. Fearing accusations that he has allowed a man to claim kingship against Caesar, he nevertheless repeatedly calls Jesus the “King of the Jews,” eventually telling the mob: “Behold, your King!” (19.14). Though the title may mock the Jewish leaders, John’s narrative makes it profoundly ironic: Pilate speaks more truly than he understands. This reinforces his portrayal as a man standing before reality but interpreting it politically. He thinks he is manipulating the language of kingship; John presents him as unknowingly proclaiming it.

Pilate’s Central Contradiction: Knowledge Without Courage

Note Pilate’s central contradiction: he can distinguish right from wrong and repeatedly acknowledges what is right. His tragedy is not ignorance but a lack of moral courage to face the consequences. He is therefore a portrait of compromised conviction. His progression moves from skepticism to curiosity, to recognition of innocence, to uneasiness, to fear, to political pressure, and to capitulation.

The Crowd Changed Pilate’s Calculation, Not His Verdict

The crowd does not change Pilate’s view of Jesus. Nothing suggests he believes Jesus deserves death. Instead, the Jewish mob changes his calculation of the cost of doing what he knows is right. This may be the passage’s darkest psychological feature: Pilate condemns Jesus without believing him guilty. He embodies the danger of a functioning conscience subordinated to self-interest.

10. Bonus Trait: Pilate the Resentful and Passive-Aggressive

Tenth and last is our bonus characteristic. It is a bonus because I addressed this aspect of Pilate’s personality nearly a year ago in the article “What Is Truth? When We Know But Won’t Act.” Here, however, we will describe Pilate as psychologically resentful and passive-aggressive when his authority is successfully challenged.

Pilate can be pressured to surrender what he knows is right, but afterward seeks a smaller arena to prove he remains in charge. Hence, John 19.19-22.

Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It was written, “JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS.” Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek. So the chief priests of the Jews were saying 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.”

Pilate’s Revenge in Writing: The Titulus on the Cross (John 19.19–22)

Pilate gets his revenge in writing. He caves, but not quietly. A Roman titulus had to state the crime. Rather than writing “Claimed to be King of the Jews” or “Treason against Caesar,” Pilate presents an unvarnished fact: “The King of the Jews.” This mocks the Jewish leadership more than Jesus. Forced to grant the execution, Pilate uses the sign to tell the passersby: this is your king, executed like a slave by Rome. Their victory becomes public humiliation. Written in Hebrew (Aramaic), Greek, and Latin, the insult was guaranteed to reach locals, Roman officials, and Passover visitors.

In doing so, Pilate forces those who pressured him to return and ask a favor: “Please change the wording.” This restores the power they had taken from him. Pilate responds with finality. His famous reply in verse 22 uses the Greek perfect tense—ho gegrapha, gegrapha: “What I have written stands.” No argument, discussion, or defense follows—only indirect hostility and refusal to engage. Afraid of Caesar, he cannot oppose the crucifixion, so he rejects this small symbolic request, ending the conversation. John uses Pilate’s character to make a theological point. The Jewish leaders want the sign to say Jesus claimed to be king, but Pilate unintentionally writes the truth: Jesus is the King of the Jews. His stubbornness makes that truth public throughout the city.

So Pilate is shown as a man too weak to do justice, but petty enough to get the last word.

Letting Pilate Off the Couch: A Warning, Not Just a Historical Figure

And with that, we can finally let Pontius Pilate off the couch. Our patient was skeptical, politically calculating, fearful, insecure about his authority, morally conflicted, fascinated by Jesus, sensitive to personal risk, unintentionally ironic, and resentful when challenged. Yet these traits reflect one central weakness: Pilate recognized what was true and right but repeatedly let self-preservation overrule conviction. That makes him more than an interesting historical figure; Pilate is a warning. We can stand near the Truth, speak with It, and defend It briefly, yet surrender It when obedience becomes costly. Pilate needed no more evidence—only courage.

Perhaps his time on our couch leaves us with this question: when knowing what is right comes at a price, will we merely recognize the truth—or have the courage to act?

Love Your Enemies

Carl Pollard

When we hear the word “enemy,” we tend to think of somebody extreme, like a terrorist, a criminal, or someone actively trying to destroy us. But most of us have enemies in a much more ordinary sense.

An enemy might be someone who embarrassed you, lied about you, betrayed your trust, or hurt your family. It might even be someone you secretly enjoy seeing fail because of how they’ve treated you.

Jesus gave us an incredibly difficult command, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

This command would be easier if Jesus just told us to leave our enemies alone. But He tells us to LOVE them! But the question is, what does that actually look like?

First, it means praying for people who have wronged us. While Jesus was being crucified, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Stephen prayed for the very people stoning him (Acts 7:60). It’s difficult to sincerely pray for someone’s salvation while secretly hoping for their destruction.

Second, it means loving people who don’t deserve it. Jesus reminds us that God sends sunlight and rain on the righteous and unrighteous alike (Matthew 5:45). God shows goodness every day to people who curse His name. Our natural instinct is to treat people according to how they treat us. Jesus teaches us to treat people according to the character of our Father.

Romans 5:10 says, “While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” At one point, WE were the enemies! 

God didn’t wait for us to become lovable before demonstrating His love. Christ died for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8).

So here’s the question for you. Is there someone you would struggle to see God forgive? Someone whose salvation would bother you because of what they’ve done?

Sometimes our greatest struggle isn’t believing God will forgive us. It’s accepting that He’s willing to forgive them.

Jesus doesn’t ask us to call our enemies good. He asks us to do good to our enemies.

We love our enemies because our Father loved His.

Sometimes We Don’t Know As Much As We Think We Do

Gary Pollard

As recently as 1942, some medical textbooks still recommended bloodletting as a potential treatment for pneumonia.1 One hundred years earlier, the prevailing scientific wisdom was that disease spread through “bad air”, called miasma. This had real world consequences, with one in five women dying after childbirth because their doctors didn’t wash their hands. Ignaz Semmelweis recommended that doctors wash their hands with a chlorinated lime solution, and the mortality rate dropped from 20% to less than 1%. Semmelweis was ridiculed by the scientific mainstream because he couldn’t demonstrate why his method worked. He was fired from his job and was eventually beaten to death by guards in an asylum. In 1901, Rear Admiral George Melville wrote in The North American Review, “A calm surveying of the field of science…forces the conclusion that the unassisted navigation of the air is an impossibility.”2 Two months before the Wright brothers successfully flew their plane, the New York Times said that a flying machine might be built if mathematicians and engineers worked together continuously for one to ten million years. Until very recently, mainstream astrophysicists asserted that it was impossible for charge separation to exist at scale in space. Hannes Alfvén, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics (1970), argued that large-scale electrical currents could still flow and create localized structures (double layers). He was dismissed entirely, but was later vindicated.3

There are many other examples of prevailing wisdom attacking revolutionary ideas and their proponents, only to be later found flatly wrong.4 Since new discoveries have ousted erroneous ways of thinking so many times historically, why have we not learned from the blunders of our predecessors? History views the blindly skeptical — the dogmatic naysayers — as narrow-minded and foolish for good reason. The skeptics at the time had, in their view, good reason for being skeptical. They had meticulously observed phenomena, performed experiments, created mathematical proofs, and had, to some degree or another, reached consensus. They were still wrong! So why does humanity still not learn from the past? I believe there are a few reasons. 

