From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE
Verses 1-25
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
23:1 Translations
WEB: The whole
company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate.
Young’s: And having risen, the whole multitude of
them did lead him to Pilate,
Conte (RC): And the entire
multitude of them, rising up, led him to Pilate.
23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose. Not of the
people, who were not as yet turned against Jesus, but of the parties mentioned
in verse 66 of the last chapter, namely, the ruling classes. [14]
The
number would also include those following their orders either because of being
servants or to be in the “good graces” of the elite. After all, those huddled around the fires
were hardly likely to be of “the ruling classes” but of their followers. When Jesus is brought to Pilate the second
time, there is a reference to “the people” in distinction from “the chief
priests and the rulers” in verse 13 and that is typically read as indicating
that the audience had picked up more typical citizenry. The language fits equally well, however, with
being the same “people” as in verse 4 and here--being the non-elite
participants in the arrest and any additional fellow travelers they could send
for that would support whatever the rulers wanted. The possibility of genuinely uncommitted
individuals being allowed to join the group seems modest. After all, they were “pushing the limits” of
their influence and had a very weak case; genuine outsiders might do or say
anything and compromise the “essential” outcome. [rw]
and led Him
unto Pilate. As the
Roman official in charge of
In depth: Personal
background of Pilate: Pilate
was the sixth Roman procurator of
Pontius Pilate, a Roman
knight, owed his high position as Procurator of Judea to his friendship with Sejanus, the powerful minister of the Emperor Tiberius. He probably belonged by birth or adoption to
the gens of the Pontii. When Judaea became
formally subject to the empire on the deposition of Archelaus,
Pontius Pilate, of whose previous career nothing is known, through the interest
of Sejanus, was appointed to govern it, with the
title of procurator, or collector of the revenue, invested with judicial
power. This was in A.D. 26, and he held
the post for ten years, when he was deposed from his office in disgrace.
In depth: Governing
style of Pilate [56]. His very first act—the bringing of
the silver eagles and other insignia of the Legions from Caesarea to
Jerusalem—a step which he was obliged to retract—had caused fierce exasperation
between him and the Jews. This had been
increased by his application of money from the Corban
or Sacred Treasury to the secular purpose of bringing water to
In depth: Where was
the trial held at [52]? It is a disputed question whether Pilate now
lived, when at
23:2 Translations
WEB: They
began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting the nation,
forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a
king."
Young’s: and began to accuse him, saying, 'This
one we found perverting the nation, and forbidding to give
tribute to Caesar, saying himself to be Christ a king.'
Conte (RC): Then they began to
accuse him, saying, "We found this one subverting our nation, and
prohibiting giving tribute to Caesar, and saying that he is Christ the
king."
23:2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found. A judicial
expression, intimating that they had brought Christ, as one convicted of guilt after diligent examination. [9]
If Jesus had indeed
taught rebellion as they said He did, it would have been their first care to
have sustained Him, and Pilate probably knew it. [4]
this fellow
perverting the nation. The technical Jewish name for an
offender of this sort was Mesith, “seducer” or
“impostor,” Acts 13:8-10. This was their
first head of indictment, and had the advantage of being perfectly
vague. [56]
and forbidding to
give tribute. The taxes which were
collected from a conquered nation; the sign, therefore, of their subjection. [4]
to Caesar. Tiberius was
Emperor at the time. All the Roman
Emperors were called Caesars, just as the Egyptian kings were of old called Pharaohs. [4]
This was a complete
falsehood; but a political accusation was necessary for their purpose,
since a heathen would not have listened to any religious accusation. This was their second charge. [56]
saying that He
Himself is Christ a King. The word “King” is an explanation to bring
the case under the head of treason. Yet
they must have been well aware that this charge was all the more false in
spirit from being true in the letter;--for Christ had always refused and
prevented every effort to make Him a temporal king (John 6:15). This was their third charge. [56]
It is hard to believe that any person enjoying significant
success in such an effort could have avoided having his identity being passed
along to Pilate. There were simply too many
individuals who wanted Roman influence or “friends in high places.” The far larger number of individuals not in
that grouping would surely have been spreading tales of this man and this
revolutionary movement and this would have “leaked” to those friendly
sources and from them to the Procurator.
In short if the “threat” had been genuine, the odds were overwhelming
that Pilate would already have known of this rebellion-monger. Pulling this Jesus “like a rabbit out of a
hat” could hardly have avoided stirring his deepest suspicions of the true
intent of the proceedings. [rw]
And He answered him and said, Thou sayest
it.
