POPULARITY
2 episodes with is king
2 episodes with is king
Is King's Camo the best bang for your buck in hunting apparel right now? In this video, I put the Elevation Quarter Zip Hoodie and Ridge Pants through real backcountry testing—scouting trips, goat hunts, and long training hikes. I break down the fit, function, and feel of each piece, compare them directly to Sitka and Stone Glacier, and share whether these budget-friendly options can truly hang with the premium brands.
Nooo, we didn't forget. around this time last year, we reviewed 1987's Arnold Schwarzenegger starring film The Running Man. We knew there was a remake coming down the block, but we put it off for reasons we get into on the podcast. When director Edgar Wright was asked a question on Twitter about what movie he wanted to remake, he did not hesitate in answering The Running Man. Producer Simon Kinberg (the X-Men franchise) saw the tweet and got this production going. Wright, with original author Stephen King's approval, wrote up a script with his longtime collaborator Michael Bacall, and cast actor of the moment Glen Powell (Top Gun Maverick) in the Ah-nold role. Was the wait worth it? Join Garrett, Matt, and Adam as they review their very first Edgar Wright film. Did he do the book justice? Is this up to Edgar Wright's standards? Is King's presence felt? They answer all these, and so much more, in this special release! Come back next week when the boys start up their look at the Scream franchise.
Nooo, we didn't forget. around this time last year, we reviewed 1987's Arnold Schwarzenegger starring film The Running Man. We knew there was a remake coming down the block, but we put it off for reasons we get into on the podcast. When director Edgar Wright was asked a question on Twitter about what movie he wanted to remake, he did not hesitate in answering The Running Man. Producer Simon Kinberg (the X-Men franchise) saw the tweet and got this production going. Wright, with original author Stephen King's approval, wrote up a script with his longtime collaborator Michael Bacall, and cast actor of the moment Glen Powell (Top Gun Maverick) in the Ah-nold role. Was the wait worth it? Join Garrett, Matt, and Adam as they review their very first Edgar Wright film. Did he do the book justice? Is this up to Edgar Wright's standards? Is King's presence felt? They answer all these, and so much more, in this special release! Come back next week when the boys start up their look at the Scream franchise.
A placard reading “Jesus, King of the Jews” hung above Christ's cross. Why was this title chosen, and what does it mean for us? This Easter sermon examines the significance of this title, and the significance of Christ's death and resurrection.Key Truth: Jesus was and Is King of the JewsKey Verse: Luke 23:1–38Summary: Jesus was and is the King of the Jews. If we understand the significance of Jesus's role as King then, we can also understand what it means for us now, on this Easter.Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/legacychurchtx/Join us in person:https://legacychurchhutto.comIntro music used with permission:Dreamers by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.com
Join us on our latest episode (Episode 100!) where we team up with our friends at The Mash Up. On this episode we try the King! King of Kentucky that is. The limited-edition 2024 release of King of Kentucky marks the seventh anniversary for the brand, which started with a release in 2018. This year the single barrels used for the release are 16 year old KY Bourbon. There are approximately 5,100 bottles that were released with the majority going to Kentucky. Is this the best bourbon we have reviewed on the show? Was it the best of 2024? Is King of Kentucky deserving of the crown? Only one way to find out...Special guests on this episode are Kenny and Anthony from @themashupky https://www.breakingbourbon.com/bourbon-whiskey-press-releases/king-of-kentucky-bourbon-releases-seventh-edition#bourbon #bourbonreview #kybourbon #bestbourbon #podcast #rare #newrelease #arsenicculture The King Of Kentucky-E100https://www.youtube.com/@arsenicculturehttps://instagram.com/arsenicculturehttps://tiktok.com/@arsenicculturehttps://www.facebook.com/arsenicculture/https://x.com/arsenicculture
Is this real life?? Is KING, ICON, LEGEND Danny Pellegrino really on our podcast today?! What a dream. We are so thankful to Danny for taking the time to chat with us about his new book - The Jolliest Bunch - AND some Bravo tea too. ;) We cannot recommend his new book enough. We both laugh/cried our way through it and long-time Danny listeners and fans will get a kick out of the hidden references sprinkled throughout the chapters. We hope you guys enjoy our chat!! Find out more about Danny Pellegrino on his website - https://everythingiconic.com/. Purchase his books, find live shows near you, subscribe to his podcast, and more! Learn more about the All That To Say Podcast by visiting www.podcatts.com. Want even more from Miranda and Kristin? Subscribe to our Patreon for just $6/month. Enjoy bonus episodes and exclusive ATTS content you won't find anywhere else! CALL US on the Honesty Hotline (HoHo!) anytime! 877-914-6464. We want to hear from you. Leave an anonymous message to be featured on an upcoming episode! Maybe you need to get something off your chest or need our honest opinion on something? We want to hear it! Follow us on Instagram at @allthattosay_podcast. We love meeting new people, so leave a comment or better yet...share the love with your friends! You can also find our weekly podcast videos on our YouTube channel! If you love our content, be sure to like, subscribe, download, rate, and review! We hope to continue bringing this unhinged FIRE CONTENT every week. xoxo
King and Jimbo are back. What are they talking about? Well for one is this #NFL owner considered the #RockyV of owners? Some #NHL talk. Is King the reason this #NHL hockey team is on fire? And where do these Former 1st round #NFL players go from here in their career? All this and more. Visit Manscaped.com and use promo code STSPORTS18 to get 20% off your Man Scaped purchase and receive free shipping worldwide. Also visit Dubby Energy Drinks and use promo code STSports18 to get 10% off your energy drink purchase.
Scripture Reading: John 18:28-19:16a 28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor's residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor's residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They replied, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.”31 Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!” The Jewish leaders replied, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” 32 (This happened to fulfill the word Jesus had spoken when he indicated what kind of death he was going to die.)33 So Pilate went back into the governor's residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 34 Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”36 Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?”When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. 39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. 2 The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him again and again and said, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly in the face.4 Again Pilate went out and said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no reason for an accusation against him.” 5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Look, here is the man!” 6 When the chief priests and their officers saw him, they shouted out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said, “You take him and crucify him! Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against him!” 7 The Jewish leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die because he claimed to be the Son of God!”8 When Pilate heard what they said, he was more afraid than ever, 9 and he went back into the governor's residence and said to Jesus, “Where do you come from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don't you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” 11 Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.”12 From this point on, Pilate tried to release him. But the Jewish leaders shouted out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar! Everyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar!” 13 When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus outside and sat down on the judgment seat in the place called “The Stone Pavement” (Gabbatha in Aramaic). 14 (Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover, about noon.) Pilate said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, here is your king!”15 Then they shouted out, “Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate asked, “Shall I crucify your king?” The high priests replied, “We have no king except Caesar!” 16 Then Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.Main ThemesPilateThe Jewish authorities sentence Jesus. Jesus' apostles—most notably Peter—desert him. Then the time comes for the Romans to get involved.The first question we ought to ask is: why? Why must the Romans be involved at all? I have discussed this already, so I will be brief. The Romans depended on delatores—accusers—to bring criminals to justice. These accusers could be individuals or councils, such as the Sanhedrin. In particular, the Sanhedrin was composed of the aristocratic elite of the most important city in Israel. The Roman governor would certainly cooperate with such a group.The Jews deliver Jesus to Pilate “very early in the morning,” probably around 6 am. For Romans, “late morning” in the summer months was before 8 or 9 am. A Roman governor would probably end his public transactions around noon, leaving some time for leisure. In fact, Romans rarely slept in; doing so could carry the implication of drinking or partying the night before.When the Jews deliver Jesus, they avoid entering into the “governor's residence”—the praetorium. There is some debate whether the praetorium was Fortress Antonia, adjoining the temple courts, or the old palace of Herod the Great. The lavishness of Herod's old palace, which would have been preferred by a Roman governor, along with confirmation from other ancient writings seem to support the latter alternative. Either way, why did the Jews not enter the praetorium? Because houses of non-Jews were ritually impure and entering them would render a Jew impure as well, keeping him from fully participating in the Passover festivities. This concern for ritual purity serves as evidence of the aristocrats' hypocrisy: they spent the night ignoring the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and fairness, to then show concern for more superficial rituals. Recall Matthew 23:23-24:“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!Notice Pilate's attitude. From Josephus' writings (an ancient Jewish historian) we know that originally Pilate was quite unsympathetic towards the Jewish customs. In John, we find a Pilate much more willing to avoid unnecessary friction. He comes out to meet the Jewish elite, accommodating of the fact that they could not enter the home. However, Pilate also shows some annoyance with the situation. He asks, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” The response is, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” If we read between the lines, Pilate's