Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:33
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
33. Then Pilate ] Pilate therefore ( Joh 18:3). Because of the importunity of the Jews Pilate is obliged to investigate further; and being only Procurator, although cum potestate, has no Quaestor, but conducts the examination himself.
called Jesus ] Probably the Roman guards had already brought Him inside the Praetorium: Pilate now calls Him before the judgment-seat. The conversation implies that Jesus had not heard the previous conversation with the Jews.
Art thou the King of the Jews? ] In all four Gospels these are the first words of Pilate to Jesus, and in all four there is an emphasis on ‘Thou.’ The pitiable appearance of Jesus was in such contrast to the royal title that Pilate speaks with a tone of surprise (comp. Joh 4:12). The question may mean either ‘Dost Thou claim to be King?’ or, ‘Art Thou the so-called King?’ The royal title first appears in the mouth of the wise men, Mat 2:1, next in the mouth of Pilate.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
33 37. Inside the Praetorium; Jesus is privately examined by Pilate and makes ‘a good confession’ (1Ti 6:13).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Art thou the King of the Jews? – This was after they had accused him of perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, Luk 23:2-3.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 33. Art thou the king of the Jews?] St. Luke says, expressly, Lu 23:2, that when the Jews brought him to Pilate they began to accuse him as a rebel, who said he was king of the Jews, and forbade the people to pay tribute to Caesar. It was in consequence of this accusation that Pilate asked the question mentioned in the text.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, the ordinary place of judicature, from whence we read before he went out, in civility to the Jews, whose superstition (as we before heard) kept them from going there during the festival. He called Jesus to him privately, and asks him, if he owned himself to be the
King of the Jews? The confessing of which (for without doubt they had suggested some such thing to Pilate, and could not prove it) had brought Christ under Pilates power, he being governor for the Romans, and so concerned to inquire upon any that pretended to any regal power over that conquered people.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
33-38. Pilate . . . called Jesus,and said . . . Art thou the King of the Jews?In Lu23:2 they charge our Lord before Pilate with “perverting thenation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, saying that HeHimself is Christ a king.” Perhaps this was what occasionedPilate’s question.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again,…. Where he went at first, but the Jews refusing to come in thither to him, he came out to them; and now they speaking out more plainly, that he was guilty of a crime deserving of death; as that he set up himself as a king, in opposition to Caesar, and taught the people not to pay tribute to him; he goes into the “praetorium” again, and called Jesus; beckoned, or sent for him; or ordered him to come in thither to him, that he might alone, and the more freely, converse with him; which Jesus did, paying no regard to the superstitious observances of the Jews:
and said unto him, art thou the king of the Jews? This he might say, from a rumour that was generally spread, that there was such a person to come, and was born; and by many it was thought, that Jesus was he; and particularly from the charge of the Jews against him, which though not here expressed, is elsewhere; see Lu 23:2. Wherefore Pilate was the more solicitous about the matter, on account of Caesar, and lest he should be charged with dilatoriness and negligence in this affair: some read these words not by way of question, but affirmation, “thou art the king of the Jews”; which method he might make use of, the more easily to get it out of him, whether he was or not: and to this reading, Christ’s answer in the next verse seems best to agree.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Again (). Back into the palace where Pilate was before.
Called (). First aorist active indicative of . Jesus was already inside the court (verse 28). Pilate now summoned him to his presence since he saw that he had to handle the case. The charge that Jesus claimed to be a king compelled him to do so (Lu 23:2).
Art thou the King of the Jews? ( ;). This was the vital problem and each of the Gospels has the question (Mark 15:2; Matt 27:1; Luke 23:3; John 18:33), though Luke alone (23:2) gives the specific accusation.
