Luke 23:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Before Pilate stood a Man whom it seemed unlikely would claim the throne of Judea or challenge Caesar’s authority. The outcome of the trial appeared to hinge on the response of the accused: would He acknowledge Himself as king? The judge likely did not anticipate that the Prisoner would affirm His kingship nor did he perhaps expect Him to outrightly deny the accusations from the Jews, since some basis for the Sanhedrin's claims must have been assumed. Pilate must have been astonished when the Lord replied decisively, ‘I am a king!’ (Mark 15:2.) This declaration could not have pleased Jesus' adversaries more; Pilate likely did not foresee the dangerous implications of such a statement. With this response, the Jews could assert that the matter was settled, as the Accused had incriminated Himself. Pilate might indeed have concluded the trial by endorsing the Sanhedrin’s verdict against Jesus Christ, had it not been for the Lord’s awe-inspiring presence, the composure and conviction with which He made His confession, Pilate’s personal animosity towards the Sanhedrin, and his own pride, which compelled him to prolong the inquiry, seeking to uphold the evident innocence of the Accused. Nonetheless, such a pursuit of justice was warranted. While Jesus Christ did refer to Himself as king, He did not concede to the slanderous accusation that He had misled the people or instructed them to withhold tribute from Caesar (Luke 23:2). This ambiguous response offered the judge ample cause to request clarification: in what sense does He claim to be a king?

This is the essence of the Messiah as foretold by the prophets (Psalm 2:8, Daniel 7:13). According to the Apostle, Jesus appeared as a witness of good confession before Pontius Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13). This confession was commendable both in its meaning and in the spirit behind it. Jesus Christ bears witness to the truth with poise, unwavering even in the face of dire threats.

In articulating His testimony, the Lord does not delve into the complete reality of His spiritual kingdom, which Pilate could not grasp, but rather speaks in terms that Pilate can understand. Part of Jesus’ mission on earth was to testify to the truth that humanity has, in part, twisted into falsehoods through their own willfulness, and in part cannot comprehend without divine assistance (Romans 1:21-28, 1 Corinthians 1:21). The wisest of philosophers claimed to pursue the truth, but they had no more right to do so than to call themselves its possessors. In contrast, He who descended from heaven gives testimony to the truth, declaring it as a known reality and speaking as an eyewitness. Thus, Jesus testified concerning Himself in the presence of the Jewish people (John 3:11, 32). This title of truth is exclusive to Him; it respects the jurisdictions of worldly rulers. Yet, when it engages them, it aims only to dispel the shadows of falsehood and deception, fostering the well-being of nations and kingdoms. Therefore, Jesus’ followers are not like soldiers bearing arms or citizens paying taxes; rather, they listen to and obey Christ because they are aligned with the truth, awakened by a divine love for it (Romans 11:8).

Furthermore, the Lord addressed the Jews: “Why do you not understand my conversation? You are of your father the devil. He is a liar and the father of lies… He who is of God hears the words of God” (John 8:43, 44, 47). “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27). This understanding also illuminated why Pilate could perceive the Sanhedrin’s animosity towards Jesus.

This led Pilate to lean more towards releasing Jesus, as the notion of sentencing an innocent Man to death weighed heavily even on a non-Jew. Yet, the high priests intensified their efforts, directly accusing Jesus of stirring up the people and instructing them not to pay taxes to Caesar. They drew conclusions from their initial charges, asserting that Jesus had brought such teachings from Galilee (Luke 23:2).

Before responding, Jesus needed to clarify whether Pilate's inquiry stemmed from his own understanding of a king as a ruler wielding immense state authority, or if it was based on what the chief priests had told him—their awareness that the Messiah represented a spiritual reign over the entire world. This distinction was crucial in addressing the question with appropriate meaning. Therefore, Jesus inquired, "Do you say this of yourself, or have others told you about Me?" (John 18:34).

“Aren’t I a Jew?” Pilate replied, “What do I care about these matters? Your people and their leaders have brought you before me, accusing you of claiming royal authority. What have you done to warrant such accusations? Do you regard yourself as a King?”

“My kingdom,” Jesus replied, “is not of this world. If it were like worldly kingdoms, I would have followers who would defend Me and prevent My betrayal to the Sanhedrin. Those followers could have been present, especially considering the significant gathering in Jerusalem that you are undoubtedly aware of. However, I have renounced any semblance of My kingdom resembling the earthly powers, for My kingdom is not of this realm” (John 18:36).

Though Pilate could have accepted this explanation, he pressed further, still uncertain of the nature of Jesus’ authority: “So you do consider yourself a King? What kind of King are you? Just tell me plainly, are you a King?” (John 18:37). In his line of questioning, Pilate aimed to make Jesus realize that if He perceived His kingdom in such a manner, He should refrain from claiming kingship to avoid the allegation of usurping royal authority. Yet, having willingly surrendered to His adversaries, Jesus chose not to defend Himself with the implications hinted at by Pilate. Thus, when asked if He was a King, Jesus affirmed, “Yes, I am a King (the phrase ‘you say that I am a king’ signifies acceptance of that title); I do not deny it, for this is the truth. I was born and came into the world to bear witness to this truth (John 18:37), despite the risks such testimony may bring, and all who seek this truth will hear Me.”

