Luke 23:1~25
Wright, Tom. Luke for Everyone (New Testament for Everyone) (pp. 275-281) SPCK. Kindle Edition.
LUKE 23.1–12 Jesus Before Pilate and Herod
Many plays, many novels, and many real-life episodes reach a climax when two people, long separated, come together at last, for good or ill. ‘We meet at last, Mr Bond!’ declares the villain with an ugly smile, believing he finally has the secret agent in his power. Characters in plays from Aeschylus to Shakespeare and beyond stare at one another: ‘Can it really be you?’ they exclaim. ‘It’s so good to see you at last!’ we declare as a pen-friend or distant cousin steps off the plane. We will not understand Luke’s scene between Jesus and Herod unless we sense that quality in it. Herod has been in the background throughout the gospel. Only Luke tells us that he had wanted to hunt Jesus down and kill him much earlier, during Jesus’ Galilean ministry (13.31); only Luke now gives us this scene where they meet at last, the present and precarious ‘king of the Jews’ face to face with the real and coming King. Herod had longed for this moment. He saw Jesus as a combination of John the Baptist, who had fascinated him with his talk but frightened him with his warnings, and the kind of circus artiste who can do magic stunts to order. Jesus disappoints him. He says nothing, and does no miracles. We might have expected that, like Moses at the court of Pharaoh, the leader of the new Exodus would either threaten Herod with God’s judgment or perform remarkable feats to demonstrate his claims, but Jesus does neither. He isn’t that sort of prophet, and he isn’t that sort of king. Luke, for whom Jesus is certainly both a true prophet and the true king of the Jews, places this meeting in a sequence of scenes designed to reveal the truth of this kingship and the falsehood of all other types. At this moment, the truth is more eloquently stated by silence. Why then did Pilate say that Jesus was innocent of the charges laid against him? Why did Herod noticeably not accede to the chief priests’ accusations? Partly, it seems, because it was obvious that Jesus was not leading the sort of revolution normally spearheaded by would-be ‘kings of the Jews’. His few close followers were only lightly armed, and had in any case run away. Jesus made no threats, offered no resistance, and said hardly anything. They could see that the main reason he was before them was because the chief priests and their associates wanted to get rid of him – and both Herod and Pilate disliked them and tried to do them down, as part of the power struggles that dribbled on throughout this period. Once again, Jesus was caught at the point where competing interests and agendas met. Not only the sins, but also the petty aspirations, of the world conspired to put him on the cross. But if it’s important for Luke that Jesus and Herod meet at last, it is still more important that the true Lord of the world meets the representative of the political lord of the world. Luke’s readers know that Jesus hasn’t in fact forbidden people to give tribute to Caesar, but it was a plausible charge for one who, by speaking of his exaltation as the son of man (22.69), showed that he saw himself as the rightful and royal representative of Israel. If he was the king of the Jews, and would be elevated as king over all earthly powers, then Caesar too would be pushed down from his throne. This, as Luke implied at the start of his story (2.1; 3.1), was what the kingdom of God was all about. This double meeting of Jesus with Herod and with Caesar’s representative foreshadows the confrontations in Acts. There, Jesus is first heralded as king of the Jews, ending with the death of (a different) Herod (Acts 1—12), and is then announced as ‘another king’ (Acts 17.7), that is, a rival to Caesar, with the gospel finally reaching Rome itself (Acts 13—28). Jesus can be announced publicly as king of the world not least because, in this scene, he remains largely silent; that is part of the paradox of the gospel. His sovereign gentleness, and his refusal to yell and bluster as others would have done, already spoke volumes long before his prayer on the cross (23.34). And – another Lukan touch – there is a wonderful irony to the newfound friendship of the Jewish king and the Gentile ruler. Luke’s whole book has spoken of the gospel reaching out into the lands beyond, beyond official Judaism, beyond the racial and geographical boundaries of Israel, beyond prejudice and blindness, bringing together Jew and Gentile, young and old, the hated Samaritan, the tax-collector. Now, even without believing in Jesus, Herod and Pilate are reconciled. It is as though, with Jesus on the way to the cross, reconciliation cannot help breaking out all over the place. There is, of course, no real comparison between the shady deal struck between the petty princeling and the scheming governor, and the rich fellowship in the gospel enjoyed by Jewish and Gentile believers. But Luke is alert, and wants us to be too, for every sign that the world is becoming a new place through Jesus and his crucifixion. If even Herod and Pilate can become friends through this, he says to both his church and ours, think how you too could be reconciled with anyone at all, once you both come under the shadow of the cross.