Thou (). Emphatic. Jesus did claim to be the spiritual king of Israel as Nathanael said (Joh 1:49) and as the ecstatic crowd hailed him on the Triumphal Entry (Joh 12:13), but the Sanhedrin wish Pilate to understand this in a civil sense as a rival of Caesar as some of the Jews wanted Jesus to be (Joh 6:15) and as the Pharisees expected the Messiah to be.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Art thou [ ] . Thou is emphatic. Thou, the despised malefactor. King of the Jews. The civil title. The theocratic title, king of Israel (i. 49; Joh 12:13) is addressed to Jesus on the cross (Mt 27:42; Mr 14:32) in mockery.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again,” (eiselthen oun palin eis to praitorion ho Pilatos) “Pilate then entered again into the praetorium” which was a judgment decision hall, from which he had gone out to appease the accusers of Jesus, and try to secure some specific charges against Jesus, if they had any valid charges to offer, Joh 18:29-32.
2) “And called Jesus, and said unto him,” (kai eponesen ton lesoun kai eipen auto) “And he called Jesus and inquired of or quizzed him,” himself, directly.
3) “Art thou the King of the Jews?” (su ei ho basileous ton loudaion) “Are you the king of the Jews?” thus leading Jesus to incriminate Himself, Mat 15:2; Luk 23:3. John omits the Sanhedrin charges recounted Luk 23:2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
33. Then Pilate went again into the hall. It is probable that many things were said on both sides, which the Evangelist passes over; and this conclusion might be readily drawn from the other Evangelists. But John dwells chiefly on a single point, that Pilate made a laborious inquiry whether Christ was justly or unjustly accused. In the presence of the people, who were inflamed with sedition, nothing could be done but in a riotous manner. He therefore goes again into the hall; and, indeed, his intention is to acquit Christ, but Christ himself, in order that he may obey his Father, presents himself to be condemned; and this is the reason why he is so sparing in his replies. Having a judge who was favorable, and who would willingly have lent an ear to him, it was not difficult for him to plead his cause; but he considers for what purpose he came down into the world, and to what he is now called by the Father. Of his own accord, therefore, he refrains from speaking, that he may not escape from death.
Art thou the King of the Jews? It would never have struck Pilate’s mind to put this question about the kingdom, if this charge had not been brought against Christ by the Jews. Now, Pilate takes up what was more offensive than all the rest, that, having disposed of it, he may acquit the prisoner. The tendency of Christ’s answer is to show that there is no ground for that accusation; and thus it contains an indirect refutation; as if he had said, “It is absurd to bring that charge against me, fbr not even the slightest suspicion of it can fall upon me.”
Pilate appears to have taken amiss that Christ asked him why he suspected him of such a crime; (153) and, therefore, he angrily reproaches him, that all the evil comes from his own nation. “I sit here as a judge,” says he; “it is not foreigners, but your own countrymen, who accuse you. There is no reason, therefore, why you should involve me in your quarrels. You would be allowed by me and by the Romans to live at peace; but you raise disturbances among yourselves, and I am reluctantly compelled to bear a part in them.”
(153) “ De tel crime.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(33) Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus.Better, Pilate therefore entered into the Prtorium (or palace) again, and called Jesus. (Comp. Joh. 18:28.) This was practically a private investigation, for the Jews could not enter the palace (Joh. 18:28). (Comp. Joh. 19:13.)
Art thou the King of the Jews?Comp. Note on Mat. 27:11; Luk. 23:2-3. Pilate, of course, knew of the charge brought against Him when he gave permission for the Roman cohort to apprehend Him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. Entered into the judgment hall While the multitude is in the front area, facing Pilate at his threshold, Jesus has been sent into the hall. Pilate was, therefore, alternately with Jesus within, and with the multitude without.
Art thou This question presupposes, as the other Evangelists state that Jesus had treasonably claimed to be a king. It is to be noted that Luke makes Jesus declare himself a king without explanation, and yet makes Pilate clear him of fault. His account alone would be liable to the charge brought by rationalistic commentators against it, of being mysterious. John, in the present chapter, interposes the explanation, by which it is shown that Jesus so defined his royalty as to exculpate him from all fault in the eyes of Pilate. Pilate asks the present question in a tone of the utmost seriousness, as if to learn both what Jesus claimed to be, and what he was.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium and called Jesus and said to Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” ’
This statement demonstrates that more had been said than John has revealed. But this after all is what we would expect. What is therefore clear is that the Judaisers had pointed out that their bringing Him to Pilate was on the basis that He had been claiming to be the King of the Jews (compare Luk 23:2). They hoped that that was something that would make Pilate sit up, for they knew that he would be aware, vaguely, of the Jewish idea of a King Messiah who would remove the Romans. And to claim royal authority without Roman permission was a serious matter. So Pilate put the question, ‘are you the king of the Jews?’ in order to see what reaction he would receive so that he could judge for himself. No doubt he expected a ranting reply or sullen silence from this bound sad-looking figure.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Pilate begins the examination of Jesus
v. 33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews?
v. 34. Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?
v. 35. Pilate answered, Am I, a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me; what hast Thou done?