  1. Consensus can be a powerful tool for intellectual enslavement when inflexible. If everyone agrees, it must be true. I remember being told in school, “If you come up with an interpretation that no one else has put forward, you’re probably wrong.” Theologians are not immune to the blindness consensus can cause. 
  2. Pride. Our ideas are our intellectual offspring. Acceptance of an idea that one may have dedicated their entire career to developing is, rightly so, a point of pride. To have an idea disproved is both painful and devaluing. Also in this category is the fact that many breakthroughs happen outside of their respective fields.5 Revolutionary breakthroughs in a specific field should come from that field. They’re the experts, after all. But 1 and 2 can and do stagnate progress. Humility is critical to preventing stagnation in any field. 
  3. Interpretation. We bring our own experiences and biases to every problem. So much of reality is invisible to our eyes, and we have to rely on proxy data and technological assistance. For example, scripture often uses symbolism to bring ineffable things down to a level we can process. Symbolism is designed to speak to our intuition, not necessarily to our analytical mind, but we have to start somewhere to make sense of the symbols. Exegesis can be helpful, but is only step one. We must interpret what we see, and our interpretation is influenced heavily by our priors. This is true both in religion and in science (which are not truly separate, but do have different objectives) — we bring some kind of framework to the problem, and our interpretations can only be as good as the assumptions they’re built on. This category probably affects us more than any other because it is immune to motive. A heart of gold, tireless work ethic, and intellectual humility can still lead to an erroneous interpretation. 
  4. Worldview. This probably should be a subcategory under 3. What we aim at and what we believe fundamentally affects our interpretation. A catastrophist and gradualist looking at the same problem come away with radically different results. Our worldview is the sum total of our assumptions, experiences, and beliefs. In many ways, our worldview is what we think we know. 

These obstacles all have something in common (with a provision): they can be easily kept in check by adopting the teachings of Christ. For 1, we understand that the wisdom of an age is far from infallible. For 2, we believe that pride is incompatible with godliness. The provision falls under 3: some things are not up for interpretation (like the deity and humanity of Jesus, his resurrection, the existence of God), but dogmatism can be deadly.6 We must be open to the possibility that anything not overtly incompatible with the fundamental, transparent truths of scripture is potentially valid. Finally, for 4, our worldview is ideally built around an acknowledgement of a divine creator, our own fallibility, the supremacy of truth, and genuine love for other people. Putting others above self may not advance our own aims in the short term, but certainly avoids stagnating a field for centuries. There is so much left to solve, cure, fix, discover, and improve — and nothing will improve the human condition more than adopting the mind of Christ in everything we attempt. 

1 Thomas, D.P. (2014) The demise of bloodletting. The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edingburgh, 44(1), 72-77. https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2014.117
2 Melville, George W. (1901) The engineer and the problem of aërial navigation. The North American Review, 173(541), 820. He also said, “The successful flying machine, to spring full-fledged from the ashes of present failure, would have to be a Phoenix.”
3 Data from Transit 5E-11 (1966), Triad (1973), ESA’s Swarm fleet, Sweden’s Viking (1986) and Freja (1992), NASA’s Fast Auroral Snapshot satellite (1996), and NASA’s Juno (2016-) flew through Jupiter’s polar magnetosphere. If charge systems in space are impossible, they should only exist near Earth; they were found to be universal.
4 Meteorites originating from space was considered impossible by the mainstream (including the French Academy of Sciences and famous figures like Thomas Jefferson); only “uneducated peasants” believed that rocks could fall from space. In 1803, thousands of meteorites fell over L’Aigle, France in broad daylight. Fusion was considered impossible by the scientific establishment — Einstein himself said in 1932, “…[T]here is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. That would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” Even more examples can be found in soft science fields like archaeology and geology.
5 e.g. The laws of heredity and genetics were discovered by Augustinian friar and monk Gregor Mendel; Uranus was discovered by a professional musician (William Herschel) whose hobby was astronomy; Microbiology/microscopy was pioneered by a fabric merchant (Antonie van Leeuwenhoek); The longitude problem — which science at the time said could only be solved with advanced math and astronomy — was solved by uneducated carpenter and self-taught clockmaker John Harrison. There are many, many other examples of this, both modern and historic.
6 I highly recommend reading the contents of the Edict of Thessalonica (AD 380), its consequences, its targets, and its outcomes. It signaled the death of primitive Christianity, and we still strongly feel its effects today.



The Bible And Magic

Dale Pollard

The Bible is surprisingly full of strange references to divination, sorcery, and attempts to communicate with the supernatural.

One of the strangest appears in Acts 19. When Paul preached in Ephesus, people who had practiced magical arts brought their books together and burned them publicly. Luke says the value of the books came to 50,000 silver pieces (Acts 19.19).

These weren’t ordinary books. Ephesus was famous throughout the ancient world for magical formulas and amulets known as the “Ephesian letters.” Ancient writers describe these as combinations of mysterious words and symbols believed to provide supernatural protection or have other magical effects.

Then there is an even stranger passage in Hosea 4.12:

“My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff speaks to them.”

The Hebrew word translated “staff” refers to a rod or piece of wood used for divination. Old Christian commentators, Cyril of Alexandria and Theophylact, described a practice in which two sticks were erected and a charm was spoken; the direction in which they fell was interpreted as an answer. Later commentators called this rhabdomancy—divination by rods.

It wasn’t the only form of forbidden supernatural practice, though. Deuteronomy 18.10–12 lists divination, interpreting omens, sorcery, spellcasting, consulting mediums, and communicating with the dead. 1 Samuel 28 then gives one of the Bible’s most infamous examples. Saul visits the medium of Endor and asks her to summon the deceased prophet Samuel.

The Bible even portrays magical practitioners appearing to accomplish supernatural signs. Pharaoh’s magicians imitate some of Moses’ miracles in Exodus 7–8, while Simon the Magician amazes people in Acts 8, and Elymas the sorcerer opposes Paul in Acts 13.

The biblical writers knew the ancient world was filled with people who claimed to manipulate, discover, or communicate with hidden powers—and they repeatedly warned Israel and the early Christians not to seek any power that wasn’t from God.

Singing With The Understanding: “Whispering Hope”

Neal Pollard

English is a living language and poetic wording requires interpretation. When we come to interpret poetic words written long ago, we can easily find ourselves failing to understand meaning. This is true of our worship in song, as we sing words that we may fail to comprehend. Because we are worshipping God, we want to correct this whenever necessary.

