33 Then Pilate entered the headquarters again, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate replied, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.”
John 18:33–37 (NRSVue)
Is Jesus the King of the Jews? This question, posed directly to Jesus by Pilate, is religious, political, and theological. Jesus’ refusal to claim this title for himself is, paradoxically, a declaration that the authority of truth–and particularly the truth of God’s love for the world–overrules all political regimes. Governments matter a great deal because they influence the health and wellbeing of people, particularly those who are marginalized, and Jesus spends his life attending to these issues. And yet, even the most fearsome empire is small, weak, and short-lived when placed in comparison with God’s cosmic, sovereign, and eternal love.
The Jewish people in Jesus’ time and place lived under Roman rule. In this context, Jewish people awaited a prophet, judge, or leader who would resist the Empire and free them from oppression. A related term is “Messiah,” which means “anointed one” and implied being anointed by God as prophet and leader. Both Luke and Matthew include genealogies that place Jesus within the line of David, from which such a leader was expected to arise. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, when Jesus is gathering his disciples, Nathanael says to Jesus, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God: You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). In response to this assessment of Jesus’ identity, Nathanael drops everything to follow Jesus. Later, after Jesus feeds the multitudes, the crowds intended “to come and take him by force to make him king” (John 6:15).
Other Jewish people were not eager for a Messiah, prophet, or king to arise. A “King of the Jews” would be a direct threat to the Roman Empire. A Messiah, as traditionally understood, would be a political threat to the rule of Caesar. Many Jewish people worried that the Roman Empire would deal harshly with all of the Jews if they were seen to be rebellious in any way. Perhaps some had found a measure of status and comfort within the workings of the Empire and were keen not to lose it. Politically, whether or not Jesus is the “King of the Jews” is a matter of supreme importance to the Jews living under Roman occupation.
The author of the Gospel of John has his own fish to fry in this mess. While Jesus, his first followers, and the author of the Gospel of John were all Jewish by descent and religious upbringing, the author of the Gospel makes a distinction between himself and his readers, on the one hand, and “the Jews” on the other. In John’s Gospel, “the Jews” are presented as the dangerous other. In John 9, Jesus heals the eyesight of a man born blind. The man’s parents are questioned by “the Jews” and deny any knowledge of how he had been healed. Verse 22 states that “the parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.” Historically, it is doubtful that anyone was being put out of the synagogue at this time, but this verse indicates that for the author of the Gospel of John, there is a definite “us” and “them,” and the dividing line seems to be whether or not a person confesses Jesus to be the Messiah (Christ is a Greek translation of Messiah). Religiously, whether or not Jesus is the “King of the Jews” is part of a larger conflict over what it means to be Jewish.
The author of the Gospel of John is eager to lay responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion at the feet of “the Jews.” This is a rhetorical tap dance, since Jesus was quite clearly crucified by the Roman Empire, and this Gospel’s skewed depiction of “the Jews” as responsible for the death of Jesus has fueled and fostered antisemitism in the intervening centuries. The author describes Judas’ betrayal in these words: “So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons” (John 18:3), portraying an alliance between the chief priests and the Roman authorities. The story continues: “So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him. First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people” (John 18: 12-14). The author persists in implicating “the Jews” and lets Pilate off the hook, writing, “So Pilate went out to [the Jews sent by the High Priest] and said, ‘What accusation do you bring against this man?’ They answered, ‘If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.’ Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.’ The Jews replied, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death’” (John 18:29-31).
In this context, when Pilate asks Jesus, “are you the King of the Jews?” it is a clear opportunity for Jesus to deny it. Jesus neither affirms nor denies that he is the King of the Jews. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus does speak about the Kingdom of God, but he does not call himself the King of the Jews. When the crowd tries to make him King, Jesus leaves the scene to avoid this outcome (John 6:15).
Jesus isn’t just being slippery here. His answers to Pilate are not designed to get him out of trouble: the Gospel presents Jesus as fully aware he will be executed. Instead of denying that he is the King of the Jews, Jesus says, “My kingdom does not belong to this world” (John 18:36). Jesus is not in a conflict with the Roman Empire over territory. Nor is Jesus indicating that his kingdom is in some spiritual, other-worldly realm. Jesus has spent his days in the nitty-gritty of this world, feeding people and healing people and washing the stinky feet of his disciples.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus is presented as sovereign over a much broader expanse than the Roman Empire. He is portrayed as the Lord of all creation, in whom and through whom all things were made (John 1:3). He is not competing with the Roman Empire over land in the Middle East because the Roman Empire cannot hold a candle to “the Light of all people” (John 1:4).
Jesus continues his response to Pilate, “If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews” (John 18:36). Such fighting was a very real possibility. When the men came to arrest Jesus, one of the disciples, Simon Peter, drew his sword and attacked. Simon Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, who was enslaved by the high priest (John 18:10). Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away.
Jesus had followers who would have fought the Roman Empire with military weapons. But Jesus, whom Christians understand to be the Messiah, did not want that. He laid claim to a different kind of authority, not of military might but of truth. The truth to which Jesus testifies in the Gospel of John is this: God loves the world (John 3:16). Jesus proclaimed a different kind of Kingdom, not of political empire but of divine love.
Theologically, whether or not Jesus is “the King of the Jews” is about the scope of Jesus’ sovereignty and the claim of his authority. Particularly in the Gospel of John, Jesus has cosmic significance. He was present before the beginning of the world and the Kingdom he proclaims is eternal.
Those of us who live in the U.S. have endured a long campaign season and a fraught election. This passage in the Gospel of John has something to say to those who are celebrating the results of the election and to those who are mourning. Many of those who are rejoicing accept some or all of the tenets of Christian nationalism. To them, this passage is a rebuke. To imagine that Jesus favors a particular nation, or in any way needs a national government, is to reduce Jesus blasphemously. Many of those who are mourning are fearful for themselves, their children, their neighbors, for immigrants and transpeople and women. To them, this passage is a challenge. Jesus asserts that truth, even when it is denied, is eternally valid, and that love has the last word. Thus, even in the midst of an empire that crucifies the innocent for political gain, despair is not warranted. Instead, there is work to be done—to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and testify to the truth that all persons are beloved children of God.