Having received no definite charges, but only vague intimations from the Jews, Pilate now resolved to give the prisoner a hearing. He took up the case, although he was convinced that Christ was no political criminal. That in itself was an injustice on the part of the governor, to make a case where he did not believe there was a case. But one of the statements of the Jewish rulers had been that Jesus had said that He was the King of the Jews. So Pilate takes up this matter, as one that might lead to some solution. But Jesus asks a very pertinent question in turn: Of thyself sayest thou this, or have others spoken to thee concerning Me? “Do you make this inquiry from any serious personal interest and with any keen apprehension of the blessings attached to the kingdom of God, or are you merely echoing a formal charge brought against Me by others?” “In the first place He excuses Himself thus: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me? This seems again as though it were answered in pride; however, it is not a proud answer, but a very necessary defense. For if someone is accused falsely, he should not let the accusation rest upon him nor say: This I will gladly suffer and let remain upon me for God’s sake, but should openly protest his innocence. Therefore the Lord throws the guilt and false accusation which the Jews put upon Him far from Himself and says: Thou, Pilate, askest whether I am the King of the Jews, that is to say, whether I am a rebel against the emperor? I call upon thine own conscience as a witness whether thou accusest Me of this of thyself or not. Surely, of thyself thou wouldst not say such things of Me. Let thy conscience answer, yea, let thine own eyes answer. Thou seest Me stand before thee, captured and bound; I was taken in no tumult, and there is no crowd of people about Me that uses weapons, but I have altogether the aspect of a captured and bound person. Therefore I cannot be accused of insurrection against the emperor. Thus the Lord presents His innocence over against the false accusation of the Jews, calling upon both the conscience and the eyes of the judge for a witness. ” The very implication that he might have had the idea which he broached himself, Pilate rejects with a show almost of loathing: I surely am no Jew! But the people to whom Jesus belonged by birth, the Jews and the chief priests, had delivered Him. And with some asperity Pilate wanted to know what the whole trouble was about, what Jesus had committed to be brought before Him in this manner. The idea that he should take any stock in a Jewish Messiah, Pilate scouts with sneering mockery.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 18:33. Then Pilate entered, &c. The expression used by the Jews in their accusation of our Lord, Luk 23:2. Saying, that he himself is Christ a King, may no doubt refer to the acknowledgment which Jesus made before the council of his being the Messiah. Nevertheless, to account for Pilate’s asking our Lord whether he assumed the title of the king of the Jews, we must suppose, that the priests explained their accusation by telling him, that Jesus had travelled incessantly through the country, and every where gave himself out for the Messiah; and that even during his trial before them, he had been so presumptuous as to assume that dignity in open court. Without some information of this kind, the governor would hardly have put the question to Jesus, no prisoner being obliged to accuse himself. See on Joh 18:37. We are not to expect the sacred historian to enter into every minute particular of the trial.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 18:33-34 . Pilate does not, indeed, enter at present into further discussion with the Jews, but, because he quite perceived that they had set their minds on the punishment of death, he returns into the praetorium, into which Jesus, Joh 18:28 , was led, and causes Him to be summoned before him, in order personally to examine him; taking a sufficiently inconsistent course, instead of simply persisting in his refusal on account of the want of a definite ground of accusation, and waiting first for some further step on the part of the Jews. His question: Thou art the king of the Jews? which, moreover, carries with it a contemptuous sound of unbelief (he does not ask, for example, , . . ., or the like), is explained, even without a on the part of the Jews, from the fact that the arrest, because made with the help of the , Joh 18:3 , could not have taken place without previous intimation to and approval by Pilate, who therefore must also have been acquainted with its reason, hence all the less, with Ewald, is the presentment of a written accusation to be presumed, or, as is ordinarily done, need it be suggested that the Jews, even after Joh 18:31 , had come forward with the . This agrees with Luk 23:2 , but is not indicated by a single word in John, who could not have passed over so