The hymn, Whispering Hope, is soft and sentimental, having a beautiful tune that makes a favorite almost 160 years after it was written. Septimus Winner, the author of the song, is probably as well known for children’s songs like Listen To The Mockingbird and Oh Where, Oh Where Has My Little Dog Gone? A song that would later become a bluegrass standard, What Is Home Without A Mother, was also a Winner song.

Winner writes in the poetic style of the 19th Century for the song we sometimes sing in church. The first verse personifies hope with these eloquent words: “Soft as the voice of an angel, breathing a lesson unheard, hope with a gentle persuasion, whispers her comforting word.” This seems to suggest that, at times, hope is a feeling without words that can grow and move us to trust the One who gives it. What encouragement can we have faith in? The message of hope: “Wait till the darkness is over, wait till the tempest is done. Hope for the sunshine tomorrow, after the shower is done.” Things may be going badly now, but wait and hope. Things will get better.

This same mindset of waiting and trusting is depicted in the second verse, if the lyrics are complicated. Winner writes, “If, in the dusk of the twilight, dim be the region afar, will not the deepening darkness, brighten the glimmering star? Then when the night is upon us, why should the heart sink away? When the dark midnight is over, watch for the breaking of day.” The entire verse pictures how, when we are suffering, struggling, or enduring something difficult, it can serve to help us see the promises of hope that will be realized whether after the trial or at the very end. Hope will not disappoint (cf. Romans 5:5).

The last verse includes some words we don’t use or may struggle to understand. It begins with a clear allusion to Hebrews 6:19: “Hope, as an anchor so steadfast, rends (rips or tears, NP) the dark veil for the soul.” The latter phrase makes me think of what happened to the temple curtain separating the holy place and most holy place when Jesus died on the cross (see Matthew 27:51). Hope not only anchors us, but through it God shows His power. “Whither (where, NP) the Master has entered, robbing the grave of its goal.” We have hope because death has been defeated (1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Hebrews 2:14-15). “Come then, O come, glad fruition (the realization of hope, NP), come to my sad weary heart; come, O thou blest hope of glory, never, O never depart.” This seems to be asking, “Please let my hope be fulfilled and never let me lose that hope.”

When we are struggling with temptations, trials, difficulties, and loss, hope is elusive and hard to find. This song urges us to persist and trust that this hope will be realized. This is reinforced in the simple refrain: “Whispering hope, oh how welcome thy voice, making my heart in its sorrow rejoice.” While it is notable to me that there is no mention of God, Christ, or the Bible, in Esther-like fashion, it pictures hope as something tangible and trustworthy. It calls us to embrace it. Armed with the promises of Scripture, we should always be reminded to choose hope over doubt when in the midst of spiritual storms.

Pontius Pilate on the Couch, Part 2: Fear, Authority, and Moral Conflict in John 19

Brent Pollard

Returning to Pilate’s Psychological Profile

As we return to our psychoanalysis of Pilate, our patient has already given us quite a bit to work with. In the previous article, we saw that Pilate was skeptical about truth, politically pragmatic, and capable of resisting pressure—but only for so long. He could recognize what was right and even defend it temporarily, yet he lacked the fortitude to hold his position once the consequences became personal.

The examination now becomes more revealing. As Pilate’s interaction with Jesus progresses, the cracks in his composure become more evident. His fear grows, and he appears uncomfortable when his authority is challenged. He also faces a moral dilemma, knowing Jesus is innocent but still pondering how to satisfy His accusers. Interestingly, Pilate seems somewhat drawn to Jesus, repeatedly returning to Him, questioning Him, and seeking a way out. However, the curiosity, respect, or unease that Jesus evokes in Pilate never develops into true courage.

Four New Observations About Pilate

With Pilate back on the couch, we will add four more observations to his psychological profile: his growing fear, his sensitivity to authority, his moral conflict, and his fascination with Jesus that stops just short of conviction.

4. Pilate’s Growing Fear (John 19.7–8)

Fourth in our series, we note that Pilate is increasingly fearful as his encounter with Jesus develops. If there is one thing to be said about the advantage of fear, it is that it heightens one’s desire for self-preservation. I didn’t say it was a positive thing, but a natural outcome. When a person is filled with fear, things like moral convictions and resoluteness tend to melt away if it means saving one’s own neck. Is there any surprise that the antidote to fear is love, which casts fear away (1 John 4.18)?

Why Love Casts Out Fear (1 John 4.18)

When we talk about love, it is not man’s imperfect love, which the Greeks observed existed in many forms beyond what God shows. When we say that love casts out fear, we refer to God’s agape love for mankind. God’s love removes our fear of punishment, or we might say, the consequences. Naturally, this can only result through one’s obedience to God and subsequent relationship with Him. Pilate lacks this. Therefore, he fears what will happen if this situation continues spiraling out of control.

What Triggered Pilate’s Fear? The Son of God and a Wife’s Dream

What precipitated Pilate’s fear? He heard the Jews say that Jesus made Himself out to be the Son of God (John 19.7-8). To Pilate, it was not unheard of for a deity to cavort with human women and produce offspring. Jupiter had famous demigod sons like Hercules, Bacchus, and Perseus. Matthew heightens our understanding of Pilate’s superstition by introducing us to his wife, whose dreams about Jesus have troubled her and have caused her to counsel her husband to have nothing to do with Him (Matthew 27.19).

“Where Are You From?” Pilate Loses His Sense of Control (John 19.9)

What if the father of Jesus, a god, were to take vengeance for his son? This was no small matter for Pilate. The situation becomes reversed. The confident Pilate, who felt he held all the power, begins to feel more like he’s powerless. Pilate’s question, “Where are You from?” (19.9), suggests that Jesus is no longer merely another troublesome Jewish defendant.

Jesus Answers Pilate’s Fear (John 19.11)

Jesus’ reply to this fear is worth noting as well. Pilate urges Jesus to be less passive in the process, to speak up and advocate for Himself more. Pilate tells Jesus that he has power over Him in this situation. Jesus replies that Pilate would not have that power unless it had been granted to him from above (John 19.11). Furthermore, Jesus assures Pilate that the one who delivered Him to the Roman authorities had committed the greater sin. Jesus’ words may have given Pilate enough leeway to carry out the consequences of his own moral cowardice. Nevertheless, we see that Pilate redoubles his efforts to release Jesus out of fear of Jesus’ potential provenance (John 19.12).

5. Pilate Is Uncomfortable When His Authority Is Challenged (John 19.10)

Fifth, Pilate is uncomfortable when his authority is challenged. We have already observed that Pilate reminds Jesus that he has power over Him (John 19.10). In light of his fear, Pilate may have needed to state this to remind himself who is supposed to be in control of the situation. Since Jesus reminds Pilate that his culpability is less than that of those who deliver Him to the Romans, the prefect does not become angry but rather uncomfortable. Pilate therefore seems to possess an externally powerful yet internally insecure sense of authority.