question does not seem like an honest request for information. He seems to be aware of the accusation but remains unconvinced that this is a matter worthy of his involvement. The Jews insist they would not seek audience before Pilate if Jesus was not really a criminal.The Jewish elite finally speak truly when they say, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” As I explained last session, only the Roman governor could order a person killed—particularly by crucifixion. Notice, therefore, that the only way in which Jesus' words could be fulfilled (e.g., “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32) was if the Jews involved the Romans. This was expected, indeed planned, by Jesus.Roman citizens could not be legally crucified, but slaves and provincials could be, generally for rebellion against Rome.Pilate was known for his brutality. He had sometimes executed Jews without trial. The Jewish elite knew that if they wanted Jesus dead, they were asking the right guy. They may have expected no hearing at all, even if Roman law technically required one. But there were politics at play. An overly cruel governor could give rise to revolts by the provincials. In fact, later in his life, Pilate's excessive use of capital punishment cost him his office. We also have other reasons to believe that Pilate may have been trying to be more careful than usual. His patron, Sejanus, was executed in the year 31 AD. If the crucifixion happened in the year 33 AD, then Pilate found himself in a precarious situation with little political support. Even if the crucifixion happened in the year 30 AD (the other widely argued for date), Pilate may have already been feeling the mounting opposition to his patron. Pilate himself was only an equestrian, a class lower than senators. Finally, there is likely some personal animosity at work as well. Pilate had gained some political savvy by this point, but he probably strongly disliked the Jews. Pilate may have been fair to Jesus simply to spite the Jews.Pilate Questions JesusAccording to normal judicial procedure, the accuser spoke first. So, Pilate had to already be aware of the charge of treason when he begins Jesus' interrogation. The question Pilate asks is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Ain't that the million dollar question! In classic Johannine fashion, this moment drips with irony. Pilate is probably employing sarcasm, perhaps even mockery. But the gospel audience understands that the question is serious—the most important question ever, in fact. Is Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, the High Priest, the King, God himself?Notice that Pilate's question is strange in one regard: so far no one has used his exact terminology. Jesus' detractors do not calling him king of the Jews. Jesus himself does not make the claim with those exact words. The title is not even a traditional Christian confession. Christians will call Jesus Messiah, Christ, Lord, or perhaps even King of Israel or King of Kings, but generally not King of the Jews. There is irony in the fact that a Gentile is one to speak with such insight, even if he spoke more than he knew.Jesus' reply plays on the irony of Pilate's question. Jesus retorts, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Allow me to rephrase it as, “Oh, so you can tell? You figured it out on your own or someone told you?” Pilate's response makes perfect sense, “I am not a Jew, am I?” In other words, “How would I know? I am not a Jew.”If up to this point the conversation had a mocking tone, it becomes serious as Pilate asks, “Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” This is a hefty question. Paraphrased, Pilate says, “Your people wish me to have you killed. Why?” There is also some legalese at play here. If a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would ask about the charge three times before convicting the defendant by default.Jesus explains that his kingdom is not of this world. He offers a simple proof. If his kingdom were of this world, his followers would be fighting to free Jesus; they would probably be fighting against Jews to establish Jesus as King and fighting against the Romans to liberate Israel. They are not. “As it is,” meaning, “look around, there is no fighting,” Jesus' kingdom is certainly not political. But Jesus does not deny the charge against him. Jesus affirms he has a kingdom: “my kingdom is not from here.” If Jesus were trying to win his trial, this was not a wise move.Pilate picks up on Jesus' confession. “So you are a king!” To whatever extent Pilate is following standard trial procedure, notice that this is the third time the charge is brought up to the defendant. The defendant's lack of defense will result in a conviction by default. (Although, perhaps the conversation simply developed this way and the governor is not thinking in terms of legal procedure.) For the last time, Jesus fails to defend himself. “You say that I am a king.” This statement can be taken in a few different ways. Jesus may mean it as, “You say I am king because I am.” As an older commentary puts it, “Thou sayest; for I am a king.” Another alternative is that Jesus bypasses the title and instead affirms the substance of the accusation. Then we could rephrase Jesus response as follows: “Is King the proper title for someone like me? I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Does that make me king?” However we interpret Jesus' response, it is not a denial of the charge against him. Jesus may have sealed his fate.Pilate ends the conversation with another million dollar question, “What is truth?” The true tone and intent behind his questions is hard to discern. Maybe Pilate is mocking Jesus' and his commitment to truth. After all, Pilate lived a life of Roman politics and military prowess. Truth? Who cares. Power—that's what really matters. We can almost hear his argument: “Do you think a man is convicted because he is guilty? He is convicted because he is weak. Do you think the powerful escape justice because they are righteous? Don't be naïve! Do you think only the wicked are conquered and enslaved? We conquer devils and saints alike. Do you think the righteous rule the world? The strong rule over all. Do you think that kings speak only truth? They don't yet go ahead and disagree with them and see what happens. Do you think truth matters at all? Don't be a child.”However, there is a good chance Pilate means his question earnestly. The other gospels tell us that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent. Moreover, Pilate's wife had received a vision confirming Jesus was blameless and should not be convicted.So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) As he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man; I have suffered greatly as a result of a dream about him today.” Matthew 27:17-19We can imagine a corrupt ruler of a corrupt nation being asked by a corrupt ruling council to brutally crucify a man he knows to be innocent and asking himself: “What is truth? Is there anything worth fighting for? Anything worth sacrificing for? If so, what is that truth? Where does it come from?” These could be the questions of a wicked man who is beginning to see that what is right and wrong is not simply a matter of power.Pilate Attempts to Release JesusPilate finds no (legal) fault in Jesus and attempts to release him. Pilate follows a custom of releasing one prisoner during Passover (as scholars call it, the “paschal amnesty custom”). A Roman governor was free to issue amnesties. We have record of Romans sometimes releasing prisoners en masse on local feasts. During their own festivities, Romans usually delayed punishments. So, the custom described in John would not have seemed odd in the ancient world.Pilate gives the Jewish people a choice: Jesus or Barabbas? To Pilate's surprise, the people exclaim: “Barabbas!” There is irony upon irony here. Jesus was accused of being a revolutionary but found to be innocent. Barabbas was an actual revolutionary! Technically, the word used in verse 40 is “robber,” but that was a euphemism for revolutionary. As the NET's translators' note 118 explains:Or “robber.” It is possible that Barabbas was merely a robber or highwayman, but more likely, given the use of the term ληστής (lēstēs) in Josephus and other early sources, that he was a guerrilla warrior or revolutionary leader. Moreover, the Jewish leaders allegedly acted against Jesus to prevent a revolution that could destroy Israel. John 11:49-50:Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.”Yet, they requested the release of the very type of person who would bring demise to the nation just 40 years later.Abusing the PrisonerThe FloggingJewish law allowed for up to 40 lashings (Deuteronomy 25:3). To make sure that one did not accidentally exceed the lawful numbers of blows, the Jews only dealt 39 lashings. The Romans were not beholden to such a limit. In fact, the text indicates a more severe flogging. As the NET's study note 1 explains:Three forms of corporal punishment were employed by the Romans, in increasing degree of severity: (1) fustigatio (beating), (2) flagellatio (flogging), and (3) verberatio (severe flogging, scourging). The first could be on occasion a punishment in itself, but the more severe forms were part of the capital sentence as a prelude to crucifixion. The most severe, verberatio, is what is indicated here by the Greek verb translated flogged severely (μαστιγόω, mastigoō). People died on occasion while being flogged this way; frequently it was severe enough to rip a person's body open or cut muscle and sinew to the bone. It was carried out with a whip that had fragments of bone or pieces of metal bound into the tips.The Roman scourging could be so severe that sometimes victims that were not sentenced to death died. There are accounts of scourgings that left the victim's bones exposed. It was a horrific practice.Jesus was probably tied to a pillar or post and beaten with flagella, which as the quotation above explains, were leather whips with interspersed knots with pieces of iron or bone, which left skin hanging from the back in bloody strips.The Mocking“The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe. They came up to him again and again and said, ‘Hail, king of the Jews!' And they struck him repeatedly in the face.” (John 19:2-3)The crown of thorns may have been made for mockery more than torture, although it may have served both purposes. It was probably made from the branches of an available shrub, such as acanthus. The thorns may have been turned outward to simulate a crown instead of inward to produce bleeding. The main point was making Jesus look like a king to then sarcastically mock him. We have records of the Romans abusing other prisoners, even by adorning them as king as well. So, the scene being described is entirely in keeping with Roman practice.Purple was an expensive dye in the ancient world. Consequently, purple clothing was often worn only by the wealthy elite or royalty. For example, the robes of Hellenistic princes were purple. To complete Jesus' costume, the Roman soldiers give him a purple robe. However, if purple was so expensive, would the soldiers dare waste such an item of clothing? The Gospel of Matthew gives us an important clue. In Matthew 27:28, the same item is described as a “scarlet robe.” A scarlet robe would have been worn by a Roman soldier and it was cheaply dyed in contrast to expensive royal purple—but it resembled a king's robe. Imagine a child pretending to be a superhero. His parent may tie a towel around the child's neck and then refer to it as a cape. On one hand we understand that it is a towel, but on the other hand we clearly understand it is meant to represent a cape and would refer to it as such. Similarly, although the soldiers probably used a scarlet military garment to clothe Jesus, everyone understood it was meant to represent a royal purple robe.Finally, the soldiers chant, “Hail, king of the Jews!” In the Eastern Roman Empire, those who worshipped Cesar would chant “Hail, Cesar!” The soldiers purposely utilize the same chant for Jesus to add to their sarcastic mockery.Pilate's Second AttemptPilate's Attempt to Release JesusAfter the scourging and mockery, Pilate attempts to release Jesus once more. Presumably hoping that the flogging had satiated the Jews' bloodthirst, Pilate presents the horrifically bloodied Jesus to them an exclaims, “I find no reason for an accusation against him.” In other words, “Hasn't this innocent man suffered enough for whatever he did to annoy you? Can we be done with this whole ordeal?” The words that Pilate actually uses carry even more irony. Pilate says, “Behold the man!” This sounds strikingly similar to words of God to the prophet Samuel as God presented Israel's first king:When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said, “Here is the man that I told you about. He will rule over my people.” 