Now convinced that Jesus posed no threat to the Roman authority, Pilate hastily sought to conclude the matter and asked Jesus, “What is truth?” Not waiting for a response, he exited the Praetorium to address the assembled Sanhedrin, declaring publicly, “I find no guilt in Him.”

Thus, we maintain that this particular response, although recorded only in the final Gospel yet deemed essential by all the others, bears the authentic marks of historical truth.

The governor focused specifically on the accusation that the Prisoner referred to Himself as ‘Christ the King,’ which implies "the anointed King." This single claim was sufficient for the charge, as it could incite the wrath of Roman law. Declaring oneself a king was seen as a grave offense against the dignity of the Roman emperor. This apprehension was intensified by Emperor Tiberius’ ruthless suspicion of such pretenders, resulting in numerous notable figures already having fallen victim to his paranoia. Therefore, this accusation could not remain unexamined, prompting Pilate to personally interrogate the Prisoner. He regarded the humble sufferer with curiosity, finding Him standing silently with serene dignity amidst a hostile assembly. Noticing the stark contrast between the Prisoner's abject humiliation and the claims made about Him, Pilate sought to question Him privately. He ordered Jesus to be brought into the Praetorium. This marked the first occasion Christ entered the royal chambers, yet He did so as a degraded prisoner. Previously, the usurper Herod had paraded in grandeur within those halls, but here stood the true Son of David, bound and facing a pagan judge with a stern demeanor. With a blend of surprise and disdain, Pilate scrutinized the divine Prisoner and inquired, "Are You the King of the Jews? Do You truly make such a perilous assertion?" Although Pilate did not genuinely believe the claim, he felt compelled to address the serious nature of the accusation and sought what he anticipated would be a denial from the Prisoner. However, to his astonishment, instead of denying it, Jesus prompted him to consider the definition of the term "King," asking whether he viewed it in a political or spiritual context. This is clarified in Christ's inquiry to Pilate: "Do you say this of yourself, or have others told you of Me?" (John 18:34). When Pilate, somewhat irritated, remarked that he was not a Jew to comprehend everything in a spiritual sense, Jesus responded that if Pilate was thinking politically, he should understand that His kingdom was not of this world: "If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from hence" (John 18:36). The governor found this proclamation perplexing, feeling an involuntary discomfort at the enigmatic words of the unusual Prisoner. To regain his composure, Pilate focused on the term "kingdom," believing it might clarify the situation, yet acknowledging that kingdom necessarily implies a king. Pressing on this point with greater insistence, Pilate queried, "Are You then a king?" to which Jesus affirmed, "You say rightly that I am a king!" (John 18:37). Pilate could only marvel at such a curious declaration, as the Prisoner appeared to expose Himself to the severe risk of being accused of disrespecting the emperor. According to Roman law, conscious awareness of being an offender was enough for conviction. However, his expression shifted from astonishment to intrigue as he listened further to the Prisoner, who asserted, "I was born for this purpose, and for this purpose I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth; everyone who is of the truth hears My voice" (John 18:37). In that affirmation lies His role as King and the identity of His followers. Jesus' words alleviated Pilate's doubts regarding the Prisoner. He became convinced that Jesus was not a typical insurrectionist but rather an unthreatening visionary, reminiscent of Greek philosophers and their Roman counterparts, preoccupied with yearning for truth and philosophical inquiries that bore no relevance to Roman governance. As an educated Roman, Pilate must have once aspired to discover the ultimate truth, perhaps having engaged with philosophy in his youth. Yet he concluded that the more philosophers pursued the quest for truth, the more elusive it became, leading some to despair of ever finding it. He viewed truth, both in philosophy and life, merely as a fleeting dream, an illusion unworthy of consideration by a Roman official, especially in dealing with the notoriously deceitful populace of the region. Consequently, with an apparent sardonic smirk and an irritated gesture, Pilate contemptuously scoffed, "What is truth?" Numerous interpretations in exegesis have been attempted regarding Pilate's inquiry. His question, "What is truth?" (John 18:38) likely emanated from skepticism about the very possibility of ascertaining truth and its relevance. Turning away, he exited the Praetorium, declaring the Prisoner's innocence with a public proclamation, "I find no fault in Him."

He did not require the accusers to provide evidence of the defendant's wrongdoing, nor did he seek out testimony against him, but instead began by interrogating the Accused, hoping to clarify the matter through his responses. This method was sometimes considered practical, as under ancient Roman law, a defendant's own admission was often sufficient for conviction. “Magistratus de confesso sumat supplicium” encapsulated the foundational principle of Roman legal proceedings. The significant dialogue that took place in the Praetorium between Pilate and the One from the heavenly realm, as recorded by the beloved Apostle John, further led Pilate to the conclusion of the Defendant’s innocence. Leaving the Praetorium, he publicly proclaimed, in front of the Sanhedrin members and the gathered crowd, “I find no guilt in this man.”