The following table identifies the aspects of Jesus' two trials that each evangelist recorded.
Luke placed Peter's denial ahead of Jesus' trial before Caiaphas whereas Matthew and Mark intertwined these events. The effect in Luke is to focus the reader's attention on Peter's behavior immediately after Jesus' prediction of his denial. Luke wanted his readers to see how Peter fell into temptation because he failed to pray. Luke stressed the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of Peter's denial (vv. 31-34), Jesus' continuing concern for Peter (v. 61), and Peter's weakness in contrast to Jesus' strength. After Peter's denial, Luke moved on to Jesus' trials and concentrated on Him.
22:54 This verse introduces Jesus' trials and Peter's denial. Even though Peter followed Jesus at a distance he at least followed Him. The only other disciple to do so was evidently John (John 18:15-16). Seemingly this house or palace was the dwelling in which both Annas and Caiaphas resided (cf. Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65).
22:55-57 Luke's account is essentially the same as Matthew's and Mark's. Peter evidently joined the circle of people seated around the fire. He first denied acquaintance with Jesus.
"Peter's response is called a denial. The word deny' (arneomai, v. 57) is used in the NT as the polar opposite of the word confess' (homologeo). We are to confess (i.e., acknowledge) Christ but deny ourselves (i.e., disown our private interests for the sake of Christ; cf. comment on 9:23). Peter here does the reverse. He denies Christ in order to serve his own interests."493
22:58 The absence of Jesus' name in this whole incident presents a picture in which Jesus was so much the center of everyone's attention that no one needed to call Him by name. This helps us appreciate the pressure Peter was under.
The person who accused Peter next was another maid, though Luke did not identify her (cf. Mark 14:69). Evidently a man joined her in accusing Jesus since Luke wrote that Peter addressed him when he responded. Matthew and Mark did not say that Peter responded to the maid. Perhaps Luke wanted to stress the pressure that was on Peter from male critics.
22:59-60 Luke's singular reference to an hour passing reflects his interest in the passing of time. The third accusation--this one spoken with conviction--came from another man, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off (John 18:26). Luke omitted the oaths that Peter added to this denial (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71). He also wrote that Peter denied knowledge of what the accuser meant apparently in addition to his denying that he knew Jesus (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71). Immediately the cock crowed as Jesus had predicted (v. 34).
22:61-62 Luke had not told his readers that Jesus was anywhere near Peter. Perhaps Jesus was visible through a window, or His guards may have been leading Him past where He could see Peter. Luke's unique reference to His turning and looking at Peter adds to the shock effect of the moment. The word that Luke used to describe Jesus' looking usually means to look with interest, love, or concern (Gr. emblepo). Peter suddenly remembered what Jesus had predicted earlier that evening (v. 34) and undoubtedly His profession of loyalty to Jesus (v. 33). The realization of his unfaithfulness in this light, along with Jesus' teaching on the importance of faithfulness, caused Peter to leave the courtyard and to weep tears of bitter remorse.
Luke's account of this outstanding disciple's tragic failure stresses the importance of adequate spiritual preparation for times of testing. Like the other evangelists, Luke included this incident because of its timeless importance for all of Jesus' followers.
Evidently this mockery happened during Peter's denial and at the end of Jesus' hearing before Caiaphas. Luke probably placed it here in his narrative as a transition to contrast Peter's attempts to avoid suffering with the sufferings of Jesus. It introduces Luke's accounts of Jesus' trials. Luke's is the longest of the synoptic accounts. It presents Jesus as a real man suffering unjustly at the hands of His accusers.
The men holding Jesus in custody were the religious leaders (v. 52; cf. Matt. 26:66-67; Mark 14:64-65). Luke presented Jesus as a prophet. He probably included this incident to show that Jesus' failure to prophesy was not due to inability but to His purpose to lay down His life as a sacrifice. Jesus' passive acceptance of all this foul treatment shows the same thing.
Luke is the only Gospel writer who gave us an account of what happened at this official meeting of the Sanhedrin. It followed informal interviews late at night by Annas and Caiaphas. This meeting took place very early on Friday morning, April 3, 33 A.D.494
22:66 The Sanhedrin, also known as the council of the elders, was Israel's supreme court. It could only conduct cases involving potential capital punishment during daylight hours.495This seems to be the reason for the time of this meeting. Evidently the Sanhedrin members wanted to send Jesus on to Pilate for trial as early as they could. The Sanhedrin normally met in a building not far to the west of the western wall of the temple, but archaeologists are not sure exactly where.496
22:67-68 The Sanhedrin asked Jesus if He was claiming to be the Messiah. Jesus replied that they would not believe Him if He told them nor would they answer Him if He questioned them. Jesus and the religious leaders had formerly come to an impasse in their discussions (cf. 20:1-8, 26, 40). Jesus' point was that claiming or not claiming to be the Messiah would be pointless since His accusers would believe what they wanted to believe regardless of what He said. Furthermore they had a different idea than He did of what the Messiah would do. They were really talking about two different types of individuals when they discussed the Messiah.