1 Samuel 9:17Moreover, “behold the man” is the whole reason for the gospel. God became man! To quote C.S. Lewis, “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation.” Had God not become man there would be no Gospel, there would be no story to tell, there would be no chance of killing God. We should behold indeed!The Jewish religious elite respond by demanding, “Crucify him!” Pilate has no reason to crucify Jesus, so he responds, “You take him and crucify him!” Pilate's response is a bit metaphorical. The Roman soldiers will have to be the ones to carry out the execution, but it will be done so at the behest of the Jews not the Romans. As we will see throughout the next few verses, John does not exculpate Pilate, who is too weak to save a man he believes to be innocent, but the brunt of the guilt for Jesus' execution is placed squarely on the Jewish elite's shoulders.Why do the “chief priests and their officers” demand execution? Because they have a law and according to that law Jesus ought to die for claiming to be the Son of God. Notice this is a different charge from what Pilate was told earlier—that Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews. However, both charges are related. Since Caesar was understood to be divine, a claim to be a son of a god could be understood by the Romans as a political claim to office. Nonetheless, Pilate seems unconvinced. For Pilate to declare Jesus innocent implies Pilate understood Jesus' claims as merely philosophical, not political.To the reader of John's Gospel, the claim that the law demands Jesus' death because he claims to be God's son would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. The law would certainly demand such a penalty—if the claim were false! That's the whole question. Is Jesus telling the truth or not? Jesus provided miracle after miracle after miracle to substantiate his claims, but nothing sufficed for the religious elite. The careful reader will also detect a deep irony. Jesus is the incarnation of their law (“Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us.” John 1:14). To say that the law demands the death of Jesus is to say that Jesus demands the death of Jesus.Pilate More Afraid than EverWhen Pilate is informed that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, he becomes “more afraid than ever.” As a Roman, Pilate would have been familiar with tales of deities appearing in human form and of the harsh consequences to the mortals who rejected them. Consequently, Pilate seems to take the claim of Jesus' divinity quite seriously—ironically, much more seriously than the Jews who witnessed miracle after miracle. A Roman proves more willing to believe the Jewish Messiah than the Jews.Pilate takes Jesus' words so seriously that he immediately grasps the importance of determining Jesus' origin.Recall the following verses:The one who comes from above is superior to all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is superior to all. He testifies about what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. John 3:31-32Then Jesus told them, “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread all the time!” John 6:32-34Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began complaining about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Isn't this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven'?” John 6:41-42The Jews were either too obtuse or too obstinate to understand Jesus when he spoke as being “from heaven,” “from above,” or “from God.” Pilate, who has heard none of these statements, immediately demands such an explanation. “Where do you come from?”Jesus does not respond. In this way, Jesus seals his fate—a fate not brought upon the Jews or the Romans but controlled by Jesus himself all the while.Pilate responds either in annoyance, hostility, or (less likely for a Roman ruler) earnest concern: “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don't you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” If, against the odds, Pilate is truly concerned for Jesus, we could take his statement as: “I have the power to help you, but you have to give me something to work with! Help me help you!” If we understand Pilate's statement to be less friendly, we could rewrite his words as saying: “You dare disrespect me while your life is in my hands!” Perhaps Pilate meant his words both ways. Pilate may have been trying to help Jesus while taking offense that, as a scholar (Brown) points out, “by not answering Jesus is somehow looking down on [Pilate].”Jesus' attitude towards Pilate is wholly unexpected, which may have been what earned him some credibility before the Roman ruler. A prisoner, particularly one facing crucifixion, would praise the judge's integrity. Jesus does nothing of the sort.No Authority Except by GodJesus makes clear to Pilate that no, Jesus' life is not in his hands—not ultimately anyways. Pilate has power over Jesus only because God has made it so. If God had so desired, Pilate would have no authority. This statement is partially exculpatory. Pilate may be choosing incorrectly but at least the situation he finds himself in is not of his own making. The Jewish elite, on the other hand, are much guiltier. This messy situation (to use a severe understatement) was not brought upon them. They caused it.The idea that God establishes and uses rulers is not foreign to scripture. We find it both in the Old and the New Testament. The interaction between God and government is a difficult topic that goes well beyond our current study of John. Merely as a introduction to the topic, I quote other verses that touch on the matter.Some of the key passages in the New Testament include:Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God's appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation because it is God's servant for your well-being. Romans 13:1-4aBe subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good. For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. 1 Peter 2:13-15Throughout the ages, Christians have interpreted these passages differently. Some take them as universal teachings with no exceptions. They would argue that Christians should obey the government regardless of how wicked it is. Romans 13, for example, was heavily preached by German churches in the 40s to convince Christians to follow the Nazi government. Most Christians have taken a more nuanced approach, recognizing the general principle that Christians should be exemplary citizens for the sake of the Gospel. However, the government should be disobeyed or even opposed in a number of situations, like when the government requires Christians to engage in sinful behavior. Some of the key passages in the Old Testament include:“Work to see that the city where I sent you as exiles enjoys peace and prosperity. Pray to the Lord for it. For as it prospers you will prosper.” Jeremiah 29:7“This is what the Lord says to his chosen one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I hold in order to subdue nations before him, . . .” Isaiah 45:1aThese Old Testament verses may not seem as impactful as the New Testament verses quoted above, but in context they are nothing short of scandalous. The verse in Jeremiah is written as God decrees the exile of the Jews to Babylon, after the Babylonians utterly destroyed the kingdom of Judah and decimated the Israelites. In the midst of the tragedy, as the Jews are carried off as captives and slaves, God commands them to pray for peace and prosperity for the captors! In an unfathomable twist of events, God will use the nation of Babylon—the same nation he used to destroy his people—to prosper his people. The verse in Isaiah has a similar context—God using the Persians to subdue nations. A gentile king is called anointed.God uses rulers, even the evil ones.Pilate's Third AttemptPilate is so impressed by his conversation with Jesus that he is determined to release him. Although I have tried to keep my opinion mostly out of the discussion, I think this is clear evidence that Pilate's dialogue should not be read mostly with a mocking or hostile tone, but in earnest. Some Eastern Christian churches, such as the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox Churches hold that Pontius Pilate later converted to Christianity himself. So they revere Pilate as a saint. These conversion narratives are late and hard to rely on as historical accounts, but I think they make more sense of the text than the negative view of Pilate developed by Western tradition.Whether Pilate was beginning to believe Jesus or not ends up becoming irrelevant. The Jews twist his arm. The Jewish elite threaten Pilate that if he lets Jesus go free, they will tell Caesar that Pilate released a man claiming to be king—i.e., a traitor to Caesar! Pilate has a political calculation to make. Could he defend himself of a treason charge? Could he explain that Jesus' kingdom was not of this world? Recall the discussion above regarding Caesar's precarious political support. His patron had either already been killed or there was mounting opposition against him. Caesar himself was nothing more than an equestrian with a questionable record as a governor. Ultimately, is it worth becoming a martyr for Jesus? Alas, despite Pilate's belief that Jesus was innocent, he opts for political expediency. He caves to the threats of the Jews and condemns Jesus to crucifixion. Again, this moment shifts the weight of blame between the Jewish elite and the Roman governor. Pilate was guilty of weakness—he knew what was right but lacked the courage to see it through. The Jewish elite were guilty of deliberate wrongdoing.The trial reaches its climax in a shocking statement. In my opinion, one could argue that all the hypocrisy, antagonism, and wickedness of the Jewish religious elite builds up to this one stupefying statement: “We have no king except