|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Where did Pilate get his Authority From?
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. Jn. 19:10-11.
Jesus could only have been referring to either Judas Iscariot or Caiaphas the high Priest when he said theirs was the greater sin but what or who exactly was Jesus referring to when he said Pilate was 'given power from above'?
The answer may not be as simple as many might seem to think.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Well, what do you think the answer might be?
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Interesting topic, but I don't think it belongs in Heaven. I'll notify the mods.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
As for the question at hand(Get it? Hand? Pilate?)...
"...power from above" could just mean that Pilate only exists, and is hence able to do his job including having people killed, because he was created by God in the first place. But then, the people who delivered Jesus to Pilate were also created by God, so that doesn't really work.
Maybe he means that Pilate is just doing the job he was given by the head honchos in Rome, and can't really be blamed if his duties typically involve meting out punishment to perceived troublemakers. That's just the way the Empire rolled. But Judas and/or Caiphas, being Jewish, have a particular obligation NOT to hand their fellow Jews over to the authorities in exhcnage for cash(ie. Judas) or to protect their own petty fiefdoms(ie. Caiphas). So they're worse than Pilate is.
For a contemporary comparison, if it is found that Putin helped Trump win the presidency, the bad guy there really isn't Putin. He was just doing what Russians, or for that matter most nations, do to other countries to advance their interests. Trump, as an American, would be the only one guilty of a transgression, and indeed the only one of the two punishable under American law.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
One more thing...
quote:
But Judas and/or Caiphas, being Jewish, have a particular obligation NOT to hand their fellow Jews over to the authorities in exhcnage for cash(ie. Judas) or to protect their own petty fiefdoms(ie. Caiphas). So they're worse than Pilate is.
You can probably triple or even quadruple the offense if you factor in Jesus being the Messiah promised to the Jews. It would be an ESPECIALLY bad thing for Jews to then turn around and kill the guy who had been promised to them for centuries. Whereas Pilate was just a benighted pagan, so what else would you expect from those guys?
Though of course that gets you into the whole "But didn't he have to be crucified in order to BECOME the messiah?" So maybe Caiphas and company were just doing what needed to be done. On the other hand, their intention was just to torture and kill him, so they can't really get credit for the Ressurrection and around and around we go.
[ 04. February 2018, 15:48: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's always seemed obvious to me that Jesus was referring to the idea Paul fleshes out in Romans 13, that authorities (generic) are instituted by God.
That doesn't mean they always do the right thing, but that an office-holder has authority by virtue of that office. Authority being better than anarchy.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's always seemed obvious to me that Jesus was referring to the idea Paul fleshes out in Romans 13, that authorities (generic) are instituted by God.
That doesn't mean they always do the right thing, but that an office-holder has authority by virtue of that office. Authority being better than anarchy.
So then does Caiphas(being an office-holder) also get the kid-gloves treatment, or just Pilate?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Romans 13:1-7 is controversial in more ways than one, but my takeaway is that the notion of authorities, i.e. the idea of governing authorities, is something that reflects the nature of God inasmuch as he is a God who seeks to bring order out of chaos, as Genesis suggests.
To repeat, that doesn't make authorities right in everything they do or in how they exercise their authority*, and there are clear limits to obedience to the authorities even within the Bible, but I think that other things being equal, authorities are to be respected.
I don't know about "kid gloves treatment". I think Scripture teaches us that office-holders are also accountable before God for how they exercise their office, as well as to their constituencies.
Does that answer your question?
=
*Our bible study group looked at Romans 13 a couple of weeks ago. I brought along my copy of Fire and Fury just to enliven the debate a bit ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 04. February 2018, 16:30: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Does that answer your question?
Not really. I was asking if Caiphas had the same "power given from above" that Pilate had.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I would say that Pilate had his authority from God, because all human authority derives from God. How you exercise that authority is up to you.
How do I relate that to the exercise of democratic choice? Well there is a sense where the authority is given via the people to those in authority, if that is how the people decide to do it.
Which also doesn't mean that "the people" get it right, just that there is something of a permissive will from God to allow authority to exist. However stupid that may seem.
