Resources/Articles
Jesus and Pilate's Wife
Pilate was in a dilemma. An innocent man stood before him for judgment. Pilate knew that for envy he had been delivered up, and there was no evidence of wrongdoing which would justify a sentence against him. Yet the mob was howling for blood.
At this crucial juncture, his wife sent an urgent message: “Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” How pleasant that would be! What a relief just to wash his hands of the whole affair, bow gracefully out of the picture, and refuse to render a verdict. In a sense that was what Pilate tried to do. He even called for water and symbolically washed his hands of the matter, avowing his innocence. Yet, Pilate found that it was impossible to side-step his moral responsibility.
As it is with Pilate, so is it with everyone who has knowledge of Jesus. Neutrality is an impossibility. the advice of Pilate’s wife is incredible. Pilate’s very failure to declare himself was a declaration. Had he been familiar with the teachings of the prisoner, he would have recalled his words: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matthew 12.30).
The long story of the years has demonstrated the inexorable truth which Jesus put into words: “I cam not to send peace, but a sword.” His advent into the world has brought to mankind the necessity of making a choice regarding him. In theory, they may postpone the choice or try to evade or avoid it. In practice, the choice is made every day, and in every act, word, or thought. Pilate’s theory was that he could avert the choice. His practice was that he delivered Christ to be crucified.
A hundred years ago, the church of Christ stood at the crossroads. For multiplied thousands of christians an inescapable choice loomed. They did not ask for this problem; they did not want it and they did not like it. But it was there. In theory, multitudes of them tried to shut their eyes to the problem and ignore it. In practice, every last one of them made a choice. Apparently in any such circumstances, there are three choices possible: 1.) a positive choice for; 2.) a positive choice against; or 3.) a neutral choice. But as the years unfolded, it was demonstrated over and over again that the neutral choice disappears in the cold, hard logic of practice. Men can be neutral in theory only. In practice, the are compelled to declare themselves.
In national affairs, when a nation is engaged in a struggle to the death fro her very existence, neutrality is regarded as treason. In spiritual affairs, it is true that the Lord’s church is perpetually engaged in a warfare that knows no respite. When a matter of truth or error is up for decision, any attempt at neutrality is treason to the truth.
“Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man,” said Pilate’s wife. Attempting to follow that advice, Pilate turned Christ over to his tormenters. “Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man” is the unexpressed, but nonetheless real, determination of thousands upon thousands of our contemporaries and acquaintances. Yet, every such effort at neutrality is disastrous to the one attempting it, for Christ cannot be ignored. He makes positive claims and demands on the life of every individual. A failure to acknowledge those claims, a refusal to yield to those demands, places one squarely in opposition and rebellion against God.
In theory, a man can decide to be neutral on the subject of baptism. He is neither for nor against it. But in practice, he will either be baptized or he will not be. There is no neutrality in practice.
In theory, a man may be neutral on the subject of instrumental music in the worship. He is neither for nor against it. But in practice, he cannot be neutral. He will either worship with it, or refuse to worship with it. The choice may not be forced upon him all at once, but sooner or later it will come. Perhaps he thinks himself against instrumental music, but he never speaks against it, never points out to any man the error of it, and refuses to discuss it either publicly or privately. He is neutral in theory only. He is not neutral in practice. His influence is on the side of those two advocate for the organ.
In theory, a man can decide to be neutral as to the regularity of the observance of the Lord’s Supper. In practice, he cannot be neutral. A failure to be for a weekly observance of it inevitably puts him in the class of those who are not for a weekly observance of it.
“Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man.” Yes, that is what Pilate devoutly wished could be so. But it was impossible for him. And it is impossible for anybody. It is impossible for you. When right and wrong are involved, when truth and error are in combat, neutrality is not only treason, it is impossible. Even an attempt at neutrality marks one as disloyal to Christ. There is no middle ground between Christ and Satan.
