§54 The Trial of Jesus (Luke 22:63–23:25)
Most of Luke’s account of the trial of Jesus derives from Mark 14:55–15:15, with the exception of 23:4–16, which appears only in Luke. Luke has introduced a few noteworthy changes that will be commented upon below. The section may be divided as follows: (1) Jesus is mocked and beaten (22:63–65); (2) Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin (22:66–71); (3) Jesus is brought before Pilate (23:1–5); (4) Jesus is brought before Herod (23:6–12); and (5) Jesus is sentenced to death (23:13–25).
22:63–65 / Luke’s account of Jesus’ mistreatment at the hands of the guards parallels Mark 14:65, but, unlike the Marcan order, precedes Jesus’ appearance before the Jewish Sanhedrin (cf. Mark 14:55–65). Luke says nothing about an evening interrogation (see Mark 14:53–55), but only describes the daytime proceedings (vv. 66–71; cf. Mark 15:1), thus simplifying the whole account. The Lucan order reflects consummate irony. As soon as Jesus’ prophecy that Peter will deny him is fulfilled (v. 61), the guards blindfold Jesus, strike him, and ask him to prophesy to determine who has hit him. A dramatic contrast also exists between the cowardly Peter, who although suffering no violence, denied Jesus, and Jesus, who suffers violence, but does not suffer a moral collapse.
22:66–71 / Unlike Mark 14:55–64, the Lucan version of Jesus’ trial before the council (or “Sanhedrin”) says nothing of the accusation brought by the two false witnesses who claimed that Jesus had threatened to destroy the temple (but see Acts 6:13–14). According to the Lucan account, Jesus is asked directly if he is the Christ (see 2:11; 3:15). He responds by saying that as Son of Man (see note on 5:24) he will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God (see note below). From this answer members of the Sanhedrin then ask Jesus whether he is the Son of God. Whether Jesus’ implicit claim of messiahship, his self-designation as Son of Man, or both prompt this question is uncertain. Since the latter title is related to Ps. 110:1, which was probably understood as a messianic Psalm (see note below), the title Son of Man would also have been understood in a messianic sense. From this his accusers infer that Jesus has claimed to be the Son of God and so ask him if this is so. Jesus avoids self-incrimination by answering (lit.), “You say that I am” (NIV: You are right in saying I am). Jesus has not disagreed with the question (so the NIV’s paraphrase is not incorrect); he has avoided the trap (which is obscured by the NIV). In fact, Jesus’ statement implies that his accusers themselves have confessed his true identity (remember Herod’s question in 9:9). Nevertheless, because Jesus has not denied his messianic identity his accusers have heard enough.
23:1–5 / When Jesus is brought before Pilate, the religious charge against him is transformed into a political one. Before the Sanhedrin Jesus was asked if he claimed to be the Messiah. Now Pilate is told that Jesus has challenged the political sovereignty of Caesar. Jesus is accused before Pilate of three things: (1) subverting the Jewish nation, (2) opposing payment of taxes to Caesar, and (3) claiming to be Christ, a king. The second accusation probably stems from a misunderstanding of what Jesus said about giving what belongs to Caesar and to God (20:25). The third accusation probably reflects the joyful shouts of the Passover pilgrims in 19:38: “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” The Sanhedrin members want Pilate to believe that Jesus is a political rival and threat to Caesar.
Although Jesus does not deny Pilate’s question (Are you the king of the Jews?), the Roman governor finds no basis for a charge against him. The Sanhedrin, however, presses Pilate further. Jesus stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching, just as other messianic claimants have done, often in response to Roman taxation (see Acts 5:35–37). This seditious activity, Pilate is told, started in Galilee and has come all the way to Jerusalem. Galilee had often experienced unrest (Acts 5:37).