Caesar!” The Jewish religion, at its core, believed that God was their ultimate king ruling from everlasting to everlasting. Moreover, God had and would again appoint a human king over the Israelites, but the king would come from their own people. No foreign king could ever be the true king of Israel—much less Caesar who claimed to be divine. I provide scriptural support for these point below.Notice that in the Old Testament, God is called Israel's Judge:I have not done you wrong, but you are doing wrong by attacking me. May the Lord, the Judge, judge this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites! Judges 11:27bJudge in this context referred to a political office meaning something akin to ruler.God was not often called King of Israel in the Old Testament, but the implication was always clear from his role, for example, as the one who fought wars for the nation of Israel.Joshua captured in one campaign all these kings and their lands, for the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel. Then Joshua and all Israel returned to the camp at Gilgal. Joshua 10:42-43Indeed, when the Israelites demanded a king “just like all the other nations have,” God decried this as a rejection of his kingship.The Lord said to Samuel, “Do everything the people request of you. For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is me that they have rejected as their king. Just as they have done from the day that I brought them up from Egypt until this very day, they have rejected me and have served other gods.” 1 Samuel 8:7-8aWas the concept of demanding a human king intrinsically wrong? No, it was the sinful motives underlying the request that amounted to a rejection of God's authority and plan. In fact, God had promised the Israelites a human king.When you come to the land the Lord your God is giving you and take it over and live in it and then say, “I will select a king like all the nations surrounding me,” you must select without fail a king whom the Lord your God chooses. From among your fellow citizens you must appoint a king—you may not designate a foreigner who is not one of your fellow Israelites. Deuteronomy 17:14-15But regardless of whether a human person ruled over Israel, God's kingship endured forever.But you, O Lord, rule forever, and your reputation endures. Psalm 102:12 (literally “sit enthroned” forever)Moreover, God promised a future king to Israel who would rule forever and bring upon the wonderful promises of the eschaton.For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called Wonderful Adviser, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His dominion will be vast, and he will bring immeasurable prosperity. He will rule on David's throne and over David's kingdom, establishing it and strengthening it by promoting justice and fairness, from this time forward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of Heaven's Armies will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7With that background in mind, again consider the high priests exclaiming, “We have no king except Caesar!” Caesar was not their king, and he was certainly not their only king. This statement amounts to the kind of blasphemy for which they sought to kill Jesus.Thursday or Friday: When Did Jesus Die?Verse 14 seems to place Jesus' death during Passover (Thursday) instead of the day after (Friday) like all the other Gospels. At least initially, this presents a difficult harmonization question. Are the gospels contradictory with one another? Did John make a mistake? I was going to write somewhat extensively about this question, but I found a great summary of the issue and potential answer:In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus dies the day after Passover. But in John, it seems like he dies on the Passover. Can these be reconciled?The Last Supper is clearly a Seder, a Passover dinner (Matt 26:17-19). Passover lambs were sacrificed earlier that day, Thursday, Nisan 14. Jesus died the next morning, Friday, Nisan 15. However, at first read, John seems to place Jesus' death on the Passover, making it Friday, Nisan 14 (which would only occur in a different year). The chief priests do not want to enter Pilate's palace so that “they might not be defiled but eat the Passover” (John 18:28), and Pilate sends the titulus (the sign for Jesus' cross) proclaiming Jesus as king on “the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14).There have been a number of proposals attempting to deal with these two different accounts. Some suggest that John is ignoring historical accuracy to make Jesus' death coincide with the slaying of the Passover lambs. Others suggest that John and the Synoptic authors were using different calendars. Although it is true that some early Jews, most notably the Essenes, followed a different calendar, I don't think that really solves the problem in John.Here's the solution I find most likely. “Day of preparation” (παρασκευή, paraskeuē) is also the standard word for “Friday” for early Jews and Christians, since Jewish households had to prepare for the Sabbath every Friday. John clearly means Friday, since he says that this παρασκευή was the day before Sabbath (John 19:31). The other Synoptic Gospels also call the day of the crucifixion παρασκευή (Matt 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54). So the phrase “Preparation of Passover” (παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα) can simply mean “Friday of Passover [week]” rather than “preparation for Passover.” That makes it the same day and date as the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels.What about the chief priests' desire to “eat Passover” that night, after Jesus' death? (John 19:31) While this is definitely evidence for the belief that John has a different chronology, there is a reasonable explanation. Passover is not only a single meal, but a week of festivities, with more than one sacred meal. The chief priests would be more likely than most Jews to be involved in multiple rituals during Passover week, and all of them would have required ritual purity.Personally, I find the suggestion that John got the crucifixion day wrong to be so unlikely as to be untenable. Even if we took the most liberal understanding of the Fourth Gospel's authorship and postulated it was not written by John or his disciples, the other gospels were already popular. The author of the Fourth Gospel, whoever he was, would have known exactly when the crucifixion occurred. The suggestion that John moves the date of the crucifixion to make a theological point seems to me also highly unlikely. Sure, ancient authors were allowed, even expected, to take more liberties when writing a narrative than a modern author might. But there is no indication in the text that John is writing anything but an accurate and chronological description of events. He even provides the time of day in which the events occur. To take this interpretation is to severely undermine the historical reliability of the Fourth Gospel.
Scripture Reading: John 18:1-27 [originally the post read “John 18:1-40,” but we could not cover all the material] When he had said these things, Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley. There was an orchard there, and he and his disciples went into it. 2 (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times with his disciples.) 3 So Judas obtained a squad of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. They came to the orchard with lanterns and torches and weapons.4 Then Jesus, because he knew everything that was going to happen to him, came and asked them, “Who are you looking for?” 5 They replied, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He told them, “I am he.” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing there with them.) 6 So when Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they retreated and fell to the ground. 7 Then Jesus asked them again, “Who are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” 8 Jesus replied, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, let these men go.” 9 He said this to fulfill the word he had spoken, “I have not lost a single one of those whom you gave me.”10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest's slave, cutting off his right ear. (Now the slave's name was Malchus.) 11 But Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”12 Then the squad of soldiers with their commanding officer and the officers of the Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and tied him up. 13 They brought him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 (Now it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jewish leaders that it was to their advantage that one man die for the people.)15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard.) 16 But Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. 17 The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You're not one of this man's disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.” 18 (Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire they had made, warming themselves because it was cold. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.)19 While this was happening, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus replied, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” 22 When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest's officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus replied, “If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him, still tied up, to Caiaphas the high priest.25 Meanwhile Simon Peter was standing in the courtyard warming himself. They said to him, “You aren't one of his disciples too, are you?” Peter denied it: “I am not!” 26 One of the high priest's slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” 27 Then Peter denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor's residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor's residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They replied, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.”31 Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!” The Jewish leaders replied, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” 32 (This happened to fulfill the word Jesus had spoken when he indicated what kind of death he was going to die.)33 So Pilate went back into the governor's residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 34 Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”36 Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?”When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. 