The Insecure Authority of a Roman Provincial Governor

This insecurity aligns with the socio-political realities of a middle-tier Equestrian magistrate governing an unstable province. Lacking senatorial status, a minor provincial governor like Pontius Pilate relied entirely on imperial favor to survive. When the crowd invokes his loyalty to Caesar (John 19.12), they weaponize his political vulnerability. Furthermore, while Pilate likely shared the typical Roman disdain for local “barbarian” customs, he was routinely outmaneuvered by provincial leaders who exploited the limits of his administrative authority. His outward displays of force masked the fragile reality of a bureaucrat trapped between imperial paranoia and local resistance.

6. Pilate Is Morally Conflicted: Justice vs. Self-Preservation

Sixth, Pilate is morally conflicted. Perhaps the strongest feature of Pilate’s psychology is cognitive and moral dissonance. Pilate knows that Jesus is innocent. Yet, ultimately, he orders the crucifixion of this innocent Man. Pilate spends much of our pericope trying to reconcile two incompatible goals: doing what is just and protecting his fragile political position. His various maneuvers—the prisoner’s release, trying to push Jesus off onto Herod (see Luke’s Gospel), the scourging, presenting Jesus to the crowd, repeatedly declaring Him innocent—can be read as attempts to avoid choosing between the two. But eventually Pilate chooses security over justice.

Pilate’s Failure and the Divine Mandate of Civil Authority (Romans 13.1–5)

This moral failure is heightened when viewed in light of the divine mandate for civil authority. As Paul later notes, government is ordained by God to bear the sword against evil and to execute justice (Romans 13.1–5). Pilate held genuine, God-delegated authority (John 19.11), so his responsibility was real and his choices were unforced. God did not micromanage Pilate’s mind or override his free will; rather, in His foreknowledge, God willed to accomplish redemption through Pilate’s freely chosen compromise. Pilate’s tragedy is that, despite the divine mandate to execute justice, he instead weaponized his office to protect himself.

7. Pilate Is Drawn to Jesus but Stops Short of Conviction

Seventh, Pilate is drawn to Jesus but not enough to act courageously. Pilate repeatedly returns to the Praetorium to speak with Jesus. The dialogue grows increasingly personal. He asks Jesus about kingship, truth, His origin, and authority. Pilate does not treat Jesus as a common criminal but seems genuinely fascinated—and at times deeply unsettled—by Him. This fascination peaks when Pilate hears that Jesus claims a divine origin, evoking awe and pagan apprehension in the prefect (John 19.7–8).

“What Is Truth?” The Limits of Pilate’s Curiosity (John 18.38)

Yet Pilate’s famous dismissive query, “What is truth?” (John 18.38), reveals the limits of his curiosity. He embodies the pragmatic cynicism of the Roman ruling class, in which truth is treated as an abstract luxury subordinate to political order. Intellectual interest, emotional disturbance, and superstitious dread never mature into moral commitment. Pilate comes unusually close to the Truth—standing inches from It—without ever submitting to It, demonstrating that fascination with Christ without conviction yields the same outcome as outright opposition.

Pilate’s Diagnosis So Far—and What the Final Installment Holds

At this point, our patient has spent quite a while on the couch, and the diagnosis—if we may use that word loosely—is becoming clearer. Pilate is not a man who cannot see the truth; he is a man who repeatedly sees it and then seeks to avoid what it demands of him. Fear weakens him, challenges to his authority unsettle him, moral conflict paralyzes him, and even his fascination with Jesus cannot produce the courage needed to do what he knows is right. Yet John still has more to reveal. In the final installment, we will complete Pilate’s psychological profile with the remaining observations and consider what his behavior teaches us about the dangers of holding authority, recognizing truth, and even standing face-to-face with Christ while still allowing self-preservation to have the final word.

Does God Expect Christians To Attend Every Church Service?

Carl Pollard

Is it a sin to miss Wednesday night Bible study? What about Sunday evening? Does God expect a Christian to be present every single time the church building is open?

Those questions can make people uncomfortable because Christians sometimes answer them in one of two extremes.

One extreme says, “If the doors are open, you better be there.” The other says, “Church attendance really doesn’t matter as long as I believe in Jesus.”

Neither approach tells the whole story.

Hebrews 10:24–25 says, “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together… but encouraging one another.”

God clearly expects Christians to assemble. Gathering with the church isn’t an optional extra for especially dedicated Christians. It’s part of belonging to the body of Christ. The early church devoted themselves to fellowship, worship, teaching, and being together (Acts 2:42–47).

At the same time, the Bible never gives a command saying, “Thou shalt attend Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening.” Those particular meeting times are arrangements congregations have made for worship, study, encouragement, and spiritual growth.

But that doesn’t mean those times are meaningless.

In a congregation with elders, those men have been entrusted with the spiritual care of the flock. Hebrews 13:17 says they are “keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” When elders choose regular times for the church to worship, study, and encourage one another, they’re doing so as shepherds trying to help the congregation grow spiritually.

That doesn’t mean every absence is sinful or that elders have the authority to invent new laws for Christians. But it should make us hesitate before treating the times they’ve set aside for our spiritual good as unimportant.

So maybe we’ve sometimes asked the wrong question.

Instead of asking, “How many services can I miss before I’m sinning?” perhaps we should ask, “Why am I looking for reasons to stay away from people God has called me to love and from opportunities my spiritual shepherds have provided for my growth?”

There are legitimate reasons Christians sometimes cannot assemble. Sickness happens. Work responsibilities happen. Emergencies happen. Caring for someone may keep us home. Scripture doesn’t portray God as keeping an attendance sheet and condemning someone because circumstances prevented them from being present.

But there’s a difference between being unable to assemble and simply not valuing the assembly.

That’s where Hebrews 10 challenges us.

Notice that the passage isn’t merely about what I get from attending. We assemble to “stir up one another” and “encourage one another.” When I’m absent, the question isn’t only, “What did I miss?” It’s also, “Who missed the encouragement I could have given?” There are few things more discouraging as a preacher than an empty room. But imagine how God feels when we put more value on secular life than spiritual growth and fellowship. 

Christians shouldn’t need a rule specifying the minimum number of services required.

When you love your church family, respect the shepherds watching over your soul, and genuinely want to grow, you’ll want to be there whenever you reasonably can.

The goal isn’t perfect attendance. The goal is a heart that values the church, values spiritual growth, and values the people Jesus died to make your family.