23:6–12 / The reference to Galilee gives Pilate the opportunity to be rid of a problem (see Fitzmyer, p. 1480) by sending Jesus to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who happened to be in Jerusalem at that time. This pleased Herod greatly, not only because he had heard about Jesus and had hoped to see him perform some miracle, but also because Pilate’s action was a political courtesy which would likely have been the real reason for Herod’s and Pilate’s new-found friendship (v. 12). Herod had been wanting to see Jesus since the days of his Galilean ministry (9:9). Now he hopes that Jesus will perform a miracle. Herod’s questions were probably requests to perform miracles, as well as questions about Jesus’ identity and mission. But Jesus, however, gave him no answer. This refusal to cooperate no doubt frustrated and angered Herod. The chief priests and the teachers of the law seize the opportunity to accuse Jesus before the Galilean ruler. Pilate had not found him guilty, perhaps Herod would. But Herod pronounces no verdict of guilt, but joins in with his soldiers in their mockery and mistreatment of Jesus. In light of Luke’s theme of two witnesses (Deut. 19:15; cf. Matt. 18:16), it is significant that Herod also finds no guilt in Jesus. Thus, both Palestinian rulers, Pilate of Judea and Herod of Galilee, although by no means sympathetic, find Jesus innocent.
23:13–25 / This idea of innocence is conveyed clearly in Pilate’s speech to the chief priests, the rulers and the people in vv. 14–16. Jesus has been examined by the two supreme secular authorities of the land and has not been found deserving of death. Pilate offers to punish him (by whipping), probably as a warning to avoid getting into trouble in the future, before releasing him. But the chief priests, rulers, and people will have none of this, crying out, instead, for Jesus’ death (a fact of which Peter will remind the inhabitants of Jerusalem in Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13–15) and the release of Barabbas. Although v. 17 is probably a later scribal addition based on Mark 15:6 (Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the feast; see footnote in NIV), Luke knew this verse from his Marcan source and so presupposed it in writing his account. The people are not interested in Jesus, the man of peace. They want the release of Barabbas, a man of violence, one who fits more closely the cruder aspects of popular messianic expectation. Although Jesus has done nothing deserving of death, the crowd shouts for his crucifixion; while for Barabbas, a man who has committed murder, they shout for clemency.
Despite finding Jesus innocent, Pilate, nonetheless, bows to the pressure of the crowd. His was a harsh and unpopular rule in Judea, and the last thing that this governor needed was more trouble. Thus, Pilate’s authority yields to the demands of the people, thereby enabling Luke to place the blame for Jesus’ execution more squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish religious leaders. Not only does this serve Luke’s broader theological program in which he consistently portrays Jewish religious leadership as stubborn and as always resisting the Spirit of God (see Acts 7:51–53), but it also serves as an apologetic with regard to early Christianity’s relationship to the Roman state. Luke bears bold testimony: Whereas it may be true that Jesus was executed by Roman authority, he had been, nevertheless, pronounced innocent three times by this authority (23:4, 14–16, 22). Jesus was executed because of a failure of nerve on the part of Pilate, the Roman governor. Had he had the courage to do his job properly, Jesus would never have been handed over to be crucified.
22:65 / insulting things: Lit. “blaspheming.” Luke is suggesting that the guards were speaking things contrary to God’s truth in their abuse and ridicule of Jesus.
22:66 / The elders of the people probably refers to the chief priests (see note on 19:47 above) and the teachers of the law (see note on 5:21 above). The council (lit. “Sanhedrin”) was made up of approximately seventy members, some of whom were priests and Sadducees, while others were Pharisees (see Acts 23:1–9). Many, whether favoring the Sadducees or the Pharisees, were professional scribes and teachers of the law. This body represented the highest Jewish political and religious authority of the time. One of the tractates of the Mishnah named Sanhedrin describes this council’s function. See HBD, pp. 905–6.
22:68 / What Jesus (or Luke) means by this statement has baffled commentators (Marshall [pp. 849–50] is uncertain; so is Fitzmyer, p. 1467; Ellis [p. 262] says nothing). Marshall, as have others before him, hesitatingly suggests that this verse may be understood in light of 20:1–8, where “the chief priests and the teachers of the law” refuse to answer Jesus’ question regarding the source of John’s authority to baptize. Since there is no other plausible explanation, this may very well point to the truth of the matter.