39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)Main ThemesThe Passion NarrativeChapter18 puts us squarely within the “passion narrative.” As one website summarizes:The term “passion narrative” is used primarily to refer to the accounts given in the canonical gospels of the suffering and death of Jesus. Generally, scholars treat the passion narratives as beginning with Jesus' agony and arrest in Gethsemane and concluding with his burial. The sections to which these narratives are typically assigned consist therefore of Matthew 26:30–27:66, Mark 14:26–15:47, Luke 22:39–23:56, and John 18:1–19:42.The passion narratives (plural, to refer to the different passion narratives in each gospel) are quite unique in their literary genre. The Gospels resemble the genre of ancient biographies. Ancient biographies ending with the subjects' deaths were not unusual, but they rarely ended with the subjects' martyrdom. If considered on their own (not within the larger context of each gospel), the passion narratives resemble martyr stories but even this comparison is not perfect. The shared elements with ancient martyrdom narratives include a righteous person's unjust death, betrayal, refusal to compromise, and sentencing. However, the passion narratives do not include other distinctive elements of martyr narratives, such as sensationalistic details, interpretive speeches, and vengeful threats. The passion narratives are also different from the typical Greek apotheosis stories. Jesus is not promoted into divinity (e.g., like when Hercules turns “shiny” in the animated Disney movie); Jesus returns to his preexistent glory with the Father. All this has led at least one scholar (Theissen) to claim that, “There is no analogy to the Passion narrative in all of ancient literature.” To whatever extent this is an overstatement, it is not far off the mark.The High Priest and the SanhedrinThe High PriestThe High Priesthood was a religious office instituted in the Old Testament by God (see, e.g., Exodus 28). By Jesus' day, the office was quite different. According to the Old Testament, the office was held for life and was hereditary. In the first century, the office was appointed and held at the pleasure of the emperor and his political delegates. Thus, Quirinius appointed Annas, Gratus appointed Caiaphas, and Vitellius retired Caiaphas. In the Old Testament, only one person was referred to as the High Priest. In the first century, the High Priest and his sons were commonly referred to as high priests. Finally, the High Priest was meant to hold an incredibly important religious role, which was a linchpin of the Israelite's religion. As such, we might expect the high priests in Jesus' day to be Pharisees, given their religious fanaticism. Surprisingly, however, the office was dominated by Sadducees.The SadduceesWho were the Sadducees? As one Christian website explains:The Sadducees were an aristocratic class connected with everything going on in the temple in Jerusalem. They tended to be wealthy and held powerful positions, including that of chief priests and high priest, and they held the majority of the 70 seats of the ruling council called the Sanhedrin.The Sadducees worked hard to keep the peace by agreeing with the decisions of Rome (Israel at the time was under Roman control), and they seemed to be more concerned with politics than religion. Because they were accommodating to Rome and were the wealthy upper class, they did not relate well to the common man, nor did the common man hold them in high opinion. The commoners related better to those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. Though the Sadducees held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin, history indicates that much of the time they had to go along with the ideas of the Pharisaic minority, because the Pharisees were more popular with the masses.Not all priests were Sadducees, but many of them were. The Sadducees preserved the authority of the written Word of God, especially the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). While they could be commended for this, they definitely were not perfect in their doctrinal views. The following is a brief list of Sadducean beliefs that contradict Scripture:1. The Sadducees were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God's involvement in everyday life.2. They denied any resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18–27; Acts 23:8). Due to this belief, the Sadducees strongly resisted the apostles' preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead.3. They denied the afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life.4. They denied the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons (Acts 23:8).Notice what an odd bunch the Sadducees were. They used the biblical tradition as a set of societal rules but denied the underlying spiritual realities. Without an after life, the resurrection of the dead, or even a spiritual world, the Old Testament is rendered nearly meaningless. Judgment, atonement, and the eschaton become, at most, symbolic. God, if real at all, ought to be followed to avoid his wrath, have a pleasant life, and a prosperous nation. When I think about it, the Sadducees don't sound that odd. In fact, they sound oddly familiar.Sadducees were rarely concerned with purity rules, particularly the extrabiblical ones followed by the Pharisees. They were much more concerned with politics. And these were the people that dominated the priesthood, the high priesthood, and Jerusalem's ruling council—the Sanhedrin.The SanhedrinThe Sanhedrin was a municipal aristocracy. Large cities in the ancient world often had their own senates or ruling councils. They would be comprised of the wealthy elite. In the case of the Sanhedrin, although a municipal group, its power influenced national affairs. Because the group was dominated by Sadducees, it was more of a political council with a religious veneer than a religious council with political power. Tradition indicates the group had 71 members, although this may have been more of an average rather than an exact number. Some or most of the members may have been appointed by the local rulers, such as Herod. Also according to tradition, the group met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount.The Romans were glad to interact with and delegate to local councils. The Roman justice system worked with a system of delatores instead of prosecutors. A local individual or group would accuse and then testify against an alleged criminal. Local councils could also issue sentences and administer punishments themselves, without involving the Romans. The Romans, however, reserved the power of capital punishment. Part of the reason for this limitation on local councils was to prevent them from executing fellow provincials for being pro-Roman.Betrayal and ArrestAfter Jesus concludes his speech (recall chapters 13 through 17), he goes out with his disciples to the Kidron Valley. This valley is east of Jerusalem and separates the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives. A creek is found at the bottom of the valley, but it is dry much of the year. The valley runs all the way to the Dead Sea. The Old Testament refers to part of this valley as the "Valley of Josaphat." The location is relevant to some eschatological prophecies.Jesus reaches an orchard or garden, depending on the translation. At the time, gardens were often enclosed by walls, but that may not be in view here. The word orchard may be a better translation considering that the Gospel of Mark calls the place Gethsemane, which means “olive press.” So, Jesus probably reaches an olive orchard with an olive press as part of the agricultural unit.Judas knew this place because Jesus often met there with his disciples. Judas guides a “squad of soldiers” and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. The term translated as “squad of soldiers” is literally “cohort.” As translators' note 6 in the NET explains:Grk “a cohort.” The word σπεῖραν (speiran) is a technical term for a Roman cohort, normally a force of 600 men (one-tenth of a legion). It was under the command of a χιλίαρχος (chiliarchos, v. 12). Because of the improbability of an entire cohort being sent to arrest a single man, some have suggested that σπεῖραν here refers only to a maniple, a force of 200. But the use of the word here does not necessarily mean the entire cohort was present on this mission, but only that it was the cohort which performed the task (for example, saying the fire department put out the fire does not mean that every fireman belonging to the department was on the scene at the time). These Roman soldiers must have been ordered to accompany the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees by Pilate, since they would have been under the direct command of the Roman prefect or procurator. It is not difficult to understand why Pilate would have been willing to assist the Jewish authorities in such a way. With a huge crowd of pilgrims in Jerusalem for the Passover, the Romans would have been especially nervous about an uprising of some sort. No doubt the chief priests and Pharisees had informed Pilate that this man Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, or in the terms Pilate would understand, king of Israel.However, the matter is not quite as straightforward as the translators' note may lead us to believe. Although the term cohort is certainly a Roman one, such military terms had long been transferred to Jewish soldiers. It is more historically probable that the arrest did not involve Roman authorities, which have not been alerted yet in the story. Neither the Synoptics nor John's Gospel seem to involve the Romans at this point in the story.Notice that the soldiers come with lanterns and torches. Although this could simply imply it was dark, it may also suggest that the authorities expected Jesus to run and a chase to ensue. That did not occur. Jesus turns himself in since “he knew everything that was going to happen to him.”In the Synoptics, Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss. In the Gospel of John, the author omits that detail and jumps straight to the dialogue.I Am HeThe dialogue between Jesus and the arresting authorities has a seemingly strange moment. Jesus asks, “Who are you looking for?” They reply, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus responds, “I am he.” Upon saying this, “they retreated and fell to the ground.” Why? As translators' note 16 to the NET explains (quoted only in part):When Jesus said to those who came to arrest him “I am,” they retreated and fell to the ground. L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus' unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall” (John [NICNT], 743-44). Perhaps this is what in fact happened on the scene, but the theological significance given to this event by the author implies that more is involved. The reaction on the part of those who came to arrest Jesus comes in response to his affirmation that he is indeed the one they are seeking, Jesus the Nazarene. But Jesus makes this affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has encountered before in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 8:24, 28, 58. Jesus has applied to himself the divine Name of Exod 3:14, “I AM.”Jesus identifies himself with a formula that sounds like he is calling himself God. Everyone present certainly takes it as such and reacts to the deadly blasphemy. They drop to the ground almost as if to avoid the lightning that was sure to strike from the sky—so grievous was the offense.Peter's ResistanceThe Synoptics do not tell us who reacts violently during Jesus' arrest. The Gospel of John does: Peter. It even tells us the name of the victim, Malchus. Perhaps the earlier gospels omitted this information to protect Peter from arrest and prosecution. John, writing years later, can provide people's identities without problem.Peter's brave attack creates a striking backdrop against his impending abandonment of Jesus. As Craig Keener points out, “Loyalty with a weapon in one's hand and hope of messianic help is not the same as loyalty when self-defense is impossible . . . .”Why Peter harmed only Malchus' ear is unclear. The