title given to Jesus and that was the reason for his accusation and conviction. Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator, asked him if he was the R. of the j., Jesus replied: † œYes, you say so †, Mt 27, 11; Mark 15, 2; Lk 23, 3. According to Saint John’s Gospel, Jesus responded to Pilate’s question: “My Kingdom is not of this world. If my Kingdom were of this world, my people would have fought so that it was not handed over to the Jews; but my Kingdom is not from here, as you say, I am King. I was born for this and for this I have come into the world; to bear witness to the truth† , Jn 18, 33 ss.
Digital Bible Dictionary, Grupo C Service & Design Ltda., Colombia, 2003
Source: Digital Bible Dictionary
DJN
A
Among the multiple accusations that Jesus was being subjected to, only one interests Pilate: that of being “the king of the Jews.” When the Sanhedrin appeared before Pilate with Jesus, the Roman procurator asked him only if he was the king of the Jews. Everything indicates that Pilate was waiting for the “extremely dangerous” itinerant preacher because he was announcing a kingdom other than the one he represented and whose order he had to maintain (Mk 15:2-5). The rest of the accusations related to internal legal issues of a religious nature. Pilate did not care about this. One more “blasphemer” does not disturb the socio-political order.
The title of “king of the Jews” sounded in the ears of the Roman procurator to rebellion or political uprising. Let us bear in mind that the king of the Jews no longer existed, but the tetrarchs who, in the name of Rome, governed the country divided into four parts. (Pilate, moreover, could not have formulated the accusation in the terms in which it is presented to us, identically, by the four Gospels. He would have formulated it, more or less, in this way: have you affirmed that you are the king of the Jews?).
There is no worse lie than a half truth. If from the preaching of Jesus about the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven we remove the precisions “of God” or “of heaven”, what remains? There was something left before which Pilate could not remain impassive. A man preaching a kingdom within Roman jurisdiction that he was supposed to protect?
In this line he also points out “the confrontation” that Annas had with Jesus after being arrested (Jn 18,13.19-24). Once arrested, Jesus was brought before Annas, because he was the father-in-law of the high priest, who was Caiaphas. Does the reason given for bringing Jesus to Annas have any consistency? Shouldn’t we think, rather, of another reason of a political nature, in which the evangelist John does not want to enter? We are convinced that the real cause of that “face-to-face”, not trial, was to have the opportunity to deduce some reason that would impact Pilate and force him to react. He asked him two things: for his doctrine and for his disciples. We have already seen how his doctrine or preaching about the kingdom of God or of heaven could be misrepresented. As for his disciples, there was at least one zealot, others were armed… Annas acts on this occasion as the politician on duty that is required in a negotiation as difficult as the one that was being agreed between the Sanhedrin and Rome had to be .
The historical credibility of the accusation is confirmed by the title of the cross, which contains said accusation. There is no basis to consider such a title as an invention of the Christian community. He never used it as a Christological title. In any case, the Christian community would have spoken of the “king of Israel”, since that is how they referred to the chosen people; never “king of the Jews”, since this formula would designate a “nationality” -it would be equivalent, therefore, to a limitation in the kingship of Jesus and the thought of the “election” would be excluded-. On the other hand, the early Christian community had already specified the title of Messiah, linking it to the passion-resurrection, proclaiming the crucified and risen Lord as Lord.
Jesus’ response guides us in the same direction: “You have said it” is a circumlocution very well thought out to avoid an affirmative answer to Pilate, since, in it, the title would necessarily be understood in a political and nationalist sense.
Felipe F. Ramos
FERNANDEZ RAMOS, Felipe (Dir.), Dictionary of Jesus of Nazareth, Editorial Monte Carmelo, Burbos, 2001
Source: Dictionary of Jesus of Nazareth