Calvary Road Baptist Church
“ART THOU THE KING OF THE JEWS?”
John 18.33-37
Allow me to read four passages to begin.
Matthew 27.11:
“And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.”
Mark 15.2:
“And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.”
Luke 23.3:
“And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.”
John 18.33-37:
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Let us engage in common sense and hopefully practical consideration of conversations that Christian parents ought to have with their children, Christian spouses ought to have with their unsaved spouses, and grown Christian children ought to have with their unsaved parents. If you have been around our Church for any length of time, you have heard me remark that it is unlikely someone will arrive at the right answers until that person is willing to ask the right questions. I am convinced that is a reality Christians ought to embrace and advance in our witnessing strategy.
Too often, unsaved people are resolutely unwilling to ask questions because they do not dare to face what they anticipate will be answers they do not want to confront. Believers in Jesus Christ should not hold that attitude. We believe knowing the truth makes us free.[1]
All four Gospel accounts record Pontius Pilate for the second time entering the judgment hall early on the Friday morning of our Lord’s crucifixion and asking Him a question. “Art thou the King of the Jews?” What a brilliant question to ask the Lord Jesus. Pilate served as the Roman governor for about ten years. That is historically verifiable. Additionally, considering the vastness of the Roman Empire and the political and military hierarchy at that time, there is no question that Pontius Pilate was among the elites of Roman society.
While he was certainly not in the inner circle of the power structure in Rome, he was far more than merely in the top 1% of his people. While I have no idea how many millions of Roman citizens there were on that day, Pilate had to be among the most influential and powerful hundreds in the Empire. That means, in addition to his evident brutality and cruelty, there can be no doubt that he was a brilliant political animal. For all of the Roman Empire’s many flaws, it was, in many respects, a meritocracy. Thus, the man was not without skills. He was not utterly devoid of insight.
What do we see in the verses that require no Bible knowledge, no exegetical skills, and no experience as a Christian? What do we observe that we ought to make use of as Christians in our dealings with the unsaved people around us? What do we find from what we have just read that could be used, that should be used, to provoke conversations with your unsaved children, with your unsaved spouse, and for adult Christians to use with their parents and friends who are not believers?
What we have before us is a smart man asking an intelligent question. However, it is typical that not-so-smart people do not ask pertinent questions. This is because the vast majority of people who are not believers in Jesus Christ think of themselves as smart. They imagine themselves to be brilliant.
Called the “Dunning-Kruger effect in psychology,” Dunning and Kruger discovered the tendency and studied it.[2] They write that it is a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence vastly overestimate their knowledge or competence.
Most of us recognize the human tendency to think we know what we do not know and to be sure about things we have no business being sure about. This is especially true of the unsaved people who are so positive they know best what is good for them and what they ought to be doing, though they are wildly erroneous in their thinking and conclusions.[3]
Pontius Pilate will proceed to make catastrophic errors in judgment, as we shall see. But he started right by asking a pertinent question. “Are you the king of the Jews?” As the Roman governor, he needed to ask and find the answer to that question. But is it any less true of your son or daughter, your unsaved spouse, or your lost parents? Pilate’s political success had to be based on who and what he knew, so he was all about relationships and information. He was a student of those things that mattered to his government and his career. But is it so different for you? For me? For your unsaved loved ones? I don’t think so.
So, if they are unwilling to ask the right questions, is it not your task as a loved one who wants the best for them to nudge them in the right direction? I have engaged in this practice with five of the most important people in my life, with two turning to Christ, two passing from this life to an eternity without Christ, and one remaining to pray for and witness to.
I engage in this practice with anyone close enough to interact with. Better than telling people things, folks are more likely to be open and engaged if you can bring them around to ask the right question and then seek the answer. That is where your best opportunity often lies. For some, it takes a long time, and for others, the time frame is shorter. But notice how often you enjoy success with those willing to ask the right questions. Not always, mind you.
Read the Book of Acts and note the questions asked by the lost that led to Gospel declarations.[4] Then, perhaps you will be willing to ask your son, daughter, spouse, or parents, “Why don’t you ever ask any questions? Are you sure you know the answers?”
The Apostle John provided far more detail of these unfolding events than the other three Gospel accounts, for a reason we are confident we can provide. Notice John 18.15-17, where two pieces of information provide clues about the extent of John’s narrative:
15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.