Pilate only attends to the third charge, and asks Christ this
question on the Roman principle that it was always desirable to secure the
confession of the accused. We see from
St. Luke gives
only this bare summary of the examination, in which the prisoner Jesus simply
replies "Yes," he was the King.
In its own strange way, this was exactly the kind of “king” Pilate
would like to deal with, one of no threat to the political order—yet handed
over to him by the religious leadership itself under the pretense that He was! For that very reason the accusation seemed
ludicrous. Serving as Pilate’s
“watchdog” to protect the regime was hardly on their normal agenda! Hence something else must be envolved here rather than just what he was hearing. And Jesus certainly wasn’t acting in that arrogant
way that egotistical delusional “kings” would act! So in what happened next, Pilate would be
predisposed to assume His innocence.[rw]
In depth: Setting the
Roman trial in the context of what the gospel of John tells us [18]. To understand this scene
perfectly we must read
Pilate, who knew well from his past
experience how fiercely the[y] resented any slight offered to their religious
feelings, wishing for his own purposes to conciliate them, went outside. These Jews, prior to eating the Passover,
would not enter any dwelling from which all leaven had not been carefully
removed; of course, this had not been the case in the palace of Pilate. The governor asks them, in
23:3 Translations
WEB: Pilate
asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered him, "So
you say."
Young’s: And Pilate questioned him, saying, 'Thou
art the king of the Jews?' and he answering him, said, 'Thou dost say it.'
Conte (RC): And Pilate
questioned him, saying: "You are the king of the Jews?" But in
response, he said: "You are saying it."
And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? If this charge had any validity, it was
strange that the religious leadership would bring it to his attention at all,
especially at a time when their attention was centered on the
And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it. Jesus admits that, in a sense it is true. Pilate has to be thinking: And I haven’t heard anything about this
supposedly dangerous man at all? And
these religious leaders, who clearly have a lot of other things to object to in
him that have nothing to do with my concerns, are so deadly anxious to have him
killed when my people haven’t heard any rumor of an uprising at all? As his further questions yield nothing
incriminating at all, Pilate’s suspicions are effectively confirmed (John
When you are
convinced that you are being played for a fool—especially due to hidden
motives—you naturally throw a monkey wrench into their plans, as he immediately
proceeds to do [rw].
23:4 Translations
WEB: Pilate
said to the chief priests and the multitudes, "I find no basis for a charge
against this man."
Young’s: And Pilate said unto
the chief priests, and the multitude, 'I find no fault in this man;'
Conte (RC): Then Pilate said to
the leaders of the priests and to the crowds, "I find no case against this
man."
23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people. i.e., to everyone who had delivered this
outrageous case to him in the first place. They wanted his own “judgement”
and they were about to get it—but not the approval they wanted and needed. [rw]
I find no fault in this Man. i.e., no crime. This
implies an examination by Pilate not here described [by Luke]. [26]
Pilate took Jesus into
the hall of judgment, and examined Him privately. He found that the Jews had delivered Him unto
him, through envy, and that His kingdom did not in any wise interfere with the
rule or tribute of the Caesars. Matt. xxvii. 11-14; John xviii.
33-38. Pilate
then came out and declared his conviction of the innocence of this charge. [4]
This
is the first declaration of His innocence, from the only competent—even
approximately competent—and impartial tribunal.
It carried with it, of course, that he would not consent to the harmless
man being put to death. [52]
23:5 Translations
WEB: But they
insisted, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all
Young’s: and they were the more urgent, saying --
'He doth stir up the people, teaching throughout the whole of
Conte (RC): But they continued
more intensely, saying: "He has stirred up the people, teaching throughout
all of
23:5 And they were the more fierce. Grew more
desperate, more violent, more urgent. Since now they see that their last charge of
the assumption of royal dignity finds no acceptance with the judge, they come
with so much the stronger emphasis back to the first--namely, that He is
perverting the people; and told Pilate that this man had set the whole country
in an uproar from Judea even unto Galilee.