I think both Pilate and Judas had to make choices in what they did. Maybe this is an acknowledgement that Pilates choices were more restricted, because he had power.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I would say that Pilate had his authority from God, because all human authority derives from God. How you exercise that authority is up to you.
How do I relate that to the exercise of democratic choice? Well there is a sense where the authority is given via the people to those in authority, if that is how the people decide to do it.
Which also doesn't mean that "the people" get it right, just that there is something of a permissive will from God to allow authority to exist. However stupid that may seem.
I think both Pilate and Judas had to make choices in what they did. Maybe this is an acknowledgement that Pilates choices were more restricted, because he had power.
Okay, so if power restricts choices, then Pilate, being powerful, had restricted choices, and Caiphas, being less powerful than Pilate but still more powerful than the average Joe, also had restricted choices.
Therefore, the most autonomous agent, IOW the person with "the greater guilt", in all of that was Judas?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Does that answer your question?
Not really. I was asking if Caiphas had the same "power given from above" that Pilate had.
I think we're at cross purposes.
I don't understand Pilate as a person to have had special power granted to him as an individual, but that Jesus was saying "the power you have in this situation is the [God-derived] power intrinsic to the office you hold, rather than any personal power".
I don't think Paul is referring to religious authorities in Romans 13, but I guess the same principle would apply to Caiphas.
Judas, on the other hand, is acting unilaterally on his own initiative, not by virtue of his office, and yes I think that does make him more responsible, at least in some ways.
[ 04. February 2018, 17:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I don't think Paul is referring to religious authorities in Romans 13, but I guess the same principle would apply to Caiphas.
Okay, that's what I was asking. Thanks.
quote:
Judas, on the other hand, is acting unilaterally on his own initiative, not by virtue of his office, and yes I think that does make him more responsible, at least in some ways.
It's this part that I find a little bit problematic, or at least, counterintuitive. Because you end up in a situation where the most powerful people, ie. the ones who have the most ability to decide what happens and to whom, get less blame than relatively powerless individuals who have no such social force.
That said, the detail of Judas being motivated entirely by money might do the trick here. Because both the Romans and Caiphas probably had a belief that they were upholding some sort of beneficial social order, whereas Judas just probably wanted to pay off his gambling debts(or some such mundane consideration).
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
if Jesus was actually saying that Pilate had been given power by God, then Jesus was disdainfully uncooperative with God's representative. Jesus refused to answer Pilate's questions and dissed him in much the same way a Hippy might be disdainfully indifferent to a cop trying to arrest him for spitting on the sidewalk.
Hardly the way Jesus should have answered questions if he thought His Own Father had invested his authority in Pilate, thus rightfully requiring from Jesus, respect for his supposedly divinely ordained authority.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think Pilate is basically saying “Aren’t you afraid of me. I can do whatever I like with you.” Jesus reply says, “You do have the power, but you can’t just exercise it as you please. You have been entrusted with it by another (Caesar or God) on whose behalf you exercise it.”
The ‘greater responsibility’ bit is interesting. Taken very literally it ought to refer to Caiaphas.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Hardly the way Jesus should have answered questions if he thought His Own Father had invested his authority in Pilate.
Jesus knew that God the Father had ordained that he die. He was hardly going to try to talk Pilate out of killing him.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Therefore, the most autonomous agent, IOW the person with "the greater guilt", in all of that was Judas?
Yes - he could make choices without the pressures of others.
It doesn't vindicate the others, just acknowledges that for them to make hard decisions is more difficult. It means that people who take on positions of power/authority need a far stronger backbone to take the right decisions.
As we seem to be finding in the world today.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I know this is off-track a little, but how do we know what Jesus said to Pilate? Did Jesus get a chance to tell someone, did Pilate let on, was someone else in the room... you know?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's a darn good chance there were any number of servants and/or soldiers within earshot. He was, after all, supposedly a dangerous criminal. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) And we know that quite a few servants became believers later on.
Ancient Romans/Jews/etc. tended to live much more publicly than we do, and real privacy was in short supply.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Interesting topic, but I don't think it belongs in Heaven. I'll notify the mods.