First, note how the author of this Gospel account referred to himself. In verse 15, he is “another disciple.” In verse 16, he is “that other disciple.” In verse 17, he referred to himself even more obliquely by citing the damsel’s words to Peter, “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?” The word “also” refers to the unnamed disciple, John. So, John was on the scene of the events he recorded in his Gospel account. Also, not only was John in the scenes he reported but he was also known to the high priest and a young woman in the household. According to verse 15,
“that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus.”
Verse 16 repeats that he was known to the high priest:
“Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest.”
The point is then made that he was also known to the damsel, with verses 16 and 17 reading,
“that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples?”
Known to those in the former high priest Annas’ household, John went into where the action was, then went with them to the current high priest Caiaphas’ house, and from there, with the soldiers and priests to Pontius Pilate’s judgment hall. That thoroughly explains the details of these events found in John’s Gospel. He was an eyewitness!
Is knowing who, where, when, what, how, and other information is not always good? We know the who of what unfolded. It was the Savior, the Roman governor, the Jewish Sanhedrin, the Roman soldiers, and the Apostle John. But John 18.33 clarifies the where for us. Recall that the Jewish religious leaders would not enter Pilate’s judgment hall for fear of being ceremonially defiled on a high holy day, John 18.28.
Thus, when Pilate was informed of their presence, he passed from his quarters to the judgment hall and through the judgment hall outside to speak to the Jewish religious leaders. The first half of verse 33 suggests that Pilate returned from outside, where he had spoken to the Jewish officials, as seen in verses 29-31. Stepping back inside to speak to the Lord Jesus, who had been brought into the judgment hall by the Roman soldiers, by Roman law when dealing with someone accused of a crime,
“Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus.”
From that point, the conversation between Pilate and the Savior was conducted in the judgment hall where Pilate’s judgment seat was. All four Gospel accounts replicate Pilate’s exact question to the Lord:
“Art thou the King of the Jews?”
“In all four Gospels, this is the first question that Pilate asks Jesus.”[5] It was a valid question for a Roman in authority to ask. Why so? Romans were particularly interested in anyone labeled a king they had not authorized.
That Pilate asked this question of the Savior before any words were exchanged between them suggests he had read written accusations sent by the high priest, Caiaphas. Those accusations would claim blasphemy, refusal to pay taxes, and claims that He was the king of the Jews. Pilate had no interest in any supposed blasphemy. He certainly had reports of the Lord’s miracles, including taking a coin from a fish’s mouth and instructing His followers to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.”[6] But his genuine interest was the accusation of kingship.
So, he asked the Lord directly and immediately, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” What is interesting and is yet another illustration of the Savior’s absolute control over the circumstances that we have seen beginning with His arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, was His refusal to be framed by Pilate’s question. The Lord had never claimed to be the King of the Jews.
He certainly was the King of the Jews. He never denied it. The magi had sought the King of the Jews in Bethlehem thirty years earlier. And He would certainly sit on the throne of His father David in due time. But the claims He made were related to His messiahship, that He was the Son of Man, identified as the Son of David, and such. That He was the King of the Jews was because He was Israel’s promised Messiah.
To Pilate’s question, our Lord responded, “Thou sayest,” according to Matthew 27.11, “Thou sayest it,” according to Mark 15.2 and Luke 23.3, and “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” according to John 18.34. The Lord Jesus Christ was not elusive, but He avoided allowing Pontius Pilate to frame Him with an inappropriately worded question.
A Roman governor asking, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” would mean something akin to asking the Savior if He was a Gentile-style political-military leader of a subjugated population, such as the Lord referred to in Matthew 20.25. It would be tantamount to me asking a man if he had beaten his wife lately. If you respond affirmatively, you have confessed to beating your wife recently. If you respond negatively, you have confessed to beating your wife in the past.
Such a king as Pilate imagined and was asking about was not what the Messiah of Israel would be when He was enthroned as King David’s promised heir. That explains the Lord’s response to Pilate in the four Gospel accounts.
Verse 34:
“Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”
The four Gospels record Pilate’s initial question. Pilate had asked the accusers about the charges, but they would not answer his question. Returning to his judgment hall, he questioned the Lord, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” The comment, “And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest,” is preserved by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John preserves a different portion of the Lord’s exchange with Pilate with more detail. Of course, Pilate, as the Roman governor, had to ask the question. He was, first and foremost, the representative of and had personal loyalty to the Roman empire and Caesar.