First Day

Gary Pollard

Many of the details present in Moses’s creation account are found in creation stories the world over: the garden placed in the east (or north), an idyllic paradise, a garden surrounded by four rivers which are given terrestrial names, God among man, and some others we won’t talk about here. The difference between Moses’s account and the ones found everywhere else is brevity (to say nothing of inspiration). He does not embellish or overly personify the forces involved in creation. To the student of ancient symbolism and cosmology, Moses’s account is extremely information-dense and suggests that he knew far more than he let on! I will let his account speak for itself: 

This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. Instead, springs came up from the ground and watered all the land. Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. The Lord God made all sorts of trees grow up from the ground—trees that were beautiful and that produced delicious fruit. In the middle of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

A river flowed from the land of Eden, watering the garden and then dividing into four branches. The first branch, called the Pishon, flowed around the entire land of Havilah, where gold is found. The gold of that land is exceptionally pure; aromatic resin and onyx stone are also found there. The second branch, called the Gihon, flowed around the entire land of Cush. The third branch, called the Tigris, flowed east of the land of Asshur. The fourth branch is called the Euphrates. The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. But the Lord God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden—except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” 

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and the man chose a name for each one. He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the opening. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man. “At last!” the man exclaimed. “This one is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh! She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken from ‘man.’ ” This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Now the man and his wife were both naked, but they felt no shame.

WHEN ANGELS GO TO WAR

Dale Pollard

“And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—“ Jude 6

The Bible indicates a battle between Satan and his rebellious followers in several key passages. The reason for this spiritual spat is not given to us in great detail, but we are told that it began after they abandoned their rightful habitation (Jude 6). While many have speculated as to what and how this happened, we simply aren’t told. Some have also made the argument that this event took place after the Creation of the world, but this is also not certain. Genesis 2:1 says, “the heavens and the earth were completed and all their hosts.” While that may seem to clearly indicate that angels must have been created alongside everything else, Job 38:7 states that angels gave “shouts of joy” after the creation of the stars.

The spiritual conflict ended with Satan and his apostate followers cast from the heavenly realm (2 Peter 2.4, Rev. 12.14, Jude) just before, it seems, the creation of earth. We’re also told that the Archangel Michael took a significant role in Satan’s defeat and expulsion. 

At one time, Satan seems to have been a high-ranking Angel who thought he stood a chance against his very Creator. That’s a ridiculous thought. The application of this historical (pre-historical?) event is evident. Nobody, whether angel or man, can win against God’s will. It’s mind boggling to imagine taking on God Almighty in some kind of battle, yet Paul tells us in Romans five that we were enemies of God at one point while living in sin and sinners are currently waging a war with God. We should let that long ago battle in the heavenly realm be a reminder to us that God always wins the war.

Written A While Back, But Still Relevant…

What Would Our Slogan Be?

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF SODOM

Neal Pollard

Sodom is mentioned 48 times in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. What took place there when Lot was a resident was so reprehensible that God punished it by destroying that city as well as three other cities in the entire plain, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim (Deuteronomy 29:23). While there seems to have been multiple sin problems there, chief among them was sexual immorality. Lot shelters two angels in his house (Genesis 19:1-3), angels that appeared to the “the men of the city” to be “men” (Genesis 19:4-5). Moses chronicles the incident, recording the demand of the men of Sodom, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (Genesis 19:4, NIV). The word “sodomy” gets its name from this city and this incident. Lot labels their intent “wicked” (vs. 6) and it triggers the angels’ call for Lot and his family to leave the city before God destroyed it (vs. 12-13). So it happens (vs. 24-25). 

But that is not the end of the Bible’s remarks about this wicked city. It would become a byword for sin in subsequent generations. Consider what we read elsewhere, as Sodom either symbolizes or illustrates unrighteousness.

  • Likened to poison and bitterness (Deuteronomy 32:32).
  • Likened to total desolation (Isaiah 1:7,9; Romans 9:29).
  • Illustrates shameless sin and evil (Isaiah 3:9). 
  • Serves as illustration of the total overthrow of Babylon (Isaiah 13:19).
  • Symbolizes unrepentant sexual sin (Jeremiah 23:14).
  • Illustrates total destruction (Jeremiah 40:18; 50:40).
  • Judah’s sudden conquering by Babylon is likened to how Sodom “was overthrown in a moment” (Lamentations 4:6).
  • Serves as a repeated metaphor for rebellious Israel and Judah (Ezekiel 16:46-49).
  • Used to illustration the sins of arrogance, careless ease, and lack of compassion (Ezekiel 16:49-56).
  • Used to illustrate total apostasy (Amos 4:11).
  • Illustrates perpetual desolation (Zephaniah 2:9).
  • Implies their peril on Judgment Day (Matthew 10:15; cf. 11:23-24; Luke 10:12).
  • Alludes to their destruction as an illustration of ultimate judgment (Luke 17:29).
  • Used to illustrate condemnation due to ungodliness (2 Peter 2:9).
  • Identified as those who “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” and received eternal fire as a warning to the disobedient in Jude’s audience (Jude 7).
  • Symbolize those who engage in egregious sin (Revelation 11:8).

Was what the men of Sodom guilty of more horrific and appalling than those who engaged in other spiritual rebellion or even other sexual sins? Not at all. However, one has to do an extraordinary amount of spiritual gymnastics to avoid the conclusion that what happened in Sodom displeased God. God’s response harmonizes with all His Word has to say on the subject of homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). 

God’s message for anyone and everyone struggling with sin is that grace is available (Titus 2:11). God desires to forgive and save (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). At the same time, grace is not a cover for unrepentant sin (Romans 6:1-2; Jude 4). Reconciliation comes when one turns away from sin and turns to God (Colossians 1:19-23). It’s what God hoped for Sodom (Genesis 18:20-33), but Sodom did not want this for themselves. The inhabitants of this ancient city serve as a warning to us that rebellion against God’s will not end well those who chose to engage in it. It is a timeless, if ancient, principle. 

Putting Pilate on the Couch: A Psychological Profile from John 18-19 (Part One)

Brent Pollard

I would be remiss not to acknowledge that this article is published on the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. Without further commentary, I will briefly note that I am amazed by the changes I’ve seen over the past 25 years since this brazen attack. Sadly, little of it has been for the better. Our thoughts go out to the families still grieving their lost loved ones, and our prayers are for the peace that comes when we finally learn to treat others as we would have them treat us (Matthew 7.12).

Putting Pontius Pilate on the Couch

Over the next few weeks, we will put Pontius Pilate on the couch as we “psychoanalyze” him based on John 18.28-19.16. John gives us the most complete picture of Pilate among the Gospels. It helps that Jesus’ trial before Pilate reads less like a formal court proceeding and more like a discussion between two parties. Pilate speaks his mind, revealing his heart.

What does this discussion reveal about Pilate? It shows he is intellectually skeptical, politically strategic, emotionally restless, and principally driven by self-preservation. Although we can’t provide a clinical diagnosis without direct communication with him, the discussion offers sufficient behavioral evidence to create a detailed nine-point character profile. Additionally, we’ll include a tenth bonus point at the end, outside our main excerpt, to further complete Pilate’s profile.

1. Pilate the Skeptic: “What is Truth?” (John 18.38)

Initially, Pilate shows skepticism and cynicism toward the concept of absolute truth (John 18.38). When asked whether He is a king, Jesus responds that He is the King of those who listen to the truth. Pilate then asks the classic question: “What is truth?” Does Pilate’s question suggest a philosophical pondering? More likely, it indicates that Pilate views truth as a practical matter. As a politician, he is familiar with competing claims, propaganda, and self-interest. In his perspective, truth is largely subjective.