[9]
What they can’t accomplish through reason and evidence they will
attempt to accomplish through vehemence and rabble rousing. Indeed, were they all that far away
themselves from being the instigators of the very public turmoil that they
attributed to Jesus? [rw]
saying, He stirreth up the people teaching throughout all Jewry. Excites them by His teachings to disorder and rebellion. [4]
from
From the region of
These
words furnish one of the traces in the Synoptists of
the Judaean ministry which they imply, but do not
narrate. Compare “throughout the whole
of
For all of Pilate’s undoubted faults, there is no imaginable way he was
not alert to any significant report of rabble rousing both in
23:6 Translations
WEB: But when
Pilate heard
Young’s: And Pilate having heard of Galilee,
questioned if the man is a Galilean,
Conte (RC): But Pilate, upon
hearing
23:6 When Pilate heard of
Or: In
the perplexity of Pilate, balancing between unwillingness to commit a great
judicial outrage, and fear to provoke the hostility of the Jewish leaders, the
word Galilee struck his ear as a signal of relief. [52]
he asked whether
the Man were a Galilean. The bait took, but not as they desired. Pilate at once plans an escape from the odium
of condemning an innocent man, and determines to send Him to Herod. [4]
23:7 Translations
WEB: When he
found out that he was in Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was
also in
Young’s: and having known that he is from the
jurisdiction of Herod, he sent him back unto Herod, he being also in
Conte (RC): And when he realized
that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him away to Herod, who was
himself also at
23:7 And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod's
jurisdiction.
Galilee was in
the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, the same who had slain
John the Baptist. To him, then, belonged
the decision of a charge like the present.
Pilate, whose passions were not excited, but whose fears were, was just
in this act [of passing the case on to others].
[4]
he sent Him to
Herod. To “send up” was the technical term for
“submit to a superior tribunal.” [Actually Herod wasn’t technically that
inside
An “innocent” verdict would provide Pilate with political cover if he
decided to let Jesus go and the religious authorities screamed their protests
to
who himself also
was at
23:8 Translations
WEB: Now when
Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad, for he had wanted to see him for a
long time, because he had heard many things about him. He hoped to see some
miracle done by him.
Young’s: And Herod having seen Jesus did rejoice
exceedingly, for he was wishing for a long time to see him, because of hearing
many things about him, and he was hoping some sign to see done by him,
Conte (RC): Then Herod, upon
seeing Jesus, was very glad. For he had been wanting to see him for a long
time, because he had heard so many things about him, and he was hoping to see
some kind of sign wrought by him.
23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad. The stress on Herod’s desire to interact
with Jesus argues that there was nothing threatening in what he knew of
the Lord. That kind of person you
aren’t much interested in questioning (verse 9) in the first place; executing,
yes. Hence the only indictment he could
(in honesty) bring against Jesus was a refusal to cooperate in the hearing. [rw]
This was Herod
Antipas, the slayer of John the Baptist. He was at that time living in open incest with
that princess Herodias concerning whom the Baptist
had administered the public rebuke which had led to his arrest and subsequent
execution. Godet
graphically sums up the situation: "Jesus
was to Herod Antipas what a juggler is to a sated court—an object of curiosity.
But Jesus did not lend Himself to such a
part; He had neither words nor miracles for a man so disposed, in whom,
besides, he saw with horror the murderer of John the Baptist. Before this personage, a mixture of levity and
sombre superstition, he maintained a silence which
even the accusation of the Sanhedrin (Luke
for he was
desirous to see him of a long season. However
he had gone through a period (extended?) where that was the last thing on his priority list: When he
used to hear that talk (9:9), he was in a very different state of mind from the
present. He was then conscience-smitten,
and afraid that Jesus was John, risen from the
dead. Now all is changed. His conscience no longer disturbs him, and to
his earthly soul, a man in chains was very different from the same man filling
all
because he had
heard many things of Him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by Him. [The desire]
was in the spirit which led Jews, again and again, to demand of the Lord a
sign, which, from the time of Satan’s call, that he should throw himself down
from the pinnacle, He would never give.
Had it been the request of some poor, blind one for sight, or of some
leper for healing, doubtless the miracle would still have been wrought. But not for curiosity. [52]
It
should be noted that Herod had no problem at all in believing that Jesus might
well have miracle working power. His
informants throughout the region would surely have passed on word if His
actions gave any hint of illusion or chicanery.
It was simply another piece of data any competent ruler of a highly
religious region would like to have in case things should change and they
become open adversaries. [rw]
23:9 Translations
Weymouth: So he put a
number of questions to Him, but Jesus gave him no reply.
WEB: He questioned
him with many words, but he gave no answers.
Young’s: and was questioning him in many words, and he answered him nothing.
Conte (RC): Then he questioned
him with many words. But he gave him no response at all.