Quite right, and thanks for the heads-up. As this relates to a specific Scriptural passage, I'm sending it to Kerygmania. Please continue the discussion there.
Trudy, Scrumptious Heavenly Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
There might be some clues elsewhere in the NT to who or what the 'Higher Power' was that Jesus referred to. Clearly it would seem from His comment that it was 'sinful', but sinful to relatively lesser degrees than were Judas or Caiaphas.
Clues like: Eph. 6:12 for instance, perhaps or even 1 Cor. 2:7-8.
What I don't accept though is the notion that God was the 'higher power' which was pulling the strings of all those sinful puppets, then convincing himself He wasn't directing the dirty work of allowing them to murder His only Son, behind the scenes.
Believing that would require some seriously fanatical double predestination double think; I think.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
if Jesus was actually saying that Pilate had been given power by God, then Jesus was disdainfully uncooperative with God's representative. Jesus refused to answer Pilate's questions and dissed him in much the same way a Hippy might be disdainfully indifferent to a cop trying to arrest him for spitting on the sidewalk.
Hardly the way Jesus should have answered questions if he thought His Own Father had invested his authority in Pilate, thus rightfully requiring from Jesus, respect for his supposedly divinely ordained authority.
No. Jesus shows Pilate proper respect for his office; he does not diss him but answers him truthfully, though the answers are clearly whizzing over Pilate's head. But that isn't Jesus' fault. Pilate clearly understands enough to grasp that he is dealing with an innocent man, which is the crux of the issue. If Pilate doesn't grasp precisely what Jesus is on about with his talk of kingship from another place, it doesn't matter to Pilate's duty. Whether Jesus is a mystic or a lunatic, he is still clearly not a rebel against Rome. That is all Pilate needs to know in order to do his job properly (which is to say, exercising his God-given role as a governing authority and judge).
Pilate, of course, is about to muck it up, and Jesus is concerned for him enough to warn him of the misstep he's about to make. Judas' misstep is the more blameworthy, however, because though both men betray innocent blood, Judas added to the sin by arrogating a judge's authority to himself, which did not properly belong to him. He was neither judge nor police, and yet he did the equivalent of condemning Jesus to die through his actions. High handed isn't the word for it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
There might be some clues elsewhere in the NT to who or what the 'Higher Power' was that Jesus referred to. Clearly it would seem from His comment that it was 'sinful', but sinful to relatively lesser degrees than were Judas or Caiaphas.
Clues like: Eph. 6:12 for instance, perhaps or even 1 Cor. 2:7-8.
Oh, so that was the theory you enigmatically referred to in your OP?
I think that's a huge wild goose chase.
1. There is nothing in the text which suggests the "higher power" was in and of itself sinful.
2. It would be surprising and, I think, unique, if Jesus were to refer to anything evil as a "higher" power.
3. As suggested by many other posters, most recently Lamb Chopped above, the "sinfulness" relates not to office or power the person is holding (or not) but to their actions (although, secondarily, these may be affected by the position they are in or the power vested in them).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus Oh, so that was the theory you enigmatically referred to in your OP? I think that's a huge wild goose chase.
Not as wild a goose chase as all that actually.
quote:
1. There is nothing in the text which suggests the "higher power" was in and of itself sinful.
Then you have misread it:"Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
The sequence goes as follows: The power to condemn or acquit is claimed by Pilate. The person or persons who delivered Christ to Pilate for judgment committed sin by doing so. But Pilate also is committing sin but a 'lesser sin' than whoever delivered Jesus into Pilates hands. Pilate is himself going to commit sin by releasing a guilty man and condemning an innocent one. The logical inference of the series of comparisons of sinfulness and 'power' is that whatever power controls Pilate is more sinful than either Pilate or the person who delivered Christ into his hands knowing what would likely be the result of becoming subject to Pilates form of justice. This would most likely have been Caiaphas, because Judas could not for certainty predict that Jesus would appear before Pilate, but Caiaphas actually arranged for his appearance to take place.