chances that Peter was confident and dexterous enough with a blade to do so on purpose are slim to none. Peter may have meant a much more serious wound to the face or neck, and Malchus may have partially moved out of the way.Jesus rebukes Peter and insist Jesus must “drink the cup” that the Father has given him. What is this “the cup?” The cup is a symbol of judgment often employed in the Old Testament. For example:May he rain down burning coals and brimstone on the wicked! A whirlwind is what they deserve. (In Hebrew, the literal text says, “[may] a wind of rage [be] the portion of their cup.”) Psalm 11:6You have made your people experience hard times; you have made us drink intoxicating wine. Psalm 60:3You will be shocked and amazed! You are totally blind! They are drunk, but not because of wine; they stagger, but not because of beer. For the Lord has poured out on you a strong urge to sleep deeply. He has shut your eyes (you prophets), and covered your heads (you seers). Isaiah 29:9-10Wake up! Wake up! Get up, O Jerusalem! You drank from the cup the Lord passed to you, which was full of his anger. You drained dry the goblet full of intoxicating wine. Isaiah 51:17Annas and CaiaphasAnnas and the Corrupt TrialUpon arrest, Jesus is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas “who was high priest that year.” Please recall the discussion of the high priesthood above. According to Jewish law, the high priest was to serve for life. Now that the Romans had conquered the Jews, the high priest could be changed at the whim of the Roman authorities. That was the case with Annas. He had been appointed high priest by the Romans and was later deposed by them. However, there are strong indications that Annas held on to the powerful office albeit unofficially. After Annas left office, all five of his sons followed in office. In all likelihood, Annas remained the powerful figure pulling the strings of his children. Also, Annas was probably still viewed by the people of Israel as the true high priest. John outright refers to him as the high priest while also acknowledging that technically Caiaphas was the high priest that year. All this explains why Jesus was first brought to him although officially Annas held no office.Beginning with Annas, the Jewish trial of Jesus shows evidence of corruption. For example, Pharisaic tradition prohibited a single individual from acting as judge. Perhaps Annas, who was a Sadducee and not a Pharisee, could be excused from such a requirement. There were other irregularities, however. To the extent that later rabbinic sources give us insight into Jewish first century practices, judges were meant to conduct capital trials during daylight (this may explain the brief meeting with Caiaphas early in the morning), trials should not occur on the eve of or during a Sabbath or festival (although emergency situations could justify doing so), Pharisaic tradition required a day to pass before issuing a verdict of condemnation (Sadducees may not have felt bound to this tradition), and the Sanhedrin was supposed to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Most importantly, Jewish law forbade false witnesses. The penalty for a false witness in a capital case was death. Although not found in John, the other gospels mention such false witnesses (e.g., Matthew 26:59).The original audience of John's Gospel would have picked up on the irregularities. Yet, they also would have never expected otherwise. The law in the first century unabashedly favored the wealthy and powerful. There was no expectation of fairness.Annas Questions JesusAnnas questions Jesus regarding his disciples and his teachings. Although the text does not say, we can make an educated guess that Annas probably focused on statements like Jesus' threat against the temple (“Jesus replied, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.' Then the Jewish leaders said to him, ‘This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?'” John 2:19-20); Jesus' blasphemous claims (“‘The Father and I are one.' The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?' The Jewish leaders replied, ‘We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy because you, a man, are claiming to be God.'” John 10:30-33); and the violent or sacrilegious behavior of Jesus' disciples (“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest's slave, cutting off his right ear.” John 18:10).Jesus does not directly address the accusations. There might be a legal strategy at work. There is some indication (although from later sources), that a Jewish tribunal could not condemn a prisoner based solely on his own testimony in a capital case. Another possibility is that since Jesus had been confronted by the authorities in public and been vindicated in public (e.g., “The officers replied, ‘No one ever spoke like this man!'” John 7:46), this trial was inappropriate, in a similar way that we prohibit double jeopardy. Regardless of whether the author intends us to pick up on such legal tactics, Jesus certainly does not display the submissive behavior expected of him. Most prisoners brought before an aristocratic tribunal would have known to act self-effacingly and highly adulatory of the authorities.Jesus' response to Annas' questioning makes perfect sense. (“I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” John 18:20-21) Whatever the accusations may be of him, why is an investigation required (i.e., a trial with testimony and evidence)? Jesus taught publicly. There is nothing to discover. Surely if Jesus said anything worthy of death in public, there would have been public opposition. Both Jews and Romans were highly suspicious of secret religious groups—a prejudice on which Annas' questioning is predicated. Jesus makes clear he is not part of a secret sect. Moreover, Jesus' response has an implied accusation. He taught in public. The religious elite, however, arrested him in secret.Annas strikes Jesus because of his disrespect. In Annas' mind, Jesus ought to beg not challenge. Striking the prisoner during questioning would have violated Jewish law, but as I discussed above, no ancient listener would be surprised by a member of the elite taking certain liberties. Jesus' response to the strike is another challenge. (“If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me? John 18:23) If Annas has struck Jesus without reason, then the one who has broken the law is Annas while Jesus remains blameless.Caiaphas Takes Jesus to the RomansAnnas sends Jesus to Caiaphas. Caiaphas is the one to turn Jesus in to the Romans. There are a few reasons this was the case. Primarily, we must remember that Caiaphas was technically holding the office of high priest that year. Annas could pull the strings in the background, but Caiaphas' rubber stamp was still required. Also, and this is much more speculative, Jewish law may have required a daytime trial in a capital case. A brief, early morning hearing with Caiaphas may have technically fulfilled this requirement.Peter's DenialsPeter denies Jesus three times. The first denial is found in verses 15 through 18. An anonymous disciple introduces Peter into the high priest's household. The level of acquaintance between the unknown disciple and the high priest is not described. It could range from a person who regularly supplied the high priest's household (for example, of fish) and had therefore met his servants, to a person who was a true friend of someone in the high priest's household. One could speculate regarding the identity of this disciple, but there is no indication that he was even one of the twelve. The options are too many.In verse 17, the slave girl at the door asks, or perhaps the better word is accuses, “You're not one of this man's disciples too, are you?” Perhaps she remembered having seen Peter with Jesus. Maybe Peter's Galilean accent gave him away. Peter, now surrounded by the high priest's slaves and guards, responds, “I am not.” Given the value of honor towards one's teacher, Peter's behavior would have been seen as bringing shame not only upon himself but upon Jesus as well. Peter fails to do what Jesus requires, “The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” John 12:25-26Peter's second and third denials are described in verses 25 through 27. In verse 25, “they” recognize him—probably servants of the high priest. Again we are not told how he is recognized. Peter emphatically denies being one of Jesus disciples, “I am not!” Finally, a relative of Malchus—the man Peter attacked and cut off his ear—recognizes Peter. Then the most damning accusation is made, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” Peter had attacked (with probable lethal intent) a servant of the arresting officials. If Peter were identified, he could have been properly sentenced. Peter denies Jesus one more time and the rooster crows.The rooster crowing marks the climax, though not the end, to Peter's story. The words of Jesus are fulfilled. Recall John 13:31-38:31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. 33 Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,' now I tell you the same.34 “I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” 37 Peter said to him, “Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!Notice that Peter's denials are interspersed with Jesus' fearless responses to the high priest. This literary device creates a stark comparison between he who is willing to lay down his life and he who is not. Notice as well that Peter's later restoration (John 21:7-ff) provides hope for all those who have faltered.[The blog post section that follows was not covered during the session and was copied to the following session.]PilateThe Jewish authorities sentence Jesus. Jesus' apostles—most notably Peter—desert him. Then the time comes for the Romans to get involved.The first question we ought to ask is: why? Why must the Romans be involved at all? I have discussed this already, so I will be brief. The Romans depended on delatores—accusers—to bring criminals to justice. These accusers could be individuals or councils, such as the Sanhedrin. In particular, the Sanhedrin was composed of the aristocratic elite of the most important city in Israel. The Roman governor would certainly cooperate with such a group.The Jews deliver Jesus to Pilate “very early in the morning,” probably around 6 am. For Romans, “late morning” in the summer months was before 8 or 9 am. A Roman governor would probably end his public transactions around noon, leaving some time for leisure. In fact, Romans rarely slept in; doing so could carry the implication of drinking or partying the night before.When the Jews deliver Jesus, they avoid entering into the “governor's residence”—the praetorium. There is some debate whether the praetorium was Fortress Antonia, adjoining the temple courts, or the old palace of Herod the Great. The lavishness of Herod's old palace, which would have been preferred by a Roman governor, along with confirmation from other ancient writings seem to support the latter alternative. Either way, why did the Jews not enter the praetorium? Because houses of non-Jews were ritually impure and entering them would render a Jew impure as well, keeping him from fully participating in the Passover festivities. This concern for ritual purity serves as evidence of the aristocrats' hypocrisy: they spent the night ignoring the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and