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.
The Preacher Pollard Blog 