23:9 Then
he questioned with Him. We know not what he asked him, but it seems
that he tried question after question—perhaps relating to His person, His
office, His doctrine, His miracles. [3]
in many words. It was an
extended examination, conducted probably before the tetrarch's courtiers, with
many a cross-question and device to draw out the wonder-worker. [9]
but He
answered him nothing. It was no part of our Lord's calling to
gratify an idle curiosity, nor could any object be gained by declaring His
doctrine to one so utterly worldly. He
therefore performed no miracle, and was silent to all the questions put to
Him. A respectful silence is an
instruction for some, and a refuge against others. [9]
Or: Because Herod asked Him nothing in
that judicial manner, which was becoming in a judge. Herod, a curious compound of sin and fear,
who had shown to John a character partly kind and attentive, now seeks from
Jesus by questions, many things, probably, which were utterly unsuited to the
situation in which they stood to each other.
Jesus had ended His public teachings.
He stood there on the question of guilt or innocence. Herod cared nothing for that, and hence his
questionings being impertinent, were unanswered. [4]
WEB: The chief
priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.
Young’s: And the chief priests and the scribes
stood vehemently accusing him,
Conte (RC): And the leaders of
the priests, and the scribes, stood firm in persistently accusing him.
They were now bent on
securing their purpose, and perhaps feared that Herod’s well-known weakness and
superstition might rob them of their prey;--especially as he was much less
afraid of them than Pilate was, having strong influence in Rome. [56]
WEB: Herod
with his soldiers humiliated him and mocked him. Dressing him in luxurious
clothing, they sent him back to Pilate.
Young’s: and Herod with his soldiers having set
him at nought, and having mocked, having put around
him gorgeous apparel, did send him back to Pilate,
Conte (RC): Then Herod, with his
soldiers, scorned him. And he ridiculed him, clothing him in a white garment.
And he sent him back to Pilate.
with his men
of war. The soldiers of his
bodyguard. [6]
Such
as formed his retinue at the time; his military officers and soldiers. [4]
set Him at nought. Herod was acute enough to see that Jesus was
not really open to any capital charge, and after the odium he had incurred on
account of John the Baptist, he was not willing to add the death of Jesus to the
number of his crimes. Yet, being
exasperated at the dignified passiveness of Jesus, he, with his guards, treated
Him as though He was nobody, a nothing, then scoffed at Him, then caused Him to
be arrayed in a gorgeous purple robe (doubtless one of his own, and probably
the same robe which was afterward used by the soldiers of Pilate), in derision
of His Messianic dignity. [9]
Treating
Him not as a criminal, but only as a person worthy of contempt. “He is despised and rejected of men;” “he was
despised and we esteemed him not,” Isaiah 53:3.
[56]
and arrayed Him
in a gorgeous robe. He treated Him, not as a criminal, but as a
religious Enthusiast, worthy only of contempt and scorn. The "gorgeous robe," more
accurately, "bright raiment," was a white festal mantle such as
Jewish kings and Roman nobles wore on great occasions. It was probably an old robe of white tissue
of some kind, embroidered with silver.
Dean Plumptre suggests that we might venture
to trace in this outrage a vindictive retaliation for the words which the
Teacher had once spoken—with evident allusion to Herod's court—of those who
were gorgeously apparelled (Luke 7:25). It was this Herod of whom the Lord had spoken
so recently with for Him a rare bitterness, "Go ye, and tell that fox
[literally, 'she-fox'] Herod" (Luke
and sent Him
again to Pilate. Then, not wishing to be outdone in a complimentary
act by Pilate, he waived his claim of jurisdiction over Jesus, and sent Him
back to the Roman governor, at whose tribunal He had first been arraigned. [9]
This involved a second
distinct acquittal of our Lord from every political charge brought against
Him. Had He in any way been guilty of
either (1) perverting the people, (2) forbidding to pay tribute, or (3) claiming
to be a king, it would have been Herod’s duty, and still more his interest, to
punish Him. His dismissal of the case
was a deliberate avowal of His innocence.
[56]
WEB: Herod and
Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before that they were
enemies with each other.
Young’s: and both Pilate and Herod became friends
on that day with one another, for they were before at enmity between
themselves.
Conte (RC): And Herod and Pilate
became friends on that day. For previously they were enemies to one another.