There is no reason to believe the 'power' Jesus refers to is God. It could just as easily be Satan. Satan is certainly a higher power than Pilate. It could equally be The Roman Senate, whose orders Pilate followed, it could just as easily have been Caesar who controlled the Senate or Satan who controlled Caesar. We need not equate power with righteousness, particularly since Pilate is about to order the judicious murder of not just an innocent man but God's only Son in whom God himself is reconciling the world to himself.
I can't see Jesus attributing even the lesser SIN to God. God is sinless. No but I can see him attributing sin to the power that has been delegated to Pilate, via The Senate, via Caesar, via Satan as supreme usurper of God's legitimate Sovereignty and perverter of God's will on earth.
The World's Political Systems have, by various degrees, surrendered their allegiance, (in part or in whole), not to God but to Satan, the evidence of which is the injustice perpetrated by corrupt political systems. Matt. 4:8-10. The 'Political Power' they exercise however is granted them by GOD, but usurped to be abused and subverted to serve the purposes of Satan. "For it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will." Luke 4:6.
Thus we have Jesus Christ refusing Satan's offer to "Give Him all the Political Power Satan possessed, if only Christ would wield it in ways approved of by Satan. (Bow down and worship me simply means, offer me your complete obedience, and do things my way).
quote:
2. It would be surprising and, I think, unique, if Jesus were to refer to anything evil as a "higher" power.
Higher only with respect to Pilate, certainly not in respect to Christ who recognised no earthly power as having authority over him. Certainly not Satan or any of the political systems Satan claimed as his own, and had offered to Christ at the beginning of his earthly ministry, but Christ had refused them. Matt.4:8-10, Luke 4:5-8. Jesus contemptuously called Herod a 'fox' Jesus was renowned for his disrespect and disdain of human institutions. THAT was the reason he was standing before Pilate being accused.
quote:
3. As suggested by many other posters, most recently Lamb Chopped above, the "sinfulness" relates not to office or power the person is holding (or not) but to their actions (although, secondarily, these may be affected by the position they are in or the power vested in them).
That once again is on the assumption that their 'Power' is legitimately ordained. According to Satan, it has been delivered to HIM and he can give it to whom he wills, in this case Via Caesar, via, The Senate, to Pilate: to sit in judgment upon The Son of God.
Here is justification for my quoting 1 Cor. 2:7-8.
quote:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
The suggestion that by submitting to Pilate's authority to judge, Jesus validates that authority and shows that he acknowledges it, is astonishing. I am surprised that theologians ever entertained the idea.
First off, Jesus would be validating an authority that is unjust in its exercise, because it actually involves an abdication of power, (Pilate gives in to the crowd), and condemns an innocent person.
Second, using the same argument, Jesus lets himself be arrested by soldiers, does this imply the validation of the police and military organization as well? It will be they that scourge and execute him. Though he exonerates them, it should by no means imply that He validates their misuse of power.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
I always think it helpful to read the whole section in context. Here are a selection of translations of the Chapter.
What I find interesting is that Pilate flogs Jesus, then brings him out and flat out tells everybody "I find no guilt in him." Now presumably he meant under Roman law Jesus had done nothing wrong. Pilate then declines to crucify him and it is the high priests/Jewish authorities (or, this being John, simply "the Jews") that say "oh, don't worry, we have a law that would justify it."
Pilate THEN (having already stated that Jesus was not guilty of anything) goes and talks to Jesus and claims to have the "authority" to release or crucify him. Where did that authority come from? Well, the Jewish authorities. Pilate already knew that he had no Roman basis to crucify him...the only basis was Jewish. Which leads us to Jesus' dig: Pilate had no authority to do anything except what the Jewish authorities gave him--in this matter, they were the "higher" power to Pilate.
And just to drill this home, we get the following bit: Pilate actually TRIES to release Jesus and fails miserably. It turns out, Pilate did not truly have the authority to release Jesus. The Jewish authorities would not permit it. This really shows the source of his "power" with respect to Jesus.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Pilate has the authority, in his role as Roman governor (which is derived from Rome and not from the Jewish leaders at all. However, the leaders have the real power in that they happen to have Pilate's ballocks in their grip and they're inclined to twist (that's what all that business about "if you don't do what we want, you're no friend of Caesar" means. Terrifying to Pilate as a protege of the recently toppled treasonous Sejanus. )
Tl;dr version: authority and power are not the same thing.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Then you have misread it:"Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
I'm intrigued by your comments about power structures, some of which I agree with, but I'm not still convinced this verse says what you want it to say to make your explanation work.