fairness, to then show concern for more superficial rituals. Recall Matthew 23:23-24:“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!Notice Pilate's attitude. From Josephus' writings (an ancient Jewish historian) we know that originally Pilate was quite unsympathetic towards the Jewish customs. In John, we find a Pilate much more willing to avoid unnecessary friction. He comes out to meet the Jewish elite, accommodating of the fact that they could not enter the home. However, Pilate also shows some annoyance with the situation. He asks, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” The response is, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” If we read between the lines, Pilate's question does not seem like an honest request for information. He seems to be aware of the accusation but remains unconvinced that this is a matter worthy of his involvement. The Jews insist they would not seek audience before Pilate if Jesus was not really a criminal.The Jewish elite finally speak truly when they say, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” As I explained above, only the Roman governor could order a person killed—particularly by crucifixion. Notice, therefore, that the only way in which Jesus' words could be fulfilled (e.g., “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32) was if the Jews involved the Romans. This was expected, indeed planned, by Jesus.Roman citizens could not be legally crucified, but slaves and provincials could be, generally for rebellion against Rome.Pilate was known for his brutality. He had sometimes executed Jews without trial. The Jewish elite knew that if they wanted Jesus dead, they were asking the right guy. They may have expected no hearing at all, even if Roman law technically required one. But there were politics at play. An overly cruel governor could give rise to revolts by the provincials. In fact, later in his life, Pilate's excessive use of capital punishment cost him his office. We also have other reasons to believe that Pilate may have been trying to be more careful than usual. His patron, Sejanus, was executed in the year 31 AD. If the crucifixion happened in the year 33 AD, then Pilate found himself in a precarious situation with little political support. Even if the crucifixion happened in the year 30 AD (the other widely argued for date), Pilate may have already been feeling the mounting opposition to his patron. Pilate himself was only an equestrian, a class lower than senators. Finally, there is likely some personal animosity at work as well. Pilate had gained some political savvy by this point, but he probably strongly disliked the Jews. Pilate may have been fair to Jesus simply to spite the Jews.Pilate Questions JesusAccording to normal judicial procedure, the accuser spoke first. So, Pilate had to already be aware of the charge of treason when he begins Jesus' interrogation. The question Pilate asks is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Ain't that the million dollar question! In classic Johannine fashion, this moment drips with irony. Pilate is probably employing sarcasm, perhaps even mockery. But the gospel audience understands that the question is serious—the most important question ever, in fact. Is Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, the High Priest, the King, God himself?Notice that Pilate's question is strange in one regard: so far no one has used his exact terminology. Jesus' detractors do not calling him king of the Jews. Jesus himself does not make the claim with those exact words. The title is not even a traditional Christian confession. Christians will call Jesus Messiah, Christ, Lord, or perhaps even King of Israel or King of Kings, but generally not King of the Jews. There is irony in the fact that a Gentile is one to speak with such insight, even if he spoke more than he knew.Jesus' reply plays on the irony of Pilate's question. Jesus retorts, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Allow me to rephrase it as, “Oh, so you can tell? You figured it out on your own or someone told you?” Pilate's response makes perfect sense, “I am not a Jew, am I?” In other words, “How would I know? I am not a Jew.”If up to this point the conversation had a mocking tone, it becomes serious as Pilate asks, “Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” This is a hefty question. Paraphrased, Pilate says, “Your people wish me to have you killed. Why?” There is also some legalese at play here. If a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would ask about the charge three times before convicting the defendant by default.Jesus explains that his kingdom is not of this world. He offers a simple proof. If his kingdom were of this world, his followers would be fighting to free Jesus; they would probably be fighting against Jews to establish Jesus as King and fighting against the Romans to liberate Israel. They are not. “As it is,” meaning, “look around, there is no fighting,” Jesus' kingdom is certainly not political. But Jesus does not deny the charge against him. Jesus affirms he has a kingdom: “my kingdom is not from here.” If Jesus were trying to win his trial, this was not a wise move.Pilate picks up on Jesus confession. “So you are a king!” To whatever extent Pilate is following standard trial procedure, notice that this is the third time the charge is brought up to the defendant. The defendant's lack of defense will result in a conviction by default. (Although, perhaps the conversation simply developed this way and the governor is not thinking in terms of legal procedure.) For the last time, Jesus fails to defend himself. “You say that I am a king.” This statement can be taken in a few different ways. Jesus may mean it as, “You say I am king because I am.” As an older commentary puts it, “Thou sayest; for I am a king.” Another alternative is that Jesus bypasses the title and instead affirms the substance of the accusation. Then we could rephrase Jesus response as follows: “Is King the proper title for someone like me? I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Does that make me king?” However we interpret Jesus' response, it is not a denial of the charge against him. Jesus may have sealed his fate.Pilate ends the conversation with another million dollar question, “What is truth?” The true tone and intent behind his questions is hard to discern. Maybe Pilate is mocking Jesus' and his commitment to truth. After all, Pilate lived a life of Roman politics and military prowess. Truth? Who cares. Power—that's what really matters. We can almost hear his argument: “Do you think a man is convicted because he is guilty? He is convicted because he is weak. Do you think the powerful escape justice because they are righteous? Don't be naïve! Do you think only the wicked are conquered and enslaved? We conquer devils and saints alike. Do you think the righteous rule the world? The strong rule over all. Do you think that kings speak only truth? If not, go ahead and disagree with them and see what happens. Do you think truth matters at all? Don't be a child.”Maybe Pilate means his question earnestly. The other gospels tell us that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent. Moreover, Pilate's wife had received a vision confirming Jesus was blameless and should not be convicted.So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) As he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man; I have suffered greatly as a result of a dream about him today.” Matthew 27:17-19We can imagine a corrupt ruler of a corrupt nation being asked by a corrupt ruling council to brutally crucify a man he knows to be innocent and asking himself: “What is truth? Is there anything worth fighting for? Anything worth sacrificing for? If so, what is that truth? Where does it come from?” These could be the questions of a wicked man who is beginning to see that what is right and wrong is not simply a matter of power.Pilate Attempts to Release JesusPilate finds no (legal) fault in Jesus and attempts to release him. Pilate follows a custom of releasing one prisoner during Passover (as scholars call it, the “paschal amnesty custom”). A Roman governor was free to issue amnesties. We have record of Romans sometimes releasing prisoner en masse on local feasts. During their own festivities, Romans usually delayed punishments. So, the custom described in John would not have seemed odd in the ancient world.Pilate gives the Jewish people a choice: Jesus or Barabbas? To Pilate's surprise, the people exclaim: “Barabbas!” There is irony upon irony here. Jesus was accused of being a revolutionary but found to be innocent. Barabbas was an actual revolutionary! Technically, the word used in verse 40 is “robber,” but that was a euphemism for revolutionary. As the NET's translators' note 118 explains:Or “robber.” It is possible that Barabbas was merely a robber or highwayman, but more likely, given the use of the term ληστής (lēstēs) in Josephus and other early sources, that he was a guerrilla warrior or revolutionary leader. Moreover, the Jewish leaders allegedly acted against Jesus to prevent a revolution that could destroy Israel. John 11:49-50:Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.”Yet, they requested the release of the very type of person who would bring demise to the nation just 40 years later.
Did Nas and Hit-Boy create a new standard of Relevancy with the King's Disease series and the Magic release. Join in the conversation as we talk about 21 Savage's comments and talk about the importance of Nas' moves when it comes to Hip-Hop Culture and starting a revolution on being defined a legend and living through that legacy actively not resting on their history. Is King's Disease 3 a classic? Time will tell. Follow Heritage Hip-Hop on all social media platforms. Support our by buying our Merch for sale on our website and we take donations on our CASHAPP links are below. We appreciate your support. Links: Instagram: @HERITAGEHIPHOP Website: www.HeritageHipHop.com Merch: www.Storefrontier.com/Heritagehiphop Cashapp for Donations: https://cash.app/$heritagehiphop Podcasts are available on: www.HeritageHipHop.com Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4rW9vRNAU0w4BGr1Vgb4YD Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/heritage-hip-hop-podcast/id1531573272 Youtube: www.youtube.com/c/heritagehiphop Follow Heritage Hip-Hop on all social media including: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HeritageHipHop Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/heritagehiphop/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/HeritageHipHop Clubhouse: @HERITAGEHIPHOP Tumblr: https://karevheritagehiphop.tumblr.com/following TikTok: https://tiktok.com/heritagehiphop Boomuitt: https://www.boomuitt.com/@Karev --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/heritagehiphop/support
Albany Georgia, mass arrests! Youth lead the charge, SNCC. We learn about the Albany Movement to end segregation, and it's origin. Tension between King, SNCC, NAACP. We are introduced to a smart sophisticated police officer, Laurie Pritchett, non brutal. Is King a distraction to the Albany Movement? Does he help or hurt? And do we have victory or failure in Albany, and how does this compare to Montgomery? All that and more in another great episode, and several short musical breaks by original music by Paul!