Meaning? Any claim of kingship not authorized by Rome had to be investigated. But did Pilate inquire about Jesus being King of the Jews for more than the apparent and mandatory reason? That was the point of our Lord’s question. Allow me to reassert a conviction I have held for a long time regarding the Lord Jesus Christ’s questions to both His friends and enemies. He never asked questions to discover facts but to engage someone in one way or another, to minister grace, expose sin, illustrate blindness, etc. His question to Pilate was, “Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” Why ask that question?
Perhaps, to open a discussion of matters, Pilate would not have considered anything apart from the Lord’s question. Was Pilate being manipulated by the Jewish religious leaders? Or was he curious himself? The Lord’s question along that line prompted some reflection by Pilate, where there likely had been little or no reflection before. Isn’t this an interesting concept to explore? As the Lord provoked Pilate to consider where his opinions about the Lord came from (were they his own conclusions or the result of Jewish religious leaders’ manipulations and propaganda), perhaps you might provoke others to reflect on where their conclusions about the Savior come from.
Some have a favorable view of the Savior but reject Him for fear of losing the love and affection of a parent, a spouse, or a friend. Others are concerned about losing control of their life’s decisions and whether they should surrender to Jesus as Lord. Some fear the impact on their jobs or careers. Still, others think that any Savior who bars access to abortion on demand or interferes with their multiplication of sex partners is a Savior they want nothing to do with.
Whatever opinions lost folks have about the Savior, the Lord’s question to Pilate was valid for every unsaved person to consider if they are intellectually honest enough to deal with such vital matters. Frequently, children acquire a negative opinion about the Savior from their grandparents, their parents, older siblings, neighbors they admire, and others. That is why my wife and I were always highly guarded about Sarah’s grandparents having unrestricted and unsupervised access to her when she was young.
If it is legitimate to inquire whether an experienced Roman governor had an opinion of the Savior that might have been tainted by the Jewish religious leaders, certainly anyone, including your children, can be subtly persuaded to discount the loveliness and importance of the Savior by those they are inclined to trust because they wrongly presume those trusted individuals have their best interests in mind.
Pontius Pilate would never have agreed with the religious views of the Jewish chief priests. But he might have mistakenly presumed those old men sincerely wanted what was best according to their sincerely held religious beliefs. If so, he would have been wrong. The Sanhedrin, for the most part, had no loyalty to God, to His Word, or His people. They were interested only in their immediate prospects and positions related to the imposing threat of the miracle worker from Nazareth.
Verse 35:
“Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?”
What an agitated response. “Am I a Jew?” Did Pilate answer that way to disabuse anyone of the notion that he was influenced by Jewish concerns or had any particular insight into Jewish affairs? Why might he have done this? To defend himself against charges by some of being pro-Jewish because he was, without doubt, receiving protection money from Jewish interests? How do I know? That is how the Roman Empire operated. That is the way every despotic regime functions.
One reason the Russians are doing so poorly against the Ukrainians at present is that corrupt Russian generals routinely sell supplies, weapons, and ammunition on the black market, depleting their resources to fight against the Ukrainians.[7] Also, are you aware of the discovery that Chinese ballistic missile fuel tanks were filled with water instead of rocket fuel?[8]
Another accomplishment of the Lord’s question was to emphasize the role in all this of the Lord’s own kinsmen. Pilate said,
“Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?”
The first part of Pilate’s statement is easy to understand. The affair was of Jewish origin, particularly the chief priests’ doing.
The second half, the question part of Pilate’s response, was up for discussion. What, exactly, had the Savior done? In verse 29, the Sanhedrin was given the opportunity to verbalize formal charges against the Lord, but they would not answer Pilate concisely and easily.
Not getting any straight answers from the chief priests concerning what He had done, Pilate turned to the Lord:
“What hast thou done?”
The Lord’s profoundly provocative response to Pilate is found in verse 36.
Verse 36:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
The Lord responded to the three questions put to Him by Pilate. “Art thou the King of the Jews?” in verse 33, “Am I a Jew?” in verse 35, and “What hast thou done?” also in verse 35. We now focus on our Lord’s answers, both explicitly and implicitly, beginning in verse 36 and verse 37. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.” Recall what Pilate meant by saying “King of the Jews”; it was entirely different from what a Jewish person would mean by those exact words. The Lord’s query of Pilate in verse 34 was likely meant to provoke Pilate to rethink what he meant by what he had asked the Lord.