Pilate, Postmodernism, and the Shift to Metamodernism

Pilate foreshadowed postmodernism long before the movement became academically recognized. He believed that truth was often difficult to pin down, subjective, or irrelevant to everyday life. Rejecting the idea of a single, absolute Truth guiding human action, he understood that those in power tend to shape what people accept as true to control others. His quick departure after posing the question indicates he viewed it as an abstract game of language. His skepticism, formed by living in a diverse empire, reflects exposure to various disparate viewpoints. This attitude is consistent with postmodernism, which also argues that no single group holds the complete truth, given the cultural and ideological diversity involved.

Yes, Pilate would feel comfortable in early 21st-century America, even if his mindset was in decline. Rest assured, we are no longer living in a postmodern world. We have transitioned to metamodernism, which holds that absolute truth exists, but none of us can truly know it. Though this is still an unfortunate conclusion, it is an advancement from rejecting absolute truth. As Christians, isn’t it reassuring to read passages like John 17.17? Isn’t it heartening to know that we can know the truth, and it will set us free (John 8.32; 1 John 5.13)?

The Irony: Seeing the Truth but Refusing to Act

But there is an irony. Despite his skepticism about truth, Pilate can reach factual conclusions, and he does so about Jesus: He is not guilty, especially of anything worthy of death (John 18.38; 19.4,6). Pilate’s problem is similar to that of many people today. Although he sees the truth, he is unwilling to act on it.

2. Pilate the Political Pragmatist (John 18.33)

Secondly, Pilate is pragmatic and politically minded, immediately politicizing the situation by asking, “Are You the King of the Jews?” (John 18.33). He is unconcerned with Jewish theological disputes, instead viewing Jesus as a possible political threat to Roman rule. This mindset mirrors 21st-century America, where politics regularly overshadows issues. For instance, social media users frequently politicize posts—an innocuous meme may prompt comments about Presidents Trump or Biden that are unrelated to the original post.

NIH research shows online political arguments are often made by people who are naturally hostile and enjoy toxicity. Pilate stands out: he doesn’t enjoy political toxicity, but politics matter to his career. Like keyboard warriors, he’s quick to judge your political stance before anything else—his first question: ally or enemy? It’s the 1st-century Roman version of “are you a red or blue stater?”

Pilate’s pragmatism is evident in his attempt to resolve the “Jesus problem” by invoking the custom of the Passover prisoner (John 18.39). Instead of dismissing charges against an innocent man, he seeks a political way to release Jesus without confronting the accusers, revealing his political-mindedness and preference for maneuvering in place of confrontation.

3. Pilate Resists Pressure—Until It Turns Personal (John 19.12)

Third, Pilate can resist initial pressure but not sustained pressure. John records three times that he publicly declares he finds no fault in Jesus. He presents Jesus after scourging, hoping punishment short of execution will satisfy them (19.4–5). When told that Jesus might be the son of a god, John says Pilate repeatedly tried to release Jesus (19.12). So, Pilate isn’t immediately submissive. He resists crowd pressure and shows some concern for justice—up to a point.

But that resistance had limits. Once the crowd found the right lever—Caesar (19.12)—Pilate crumpled. The threat was no longer only disorder in Jerusalem; now Pilate’s position was at risk. This was a turning point, not unprecedented. Previously, Pilate hung shields bearing Tiberius’ image from Herod’s castle, which the Jews saw as idolatry. The Jews complained directly to Tiberius, who ordered Pilate to remove the shields and take them to Caesarea Maritima. Assuming Jesus’ crucifixion was in 33 AD, the “shields incident” occurred in 31 or 32 AD, so Pilate was vulnerable and cautious about further repercussions.

Pilate and Samson: When Persistence Wears a Man Down

Again, Pilate could find himself at home in the 21st century. Yet, this time Pilate reminds us of Judge Samson. After Samson took up with Delilah, her intentions became obvious. Every time she nagged him about his strength, he’d awaken to find she had done the very thing he falsely confided would rob him of his strength. Even so, Samson stayed with her. But her nagging wore him down, and he revealed the truth (Judges 16.15ff). We know the rest of that story from Sunday School. In Samson’s case, it led to humiliation. However, Jesus showed how to use “nagging” constructively to have prayers answered (Luke 18.1-8).

Three Kinds of Nagging: Delilah, the Widow, and the Chief Priests

This is an aside from Pilate’s psychological profile, but it is beneficial nonetheless. What is the difference in the types of nagging we have seen between the Jews, Delilah, and the widow in Luke 18? Examining the original language reveals that Delilah’s nagging was alats (Judges 16.16), meaning relentless psychological pressure, like an anaconda slowly constricting around its prey, suffocating Samson.

The persistent widow’s nagging was hypōpiazō(Luke 18.5). This is a Greek boxing term meaning “to strike under the eye” or to wear down an opponent. It is relentless, targeted advocacy. It is positive because she was seeking justice, one of the things God requires of us (Micah 6.8).

Lastly, the chief priests’ nagging persistence is the Greek epikeimai (Luke 23.23), meaning they exerted great pressure. Thayer says it can figuratively describe the pressure of a violent tempest, similar to the millibars or hectopascals used for hurricanes, denoting a storm’s destructive potential. Luke also states they were prevailing (kataschyo) against Pilate, meaning to overpower. Pilate’s words were drowned out as they shouted over him until he capitulated.

Thus, Pilate did stand, but he could not withstand. The sustained campaign by the chief priests and the multitude, whipped into a frenzy, wore down Pilate’s resistance.

Pilate’s Profile Thus Far—And What Comes Next

Our patient on the couch has proved quite complicated. Pilate is skeptical, practical, political, stubborn—resisting pressure until it becomes personal. He can stand temporarily but cannot sustain it long-term. This might be the point where the analyst says, “Interesting.” But John keeps providing material for Pilate’s file. As the trial goes on, Pilate’s inner turmoil—fear, frustration, wounded pride, and distress—emerges more clearly. In the next article, we will revisit Pilate on the couch to explore what happens when a man knows what’s right but lacks the courage to act.

Excellent And Practical:

11 Ways to Invite God Into Your Home

This Is How They’ll Know

Carl Pollard

Have you ever walked into a room and immediately known what mattered there? Walk into someone’s house and see family pictures covering the walls, and you know what matters. Walk into a teenager’s room and see posters, trophies, instruments, and jerseys, and you get an idea of what matters to them. Usually, what matters eventually becomes visible.

That raises an important question. If someone walked into our congregation knowing absolutely nothing about us, what would tell them that we belong to Jesus?

Jesus gave an answer on the night before He died. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you… By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34–35

Jesus calls love a commandment. That means biblical love has to be more than an emotion. You can’t command chemistry or warm feelings, but you can command patience, kindness, forgiveness, sacrifice, service, and compassion.