LUKE 23.13–26 Pilate Pressured by the Crowds
Shakespeare peopled his plays, as Charles Dickens did his novels, with fascinating minor characters. Each has his or her own tale to tell; none is a mere cardboard figure. Even the bear in A Winter’s Tale is important. Among the Evangelists, Luke has the most interesting cast of minor characters, and two of them come into focus here: Barabbas, and Simon of Cyrene. Together they help Luke tell us not only what happened to Jesus, but why it happened and what it means for us. We need to think into their own life stories, to see the tragic day unfold from their perspective, and to learn from them both. Barabbas was not a common criminal. Luke informs us that he had been thrown into prison for his part in a violent rebellion that had taken place in Jerusalem. This is all we know about this particular rebellion, since the non-Christian historian Josephus doesn’t mention another uprising at this time; we can assume that such events were a regular occurrence, and that in the ancient world (as, alas, in the modern) the Middle East would be a place where political and social frustration would regularly spill over into violence, sometimes focused on particular targets, sometimes mindless and born of the apparent hopelessness of the cause. It was, of course, because of such events that both the Romans and the chief priests were nervous of popular or messianic movements, not least at the time of major festivals. We know about Barabbas, but we must assume that he was only one of many rebel leaders in the period. He escaped crucifixion that Passover time, but the cross claimed many, perhaps dozens or even hundreds, even when no major disturbance had taken place. Luke describes the event in such a way that we can hardly miss the point. Barabbas is guilty of some of the crimes of which Jesus, though innocent, is charged: stirring up the people, leading a rebellion. We don’t know whether he saw himself, or whether his followers saw him, as a possible ‘king of the Jews’, but that is not unlikely. One of them is to die, and it turns out to be Jesus. Luke does not explain, as Mark and Matthew do, the custom whereby Pilate used to release one prisoner for the crowds to celebrate the holiday (some manuscripts add an extra verse, verse 17, to give this explanation, but this almost certainly wasn’t originally in Luke), but it is clear that things come down to a choice. Either Barabbas or Jesus must die; either the one who stands for violent revolution, which Jesus has opposed from the beginning, or the one who has offered and urged the way of peace. Jesus ends up dying the death appropriate for the violent rebel. He predicted that he would be ‘reckoned with the lawless’ (22.37), and it has happened all too soon. Luke’s readers are by now used to seeing Jesus in company with tax-collectors and sinners. We have been told, from many angles and with many parables, that this was the appropriate and necessary focus of his ministry, embodying the outstretched love of God to all in need, going in search of lost sheep wherever they might be found. We were not, perhaps, quite prepared for it to end like this. It is one thing for Jesus to go in to eat with a man who is a sinner (19.7). It is a considerable step beyond that for him to go off and die the death of the violent rebel. But this is in fact the climax and focus of the whole gospel. This is the point for which Luke has been preparing us all along. All sinners, all rebels, all the human race are invited to see themselves in the figure of Barabbas; and, as we do so, we discover in this story that Jesus comes to take our place, under condemnation for sins and wickednesses great and small. In the strange justice of God, which overrules the unjust ‘justice’ of Rome and every human system, God’s mercy reaches out where human mercy could not, not only sharing, but in this case substituting for, the sinner’s fate. It is because of this that the call goes out, once we realize what Jesus is doing, for each of us to take up our own cross and follow him. This is of course where the call to Simon comes in. He had come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from one of the Jewish communities in North Africa (the shores of the eastern Mediterranean were covered with Greek and Roman settlements, and in most there was a sizeable Jewish community), and found himself a pilgrim in a very different sense. Criminals on their way to execution normally carried the cross-piece of their own cross, as part of the shame and torture of the whole experience. Luke does not explain why Jesus was unable to carry it for himself, but it takes little imagination to fill in the blank. The previous twenty-four hours had exhausted him, and he could barely stagger through the streets to the western gate. On several occasions in the gospel Jesus has urged his followers to take up their cross and follow him. Here at last someone is doing so, and even more: carrying Jesus’ own cross, Simon becomes the model for all those who, in devotion, holiness and service, tread behind Jesus on the road of humility, pain and even death. Though Barabbas and Simon are the key to this passage, we should once more notice the crowds, and sorrowfully identify with them. The mixture of disappointment at a failed messianic movement, and fear of what might now happen if the Romans or the chief priests regarded them as supportive of its leader, drove the mob to make what all history has regarded as the wrong choice. At the same time, Luke was well aware of God’s overruling of this, too, for the purposes of salvation. God turns even human wrath and mistakes to serve his plans. And, as we reflect on the role of the small parts within Luke’s large drama, we should remind ourselves that our own parts, small though they may seem, may also contribute substantially to the work of the gospel as it goes forwards. Neither Barabbas nor Simon dreamed, that day, that their names would be known, and their stories told around the world, two thousand years hence. How much more, when we follow this Jesus and carry his cross, can we be sure that God will use our small labours and sufferings within his larger work.
Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Lk 23:1–13). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
Chapter 23
Christ before Pilate
1–5
Christ before Herod
6–12
Barabbas preferred to Christ
13–25
Verses 1–5
Pilate well understood the difference between armed forces and our Lord’s followers. But instead of being softened by Pilate’s declaration of his innocence, and considering whether they were not bringing the guilt of innocent blood upon themselves, the Jews were the more angry. The Lord brings his designs to a glorious end, even by means of those who follow the devices of their own hearts. Thus all parties joined, so as to prove the innocence of Jesus, who was the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Verses 6–12
Herod had heard many things of Jesus in Galilee, and out of curiosity longed to see him. The poorest beggar that asked a miracle for the relief of his necessity, was never denied; but this proud prince, who asked for a miracle only to gratify his curiosity, is refused. He might have seen Christ and his wondrous works in Galilee, and would not, therefore it is justly said, Now he would see them, and shall not. Herod sent Christ again to Pilate: the friendships of wicked men are often formed by union in wickedness. They agree in little, except in enmity to God, and contempt of Christ.
Verses 13–25
The fear of man brings many into this snare, that they will do an unjust thing, against their consciences, rather than get into trouble. Pilate declares Jesus innocent, and has a mind to release him; yet, to please the people, he would punish him as an evil-doer. If no fault be found in him, why chastise him? Pilate yielded at length; he had not courage to go against so strong a stream. He delivered Jesus to their will, to be crucified.
Liefeld, W. L. (1984). Luke. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, pp. 1038–1041). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
8. Trial before Pilate and Herod (23:1–25)
The trial now moves into its Roman phase. While there had doubtless been more interrogation than the Synoptics report before Pilate declared he found no basis for a charge against Jesus (v. 4), it obviously did not take Pilate long to determine Jesus’ innocence. The larger part of this section deals, not with the trial as such, but with the difficulty the authorities had in trying to convict an innocent man.
1–5 Verse 1 links the Jewish and Roman trials. The “whole assembly” is the Sanhedrin. Pilate was Roman governor (procurator) of the province of Judah. His name appears in an inscription found in 1961 at Caesarea, his official residence. Caesarea was a large, magnificent city boasting Roman culture, where Pilate would no doubt have preferred to be at the time of Jesus’ trial, were it not the Passover season, when special precautions were needed in Jerusalem against civil disturbances.
The Sanhedrin’s accusation contains three distinct charges. The first (subverting the Jewish nation) would have been of concern to Pilate, who wanted no internal strife among the Jewish people. But it was not a matter for Roman jurisprudence. The second (opposing payment of taxes to Caesar) and third (claiming to be king) were more to the point. Luke has already shown (20:20–26) that the second charge was untrue. The third one became the key issue. Jesus’ responses to the questions asked him (22:66–71) were understood as being clearly affirmative. It is also clear that the word Christ, or Messiah (v. 2), was deliberately used to imply to Pilate that Jesus was a political activist. The word “king,” put in apposition to Messiah, implies a threat to Roman sovereignty to the point where Pilate would have to take action. (In v. 5 the Sanhedrin summarized all this by insisting that Jesus was guilty of sedition.)
