Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
Explore a conservative examination of the historical charge against Jesus as ‘King of the Jews’ and a critical analysis of Bart D. Ehrman’s interpretation. This article delves into New Testament accounts, highlighting the accuracy and context of Jesus’ crucifixion, offering insight from a Bible scholar’s perspective.
Dr. Ehrman’s argument rests on the assumption that Jesus called Himself “King of the Jews” and that this was the charge against Him leading to His crucifixion. His argument is constructed based on the following points:
The Consensus of the Gospels: Ehrman notes that all four Gospels agree that Jesus was accused of calling Himself the “King of the Jews.”
The Unexpected Nature of the Charge: Ehrman argues that the charge was unexpected in the narrative and that the term was not a title Christians used, which lends credence to its historicity.
Betrayal by an Insider: Ehrman suggests that an insider, likely Judas, must have informed the authorities about Jesus’ private teachings, leading to the charge.
1. The Historical Context and Understanding of “King of the Jews”
While the Gospels do indeed agree that the charge against Jesus was claiming to be the “King of the Jews,” understanding this title requires historical and Scriptural context. Jesus was a fulfillment of the Davidic line, and His kingship was understood differently from the political expectations of the Roman authorities.
For example, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1-11) was symbolic of His kingship, fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. The crowd’s declaration of Jesus as the “Son of David” was a messianic affirmation.
2. The Charge and Jesus’ Reply
The Gospels’ agreement on the charge does not necessarily mean that Jesus claimed this title in the way the Romans understood it. When questioned by Pilate, Jesus answered, “You have said so” (Matthew 27:11, ESV). Jesus’ reply suggests a nuanced understanding, affirming the title but not in the political sense that would be considered treasonous by the Romans.
3. The Motivation of the Jewish Authorities
It must also be considered that the Jewish authorities had religious motivations for accusing Jesus. They saw Him as a blasphemer, and His claim to be the Son of God would have been understood as a threat to their religious authority (John 19:7).
4. The Absence of the Title “King of the Jews” in Christian Tradition
Ehrman’s argument that the title “King of the Jews” was not used by early Christians and therefore must be historical is not entirely persuasive. The early Church recognized Jesus as the King, but their understanding of His kingship was theological and spiritual, rather than political (Revelation 19:16).
While Dr. Ehrman’s article raises interesting points, a careful examination of the historical and Scriptural context suggests that the charge of being “King of the Jews” was more complex. Jesus’ kingship was not a political claim to overthrow Roman rule but a fulfillment of messianic prophecy. The accusation was likely a misunderstanding or misrepresentation by those who saw Jesus as a threat, either politically or religiously. His crucifixion was a result of these tensions, rather than a simple affirmation of a political title.