22:69-70 Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah here, but He did claim to be the Son of Man. He referred to the discussion He had had with some of His accusers on Wednesday (20:41-44). Then Jesus had questioned them about the identity of David's Son in Psalm 110:1. He had showed that David's Son, the Messiah, was divine. Now Jesus referred to the same verse again and said that the Son of Man would sit at God's right hand from then on. This was a claim that Messiah would not reign immediately. However the title "Son of Man"connected the divine Messiah with a future coming to the earth to reign (Dan. 7:13-14). Jesus was implying that Messiah would return to heaven and then return later to reign on the earth (cf. Acts 2:33; 5:31). He seemed to the Sanhedrin to be claiming that He was the Son of God. Jesus admitted that He was claiming that (cf. 9:20-22).
22:71 The Sanhedrin recognized Jesus' statement to be an unequivocal claim to be the Son of God. This was a claim to be God. Consequently it appeared to them to be blasphemous. They now had sufficient grounds to demand the death sentence from Pilate.
Luke's record stresses the identity of Jesus as Messiah, Son of Man, and Son of God, but also His fearless testimony to His own identity regardless of the certain consequences. Thus the writer clarified who Jesus was and presented His testifying before hostile authorities as a model for disciples to follow.
4. Jesus' first appearance before Pilate Jesus' trial now moved from its Jewish phase into its Roman phase.497It did not take long for Pilate to determine that Jesus was innocent of any crime worthy of death. Notwithstanding the record stresses how difficult it was for him to convict an innocent man. Pilate normally resided in the provincial capital at Caesarea. He was in Jerusalem because of the Passover season that drew huge crowds and possible civil unrest to the city.
23:1-2 The whole body in view is the Sanhedrin. Luke alone recorded their specific charges against Jesus. They accused Him of leading the Jews away from their duty to Rome. This was untrue. Second, they charged Him with teaching the Jews not to pay taxes. This was untrue (cf. 20:25). Third, they accused Him of claiming to be a king, namely the Jewish Messiah. This was true (cf. 22:69-70). This was the one issue about which Pilate showed concern.
23:3-4 It may seem strange that having secured a confession from Jesus that He was the King of the Jews Pilate would declare Him innocent. The answer is that Luke did not record the conversation that took place between verses 3 and 4 (cf. John 18:35-38). In this conversation Pilate learned that Jesus did not claim to be a king in the ordinary sense. He concluded that Jesus posed no treat to the political stability of Roman interests in Palestine. Only Luke recorded Pilate's official verdict that he gave to the Sanhedrin (cf. John 18:38; 19:4, 6).
In Acts as well as in Luke our writer recorded the innocent verdicts of government officials when passing judgment on Christian leaders (e.g., Acts 18:12-17; 19:35-41; 25:23-27; 26:30-32). He obviously wanted to assure his readers that Christianity was not seeking to overthrow the Roman Empire and was not hostile to Roman civil authority.
23:5-7 The continuing protestations of the Sanhedrin members led Pilate to send Jesus to Herod for examination. He probably did this to placate the Jewish leaders and to satisfy himself that he had not overlooked something in Jesus' case that might merit punishment. Perhaps Herod Antipas had evidence of Jesus' alleged insurrectionist activity in Galilee. Herod had a longer and more thorough acquaintance with Jewish affairs than Pilate did, and he was Semitic. Herod was evidently in Jerusalem for the same reasons Pilate was. Pilate's intention was evidently not to pass Jesus off to Herod and so relieve himself of his own responsibility but to secure Herod's counsel in Jesus' case (cf. vv. 7, 11).
Luke alone recorded this aspect of Jesus' Roman trial. He probably did so because Herod Antipas found no basis for condemning Jesus either. Thus Luke cited two official witnesses to Jesus' innocence for his readers' benefit (cf. Deut. 19:15).
23:8-9 Luke had previously mentioned Herod's interest in seeing Jesus (9:9). He clarified here that his interest in Jesus was only as a miracle worker. He had no interest in talking with Him about spiritual matters. It was evidently about His miracles that Herod questioned Jesus. Jesus did not respond because Herod had rejected the implication of His miracles, namely that Jesus had come from God with a message for humankind. Herod had made his feelings toward prophets clear by decapitating John the Baptist. Jesus had nothing to say to someone such as this.
"Jesus' exousia[authority] also manifests itself in the political realm. This is most evident in Luke, which alone of the gospels records two rebuffs of Herod Antipas, Jesus' political sovereign in Galilee (Luke 13:31-32; 23:6-12)."498
23:10-12 The accusations of the Jewish leaders (cf. 22:66) and the insult that Herod must have felt at being rebuffed resulted in more contempt and mocking for Jesus (cf. Isa. 53:7). This shows Herod's true attitude toward Jesus.
