Notes on Luke 22:66-71

Compare the events recorded by Matthew and Mark below.

With regards to Luke 22:66-71, we should note that none of the Gospels gives a full account of Jesus' trial. It is clear that there were two main stages: (1) the Jews tried Jesus before the Sanhedrin and gained the verdict that he was a blasphemer deserving of death according to their law. (2) But only the Romans could execute him, and the Romans would not execute a man for blasphemy. Jesus' detractors therefore had to arrange for a different trial before the Romans, one in which they tried to get a verdict according to Roman law.

In Luke 22:66 we see the phrase "at daybreak." Only after daybreak could a legal Jewish trial be held. Anything done earlier was unofficial. Luke's account of those present points to the Sanhedrin. Regarding Luke 22:67-69, Luke's Gospel does not speak of a formal accusation or of a trial according to due form. The Sanhedrin simply invited Jesus to incriminate himself according to their understanding of the role and function of the Messiah. This he declined to do, as they would not have believed him anyway. But Jesus did indicate that a change was coming ("from now on") and that he would be in the place of highest honor in Heaven.

In Luke 22:70, we see the phrase "the Son of God?" It is not certain what they meant by asking whether Jesus was the Son of God (a man such as a king could be called a son of God), e.g., 1 Chron. 28:6), but the definite article "the" indicates an even more special relationship to God.

For the Sanhedrin, Jesus' answer ended the matter (Luke 22:71). Jesus had agreed that he was the Son of God, and as far as they were concerned, he was guilty. Persuading the Romans would require a different approach, but Jesus was guilty in their eyes, and it remained only for them to secure his execution.

In Luke 23:1, we observe the phrase the "whole assembly." Not all were needed, but this large group would impress Pilate with their seriousness and solidarity.

In Luke 23:2 Jesus is accused of subverting our nation. This is a curiously imprecise charge. Jesus is said to oppose the payment of taxes to Caesar. However, Jesus in fact did the opposite (Luke 20:25). They claim that Jesus said, that he was "king." But, Jesus specifically refused to use the term (Luke 22:67-68) in the portion of the inquiry recorded by Luke. In Matthew 16:17, however, he had affirmed Peter's confession to that effect. This charge, then, was true in a sense, but not in the sense in which the Romans would have understood it: that Jesus claimed to be a political rival to Caesar. So this charge, like the others, was essentially false.

In Luke 23:3 we se the word "Yes." The word yes is not in the Greek (nor is it in the parallel accounts of Matt. 26:64 or Mark 15:2). In one highly important sense Jesus was King of the Jews, so he could not say no. But in the sense in which Pilate understood the term, he was not, so he could not say yes. His answer means something noncommittal, like, "So you say" (cf. John 18:33-38). These words of Jesus were enough for Pilate to understand that Jesus was no revolutionary.

In the Roman Empire, a trial was usually held in the province in which the offense was said to have been committed, but it could be transferred to the province from which the accused came. Pilate seized on this fine point to send Jesus to Herod. Only Luke's Gospel mentions this detail (Luke 23:5-7). Herod was the only person to whom Jesus refused to speak (Luke 23:9). In Luke 23:11, Herod mocked Jesus, not taking the charge against him seriously. It is ironic that Herod and Pilate became friends this day (Luke 23:12). The scence now switches back to Pilate. In Luke 23:16 we see "I will punish him." In Roman law a man might be given a light beating and a warning to encourage him to be more careful in the future. Pilate was evidently hoping that this evidence of magisterial displeasure would placate the Jews and enable him to release a man he knew to be innocent. It didn't.

In Luke 23:18 we observe the custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover. Though this has not been verified by extra-Biblical sources, this sort of tradition was widely practiced at the time, and there is nothing improbable about Herod's offer. The crowds clamored for Barabbas, a man otherwise unknown. His name means "son of the father." Luke's Gospel tells us that his crimes were rebellion and murder. Clearly, Barabbas was a proven criminal, but to the Jerusalem mob he may well have appeared as a hero of the resistance movement.