"Against" seems to be an entirely unique translation of οὐδεμίαν in the NT (see here), so I'd be loth to hang my entire explanation on that sense. It simply seems to emphasise negation, with translators filling in a preposition of their choice to make the sentence parse.
ἄνωθεν, meanwhile, certainly seems to mean "above" but very often carries with it the connotation (according to Thayer, from that link, and specifically citing John 19:11 as an example) quote:
of things which come from heaven, or from God as dwelling in heaven
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus "Against" seems to be an entirely unique translation of οὐδεμίαν in the NT (see here), so I'd be loth to hang my entire explanation on that sense. It simply seems to emphasise negation, with translators filling in a preposition of their choice to make the sentence parse.
I would not be so reticent, I would stake my reputation, (such as it is), on it.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.
And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
It would seem that the word Jesus used when addressing Pilate has some pretty negative connotations elsewhere in scripture, and these are only a very few of the incidences, according to Strongs.
It seems pretty clear to me at least that Jesus was, at the very least, implying that Pilot's use of power against Jesus was definitely sinful. If so it seems strange to me that he would have attributed the 'higher' power controlling Pilots ability to act against Jesus, to Almighty God. Would Jesus suggest that His Father would ever act against him? That is the question. If the answer cannot be affirmative, then the 'power above Pilot' cannot possibly have been God, at least in the opinion of Jesus who said:
quote:
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” Jn. 10:17-18.
If the 'Power above Pilate' had been God, there would have been nothing voluntary about Christ's death. Jesus always did the will of His Father so for His death to have been voluntary, of his OWN accord, the power above Pilate must have been a power that Jesus could ignore and refute as illegitimate, thus not ever capitulating to or validating the power that was sentencing Him, and therefore also leaving the issue of His death entirely still in His own hands.
It was death itself that Jesus became obedient to, not the power above Pilate, whatever that may have been.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
RdrEmCofE, just a note: The constant use of bold text—which in Internet use is frequently read as yelling—makes your posts harder, not easier, to read and understand, at least for me. The standard way to indicate emphasis is through italics. But when you have a sentence like this, which juxtaposes bold text and italics:
quote:
It was death itself that Jesus became obedient to, not the power above Pilate, whatever that may have been.
I really have no clue what you're trying to convey through the use of bold text and italics. I do, however, feel as though I'm being yelled at.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Eutychus "Against" seems to be an entirely unique translation of οὐδεμίαν in the NT (see here), so I'd be loth to hang my entire explanation on that sense. It simply seems to emphasise negation, with translators filling in a preposition of their choice to make the sentence parse.
I would not be so reticent, I would stake my reputation, (such as it is), on it
I am not a NT scholar, but I am a linguist, and so far as I can see the word translated "against" in those other passages is not the same as oudemian in John 19:11, where its translation is, as I said, apparently unique in this sense in the NT. Compare Mt 5:23 where the word is kata. You can't make a decent argument solely from the English translation when the Greek has a different word entirely, all the more so in an unusual or uncertain sense.
I'm willing to be corrected on that, but unless you can rebut that fundamental point of language, I'm not convinced by the rest at all.
[ 06. February 2018, 15:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: - I am not a NT scholar, but I am a linguist, and so far as I can see the word translated "against" in those other passages is not the same as oudemian in John 19:11, where its translation is, as I said, apparently unique in this sense in the NT. Compare Mt 5:23 where the word is kata. You can't make a decent argument solely from the English translation when the Greek has a different word entirely, all the more so in an unusual or uncertain sense.
I don't know what your Greek NT has for John 19:11 but mine has
"ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς Οὐκ εἶχες ἐξουσίαν κατ' ἐμοῦ οὐδεμίαν εἰ μὴ ἦν δεδομένον σοι ἄνωθεν· διὰ τοῦτο ὁ παραδούς μέ σοι μείζονα ἁμαρτίαν ἔχει.".