That becomes especially important because the closer you get to people, the more of their flaws you see. From a distance, everybody is fairly easy to love. Get close enough and you’ll discover annoying habits, disagreements, selfishness, bad days, and disappointments. And they’ll discover the same things in us! 

Jesus never said His people would always be easy to love. He simply said, “Love one another.” Then He raised the standard even higher. “Just as I have loved you.”

Think about who was sitting around Jesus when He said those words. Peter would deny Him. Thomas would doubt. The disciples would scatter. Judas had already arranged to betray Him. Yet Jesus had just knelt down and washed their feet.

Jesus loved imperfect people. He loved people who disappointed Him. Within hours, He would go to the cross for them. That’s our standard! And Jesus says the world should be able to see it.

They see it when Christians visit the hospital, bring food to a grieving family, forgive each other, notice the lonely, check on someone who’s missing, carry burdens, and genuinely enjoy being together.

None of those things will make headlines, but they make Jesus visible.

There will be times when your faith is strong and you’re carrying someone else. There will also be times when you walk through the church doors barely holding it together and someone has to carry you.

That’s why God gave us one another.

May we become the kind of church where someone can spend time around us, watch how we treat each other, and leave thinking, “Those people really belong to Jesus.”

Because Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples.” This is how they’ll know.

A PROVEN RECIPE FOR PEACE

Gary Pollard

Peace conjures a number of different images in our minds; from hippies to nature’s beauty to inner calm to lack of anxiety. Nearly every group of people in the world craves peace – no rational human being wants to live in constant upheaval. We all want to have peace, but our world somehow is still getting worse and worse. Why is this? The prince of this world is not a being who desires peace (II Corinthians 4.4; Ephesians 2.2; John 12.31). His very existence is dedicated to bringing down anyone who believes in God (I Peter 5:8) and he has no care or concern for the fate or well-being of anyone on this earth. Total, lasting world peace will never be possible as long as time continues (see Romans 8.18-25: sin caused the earth to be subjected to futility). 

Total, lasting world peace may not be possible in this life, but this does not mean the world cannot experience any peace at all. How can we experience peace in our lives? 

Firstly, it has to come from us. The world will never act in a way that brings peace. Anytime the world wishes to better its conditions, it incites civil unrest, riots, protests, and other not-very-peaceful behaviors. Christians, however, are called to be different. I Timothy 2.1ff tells us that praying to God on behalf of all men, for kings, and all who are in authority will allow us to lead quiet and tranquil lives in all godliness and dignity. We can have peace by being obedient to government authorities – even if we do not agree with them politically – because God put them in place (Romans 13). If we want peace, we have to show that peace by how we live. Since man is naturally attracted to peace, our quiet, godly lives will draw others to Christ. 

Secondly, even if our world is in chaos we can have inner peace. Philippians was written to break up a nasty fight between Euodia and Syntyche. To have the “peace beyond what we can understand,” they had to rejoice in the Lord, be reasonable, not be anxious, and reach out to God for their every need. The same applies to us today! Do we get our joy from God or from worldly pursuits? Are we worried about meeting personal needs or do we rely on God (see Phil. 4.19; Matt. 6.25)? Do we try to fix our own problems, relying on our own strength, or do we place them in God’s hands and work with His guidance and providence? The Christian life is not easy, nor is it always peaceful, but the inner peace that a faithful Christian experiences, knowing that their name is in the book of life and that nothing in this short life can disrupt God’s love for them, makes every struggle in this life worth the pain. 

If we want peace, we have to be that peace. We have to live peaceful lives. We have to submit to governing authorities (as long as it is within the parameters of godliness). We have to be unified as a church. We have to look to God for all of our needs. We have to trust that He will take care of us, even if that isn’t in this life. If we can do these things, we will have peace.

Pointless Baggage

Dale Pollard

On Paul’s third missionary journey he would write to a congregation in Rome. Today this letter is viewed as sone of the most theologically deep books in our New Testament. Some think that there are portions of Scripture that are best left alone, or that only a preacher or Bible teacher can decipher the “code.” When we do some digging into the original audience that Paul was writing to, we see something interesting. He was delivering these deep theological concepts to a church that seemed to be largely lacking in spiritual knowledge. In fact, some of the members of this 1st-century church believed that God was glorified through their sins! Clearly they had some growing to do. Paul didn’t say they needed to stick with simple Christian concepts or the basics; he still tries to teach them the difficult and more complicated aspects of Christianity.

This is a call for us to challenge ourselves in our daily studies. The Bible was meant to be understood, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t take some effort on our part. The book of Romans is a rewarding book to study. In fact, it’s difficult to find another book that can give the Christian more joy and confidence in their salvation. In Romans 8:1, Paul writes, “There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” At first glance this may just be a verse that many skim past because of how familiar we are with it. When we study the application of such a simple verse, in context, the benefits are incredible.

There’s no need to agonize over our relationship with Christ, if we’re in Christ. Paul simplifies our salvation by telling us that if we have obeyed the gospel and we’re striving to follow Jesus, we don’t have to live in fear of our standing before God. In fact, this phrase, “in Christ,” appears 172 times in the New Testament, but it’s a phrase that is largely misunderstood. Some Christians believe that through the course of their week they bounce from “saved” to “lost” on a daily basis. The idea of being “in” Christ is really describing a spiritual union— much like marriage! You don’t wake up everyday and ask your spouse,  “Are we still married?” and then worry throughout the day that despite your spouse’s confirmation, you’re just not convinced that you’re really married to them. If we haven’t done anything to separate that union with Christ, we can live confidently knowing we are saved.

What a wonderful feeling. The book of Romans is one that helps us to let of any pointless baggage and live a life of peace and joy. 

When James And John Wanted To Send Fire

Neal Pollard

In Luke nine, the inspired doctor writes about a certain group of Samaritan villagers who would not show hospitality to Jesus and His disciples.  This did not sit well with James and John, who asked Christ, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (9:54).  They probably did not expect that the Lord would rebuke them for having such an idea, but He did.

What made these sons of thunder think of fire?  Earlier in the chapter, the brothers had met Elijah up on the mount of transfiguration (30-34).  There’s good reason to believe that the route they were taking back to Jerusalem would have put Mount Carmel in view on the horizon.  Recently, they had heard the discussion about who people thought Jesus was and the mention of Elijah (19).  Elijah could well have been very much on their minds!  Elijah was a man who you would associate with fire.  He prayed for God to send fire upon his evening offering to prove Jehovah to be the only true God (1 Kings 18:38; Elijah killed the 450 false prophets of Baal for good measure).  In 2 Kings 1, Elijah sat upon a hill and sent word back to Ahaziah that he would die of his illness since he prayed to Baal-zebub rather than the true God.  Ahaziah sent three companies of 50 soldiers up the hill to bring Elijah down to the wicked king, and Elijah called down fire from heaven to kill the first two captains and their fifty men.  In 2 Kings two, Elijah is carried to heaven by a chariot and horses of fire (11).