Herod put an elegant (Gr. lampros, cf. Acts 10:30; James 2:2-3; Rev. 15:6; 19:8) robe over Jesus that implied His royalty, but he sent Him back to Pilate as a king in bondage to Rome. This may or may not have been the same robe that Pilate's soldiers later placed over Jesus after beating Him (Matt. 27:28; Mark 15:17; John 19:2). Perhaps it was this touch especially that united Pilate and Herod. They were two rogues who could at least agree to humiliate a pretender to the Jewish throne (cf. Acts 4:25-28). Luke did not record any judicial opinion that Herod may have sent back for Pilate here, but the implication is obvious that he viewed Jesus as a harmless phony. Pilate later announced Herod's verdict to the people (v. 15).
The overall impression that Luke presented with this part of his narrative is that Jesus' condemnation was a terrible travesty of justice. Pilate condemned an innocent man. This decision comes across as specially heinous since he also acquitted a guilty man. The strong will of the Jewish leaders overcame the weak resolve of the Roman official.
23:13-14 Pilate announced his verdict that he made after receiving Herod's opinion. Pilate had found Jesus innocent of the charge of insurrection. He used standard legal terminology (cf. Acts 23:9; 26:31-32). He doubtless intended to put the matter to rest.
Luke's reference to the people (Gr. laos, v. 13) is significant. Throughout his Gospel Luke referred to the people (laos) as distinct from the crowds (ochlos). The former word describes people who did not oppose Jesus as their leaders did (cf. vv. 27, 35; 24:19; Acts 2:47). Many people from this group believed on Jesus. The crowds, on the other hand, sought Jesus for what they could get out of Him. In these verses the people who were sympathetic or at least neutral toward Jesus heard Pilate's verdict along with the antagonistic Sanhedrin members.499
23:15 Pilate also announced that Herod's verdict agreed with his own. Herod was a recognized authority on Jewish affairs that Pilate's hearers probably respected more than they did Pilate since Herod was Semitic. Both men agreed that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death.
23:16 Pilate evidently punished Jesus because He had caused Pilate trouble and as a concession to the Jewish leaders. This is clearer in the Greek text than in most English versions.500Luke presented Pilate as wanting to give Jesus a light reprimand and then release Him. This is one of several indications in Luke's Gospel that the writer wanted his Gentile readers to view Christianity favorably. This desire comes through at several places in Acts too. The flogging (Gr. phragellosas, Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15) that Jesus received before His crucifixion was much more severe than the scourging (Gr. paideusas) that Pilate referred to here. Pilate had no idea of crucifying Jesus now.
23:17 Many ancient manuscripts do not contain verse 17. Probably scribes influenced by Matthew 27:15 and or Mark 15:6 added it to early copies of this Gospel.
23:18-19 Luke's version of the trial has the Jewish leaders and people (v. 13) rejecting what was just and demanding the release of a man who was the antithesis of Jesus. Pilate had justified Jesus of the charge of leading an insurrection, but Barabbas was guilty of that crime. Jesus had gone about healing and restoring people to life, but Barabbas had murdered them. This description shows the great guilt of the Jews in demanding Jesus' death (cf. Acts 2:22-23; 21:36). The people allowed their leaders to influence them to demand a perversion of justice.
"They would rather be with a well-known sinner than with the One who could forgive their sins."501
23:20-23 Luke noted again (vv. 14, 16) that Pilate wanted to release Jesus, but his appeal for reason only led to increased demands for Jesus' punishment (cf. Matt. 27:22; Mark 15:12). The Jews now called for Jesus' crucifixion, the worst of all possible punishments. A third appeal for reason only led to louder and stronger cries for Jesus' crucifixion. Finally the loud cries of the crowd made Pilate conclude that he could not convince them. It was the will of the people, not Pilate, that led to Jesus' crucifixion. At this climax of chaos, what is it that emerges most clearly in the text?
"The innocence of Jesus could not be more firmly underlined."502
23:24-25 Pilate capitulated totally to the will of the people. This was in perfect harmony with God's will (Acts 2:23), but Luke did not mention that here. Here he wanted his readers to see the human responsibility that resulted in Jesus' death, particularly the Jews' responsibility.
Luke was much kinder to Pilate than the other Gospel writers. He stressed Jesus' innocence more than Pilate's guilt. Perhaps he did this so his Gentile readers would focus their attention more on Jesus than on Pilate. In Acts also Luke gave as positive a picture of Roman rulers as he could realistically. Evidently he did not want his writings to alienate the Gentiles and their rulers unnecessarily.
"The narrative in 23:13-25 places strong emphasis on the responsibility of both the leaders and the people for Jesus' death."503