In Pilate’s question (v. 3), the word “you” (su) comes first in the Greek sentence for emphasis. Jesus’ answer, like those in the Jewish trial, implies a positive answer and at the same time returns the issue to Pilate. The answer (su legeis, “you say”) is the same in all three Synoptics and is virtually similar to Matthew’s report of Jesus’ answer in the Jewish trial (Matt 26:64, using the synonym su eipas, “you say”), which interprets the “I am” of Mark 14:62.
Luke’s account lacks the further dialogue in Mark 15:3–5. But Luke is the only Gospel that has Pilate’s declaration of Jesus’ innocence (v. 4). Presumably the source containing that statement was not available to Mark or Matthew, for they would certainly have wanted to make that point. Yet the point is especially important for Luke, who seeks throughout his Gospel and Acts to vindicate Christianity through the vindicating of both Jesus and Paul in their appearances in court. The response from the Sanhedrin is clever. It implies seditious actions by saying that the people are being stirred up by Jesus’ (unspecified) teaching.
6–12 Only Luke has this incident. It is appropriate for his narrative; he had more interest in politics than Matthew or Mark and has already mentioned Herod Antipas whereas they have not (3:1; 9:7–9; 13:31). Herod had a more protracted and more intimate experience with Jewish politics and religion than Pilate had. For a long time he had desired to learn more about Jesus (v. 8; cf. 9:7–9). Like Pilate, Herod was probably in Jerusalem because of the Passover. For Jesus’ attitude toward him, see 13:31–33. Herod’s territory, as a local king under the authority of Rome, was Galilee (vv. 6–7) and Perea. Verse 11 probably reflects a certain frustration on his part. He apparently had no legal accusation to make; so he vented his anger by echoing the hostility of the priests and teachers (vv. 9–11). Mockery (v. 11) was an unworthy aspect of the whole trial scene, repeated later on (Mark 15:17–20 and parallel passages). The robe was “elegant” (lampros, “bright,” “gleaming”—a word used in both biblical and secular literature to describe clothes and other adornments like those of the rich man in James 2:2). This impetuous use of someone’s fine clothes contrasts with the later scene (Mark 15:17–20) where the soldiers used a purple robe and other symbols to mock Jesus’ claim to kingship.
13–16 (17) This section, also unique to Luke, like v. 4, demonstrates Jesus’ innocence (vv. 13–14). As Marshall (Gospel of Luke, in loc.) observes, the presence of the people here is “strange,” because elsewhere in Luke they are either friendly or neutral. Actually Luke seems to be making a significant point by mentioning their presence. The “people” (v. 13) are the laos, as distinguished from the crowd (ochlos). Throughout his Gospel, Luke has been careful to distinguish these two groups. He has also been careful to show that it is not the people but their leaders who oppose Jesus. Even here the people do not take an active stand against Jesus. Summoned by Pilate, they, like the crowds in v. 4, hear a declaration of Jesus’ innocence (vv. 14–15). The “people” appear again in v. 27, following Jesus to the place of crucifixion, and then in v. 35, watching Jesus die. Once more (24:19) Luke mentions them as witnesses of Jesus’ mighty works. At their first mention in Acts, Luke refers to the “people” as approving the young Jerusalem church (2:47).
English translations usually imply that Pilate punished Jesus (v. 16) because he was innocent (e.g., NIV, “Therefore, I will punish him and then release him”). In the Greek structure, the word for “punish” may be a participal (paideusas) for stylistic reasons, but it also throws the emphasis on the main verb “release” (apolysō). The thought probably is “Because he is innocent, I will let him go with a light scourging [paideusas].” In this way Luke shows that Pilate, a Roman official, wanted to treat Jesus as fairly as possible. This would fit in with one of Luke’s apparent goals in writing the Gospel and Acts—viz., to show that Christianity deserved to be favorably treated by Rome. The word “scourged” (paideusas) is different from the one used by Matthew and Mark to describe the flogging that preceded the Crucifixion (phragellōsas, Matt 27:26; Mark 15:15).