22:69 / Jesus’ reference to sitting at the right hand of the mighty God is an allusion to Ps. 110:1, a psalm describing the enthronement of God’s anointed king. This text was understood by early Christians as messianic, as seen in Luke 20:42–43 (and parallels in Matthew and Mark); Acts 2:34–35; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2 (see further David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, SBLMS 18 [Nashville: Abingdon, 1973]). Since the Son of Man title can have a “judicial connotation” in 11:30 (Fitzmyer, p. 1467), Jesus’ statement may very well mean that the next time the members of the Sanhedrin see him, they will see him as their judge.
22:70 / Tiede (pp. 401–2) notes the irony in the Sanhedrin’s question, “You are the Son of God, right?” and in Jesus’ reply, “You are correct.” Israel’s religious leaders have made a proper confession, but they are blind to the significance of it, a point that Paul will later make (see Acts 13:27–28).
23:1 / Talbert (p. 214) suggests that Luke is portraying Jesus as the righteous martyr. He points to the martyrdom of Eleazar in 4 Maccabees 6–7.
23:2 / Christ, a king: Or, “an anointed king.” See note on 2:11 above. The accusation against Jesus rings hollow when later the crowd cries out for the release of Barabbas (v. 18), a man who truly does represent a threat to the peace.
23:4 / Chief priests equals the council or Sanhedrin. See note on 22:66 above.
23:5 / started in Galilee: Jesus’ Galilean ministry began in 4:14 and continued through 9:50. In 9:51 Jesus started his journey to Jerusalem, arriving in 19:28.
23:7–9 / Herod: See commentary and notes on 3:1 and 9:7–9 above.
23:17 / The oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain this verse. An early Christian scribe could have added the verse to harmonize the account with Mark 15:6.
23:18, 25 / Outside of the Gospel narrative nothing is known of Pilate’s “Passover pardon,” as it usually called, whereby the governor apparently set free any one prisoner the people wanted released (see Mark 15:6). “Presumably Pilate was trying to appease the Jews” (Marshall, p. 860). Fitzmyer (p. 1489) notes the irony in the crowd’s request for the release of Barabbas, whose name means “son of the father.” The crowd demands the release of a criminal “son of the father” and the death of the Father’s true Son. According to some manuscripts this man’s given name was Jesus. In this case, Pilate may have been asking the crowd which Jesus they would like to have released.
23:21 / Crucify him!: Crucifixion was a form of execution whereby the victim was hanged, usually by nailing, upon a large wooden stake, often with a cross beam (see note on 23:33 below).
23:23–25 / Outside of the NT that are a few brief reports of Jesus’ crucifixion. In a letter to his son, one Mara bar Serapion writes (ca. A.D. 73): “For what advantage did … the Jews [gain] by the death of their wise king, because from that same time their kingdom was taken away?” (See Robert Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels [Baltimore: Penguin, 1957], p. 27.) From Josephus (ca. A.D. 90) we have: “… Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified …” (Antiquities 18.63–64; this passage is suspected by many to have been tampered with by later Christians). Elsewhere this same passage from Josephus is quoted in the following manner: “Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die” (Agapius, Book of the Title). Note that here there is no mention of the involvement of the Jewish religious leaders. According to Slavonic Josephus (an Old Russian version whose references to NT personages are largely regarded as later Christian interpolations, although not all its interpolations have a bearing on the NT and its origins), Pilate initially released Jesus, since he had healed the procurator’s wife. Nevertheless, after being bribed with thirty talents, Pilate eventually permitted the teachers of the law to crucify Jesus (War 2.9.3 [2.172–174, LCL]; see also 5.5.4 [5.207–214, LCL]). The Roman historian Tacitus (ca. A.D. 110–120) reports: “This name [i.e., “Christian”] originates from ‘Christus’ who was sentenced death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius” (Annals 15.44). According to the Babylonian Talmud: “On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene. And a herald went out, in front of him, for forty days saying: ‘He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.’ But not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover” (b. Sanhedrin 43a).