He addressed the Roman governor’s initial question by declaring, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Several observations. First, the Lord did not say, “My kingdom is not in this world,” but “My kingdom is not of this world.” The Greek preposition, ek, is a marker, meaning it has a variety of specific uses, from denoting separation, to direction, to origin or causation, and other uses.[9] The point that is obvious is that Christ’s kingdom is other worldly.
Interestingly, while the theocratic kingdom is referred to 115 times in the other three Gospel accounts, either as the “Kingdom of God” or as the “Kingdom of Heaven,” in this Gospel, the kingdom is referred to only in the Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus, in John 3.3 and 5, and His conversation here with Pilate. The same assertion of otherworldliness was made about Christ’s followers in John 17.16, where the Lord prayed,
“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”
Second, observe the Lord’s words at the end of the verse to both qualify and amplify His comment:
“but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
The “now” is explained by Pilate’s declaration in the previous verse. The chief priests wanted to alarm the Roman governor by implying their accused criminal was an imminent threat to the security and safety of the Roman empire. They knew the Romans would kill anyone and everyone to preserve their empire. But with this comment, the Savior removed their credibility.
Third, in the middle of the verse we observe a conditional statement of the second class. This is what is called a contrary-to-fact conditional statement:
“If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.”
Notice the two parts of the conditional statement, both contrary to fact. “If my kingdom were of this world,” which it is not! “Then would my servants fight,” which they will not! Meaning? Pilate has nothing to worry about.
This is understood; be careful to note what the Lord Jesus did admit in His denial. He admitted to being a king! As well, He acknowledged that He presides over a kingdom. He denied that His kingdom was a threat to any of Pilate’s concerns. Unlike all the kingdoms of this world, Christ’s kingdom will not originate with man but will be received from God.[10] Unlike the earthly kingdoms of sinful men, which are dependent upon military might, the force of arms, and manipulation through propaganda, Christ’s kingdom will be an absolute theocracy, with citizens qualified by the miracle of the new birth. Heavenly principles would regulate his kingdom, while Rome’s rule was characterized by injustice and tyranny. Righteousness and peace will be the earmarks of Christ’s kingdom.
Answering Pilate as He did, how can we not admire the grace and patience of our blessed Lord? Pilate’s contemptuous outburst, “Am I a Jew?” annulled his right to any further serious notice. His “What hast thou done?” gave the Lord the full right to maintain silence and avoid self-incrimination.
Ignoring Pilate’s insult, the Lord addressed Himself to Pilate’s conscience. When He said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” He implied that there was another world of great significance to which He belonged! “My kingdom,” which cannot be entered by fighting or jihad but only through the miracle of the new birth, was an assurance to Pilate that there is a Power superior to the boasted might of Rome, which then dominated the earth.
Returning to the word “now,” when the Lord said, “but now is my kingdom not from hence,” intimated that His kingdom would be far different than anything Pilate had ever seen. Instead of furnishing a positive reply to Pilate’s question, “What hast thou done?” the Lord responded with a negative answer that showed He had done nothing against Caesar.
Some have wondered why Christ did not appeal to His miracles when Pilate asked Him, “What hast thou done?” But miracles were His Messianic credentials, and therefore only for Israel. Others have wondered why Pilate did not refer to the cutting off of Malchus’ ear in the garden. Why had not the Sanhedrin informed Pilate of Peter’s violent assault? For the simple reason that it would have hurt their cause to then have to admit the Lord healed Malchus. As you realize, there was a great deal going on at this point. Some things were said, while other things were left unsaid. Some charges against the Lord were inferred that could not be proven. The reality was that the chief priests hated the Lord Jesus Christ because He was the Light of the world and they loved darkness because their deeds were evil.
Verse 37:
“Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
The verse opens with the words,
“Pilate therefore said unto him.”
Notice the word “therefore,” translating the little Greek word oὖn, that nudges the reader to recognize Pilate’s remarks were connected to what was said before. This is not someone acting as though he is in charge talking over an inferior. What we have here is an actual exchange of thoughts, notions, and ideas. This is genuine communication we are about to read.