The remarks of
some Commentators about their [sharing] in enmity against Christ (so even,
recently, Wordsworth), are quite beside the purpose. The present feeling of Pilate was any thing
but hostile to the person of Christ; and Herod, by his treatment of Him, shows
that he thought Him beneath his judicial notice. [15]
for before
they were at enmity between themselves. What had been the cause of their quarrel is
unknown. It is commonly supposed that it
was Pilate's slaying the Galileans in
However:
There must have been many occasions for quarrel between two such men in
such positions. [6]
WEB: Pilate
called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
Young’s: And Pilate having called together the
chief priests, and the rulers, and the people,
Conte (RC): And Pilate, calling
together the leaders of the priests, and the magistrates, and the people,
Or a diametrically opposed view: We have
no textual hint from Luke that this group called “the people” is any different
in composition from the group called “the people” in verse 4 and which, in
conjunction with the clerical authorities are labeled the even more emphatic
term “the whole multitude” in verse 1. When Pilate addressed “them” in verse 14 the addressed individuals
again explicitly includes the religious authorities—not just “the
people” in distinction from its leaders.
Pilate’s use of the words “the people”
certainly throws open the discussion to all in verse 13 and not just the
priestly plotters—but there is no textual evidence for assuming they are anyone
but the clerics’ supporters in the first place! (a) If
there was an argumentation in numbers would it not have been from the
authorities scrounging up additional supporters who would go wherever they were
told and do whatever they were instructed?
(b) At that very early hour in
the morning, why would anyone else have a particular reason to know what
was going on, much less to be at the judging seat of Caesar?
This does not rule out the possibility
(probability?) that the very numbers involved had Pilate thinking that this was
a more representative crowd than it really was.
The crowd had been originally created to serve the interests of the
upper priesthood and one can hardly imagine anything else than they taking
steps to assure it stayed that way.
In Americanized terms, think of a
traditional “lynch mob” raised by a group of de facto leaders—in the first
century case, de jure leaders, the higher religious
leadership--in which the outcome is foreordained—if the mob has anything to say
in the matter. Of course this is one in
which friends of the accused are decidedly advised not to come or, if somehow
stumbling into the situation, to keep their mouths firmly shut! [rw]
WEB: and said
to them, "You brought this man to me as one that perverts the people, and
see, I have examined him before you, and found no basis for a charge against
this man concerning those things of which you accuse him.
Young’s: said unto them, 'Ye brought to me this
man as perverting the people, and lo, I before you having examined, found in
this man no fault in those things ye bring forward against him;
Conte (RC): said to them:
"You have brought before me this man, as one who disturbs the people. And
behold, having questioned him before you, I find no case against this man, in
those things about which you accuse him.
Ye have brought this man unto me. If I thought this Man was dangerous I
would have had Him hauled here on my own orders. This hearing is solely and totally your responsibility. If things are not going as you assumed, it’s
because you’ve given me no reason to do what you wish. [rw]
as one that perverteth the people. In some
cases that would deeply concern me because it would involve public order and
stability. But you’ve used language that
could cover such a problem but doesn’t have to, and you’ve given no
usable evidence to prove that it should involve my governing concerns at
all. [rw]
and, behold, I,
having examined Him before you. It
hasn’t been in private or secret—at least not in part. I’ve heard nothing from you nor in answer to
any question of mine that would justify the kind of course
you insist I must take. (At this
point he must feel more than a little annoyance at their transparent effort to
use him for their own purposes.) [rw]
The I is emphatic; you bring a charge, I after a public
examination find it to be baseless. [56]
have found no
fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse Him. To put it even more bluntly: I have to have something to
justify convicting Him of anything . . . and you’ve totally failed to provide
me a reason—not even a decent excuse.
WEB: Neither
has Herod, for I sent you to him, and see, nothing
worthy of death has been done by him.
Young’s: no, nor yet Herod, for I sent you back
unto him, and lo, nothing worthy of death is having been done by him;
Conte (RC): And neither did
Herod. For I sent you all to him, and behold, nothing deserving of death was
recorded about him.
and, lo,
nothing worthy of death is done unto [has been done by, NKJV] Him. The charges
are not proved against Him. They had
every opportunity of proving them, first before Pilate, and then before Herod,
unjustly subjecting Him to trial before two men in succession; and yet after
all that [neither declared Him guilty].
There could be no better evidence that He was innocent. [11]
WEB: I will
therefore chastise him and release him."
Young’s: having chastised, therefore, I will
release him,'
Conte (RC): Therefore, I will
chastise him and release him."