The same word kata g2596, is used in John 19:11 and all the other texts I quoted. Interestingly the preceding word ἐξουσίαν (exousia : power) g1849, is used by Paul in Eph 6:12. The context of Paul's statement makes it pretty clear that the 'power' he is referring to is most certainly not God, though it could also be earthly powers such as Caesar, Caiaphas, Pilate etc.. The [only] I inserted in square brackets is the obvious inference given that exousia is always used for both political and spiritual power in NT Greek.
For we do not wrestle [only] against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Eph.6:12.
These exousia are the self same ones that 'crucified Christ unawares'. 1 Cor. 2:8.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Nick Tamen: Hi
My humble apologies, (for appearing to shout). It was not my intention to convey that impression. It is a habit with me. I used to bolden words I wanted to stress during delivery of sermons, and the habit had kinda stuck. I would use underlining and italics for emphasis but having tried [u] . . .[/u] I find it does not work in here. I will in future try to convey a calmer ambience, though with my writing style it may be more ambiguous and less expressive.
[ 06. February 2018, 18:32: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I don't know what your Greek NT has for John 19:11
I'm looking here, where kata is translated "also" and oudemian, uniquely in the NT, as "against". It will not be difficult for your Greek to better mine, but I'd like to see some more support, or at least reasoning, for that translation.
What I can see, unless I'm mistaken, is that the word you are taking to mean "against" here is not the word translated "against" in all those other verses you cited.
To my uneducated eye it looks as if it need mean no more than "you would have no authority [which along with LC I think is more accurate than "power", dunamis] whatsoever [how I understand oudemian to function here in view of other uses of the word in the NT] unless it was given to you..."
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
I'm getting it from ESV Strongs Bible.
“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.
OVER: g2596. κατά kata; a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case (genitive, dative or accusative) with which it is joined): — about, according as (to), after, against,
quote:
Jesus can hardly have regarded Judas as more guilty than Pilate. He was hardly that important. I believe the only link between the two statements is established if the "from above" does not denote either God or the emperor but the exousia of political power, which is a rebel exousia, an angel in revolt against God. How else can we reconcile this statement (from which some would infer that according to Jesus, Pilate derives his power from God) with Jesus' general attitude, which is one of indifference and rejection, involving silence as he three times refuses to answer Pilate's questions, irony (Are you a King? It is you that say it), and twofold decentralizing (Are you a King? My Kingdom is not of this world; Are you a King? I have come to bear witness to the truth). No better way could be found of bamboozling authority. And after all that, are we to think that Jesus would say that the authority comes from God? The whole idea is plainly mistaken. [Jaques Elul]
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Right, well you have my attention now, I wonder what the Ellul quote says in French... but I'm intrigued by what my Strong's says about which word is translated by "against". There's something odd there. Someone with more Greek than me needs to explain this.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
It is a habit with me. I used to bolden words I wanted to stress during delivery of sermons, and the habit had kinda stuck.
Ah, that makes perfect sense. Maybe I should be reading your posts out loud. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
No worries—I just figured that if the shoe was on the other foot, I’d hope someone would let me know.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Right, well you have my attention now, I wonder what the Ellul quote says in French... but I'm intrigued by what my Strong's says about which word is translated by "against". There's something odd there. Someone with more Greek than me needs to explain this.
Unfortunately there appears to be an error in the BibleHub page for this verse. If you click through to the Strongs definition for οὐδεμίαν (the hover text on the page is wrong) you find that it is simply a (emphatic) negative, strongly stating that Pilate would have no authority. It is the κατ᾿ (from κατά) - a remarkably polyvalent word* - which is translated "against" in the KJV, or "over" in most modern English translations. (*In many Greek New Testaments the Gospels are labelled as (e.g.) κατά Μαρκον)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thanks for this piece of detective work!
Having gone and dragged out my battered hardcopy Strong's (which was once my grandfather's) I see you have the right explanation.
That in turn explains my considerable confusion. I'll have to go back and reread RdrEmCofE's posts again, slowly.
[ 07. February 2018, 10:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