“Art thou a king then?” The word translated “then” occurs nowhere else in the Greek New Testament, so it deserves to be considered closely. Oὐkoῦn is described by one commentator as being “an argumentative particle seeking a definite answer, ‘very well; so you are a king?’”[11] Therefore, Pilate arrived at a conclusion based on Christ’s earlier comment in verse 36, in which He twice refers to “My kingdom.” In response to Pilate’s somewhat thoughtful question that is actually an admission, “Art thou a king then?” the Lord “Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
The initial declaration by the Savior is quite interesting. When He said, “Thou sayest that I am a king,” He accomplished two things: First, He did not deny that He is a king. Pontius Pilate’s conclusion was spot on! However, second, He acknowledged that the Savior did not assert Pilate’s accurate observation. He addressed Pilate’s question openly and honestly, though He did so in such a way that it was clear to Pilate that an alternate concept of kingship from what is typically Roman was in view. He then proceeded to say to Pilate, “To this end was I born.” “Only here in this Gospel is the birth of Jesus unambiguously mentioned. He came, in short, to be a king – or, otherwise put, to testify to the truth.”[12] “The kingship that the Jews completely rejected and Pilate affirmed ironically is a fact. John will not let us miss it, though it is a very different kind of kingship from that of which Jesus’ enemies spoke.”[13]
Notice how different the Savior is from King Charles III of the UK, who was born and then became king when his mother died. No so with the Lord Jesus Christ, Who succeeded no one as the King of the Jews. Thus, He is unique in yet another way. “and for this cause came I into the world.” The Lord remarked about being born and then coming into the world. Though He was virgin-conceived, being born was not so unusual. What was unusual was His coming into the world, suggesting He came from somewhere else. And He did come from somewhere else. He left heaven’s glory to come into this world, something no one else has ever done!
“that I should bear witness unto the truth.” His birth and coming into the world were accomplished to fulfill a purpose, that He should bear witness unto the truth. And what is the truth He bore witness to? The context reveals that He is the King of the Jews, the promised Messiah of Israel. Thus, He fulfills the promises made, first, in the Abrahamic Covenant, and then in the Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants.
“Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” Two things to point out: First, this is an invitation and a declaration. Anyone and everyone who hears Christ’s voice is of the truth, becomes a believer in Christ, is born again, and has a heavenly home awaiting him. This applied to Pilate, to the Jewish Sanhedrin, and to anyone else who pays attention to what the Savior has to say. A sinner is converted when he or she hears the proclamation of Bible truth about the Savior or from the Savior, personalizes it by application to his or her own life, and then responds in faith believing.
Also, take note that the hearing in this statement is the form of the verb meaning someone comes to salvation in Christ hearing and continuing to hear, and the Christian life is a life of ongoing hearing the Savior. Remember John 10.27?
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
This almost ends the conversation between the Savior and the Roman governor. What remains is your response. We know Pilate’s response. Although He knew Jesus was the King of the Jews, he denied the King of the Jews. We know the response of the chief priests. They denied the King of the Jews. Judas Iscariot denied the King of the Jews.
Denying Jesus does not alter the reality that He is the King of the Jews. It only deprives you of an eternity of bliss and delight, instead suffering the torment of the damned for all eternity. What will your response be? Will you ask the question, Is Jesus the King of the Jews?
Will you come to see and admit that He is the King of the Jews? And then, will you respond to the truth about Him to save your eternal and undying soul?
__________
[1] John 8.32
[2] https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect
[3] Proverbs 14.12; 16.25
[4] Acts 2.37; 8.30, 34; 9.6; 16.30
[5] Lidija Novakovic, John 11-21: A Handbook On The Greek Text - BHGNT, (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2020), page 238.
[6] Matthew 22.21; Luke 20.25
[7] https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2022-08-31/how-russian-corruption-is-foiling-putins-army-in-ukraine
[8] https://www.businessinsider.com/china-corruption-rocket-force-water-fuel-xi-jinping-purge-scandal-2024-1
[9] Bauer, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), pages 295-298.
[10] Daniel 7.13, 14; Luke 19.12
[11] Rogers, Jr., Cleon L. and Rogers III, Cleon L., The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key To The Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1998), page 223.
[12] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According To John (PNTC), (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), pages 594-595.
[13] Leon Morris, The Gospel According To John - Revised Edition - NICNT, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), page 681.
Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Please contact him by clicking on the link below. Please do not change the subject within your email message. Thank you.
Pastor@CalvaryRoadBaptist.Church