18–22 Luke provides only a brief statement about Barabbas compared with Mark 15:6–11 and has nothing about the message from Pilate’s wife mentioned in Matthew 27:19. Again the writers are apparently following different sources. While Luke does mention Barabbas’s crimes, he does not explain the custom Mark refers to (15:6). Barabbas has been romanticized, but since he was probably only an unimportant leader of a small riot, history has no record of him apart from the Gospels. We see Luke’s concern to vindicate Jesus (and Christianity) to his readers again in v. 22. He emphasizes Jesus’ innocence by noting that this is the “third time” that Pilate spoke on Jesus’ behalf, probably counting the appeals after Jesus’ return from Herod (vv. 15, 20, 22). On the “punishment,” see v. 16 and comment.
23–25 In vivid Greek (v. 23), Luke brings the crowd’s action to a climax. Although he does not refer to Pilate as washing his hands of responsibility for Jesus (cf. Matt 27:24), or to the Jews’ acceptance of responsibility for Jesus’ death (cf. Matt 27:25), or to Pilate’s wishing to “satisfy” the people (cf. Mark 15:15), he effectively shifts attention from Pilate to the people by ending the Greek sentence, not with the verb (as in the English rendering), but with a final reference to the crowds, in the words hai phōnai autōn (“their voices”; NIV, “their shouts”).
Luke omits the incident (Mark 15:17–20) of the soldiers’ mockery (cf. v. 11 and comment above) and proceeds directly to Pilate’s action. He makes it clear in both v. 24 and v. 25 that Pilate acted in accord with the crowd’s wishes. Having emphasized God’s plan and will throughout his Gospel, Luke now notes the human factor: Jesus is delivered to the “demand” (v. 24) of the crowd. Acts 2:23 shows how God’s purpose was fulfilled even in their decision.
Bock, Darrell L.. Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament): 3 (pp. 2263, 2271-2272, 2274, 2277, 2283, 2285-2286, 2288-2289, 2299-2300). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
4. Trial before Pilate (23: 1– 5)
The Jewish leadership is now convinced that their long-held belief about Jesus is correct (11: 53– 54; 19: 47; 20: 20; 22: 2), and so they seek Roman authority, which was required for capital cases, to carry out their guilty verdict. Observing that more than political power is the point here, Fitzmyer (1985: 1473) notes how this fulfills the predictions about the Son of Man’s suffering (9: 22, 44; 18: 32). They journey early in the morning to Pilate, the major Roman administrator of the region, for the first of a fresh series of trials in 23: 1– 25. One could argue that everything in 23: 1– 25 is part of one investigation (R. Brown 1994: 757), and in one sense this is correct since Pilate directs it all. Each stage, however, is distinct, and the real driving force behind events in the Jewish leadership. Luke focuses on Jesus’ innocence and the widespread responsibility for Jesus’ death. The major irony— and injustice— is that the trials continue. In fact, this passage contains the first of several notes of Jesus’ innocence (23: 4, 14– 15, 20, 22). All the proceedings that follow are unjust. Jesus is reckoned as a criminal, though he has done nothing worthy of punishment (22: 37, alluding to Isa. 53). The major blame falls on the Jewish leadership because they push the issue after Pilate’s verdict of innocence. Nonetheless, Pilate is also responsible for ignoring his verdict (Acts 4: 25– 27), as are the people for their support of the execution. In presenting the trial, only Luke notes the specific charges.
The form of the account is a story about Jesus (Fitzmyer 1985: 1472). The outline of Luke 23: 1– 5 is as follows:
a. Setting (23: 1)
b. The charges (23: 2)
c. Question and response (23: 3)
d. Verdict and debate (23: 4– 5)
The trial reflects a Jewish attempt to steer the Romans to execute Jesus. Jesus refuses to reply to the political charge. Pilate offers a declaration of innocence, which meets with Jewish resistance. The injustice of continuing the trial is evident, but all is within God’s plan. The Innocent One is still in custody.