essential a point as a matter of course, and how easily and briefly could he have done so! By his counter-question, Joh 18:34 , Jesus does not desire, as Olshausen, Meander, Godet, Ewald, and several others suppose, to gather the more exact sense of the question, whether, namely, it is intended in a Jewish and theocratic or in a Roman and political sense (for such a separation of the ideas concerning the Nessiah was neither to be presumed in Pilate, nor to be suggested by this question of Jesus), but He simply claims the right to know the author of the accusation, which was contained in the words of Pilate; to know, therefore, whether Pilate put to Him the above question at his own instance, and without foreign prompting; or, on the other hand, at the prompting of others. That the latter was the case, He indeed knew; the stood, in fact, before the door; but Pilate ought to speak out and set forth clearly the status causae . It was that which Jesus could demand, and with all the intrepidity of innocence did demand, without exactly intending to evoke a movement of conscience (Hengstenberg), which He could not at this point expect in the cold man of the world; or to call his attention to the suspicious source of the accusation (Luthardt, Tholuck, Brckner), to which the , which is altogether without bias, is not appropriate.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Ver. 33. Entered into the judgment hall again ] For without, among the people, there was nothing but clamour and confusion; much like to that regnum Cyclopum, ubi . Pilate therefore retires himself into the palace, that he might more sedately set himself to sift the business.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
33. ] This question probably arose out of what Pilate had previously heard, not from any charge to this effect being made between our Joh 18:31 ; Joh 18:34 . Had such a charge been made, our Lord’s question Joh 18:34 would be unnatural.
Pilate summoned Jesus in, who had been as yet outside with the Jews. This was the formal reception of the case before him; as the Roman soldiers must now have formally taken charge of Jesus, as servants of the Roman authorities: having previously, when granted by Pilate to the Chief Priests, acted as their police.
The judgments of the Romans were always public and sub dio, see ch. Joh 19:13 ; but the enquiries and examinations might be private. In this case Pilate appears to have wished to obtain an account from Jesus apart from the clamours of the chief priests and the mob.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 18:33-37 . Jesus examined by Pilate in private .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Joh 18:33 . Pilate, being thus compelled to undertake the case, withdraws within the Praetorium to conduct it apart from their prejudices and clamours. He calls Jesus and says to Him, ; How did Pilate know that this was the against Jesus? John omits the information given in Luk 23:2 that the Sanhedrists definitely laid this accusation. And the answer of Jesus implies that He had not heard this accusation made in Pilate’s presence. The probability therefore is that Pilate had privately obtained information regarding the prisoner. There is some contempt as well as surprise in Pilate’s . “Art Thou,” whose appearance so belies it, “the king of the Jews?”
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 18:33-38 a
33Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” 34Jesus answered, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” 35Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?” 36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” 37Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So, You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You may correctly say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?”
Joh 18:33 “the Praetorium” See Special Topic at Joh 18:28.
“Are you the King of the Jews” Jesus was accused of treason (cf. Mat 27:11; Mar 15:2; Luk 23:2 and Joh 19:3; Joh 19:12; Joh 19:15; Joh 19:19-22).
Joh 18:34 “Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative or did others tell you about Me'” If Pilate was asking the question in reference to a political kingship, Jesus would have denied it. If the Jews had suggested it, then it referred to His Messiahship and Jesus would have affirmed it. Pilate was obviously not ready to discuss the intricacies of Jewish religious thought (cf. Joh 18:35).
Joh 18:35 The first question expects a “no” answer. Pilate is expressing his contempt for the Jewish religion.
Joh 18:36 “If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting” This is a second class conditional sentence which is called “contrary to fact.” It should be translated “If My kingdom were of this world, and it is not, then My servants would be fighting, which they are not.” The phrase “my servants” could refer to (1) the disciples or (2) the angels (cf. Mat 26:53).
