4

I am new to Christianity, but I have read the Gospel of John and have watched a movie about Jesus. Was the Pilate in John 18:28 the same man whose son Jesus healed in John 4:46?

Tiago Martins Peres
  • 540
  • 2
  • 6
  • 28
JM Rice
  • 49
  • 2

1 Answers1

6

No. The Pilate of John 18:28 was the Roman procurator of Judea in Jesus' day. Pilate was the civil authority who thought he had the power to turn Jesus over to the Jews to be crucified. A procurator was any of various imperial officials with fiscal or administrative powers. The equivalent today might be a governor.

Regarding the "nobleman" in John 4:46-54, from the NET Notes comes the following:

Although βασιλικός (basiliko) has often been translated “nobleman” it almost certainly refers here to a servant of Herod [Antipas], tetrarch of Galilee (who in the NT is called a king, Matt 14:9, Mark 6:14-29). Capernaum [the town where the sick son was] was a border town, so doubtless there were many administrative officials in residence there [, and this unnamed nobleman was one of them.]

Jesus healed this man's son "long distance," so to speak, because He knew this nobleman had the faith to believe Jesus would do as He said He would. There was no need for Jesus to leave what He was doing and walk about 20 miles or so from where He was (viz., Cana) to Capernaum, where the sick boy was.

In our day, Pilate would be the equivalent of the governor of, say, Pennsylvania. The nobleman would be the equivalent of the Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and Taxation; in other words, a high-level bureaucrat.

If on the other hand the nobleman was a military man (and this is a distinct possibility), he would be, approximately, the equivalent of a lieutenant, major, or even a colonel, whereas Pilate would be a general.

rhetorician
  • 9,801
  • 21
  • 30
  • 1
    Judging from the parallels of Matt 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10, John 4:46-54, I would think the nobleman was the same as the Centurion. – david brainerd Apr 10 '14 at 03:50
  • @davidbrainerd: To be honest, I hadn't even thought of going to a harmony of the gospels (e.g., Orville E. Daniel's, "A Harmony of the Four Gospels NIV," Baker Book House, 1987, 1989). Guess I didn't exercise "due diligence." I must say, though, that the passages you cite may not be parallel. After all, the Matthew account says "When Jesus had entered Capernaum," whereas the John 4 account says the nobleman approached Jesus in Cana, about 20 miles or so from Capernaum. What do you think? – rhetorician Apr 10 '14 at 18:28
  • The gospel writers often place the same event in a different setting or have slightly different dialogue. Matthew and Luke are certainly parallel here, but in Matthew the man approaches Jesus himself and in Luke the man sends a delegation of Pharisees to Jesus. I think the gospel writers are working off of traditions and don't always get every detail exactly perfect. – david brainerd Apr 11 '14 at 07:45
  • 1
    Note that, while parallels are certainly possible between Matthew, Mark and Luke (known as the synoptic gospels for this reason) parallels with John are much harder to assert. – lonesomeday Apr 11 '14 at 11:13
  • @davidbrainerd: Re the synoptics not getting every detail exactly perfect: Being an inerrantist, I've learned to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt, figuring the jury is still out. Apparent discrepancies often become clearer through additional thought, study, and even enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. Allowing for inaccuracies and mistakes in God's word can become a slippery slope to compromise, rationalization, and unbelief. Moreover, many apparent contradictions have sorted themselves out with new archeological discoveries. My watchwords, therefore, are patience, faith, and trust. – rhetorician Apr 11 '14 at 13:35
  • I used to feel as you do, but now the exact opposite. Recognizing that the text is not inerrant strengthens my faith. There are things, which, if I had to believe they happened exactly that way, I would walk away. The turning water into wine is one. There's a good reason why I don't follow a religion founded by the CEO of Budweiser. – david brainerd Apr 11 '14 at 14:43
  • 1
    @davidbrainerd: Guess we'll need to agree to disagree agreeably! That's OK, too. There's room for both (and more) perspectives in the kingdom. As long as both our consciences are clear before the Lord, we're on pretty safe ground, I think. By the way, where you feel frustration with apparent discrepancies, I feel challenged by Scripture to dig deeper. I have confidence things will get straightened out eventually, if not in my generation, then perhaps in the next. If digging deeper doesn't work, well, as I said, the jury is still out. Further, I am determined not to give in to peer pressure. – rhetorician Apr 11 '14 at 15:15
  • By peer pressure, I mean there is a temptation for all of us to allow the digs and barbs of supposedly scholarly people to "get to us" when, for example, they scoff at us and say, "You Bible literalists are all alike. Grow up. Face facts. You know what Emerson said, 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!'" A close friend of mine, a retired microbiologist and a Christian, still clings to Darwin's theory of macroevolution. I may be wrong, but I think he simply gave in to peer pressure long ago and would feel the pangs of cognitive dissonance if he were to change his views now. – rhetorician Apr 11 '14 at 15:41
  • Beware of movies,they are just that! They can add no truth to stories of the bible, only error. – V. Rollins Apr 13 '14 at 05:32
  • @V.Rollins: I agree. Movies do distort the biblical record, as is the case with the recent movie "Noah." Movies do serve a purpose, however, and that is to keep the name of Jesus (and the names of the saints of God, such as Noah) before the public. Whether movies ever prompt their viewers to find a Bible and research what they've seen, well, that probably happens rarely, if at all. Nevertheless, God is able to use such exposures to His word in a redemptive fashion. I myself and looking forward to seeing the movie "God Is Not Dead." The movie engages in apologetics in 1 Peter 3:15 fashion! – rhetorician Apr 13 '14 at 17:39
  • We just need to be mindful, of in whom we believe. – V. Rollins Apr 15 '14 at 18:08
  • @V.Rollins: True enough. Movies are merely tools which can convey some truth or partial truth. Sermons are also tools, and preachers must not deviate from what the text says. If the scriptures are unclear, the preacher can always say, "Based on my study, I suggest the text means _____________ , but I encourage you to draw your own conclusion based on your own study." Prior to preaching, a friend of mine prays, "Lord, I ask for two miracles: the miracle of speaking and the miracle of listening." IOW, he wants to speak only God's truth and he wants his audience to obey the truth. I like that. – rhetorician Apr 15 '14 at 18:29
  • @rhetorician Like you, I have found that, no matter how hard you push the biblical account, no matter how deep you dig, no matter what comes against it...it stands. I feel for the Thomas Jefferson's of the world who remove the miraculous and declare, "Here is a Jesus I can believe in." – Mike Borden Aug 01 '21 at 12:21
  • @MikeBorden: I agree with you, Mike. A children's chorus has been going through my brain since this morning (it's now 3:15 PM). It goes: The Bible stands like a rock undaunted through the raging storms of time. Its pages glean with a light supernal, and it glows with a light sublime. The Bible stands though the hills may tumble, it will surely stand though the earth may crumble. I will plant my feet on its firm foundation, for the Bible stands. (I learned that song--and another verse--about 60+ years ago!) Don – rhetorician Aug 01 '21 at 19:18