Summary Luke 23: 1– 5 marks the first effort to get Jesus executed. Rome must get involved if Jesus is to die. Early in the morning, the leadership moves to have Pilate examine Jesus, who, they charge, stirs up Israel, advocates not paying taxes to Rome, and claims an alternative kingship. He is dangerous. What administrator would not act against such a national security threat? Pilate examines Jesus, who replies in a qualified way to the question about being king. Pilate proclaims Jesus’ innocence, a verdict that causes the leadership to insist that Jesus is dangerous. Will Pilate really risk his neck with Rome by releasing such an agitator on all of Judea? Jesus is the innocent sufferer, a victim of great political and social forces that swirl around Israel and its relationship to Rome. What happens to Jesus is not because he is a dangerous revolutionary, but because Israel insists that he is a threat to Jewish-Roman tranquillity. Pilate lacks the nerve to follow through on his judicial judgment. Politics and public relations with the masses win over justice. Pilate tries to absolve himself and, since this is an internal Jewish matter that Herod can solve, he decides to pass the buck. Luke wants his reader to see that Jesus did not die a guilty man, but as an innocent.
5. Trial before Herod (23: 6– 12)
When Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, he accomplishes two things. First, he absolves himself of some responsibility. The Jewish ruler’s involvement in an area that is part of his religious heritage means that Pilate has deferred to another whose expertise might be more sensitive than his own. Thus the second goal is reached: he makes a wise political maneuver, which not only absolves him but also involves the highest level of Jewish leadership. Whatever happens, no one can charge Pilate with demagoguery. Herod’s excitement upon seeing Jesus quickly turns sour. He had hoped to see some miraculous signs, but all he gets is silence. Jesus has just been declared innocent by Pilate, so perhaps he resolves to say nothing more. A just verdict has been rendered, so why is he still in custody? The church later saw this silence as a fulfillment of Isa. 53: 7– 8 (Acts 8: 32). Justice should mean release, but all that follows is more trials and mockery. Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate. (Pilate later reveals that Herod also determined that Jesus is innocent; Luke 23: 15.) No release comes, because the leadership is still insistent on conviction. Both Rome and Jerusalem could have stopped the march to death, yet they fail to do so. Other forces are at work, and justice is suspended.
The trial scene is another story about Jesus (Fitzmyer 1985: 1479). The outline of Luke 23: 6– 12 is as follows:
a. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod (23: 6– 7)
b. Herod’s examination yields silence (23: 8– 9)
c. Accusations and mocking by all (23: 10– 11)
d. Reconciliation of Herod and Pilate (23: 12)
The major theme of this unit is another tragic trial for the Innocent One. For Herod, Jesus is a curiosity. Herod merely desires to see signs, which parallels the superficial interest of earlier crowds. Jesus, the silent witness, is derided and mocked. Old enemies become political allies. Neither Rome nor Jerusalem stops the trials. The Innocent One is still in custody.
Summary In Luke 23: 6– 12, Pilate, not wanting to be responsible for convicting an innocent man, sends Jesus to his Jewish counterpart. Herod, hoping to be entertained by the miracle worker, is angered at Jesus’ unwillingness to perform and joins his soldiers in mocking Jesus, whom they regard as a harmless Galilean. The Jewish leadership insists on convicting Jesus, so Jesus is sent back to Pilate. The charges are not taken seriously, but no decision is made to release him. The innocent Jesus is one step closer to death. Every description of what is happening shows that justice is not served. The righteous one is silently suffering. Luke wants his reader to realize that unseen forces are at work. Jesus is not a blasphemer who dies for offending God. His death reflects the indifference of people surrounded by God’s sovereign activity. Indifference to Jesus is as dangerous as opposition to him, for it allows injustice to continue and ignores God’s activity and presence. Rationality is lacking in assessing Jesus. Frivolity is everywhere. People do not reckon seriously with his claims and wave them aside. Jesus’ death makes no sense, if the scales of justice are applied. Such is the blindness of human sin. The Innocent One is still in the hands of the state.