Joh 18:37 “Therefore Pilate said to Him, ‘So you are a king?'” This was extreme irony on the lips of this symbol of earthly power (i.e., Rome), confronting Jesus and His spiritual kingdom. This question expects a “yes” answer.
“You may correctly say that I am a King. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world” The first phrase is difficult to translate because of its ambiguity. It is an affirmation with qualifications (cf. Mat 27:11; Mar 15:2; Luk 23:3). Jesus knew who He was (two perfect tense verbs), and why he came (cf. Joh 13:1; Joh 13:3; Mar 10:45; Luk 2:49; Mat 16:22 ff). Pilate would not have understood!
“for this I have been born” Jesus is referring to His task of revealing the Father (i.e., “to testify to the truth”). Basically there are three reasons why Jesus came.
1. to fully and completely reveal the character and purpose of God (cf. Joh 1:18; Joh 3:32)
2. to die as the innocent lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (cf. Joh 1:29)
3. to give believers an example of how to live and please God
“Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” I am always deeply moved by “everyone,” “anyone,” “whosoever,” “as many as”! Wow! YHWH is fulfilling Gen 3:15 in Christ. Jesus restores the image of God damaged in the Fall. Intimate, personal fellowship is again possible! Fellowship is restored now (realized eschatology).
Only those with spiritual eyes and ears (i.e., Joh 10:3; Joh 10:16; Joh 10:27; Joh 18:37) can understand truth (cf. Mat 11:15; Mat 13:9; Mat 13:16; Mat 13:43; Mar 4:9; Mar 4:23; Luk 8:8; Luk 10:23-24; Luk 14:35; Rev 2:7; Rev 2:11; Rev 2:17; Rev 2:29; Rev 3:6; Rev 3:13; Rev 3:22). Jesus is the truth (Joh 14:6)! When He speaks His followers hear (cf. Joh 10:1-5). In John to “see” or “hear” truth is theologically equivalent to receiving “eternal life.”
Joh 18:38 “Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth'” Pilate asked this question, but apparently left before he received the answer. Pilate wanted to assure himself that Jesus was no threat to the Roman government. He did this. He then tried to have Jesus released as was a custom of the Jews of that day during the Passover season (cf. Joh 18:39; Mat 27:15). John is writing, as Luke did, to show that Christianity was no threat to the Roman Empire (i.e., Joh 18:38 b; Joh 19:4; Luk 23:4; Luk 23:14; Luk 23:22).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
called. Greek. phoneo. See Joh 18:27.
the King, &c. This shows the malicious charge the Jews had made.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
33.] This question probably arose out of what Pilate had previously heard, not from any charge to this effect being made between our Joh 18:31; Joh 18:34. Had such a charge been made, our Lords question Joh 18:34 would be unnatural.
Pilate summoned Jesus in, who had been as yet outside with the Jews. This was the formal reception of the case before him;-as the Roman soldiers must now have formally taken charge of Jesus, as servants of the Roman authorities: having previously, when granted by Pilate to the Chief Priests, acted as their police.