There's a reason why “Christ the King” Sunday is now called “Reign of Christ” Sunday in many places. Is “King and Kingdom” type language the best way to continue to talk about God's “Kingdom” when we've completely forgotten that God's “Kingdom” is completely upside down in comparison to what “Kingdoms” and “Empires” are really about?! Join Mark B and Mark G as we chew through this week's readings and get a better image of what this “Kingdom” and its “King” are really all about in this week's Between 2 Sundays. (The readings for the Twenty-Fourth Sunday After Pentecost are: Jeremiah 23:1-6 and Luke 1:68-79 • Colossians 1:11-20 • Luke 23:33-43) Find the readings and other resources to accompany them here: https://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=290 Find Mark B's posts at https://barefootfollower.life/ Find Mark G's posts at https://www.instagram.com/monkindocs/ Email us at between2sundays@gmail.com Check out all our other things at https://linktr.ee/between2sundays
032 Another chess journey update from your favorite podcast host! Every few months, I serve up a solo show that offers my latest insights and struggles, all from my hard-working path toward improvement.No matter your rating…I believe you'll find some snackable morsels of chess wisdom (even if it comes from my failures!)This episode also offers a brand new segment where I answer questions from my Twitter followers about my chess journey.Highlights you can expect:Is King safety a chess problem or a psychological problem?Coach Andras Toth spots one of my top barriers to improvement (hint: it's not more tactics or chess books.)The worst chess advice I've ever received.
Nick Kendell and Scott Kennedy discuss NBC Sports' and long-time NFL Writer Peter King's first 2022 NFL Power Rankings. With the #DenverBroncos being placed 14th overall and last amongst the AFC West teams, it appears that King is a non-believer in Denver as a quality team after acquiring Russell Wilson. Why might this be? Is King correct in ranking Denver as an average football team?#Broncos #BroncosCountryMerch: http://huddleuppod.com/Slam it here for more Broncos coverage: http://milehighhuddle.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
How big is Big? Is King our queen? Will we say yes to No? What is the importance of being Ernst? Join Shane and Andrew as they rate the Bond movie bad guys from worst to best... at being worst.
On the latest Blackhawks Talk Podcast, Pat Boyle and Charlie Roumeliotis discuss their first impressions of interim GM Kyle Davidson. They also weigh in on interim head coach Derek King's personality, why he appears to be exactly what this Blackhawks team needed right now and whether this could be the launching point of a potential run. Plus, Charlie goes 1-on-1 with King in an exclusive interview.1:30 - Initial impressions of Davidson8:45 - Is King the right fit for the Blackhawks?18:40 - 1-on-1 interview with King26:15 - King earning the trust of players 33:30 - What is the recipe for the Blackhawks to have success under King?37:45 - Can the Blackhawks go on a run?39:40 - Injury update on Brandon HagelSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Rinkcast host Andy Campbell and co-host Eric Andrews are joined by Rink staffers Ray Napientek, Sean Fitzgerald, and Andrew Bard to discuss the termination of head coach Jeremy Colliton With Derek King appointed as interim head coach, will the Hawks turn their season around? Is King the long term solution or merely a bandaid until they hire a more seasoned replacement? Subscribe, rate this episode, share with your friends, and even write us a review. The best reviews will be read on the air. Also, please help spread the word to more #RinkRats and visit our sponsor www.PUCKHCKY.com. Use the discount code "THERINK" for 10% off all orders. Are you a RinkRat who also owns a business? Our data shows RinkCast listeners are (like you) affluent, discerning, and want to patronize like-minded brands. As part of our growth, we're looking for an exclusive advertiser, at a VERY low cost. Email podcast@the-rink.com for more details
Haynes King is now for an extended period of time, meaning Zach Calzada will need to be QB1 for now. How will this affect the Aggies moving forward? Is King's departure a nail in the coffin for A&M's postseason goals? Join Locked on Aggies host Cole Thompson as he breaks down the ins and outs of Calzada's first outing and what he brings to the table as QB1.Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!Built BarBuilt Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order.BetOnline AGThere is only 1 place that has you covered and 1 place we trust. Betonline.ag! Sign up today for a free account at betonline.ag and use that promocode: LOCKEDON for your 50% welcome bonus.Rock AutoAmazing selection. Reliably low prices. All the parts your car will ever need. Visit RockAuto.com and tell them Locked On sent you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Haynes King is now for an extended period of time, meaning Zach Calzada will need to be QB1 for now. How will this affect the Aggies moving forward? Is King's departure a nail in the coffin for A&M's postseason goals? Join Locked on Aggies host Cole Thompson as he breaks down the ins and outs of Calzada's first outing and what he brings to the table as QB1. Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! Built Bar Built Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order. BetOnline AG There is only 1 place that has you covered and 1 place we trust. Betonline.ag! Sign up today for a free account at betonline.ag and use that promocode: LOCKEDON for your 50% welcome bonus. Rock Auto Amazing selection. Reliably low prices. All the parts your car will ever need. Visit RockAuto.com and tell them Locked On sent you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
EP 28 - Power Walker's Take a Plunge (The Attendant Series)Our heroes reunite on the roof of one of the Attendant factories on Middle Island. With the captive doppelganger they have to fight their way to freedom. The Power Walkers and The Sable are quickly embroiled in a fight with the workers when the Tank Mechs begin to make their presence known. Is KING a good driver? Can Shadow leap tall buildings? Will Ramen find an improvised weapon? Can our heroes find their way off this island? Listen in on the biggest battle yet!Featuring Duke Walter, Dean Martin Jr., Chris Freedom and Jas Abramowitz
Long Live The King Hipster & The Nerd continues its trek through the Monsterverse with a look at 2019's Godzilla:King of the Monsters! Join Chris and Brian as they discuss and debate all the various elements that make this sequel better than the original. The incredible kaiju action and increased kaiju screen time, the new human characters and their story arcs, the close cut vs. wide shot style of kaiju fights, the returning musical themes, and more! Is King of the Monsters truly a worthy successor to the original Toho films or is it just a marginal improvement over the 2014 film? Give it a listen and decide for yourself! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
The sun is setting and the Losers make one last stop to examine Stephen King's Desperation and Richard Bachman's The Regulators. Already, we've mined themes of religion, addiction, and authority in the Nevada desert and powered through cathartic writing, television, and violence in the suburbs of Ohio. What a long, strange trip it's been, and it's about to get even stranger, if you can believe that. Join Losers Randall Colburn, Jenn Adams, Dan Pfleegor, and Ana Marie Cox as they conclude their series on King's great twinning experiment. They'll discuss the benefits to writing as Bachman and the emotional core of this darker style. Is King funny? Would we read his published laundry list? Why is Richard Bachman so mad? All these questions and more will be answered as we discuss the author and his pseudonym. Follow us on Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Patreon
King hits on the most toxic and disturbing aspects of the anime franchise as Mike digs through his daunting opinions. Let us hear your opinions on this. Is King over stating how "evil" this part of our favorite spiky haired charas or is he right? Do you have other things which are darker than what he's saying? Let's know! Instagram: MotakuPR Email: motakupr@protonmail.ch
Gary mentions a birthday of potentially the all time great. BIG 10 IS KING and Gary explains why that is and more on the BIG 10!
What do you think of the Sailor Pen rebrand? How do you review the King of Pen? Is King of Pen even spelled correctly? These are the hard hitting questions Brad and Myke tackle today. Plus, Brad asks if he can buy a pen.
Is King from Tekken a furry? Is Overwatch anime and which character has the best butt? What will we call the list of our most desired upcoming entertainment? --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antifanboy/support
The question we should be asking ourselves with Mr. Mercedes is, "Is King playing a metatextual game with us when presenting the character of Brady or did he unknowingly create the most derivative villain of all time?" Find out this week in the Stephen Kingcast!
Man we love the cartoons here at Geek Fights,and that's why Damon Shaw, Mike Ortiz, Michael Felsher, Greg Trahan and Juan Patino tackle the BEST ANIMATED TV SHOW. Is King of the Hill, the king of the hill? Will South Park die like Kenny? Does Futurama have a future, or did the Jetsons steal it? Knowing may be half the battle, but is the other half victory for GI Joe? Can the Transformers transform into winners? He-Man may have the power of Grayskull, but does he have the power of Geek Fights? Can anyone stop the great Cornhilio, heh heh, heh heh heh heh.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