6. Sentencing by Pilate and Release of Barabbas (23: 13– 25)
Pilate’s efforts to release Jesus fail when he appeals to the people. This trial has the seven stages typical of Roman examinations (Neyrey 1985: 81; Sherwin-White 1963: 24– 27): arrest you brought me this man (23: 14a) charges as one who is perverting the people (23: 14b) cognitio and behold I, having judged him before you (23: 14c) verdict have found no guilt in this man concerning anything you charged against him (23: 14d) supporting verdict but neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us (23: 15a) acquittal and behold, nothing worthy of death has been done by him (23: 15b) judicial warning now having scourged him, I will release him (23: 16) Pilate reveals his and Herod’s judgments: Jesus is innocent. But Pilate meets with strong public disappointment. Even though the two leaders have declared Jesus innocent (cf. Deut. 19: 15; Fitzmyer 1985: 1488), the people do not wish him to be released. The passage has three parts: the innocent verdict from Pilate (23: 13– 16), the crowd’s request for Barabbas and condemnation of Jesus (23: 18– 23), and Pilate’s decision to give in to the people (23: 24– 25). Luke’s point here is to detail how Jesus was convicted, despite his innocence. The Jewish people bear primary responsibility according to Luke, though his portrait of a weak-kneed Pilate is not flattering. The account contains irony: Barabbas (meaning “son of the father”) is released, yet the real Son, who is innocent, goes to his death. Israel has freed the wrong son. Another of Jesus’ prophecies is being fulfilled (“ handed over” in 9: 44; Neyrey 1985: 84– 107).
Since these events are a turning point in Luke 23, it would be well to reflect briefly on the whole chapter. Büchele (1978: 70– 75) has an interesting examination of this question, though his outline, reflecting a threefold parallelism throughout the chapter, is perhaps forced.[ 2] His analysis shows, however, a great amount of balance in the chapter. A wide variety of people respond to these events, most negatively, but a few positively: the thief, the wailing women (perhaps), and the centurion. Some are open to Jesus. Jesus forces a choice, and opinions divide over him. Luke 23: 13– 25 is a story about Jesus, though he is a passive player in these events (Fitzmyer 1985: 1484, 1488). Human players dictate events here and do not perform well. The outline of Luke 23: 13– 25 is as follows:
a. Jesus’ innocence declared (23: 13– 16)
i. Pilate’s and Herod’s verdicts: innocent (23: 13– 15)
ii. Pilate’s intent: chastise and release Jesus (23: 16)
b. The crowd’s demand: Jesus’ death and Barabbas’s release (23: 18– 23)
i. The crowd cries for Barabbas (23: 18– 19)
ii. Pilate replies for Jesus (23: 20)
iii. The crowd insists on crucifixion (23: 21)
iv. Pilate stands firm for release (23: 22)
v. The crowd’s insistence reverses Pilate’s verdict (23: 23)
c. Jesus’ condemnation and Barabbas’s release (23: 24– 25)
i. Pilate accepts the crowd’s demand (23: 24)
ii. Barabbas is released and Jesus is given over to the people (23: 25)
The dominating theme in this unit is the injustice of Jesus’ death sentence. Jesus’ innocence is legally proclaimed, but he is retained in custody. Moral blindness is also a major theme, as the people ironically choose to free a dangerous revolutionary instead of Jesus, a terrorist instead of a righteous man. There is no doubt about their preference as the people state their choice three times (23: 18, 21, 23). Roman leadership is seen as weak as Pilate acquiesces to the people. The Innocent One is condemned. Israel fails. Jesus is headed for the cross.
Summary Luke 23: 13– 25 portrays Pilate’s attempts to get Jesus justice. He believes that Jesus is innocent, but his efforts to punish Jesus and release him fail. The people insist that Jesus face crucifixion and that Barabbas, an insurrectionist and a murderer, be released. The powerful Roman ruler succumbs to popular pressure. Jesus is condemned, despite Pilate’s and Herod’s declarations that he has done nothing worthy of death. Jesus is reckoned as a criminal and takes the place of a murderer. This exchange pictures what Jesus’ death means for humanity and also shows how sin can twist reality. The reader is supposed to sense the tragedy and injustice of what is happening to Jesus, who does not deserve to go to the cross, but goes nonetheless. The cause at the human level for Jesus’ death is placed in the hands of the Jewish crowd. But Pilate is not blameless either. His conviction is that Jesus is innocent, but his spine is not strong enough to resist the uproar that Jesus’ release would have produced. Some actively reject Jesus; others do it more passively— but the outcome is rejection either way. The innocent Jesus heads for the cross and death, while a sinner goes free in his stead.
