By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ManusJustus on 12 October 2009
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King. And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. - Luke 23"

Really Manus, how much of an admission is that? He doesn't even directly claim to be King of the Jews, but let's skip that because it's implied. Is it, then, also implied that the mob's claims of forbidding people to give tribute to Caesar are also true? Why must that be so?

[edit:  To clarify:  why do you assume the answer to a question Pilate didn't ask based on the answer to a question he did ask?] 

Here's the New American Standard Bible version:

And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King." So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say."

"Thou sayest it" is like saying "It is as you say" today.  Here Jesus admits to the accusations against him, one being that he is King of the Jews and that he forbid people to pay tribute.  Being the King of Jews and forbidding to pay tribute to Rome are one in the same idea, at this time Israel had a king who paid tribute to Rome, and Jesus and other Jewish Revolutionaries wanted to put an end to this.  Jesus being King of the Jews gives him the authority to put an end to tribute.

A modern example of this would be if the United States captured Fidel Castro, then accused him of wanting to redistribute wealth and of being the leader of the Communist Party.  Castro would admit to being the Communist leader and de facto admit to wanting to redistribute wealth.