The judgments of the Romans were always public and sub dio, see ch. Joh 19:13;-but the enquiries and examinations might be private. In this case Pilate appears to have wished to obtain an account from Jesus apart from the clamours of the chief priests and the mob.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:33. ; art Thou the King of the Jews?) John brings before us Pilate, with changeable mind, always pressing upon this point.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 18:33
Joh 18:33
Pilate therefore entered again into the Praetorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?-Luk 23:2 says: And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. So Pilate asks him of his claims to be king of the Jews. This was another effort to make him condemn himself. [Before Pilate returned to the courtroom, where Jesus had been taken, the Jews had made a formal charge that Jesus was seeking to overthrow the Roman government (Luk 23:2). This, of course, demanded the attention of the Roman governor. Jesus did claim that he would establish a kingdom and that he would be a king. He had been hailed as king of the Jews on entering Jerusalem. It was not expected that Pilate would understand that his kingdom was spiritual but political, especially when a band of dishonest priests were perverting every fact to give color to their accusation. They had charged against him a triple accusation: (1) seditious agitation; (2) prohibition of the payment of the tribute money (taxes); and (3) the assumption of the suspicious title of King of the Jews. (Luk 23:3). The last accusation amounted to a charge of treason-the greatest crime known to Roman law. Of the three points of accusation, the second was utterly false; the first and third, though in a sense true, were not true in the sense intended by his enemies.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the King of Truth
Joh 18:33-40
There was a tone of satire in Pilates question: Thou poor, worn, tear-stained outcast, forsaken by every friend in this hour of need-art thou a king? Human ears have never heard more majestic words than our Lords reply. But when He said, My kingdom is not of this world, He did not mean that it had nothing to do with this world, but that it did not originate here. It has descended from heaven, and seeks to bring the inspiration, principles, and methods of heaven into all the provinces of human activity. The one conspicuous proof of its absolutely foreign origin is its refusal to employ force. We do not fight, but sacrifice and suffer, for its maintenance. Our Lord therefore hastened to show that His Kingdom is based on the manifestation of the truth. There is no soul of man which is pure and true that does not recognize Christs royalty, as King of Truth, when it hears Him speak.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
and said: Joh 18:37, Mat 27:11, Mar 15:2, Luk 23:3, Luk 23:4, 1Ti 6:13
the king: Joh 1:49, Joh 12:13, Joh 12:15, Joh 19:3, Joh 19:19-22, Psa 2:6-12, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7, Jer 23:5, Zep 3:15, Zec 9:9, Luk 19:38-40, Act 2:34-36
Reciprocal: Mat 27:27 – common hall Joh 18:28 – unto Joh 18:39 – I release Joh 19:12 – thou art Act 7:1 – Are
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
Luke gives us a fuller statement, which includes some false accusations against Jesus (Luk 23:2). Pilate concluded that the complaint the Jews had was based on some claims of the prisoner that were opposed to the government of Rome. He therefore thought he could bring the issue to the foreground by asking him directly, art thou the king of the Jews? The whole situation was based on the idea that no two governments of whatever kinds, could lawfully exist in the same territory at the same time. That idea would be correct if the two were necessarily opposed to each other. But Pilate did not know anything about the character of the kingdom Jesus was heading, hence he asked the question quoted here.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:33. Pilate therefore entered again into the palace, and called Jesus, and said unto him. Art thou the King of the Jews? The emphasis of the question is remarkable. The word thou stands in the original at the head of the sentence, as if Pilate would say: Thou,thou so humbled, despised, handed over to me as a malefactor,art thou the King of the Jews? Pilate may not embrace the idea, but he at least thinks the question worthy of being asked. We may notice already that grouping of his materials by which the Evangelist would impress on us the folly as well as the sin of the Jews. Boasting of their superiority to the heathen governor, looking upon him as a sinner and reprobate, they yet at this moment fall behind him in spiritual vision. They treat the claim of royal dignity on the part of Jesus as blasphemy. Pilate asks, Can it be true? The charge leading to the question, omitted by John as not necessary to his purpose, is given in Luk 23:2.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. Pilate’s ensnaring question, Art thou the King of the Jews? How jealous are great men of Jesus Christ, and how afraid are they of his kingdom, power, and authority, as if it would be prejudicial to their authority and power in the world; which was far enough from Christ’s thoughts!
Observe, 2. The wisdom and caution of our Saviour’s answer: he neither affirms nor denies. Though whenever we speak, we are bound to speak the truth, yet we are not bound at all times to speak the whole truth.
Christ tells him therefore, that, upon the supposition that he was a king, yet his kingdom was no earthly, but a spiritual kingdom; he was no temporal king, to rule over his subjects with temporal power and worldly pomp; but a spiritual king, in and over his church only, to order the affairs and look after the government thereof.
Learn hence, that Christ as God hath an universal kingdom of power and providence even over the highest of men, and as a Mediator hath a spritual kingdom in and over his church.