Dick Lucas – Prevailing Voices – Luke 23;1-12
The current web page is a transcript of an audio recording of a sermon by Dick Lucas on Luke 23:1-12. The sermon discusses the events described in Luke 23:1-12, where Jesus is brought before Pilate and Herod for trial. The sermon explores the charges brought against Jesus and the reactions of Pilate and Herod to him. Lucas also discusses the significance of these events in the context of Jesus’ mission and message.
Lucas begins his sermon by reading from Luke 23 and then offering a prayer. He thanks God for his son Jesus Christ and for the Bible which explains him to us. He asks for grace for both himself as speaker and for those listening so that they may understand something of Christ’s purposes for the world.
Lucas then introduces the topic of his sermon: the day Christ died as described in Luke 23. He notes that this is a vital day in history and that Luke’s interpretation of it is important. He expresses his hope that those present will attend all five Tuesdays of this Lent series as they explore this topic together.
Lucas then discusses how Luke tells the story without making many comments or sermonizing. However, he suggests that through his telling of the story, Luke intends for readers to learn certain essential truths. Lucas notes that while one might expect Luke or one of the other gospel writers to stop in the middle of their narrative to offer commentary on events or characters, they do not do so. Instead, they simply tell the story.
Despite this lack of explicit commentary, Lucas argues that there is much to be learned from studying how Luke tells this story. He notes that each sentence summarizes a longer conversation and that each detail has been carefully chosen by Luke to convey certain truths.
Lucas then examines the first paragraph of Luke 23 in detail. He notes that each sentence summarizes a longer conversation and that these conversations must have taken at least an hour or two to unfold. He explores each charge brought against Jesus in turn: perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that he was a king.
Lucas notes that if these charges are true, they are explosive and damaging. They paint Jesus as taking a position of radical political leadership which threatens the stability of Roman rule over Judea.
Lucas then asks whether there is any truth to these charges and whether Jesus was indeed taking such a position. He notes that some church leaders today argue that Christianity has a socio-political dimension which seeks justice for oppressed peoples in this world as well as reconciliation with God in eternity.
Lucas explores whether Jesus can be seen as a model for this kind of freedom fighter who uses non-violent means to achieve social change. He notes evidence from other parts of scripture which suggest such an interpretation may be possible.
In conclusion, Lucas’ sermon provides an insightful exploration into both what happened on “the day Christ died” according to Luke’s account but also what it means within larger context – what we can learn about Christ’s mission/message from it.
Sinclair Ferguson – The Innocent and the Guilty – Luke 23;1-25
The current web page appears to be a transcript of an audio recording of a sermon by Sinclair Ferguson on Luke 23:1-25. The sermon discusses the events described in Luke 23:1-25, where Jesus is brought before Pilate and Herod for trial. The text recounts how Jesus was brought before Pilate by a company of people who accused him of perverting their nation, forbidding them to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming that he himself was Christ, a king. Pilate questioned Jesus about these accusations but found no crime in him. However, when he learned that Jesus was from Galilee and therefore under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod. Herod questioned Jesus at length but received no answer. Eventually, after being mocked by Herod and his soldiers, Jesus was sent back to Pilate.
The text also includes a prayer thanking God for his son Jesus Christ and for the Bible which explains him to us. The speaker asks for grace so that they may understand something of Christ’s purposes for the world.
In conclusion, this web page provides a transcript of a sermon given by Sinclair Ferguson on Luke 23:1-25. The sermon offers an insightful exploration into both what happened according to Luke’s account but also what it means within larger context – what we can learn about Christ’s mission/message from it.
Tim Keller – With A Politician Luke 23;1-25
This is a transcript of a podcast episode from Tim Keller’s Gospel in Life. The episode is about examining the true nature of Jesus, who he really is, and why that matters. The transcript is from a teaching based on the life of Jesus, and the speaker is walking us through a series that examines the true nature of Jesus. The transcript is from Luke 23:1-25, which is about Jesus’ second trial before Pilate and Herod. The transcript includes a brief introduction and a summary of the passage, followed by a detailed analysis of the text. The transcript is available in English and is transcribed from an audio recording.