THEN THE WHOLE assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”
3So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.
4Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”
5But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.”
6On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. 7When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.
8When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. 9He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. 12That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.
Original Meaning
AFTER THE SANHEDRIN meeting, Luke narrates three more trials that lead to Jesus’ crucifixion: two meetings with Pilate (a private and a public one) and a meeting with a curious Herod. The first meeting with Pilate represents the Jewish attempt to get Roman help in the execution of Jesus.1 Roman authority was required when the death penalty was involved.2 Pilate’s examination is fascinating because despite his judgment that Jesus is innocent, the process continues. In effect, the governor stands aside and lets others make the decision for him. This is a form of nondecision.
After the Jewish trial (22:66–71), the entourage heads for Pilate. No doubt the meeting is quickly arranged. The heart of the case is a threefold accusation: (1) Jesus subverts the nation; (2) he opposes payment of taxes to Caesar; and (3) he claims to be Christ, a king. For Pilate the most dangerous charges are the second and third, though the first charge may suggest Jesus is a source of public unrest. It may be the first charge is general, while the second two are more specific.
(1) The first charge may actually be that Jesus “perverts” the practices of the nation (the Greek word diastrepho can mean “to subvert” or “to pervert”),3 though subversion is more likely the political charge intended here. It naturally leads into the other two complaints. An internal religious dispute is of no interest to Pilate, so more concrete political charges are needed. (2) Since Pilate is responsible to keep the peace and collect taxes, the taxation charges challenge his ability to do his job faithfully. This second charge is blatantly false, as readers of Luke recognize from 20:20–26. (3) The third charge is, on the surface, substantial, since if Jesus were a revolutionary, he would need to be watched by Rome. But Jesus is not seditious, as Pilate will sense.
The third charge is the one Pilate pursues (see John 18:33–38 for a longer exchange on this charge). He simply asks, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Like his reply to the Jewish query earlier in 22:70, Jesus responds with an expression in Greek that reads literally, “You have said so.” This is a mild affirmative. Jesus is saying yes, but not quite in the sense Pilate intends.4 It is not clear here what leads to Pilate’s decision, but he concludes there is “no basis for a charge” against Jesus. He has done nothing worthy of death. Pilate views Jesus as a “harmless enthusiast.”5 This should have been the end of the matter.
Yet the leadership continues to press Pilate, noting that Jesus has stirred up the people from Galilee to Judea. They adamantly insist that he is dangerous. In effect they are saying, “It would be dereliction of your duty to let him go, Pilate!” On hearing mention of Galilee, Pilate thinks up a brilliant solution. He will send Jesus to the Jewish political leader, Herod, since he has authority over that region. Now any decision Pilate makes will have Herod’s consultation, and Pilate will be protected either way. Political courtesy and passing the buck are both possible here.6
Herod is excited about meeting Jesus. He has heard about him and wants to see the Galilean perform miracles. But he is disappointed by Jesus’ lack of response. Not only are there no miracles; there is no reply. Pilate, of course, has stated Jesus’ innocence, so why should Jesus continue to answer questions (cf. also Isa. 53:7)? But the Jews “vehemently” press their case (v. 10); they are the catalysts in these events. The roles of Pilate and Herod are more passive, but contribute enough to the situation that they share blame (see Acts 4:24–28).
In the face of Jesus’ silence, Herod and others react with more mocking. They dress Jesus in some type of regal clothing (whether white or purple is debated)7 and make fun of the “king,” who in their view possesses so little power. Then they send him back to Pilate. Pilate’s plan works, for from that day he and Herod are friends. This suggests an A.D. 33 date for the crucifixion, since relations between the two did improve after Tiberius Caesar’s key anti-Semitic aid (and Pilate’s boss), Sejanus, passed away shortly before this time.8
Bridging Contexts
WE ANALYZE THE text at both a historical and a narrative level. At the level of history, these events indicate that two sets of political leaders, after examining Jesus, find him innocent (vv. 4, 15). Yet amazingly the trials continue. These details indicate that Jesus will die an innocent martyr’s death. He is righteous, even though he suffers on the cross. This is an indictment of Roman and Jewish justice, for both share in Jesus’ death. Responsibility for sending Jesus to the cross is expanding. Soon rejection will touch the crowds. More and more of humanity becomes responsible for his death.
We also see a variety of attitudes contributing to Jesus’ fate in the narrative. Neither Pilate nor Herod regard him as guilty. Pilate is more serious and professional than Herod (who allowed the soldiers to mock Jesus). Neither shows any malice toward him, though they do not defend him either. Their indifference reflects how many treat Jesus, as a curiosity or a side show. These types of responses to Jesus add to the collection of reaction we have seen of Jesus. The Jewish leadership continues to press for action against Jesus, even though some of their charges are false. Luke solidifies the portrait we have noted earlier regarding Jesus and his trial.
Contemporary Significance
THAT SOME MISUNDERSTAND and misrepresent Jesus is not unusual. The portrait of the leadership’s charges against him shows how some reject him so thoroughly that they even misrepresent what he is about, though that misrepresentation does contain a small dose of truth. They are right that Jesus is a king, but they fail to appreciate that role other than to see it as a threat. When people are hostile to Jesus, they fail to understand him. If they do perceive his key claims, they reject them out of hand.
The rejection of Pilate and Herod is more subtle. They do not react against Jesus. Their position is virtually a neutral one. He is not guilty, but neither is he to be believed. This type of approach to Jesus reckons him with a little respect, but does not respond to him as he deserves. Pilate and Herod’s failure to act on their awareness of Jesus’ innocence is a form of cowardice. Once again Luke indirectly calls on the reader to choose sides. He outlines a variety of responses to Jesus, but any failure to embrace him, whether through active rejection, passive neglect, or frivolous reaction, is not commendable.
When we engage in sharing Jesus, we can expect a wide array of responses to him. Some will be decidedly hostile, while others will be more disinterested, just as in the trial scene. But both constitute rejection. Evangelism often requires patience. At the same time, it is important to remember that even in the midst of rejection, the initial reaction may be no clue to the eventual response. Who would have predicted Saul would become an ardent follower of Jesus? Yet others may never change their minds. Our primary responsibility before the Lord is to continue to share him.
We may never know if the seed we plant today will sprout years later. For example, many stories have surfaced from Eastern Europe about how the faithful testimony of believers in the midst of persecution led unbelievers to the Lord. One of our Russian students tells of how an eight-year-old girl was being watched by the KGB mind police, and a new, young agent was assigned to watch her. Her faith was so refreshing that she led him to the Lord! On the other hand, there may come a time when words become superfluous. All that has been said is on the record, and there is no need to say more. As Jesus went silent as the trial continued, so we sometimes may have to say in effect, “I have said it all; there is nothing more to add.” The process ultimately has to be left in God’s hands.