2. That it is a clear evidence that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual inasmuch as it is not carried on by violence and force of arms, as worldly kingdoms are, but by spiritual means and methods: If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight for me: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 18:33-40. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again See the note on Mat 27:11. It seems, as the governor had heard an honourable report of Jesus, and observed in his silence, under the accusations brought against him, an air of meek majesty and greatness of spirit, rather than any consciousness of guilt, or any indication of a fierce contempt, he was willing to discourse with him more privately before he proceeded further. He therefore called Jesus, and said, Art thou the king of the Jews? Dost thou really pretend to any right to govern them? Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself? Dost thou ask this question of thy own accord, because thou thinkest that I have affected regal power? or did others tell it thee of me? Or dost thou ask it according to the information of the priests, affirming that I have acknowledged myself to be a king? No doubt Jesus knew what had happened; but he spake to the governor after this manner, because, being in the palace when the priests accused him, he had not heard what they said. Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Dost thou think that I am acquainted with the religious opinions, expectations, and disputes of the Jews? Thine own nation, &c., have delivered thee unto me As a seditious person, one that assumes the title of a king: What hast thou done To merit the charge of sedition? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world Not a temporal, but a spiritual kingdom, which does not at all interfere with the dominion of Cesar, or of which any prince has reason to be jealous. If my kingdom were of this world Were of an external or temporal nature; then would my servants fight Or rather, would have fought, would have endeavoured to establish me on the throne by force of arms, and would have fought against the Jews when they came to apprehend me. But as I have done nothing of this, but readily put myself into their hands, it is evident my kingdom is not from hence Nor to be erected here; and therefore I have been so far from arming my followers with secular weapons, that the guard who came to apprehend me know I forbade their making use of those they had. Pilate said, Art thou a king then? Art thou a king, notwithstanding thy kingdom is not of this world? Jesus answered, Thou sayest I am a king That is, according to the Hebrew idiom, It is as thou sayest: I am a king, but not of this world: even the appointed Head and Governor of the whole Israel of God; nor will I ever basely seek my safety by renouncing my claim to the most excellent majesty and extensive dominion. To this end was I born, &c. Our Lord speaks of his human origin; his divine was above Pilates comprehension: yet it is intimated in the following words: For this cause came I into the world Namely, from heaven; that I should bear witness unto the truth That by explaining and proving the truth, I might impress it upon mens consciences, and make them obedient to its laws. In this consisteth my kingdom, and all the lovers of truth obey me, and are my subjects. This is what Paul calls the good confession, which he tells Timothy, (1Ti 6:13,) Jesus witnessed before Pontius Pilate. And justly does the apostle term it so. For our Lord did not deny the truth to save his own life, but gave all his followers an example highly worthy of imitation. It is remarkable, that Christs assuming the title of king did not offend the governor in the least, though it was the principal crime laid to his charge. Probably the account which he gave of his kingdom and subjects, led Pilate to take him for some Stoic philosopher, who pleased himself with the chimerical royalty attributed by his sect to those they termed wise men. See Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 3. Accordingly he desired him to explain what he meant by truth. Pilate saith, What is truth? That is, the truth to which thou referrest, and speakest of as thy business to attest. Or perhaps he meant, What signifies truth? Is that a thing worth hazarding thy life for? So he left him presently, to plead with the Jews for him; looking upon him, it is probable, as an innocent but weak man. He went out again unto the Jews, and saith To those that were assembled about the judgment-hall, namely, chief priests and others: I find in him no fault at all No opinion inconsistent with the good of society, neither any action or pretension criminal in the least degree. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover And I am ready now to oblige you in this affair. This, it seems, was said in consequence of the multitude desiring him to do as he had been wont to do at preceding passovers. See Mar 15:8-10. Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? It seems he hoped by this proposal to preserve the life of Jesus, of whose innocence he was fully convinced; and accordingly, that he might induce them to choose him, he proposed no other alternative than Barabbas, a robber and murderer. See note on Mat 27:15-18; Mat 27:20-22. Then cried they all again Or, all at once, as some translate here, because it does not appear that the people had refused Jesus and asked Barabbas before this time. But indeed that word is wanting in a considerable number of manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, the Syriac, Coptic, Saxon, Arabic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. In many Latin manuscripts it is not found. Besides, it does not suit the preceding part of our Lords trial, as related by this evangelist, who makes no mention of their crying in this manner before. Campbell. Not this man We will not have this man released; but Barabbas A robber and murderer. And thus, when Pilate would have let him go, they denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto them, Act 3:14. See note on Luk 23:18-25.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 33-35. Pilate entered again therefore into the Praetorium, and he called Jesus and said to him, Art thou the king of the Jews? 34. Jesus answered him:Sayest thou this 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 to me; what hast thou done?
