Jesus, The King of the Jews

[JamesATyler]

Was Jesus the King of the Jews? In Matthew, Mark and Luke when Pilate asks him if he is the King of the Jews, Jesus replies with “You say so.” (Which Pilate does do). In John, He replies by saying that his “Kingdom is not of this world.” Even though it appears that Jesus is saying that he not the King of the Jews, Pilate still puts the inscription over his head on the cross. In John, it says that many of the Jews read the sign and wanted it to be changed to read that Jesus said he was the King of the Jews. It appears to me that both Pilate and the Jews were wrong but that Pilate was closer to the truth than the Jews. Jesus never said he was the King of the Jews so the Jews would have wrote an outright lie as his crime. Pilate’s mistake was that he thought Jesus was a mortal man and that he was a king, only of the Jews. Shouldn’t the sign have said, “Jesus, The Son of God.” Doesn’t all this illustrate that the world’s judgement against God ranges from outright lies to partial truth and that the world cannot accurately judge?

 

[Della]

The world certainly does lie and distort the true–we, most especially, are witnesses of that in our day. Of course, Jesus was/is the “King of the Jews” even in the human sense because he is a descendant of King David, but it also means, to the Jews, that he claimed to be the Messiah, which he did. One day his kingdom will be fulfilled in the world when he comes again to claim that title in all its meaning. The Jews had a right to be upset over the title, King of the Jews, because they rejected Jesus’ claim to being the Son of God, and therefore the Messiah–from their viewpoint. By inscribing that title Pilate was saying more than he intended, thus upsetting Jesus’ opponents.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Good question, James.

In fact, in Hebrew parlance during the first century, “Son of God” was equivalent to “King of the Jews” (Messiah).

For example, when Nathaniel says to Jesus, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49) he meant that Jesus was the Messiah, not the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity (or else, why call Jesus “Rabbi”?). Additionally, when Peter said to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God…” (Matt 16:16) he meant a similar thing.

With this understanding, we can see that Jesus actually did admit before the Jewish leaders that he was their king:

And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

(Matt 14:60-62 RSV)

 

[504Katrin]

Don’t remember when it was, but it was after he had fed people with fish and bread, that the people wanted to crown him king and he simply left as he didn’t want to be crowned a king. It was the only time that he withdrawed himself for more than a night, I believe he was away from everyone else for a night and a day, so this must have gotten to him. If I remember correctly, a night later or so he showed up as if nothing had happened, and he appeared to the others walking on the water out of all things as if nothing had happened lol.

 

[yankee15]

Was Jesus the King of the Jews? In Matthew, Mark and Luke when Pilate asks him if he is the King of the Jews, Jesus replies with “You say so.” (Which Pilate does do). In John, He replies by saying that his “Kingdom is not of this world.” Even though it appears that Jesus is saying that he not the King of the Jews, Pilate still puts the inscription over his head on the cross. In John, it says that many of the Jews read the sign and wanted it to be changed to read that Jesus said he was the King of the Jews. It appears to me that both Pilate and the Jews were wrong but that Pilate was closer to the truth than the Jews. Jesus never said he was the King of the Jews so the Jews would have wrote an outright lie as his crime. Pilate’s mistake was that he thought Jesus was a mortal man and that he was a king, only of the Jews. Shouldn’t the sign have said, “Jesus, The Son of God.” Doesn’t all this illustrate that the world’s judgement against God ranges from outright lies to partial truth and that the world cannot accurately judge?

Pilate might have been “sticking” it to the Jewish priests by proclaiming “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum”. The priests on the other hand, wanted the title changed to reflect the blasphemy Jesus was charged with.

 

[YiiNaa]

Pilate might have been “sticking” it to the Jewish priests by proclaiming “Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum”. The priests on the other hand, wanted the title changed to reflect the blasphemy Jesus was charged with.

But it can’t be blasphemy to say that you are the messiah …