James and John were probably, as good Jews, students of Old Testament history. They knew how God had acted against the wickedness of those in Old Testament times.  It is not implausible that they were hoping for a similar showing from God.

It is interesting that Jesus, who came to earth to show us the Father (cf. John 14:9), did not share their desire for fiery vengeance on that occasion.  Why? He says, “The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (9:56).  The Samaritans were part of those whom He came to save.  He tells the disciples to take the gospel to the Samaritans (Acts 1:8).  Ironically, John would go with Peter to the Samaritans to do “follow up” work with the new Christians there (Acts 8:14).

Maybe James and John wrestled with the nationalism that infected so many of their contemporaries.  Maybe they saw Samaritans as worthless people, worthy of fire for even the slightest slights and fractional infractions.  But, Jesus saw them as souls to be saved.

Do the atheists, false world religionists, and all others in error draw your ire and contempt as they flaunt God’s Word?  What would you have God to do with them?  I will tell you what He wants us to do with them.  Share the good news of grace and the hope of salvation.  Most will reject it, maybe even laughing you and God to scorn.  But some will change!  Through us, they can escape the fire (Matt. 25:41)!

A New Video From @markyourbible

Words Of Life

The Liar Everyone Believes and the Savior Everyone Doubts

Brent Pollard

Two men stand in the background of a single verse. One wrote a proverb about liars. The other rose from the dead. Guess which one the world finds easier to believe.

The Apostle Paul quotes a man often regarded as semi-mythical, believed to have lived roughly 650 years before Paul’s letter to Titus. In Titus 1.12-13, Paul mentions that this man, Epimenides, gave a truthful statement when he said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (NASB95). The irony is that, although considered semi-legendary, most people accept Epimenides’ existence without question. In contrast, the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whom Paul urged Titus to teach about faithfully, is often doubted despite the wealth of textual evidence supporting His existence.

Why? The reason for this is likely the difference in the moral implications of Epimenides’ and Jesus Christ’s existence. The former makes no spiritual demands of the one accepting his existence. The latter, of course, purports to be the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. In other words, the reality of Jesus has a far greater impact on the life of the individual than the reality of Epimenides.

Historical Evidence for Jesus Is Not the Real Obstacle

No scholar loses sleep over Epimenides. He costs nothing. A Cretan poet who called his own countrymen liars demands neither repentance nor worship; he asks only for a footnote. Jesus asks for everything. Paul understood this. Standing before Agrippa, he could insist that “this has not been done in a corner” (Acts 26.26). Luke opened his Gospel by anchoring the story to named emperors, governors, and a census (Luke 2.1-2; 3.1), because he wrote for a man who wanted certainty, not myth. Why, then, does a person weigh the same kind of evidence, accept the poet, and refuse the Lord? Jesus told us. “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil” (John 3.19). Unbelief rarely arrives as an intellectual conclusion. It usually arrives as a moral preference wearing a scholar’s gown.

Cost of Believing in Christ

Consider the mechanics of the heart. Admit Epimenides existed, and you may go on eating, sleeping, and sinning exactly as before. Admit that Jesus existed—truly existed, did what the Gospels record, rose as the apostles swore He did—and the floor tilts. Every appetite must answer to Him. Every ambition must kneel. Peter’s hearers felt that tilt on Pentecost when the word “pierced” them, and they cried, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2.37). Note the sequence: the fact came first, then the demand. Peter offered no philosophy to admire; he preached a Lord to obey, and three thousand submitted to baptism that day (Acts 2.38, 41). Belief that costs nothing changes nothing. James reminds us that even the demons believe and shudder (James 2.19). The demons hold better theology than the skeptic and worse obedience than a child.

Why the Demands of Jesus Are Good News

Here, the Cretan proverb turns a corner. Paul agreed with Epimenides: the Cretans lied and gorged themselves. Then he told Titus to reprove them “so that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1.13). Diagnosis served as a cure. The demands of Christ do not tax the reluctant; they trace the shape of the life He died to give. “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2.11-12). Grace instructs. Grace does not merely excuse the glutton; it feeds him on something better until the old husks lose their savor. The man who fears Jesus’ claims has the matter backward. He guards his little kingdom of appetites as though God came to rob him, when God came to enlarge him. Every demand of Christ invites us into a joy the Cretan never tasted: “In Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16.11).

Faithful Christian Living Begins with Honest Belief

So examine what you actually believe. Not what you affirm on a Sunday morning, but what governs you when you’re not assembled with the church. If Jesus remains a historical curiosity to you, you have received Him as the world receives Epimenides: acknowledged, cataloged, ignored. If He is the risen Son of God, then Paul’s charge to Titus becomes your charge: teach sound doctrine, adorn it with sound living (Titus 2.1, 10), and let no appetite call itself master. The evidence was never the problem. The throne was the problem. Surrender the throne, and the gluttons of Crete—and of your own heart—become “a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2.14). Believe Him. Then obey Him. The world may keep its comfortable poets. We will keep our costly Christ.

The Man Who Left His Clothes Behind

Carl Pollard

There’s a strange detail buried in the story of Jesus’ arrest. Mark 14:51–52 says, “And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.”

And then…he disappears. No name. No explanation. A young man sprinting into the darkness without his clothes. My question is why would Mark include that?

We can’t know for certain who the young man was. Some have suggested that it may have been Mark himself. That’s possible, but the text never identifies him.

What we do know is that Mark has placed this bizarre moment immediately after one of the saddest statements in his Gospel, “And they all left him and fled.” Mark 14:50

Jesus had spent years surrounded by people. Crowds followed Him. Disciples traveled with Him. Peter had just promised, “If I must die with you, I will not deny you.” Then the soldiers arrived and suddenly, following Jesus became dangerous. And everybody ran! 

Mark seems almost determined to show us how complete the abandonment was. Even this unnamed young man was so desperate to escape that when they grabbed his clothing, he chose to lose the clothing rather than stay with Jesus. He left everything behind (including his dignity) to get away.

There’s another young man later in the Gospel. After Jesus is crucified, several women enter His tomb. Mark 16:5 says, “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe…”

The first young man is fleeing into the darkness. The second is sitting inside an empty tomb announcing, “He has risen; he is not here.”They aren’t necessarily the same person. In fact, the young man in the tomb most likely an angelic messenger.

But the contrast is pretty cool. In chapter 14, everything looks lost. Jesus is arrested. His followers scatter. A young man runs away exposed and afraid. By chapter 16, everything has changed. The tomb is empty. Death has been defeated. And another young man, now clothed in white, announces victory.

That’s the story of the gospel. Sometimes we judge what God is doing while we’re standing in Mark 14. Everything is dark. Plans have collapsed. People have disappeared. Nothing makes sense.

But the story isn’t over. There’s still a Mark 16 coming. The same Gospel that records a man running terrified into the darkness ends with an empty tomb.

Sometimes the chapter that looks like the end is only three days away from resurrection.