John’s narrative evidently presents a gap here. There is nothing in what precedes to give a reason for the question of Pilate to Jesus: Art thou the king of the Jews? Such an inquiry implies, therefore, an expression on the part of the accusers which gives occasion for it. This supposition is changed into certainty when we compare the narrative of the Synoptics, particularly that of Luke. We found him, say the Jews on approaching Pilate, troubling the nation, forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar, saying that he is the Christ, the King (Luk 23:2). Luke, as well as Mark and Matthew, has omitted the whole first phase of the accusation, which has just been related by John. The Synoptics begin their narrative at the moment when the Jews come down again to their more humble part as accusers, and concede to Pilate his position as judge. Hence it follows that John, after having supplied in what precedes that which the Synoptics had omitted, now implies as known to his readers the political accusation mentioned by them. We see how intimate and constant is the relation between his narrative and theirs. Keil concludes from the words he called Jesus, that up to this moment Jesus had remained outside. But see above. He called Him aside in the Praetorium itself, to a place where he could speak with Him alone.
To his question, Pilate certainly expected a frank negative answer. But the position was not as simple as he imagined. There was a distinction to be made here, not to the thought of Pilate, but to that of Jesus. In the political sense of the term king of the Jews, the only one known to Pilate, Jesus might reject this title; but in the religious sense which every believing Jew gave to it and in which it was equivalent to Messiah, Jesus must accept it, whatever the consequences of this avowal might be. Jesus must know, then, whether this title, with regard to which Pilate was interrogating Him, was put forward by Pilate himself, or whether it had been put forward by the Jews in the conversation which he had just had with them. The objections of Meyer and Weiss (in his Commentary) against this explanation do not seem to me sufficient to shake it. According to Meyer, Jesus asks of Pilate simply an explanation which He had the right to ask. But He nevertheless did it with some purpose. According to Weiss, Jesus wished to know whether He must now give an explanation respecting the Messianic idea! Finally, according to Tholuck, Luthardt, Keil, etc., He thereby called Pilate’s attention to the suspicious source of this accusation (others, the Jews). It would, in that case, have been more simple to answer by a No only; but, after this, the really affirmative answer of Jesus in Joh 18:36-37 would become an absurdity. These two verses are compatible with the question of Jesus only on our explanation, which is that of Olshausen, Neander, Ewald, and at present, it seems to me, ofWeiss himself (Life of Jesus, II. p. 563). We must conclude from these words that Jesus had not Himself heard the accusation of the rulers, and consequently that He was already, as we have stated, Joh 18:28, in the Praetorium at the time when it was brought forward by them.
Pilate, not understanding clearly what is the aim of this distinction, answers abruptly: What have I to do with your Jewish subtleties? There is profound contempt in the antithesis: … (I…a Jew?). Then, abandoning the Jewish jargon which he had allowed his accusers to impose on him for the moment, he interrogates Him as a frank and simple Roman: Now then, to the point! By what fault hast thou brought upon thyself all that which is taking place at this moment?
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
2. The question of Jesus’ kingship 18:33-38a (cf. Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3)
Having heard the Jews’ charges, Pilate returned to the inside of his headquarters and began interrogating Jesus. His questioning centered on the issue of Jesus’ kingship.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Jews’ accusations motivated Pilate’s question. He asked Jesus if He was claiming to be the King of the Jews. Messianic expectation was running high in Jesus’ day, and many people were saying that Jesus was the Messiah. The Jewish leaders had charged Jesus with claiming to be this king (Luk 23:2). Now Pilate wanted to hear if Jesus Himself claimed to be this king.