Note
that this chastisement was not in [preparation for] His crucifixion and
therefore not that punishment the Romans used to inflict upon malefactors as a
preparative to their crucifixion. Pilate
intended it [to] exempt Him from that death they so studiously endeavor to
expose Him to. [50] [1 of 6]
This
was the point at which Pilate began to yield to the fatal vacillation which
soon passed into guilt and made it afterwards impossible for him to
escape. He had just declared the
prisoner absolutely innocent. To
subject Him, therefore, to the horrible punishment of scourging merely to
gratify the pride of the Jews, and to humble Him in their eyes (Deuteronomy
25:3), was an act of disgraceful illegality, which he must have felt to be most
unworthy of the high Roman sense of “Justice.”
[56]
In
effect, he has thrown Jesus’ enemies “a bone to chew on:” Yes, I’ll do something to get you off
my back. But this is severe punishment
in and of itself—sometimes even causing death by
itself--and I’m going beyond the existence of evidence to do even this much. But there is simply no way I can go beyond
this, no matter how much you wish me!
You’ll have His “blood” shed; isn’t that enough without taking it to
execution as well?
(At this point Pilate is surely convinced that there is an element of
brazen irrationality among Jesus’ foes and, perhaps, even considering that they
might be far more dangerous than Jesus by stirring up their own riot and
disturbance against the judicial restraint.
A riot that their minions might spread by rumor and
lies to engage the entire town in open unrest. Today we might say that “Pilate had a tiger
by the tail” and was afraid it might turn and bite him when it couldn’t
get the Victim it really wanted. The
odds were this would not happen, but when leaders are behaving this
irrationally—who knows for sure?) [rw]
WEB: Now he
had to release one prisoner to them at the feast.
Young’s: for it was necessary for him to release
to them one at every feast,
Conte (RC): Now he was required
to release one person for them on the feast day.
It is quite possible that Pilate was attempting to convert the
situation from a time-wasting one for him to one where he actually came out
ahead: faced with the tradition of
freeing a prisoner, by freeing Jesus he permits an innocent man to walk
free and avoids having to release a guilty one. He fulfills the “letter” of the tradition
while gutting it of its probable original intent—to free a popular individual
who has been legitimately convicted of a death penalty crime. [rw]
In depth: The textual
issue revolving around this verse [52]. The sentence
(in the Common Version) here put in parentheses as verse 17 lacks support of
the most decisive documents, and seems to have been a gloss from Matthew 27:15,
which crept into the text. (It is wanting [in manuscripts] A, B, K, L, J, H.—A. H.) It was intended to explain by it the mention
of Barabbas in the next verse. The custom alluded to, of releasing a
prisoner at the Passover Feast, is spoken of by Matthew and John as obligatory
on the governor.
WEB: But they
all cried out together, saying, "Away with this man! Release to us Barabbas!"--
Young’s: and they cried out -- the whole multitude
-- saying, 'Away with this one, and release to us Barabbas,'
Conte (RC): But the entire crowd
exclaimed together, saying: "Take this one, and release to us Barabbas!"
and
release unto us Barabbas. The meaning of his name Bar-Abbas is "Son of a (famous) father," or
possibly Bar-Rabbas, "Son of a (famous)
rabbi." A curious reading is
alluded to by Origen, which inserts before Barabbas the word "Jesus." It does not, however, appear in any of the
older or more trustworthy authorities.
Jesus was a common name at that period, and it
is possible that "when Barabbas was led out, the
Roman, with some scorn, asked the populace whom they preferred—Jesus BarAbbas or Jesus who is called Christ!"
(Farrar.). That this reading existed in
very early times is indisputable, and Origen, who
specially notices it, approves of its omission, not on critical, but on
dogmatic grounds. [18]
WEB: one who
was thrown into prison for a certain revolt in the city, and for murder.
Young’s: who had been, because of a certain
sedition made in the city, and murder, cast into prison.
Conte (RC): Now he had been cast
into prison because of a certain sedition that occurred in the city and for
murder.
made in the city. It occurred locally and not in some obscure part of the province. The people Herod addressed would have
knowledge of it, far more so than if it had happened anywhere else. [rw]
and for murder. Roman or Jewish victim, we know not. Nor the economic status. (Widespread poverty made the well-to-do
natural targets.) Whatever the specifics
of the assault—did Barabbas think it would encourage
a wider outbreak or was it an attack never intending to end in murder in the
first place? So many things we don’t
know and which intrigue us! The
important fact for this narrative was that he was a murderer and of that
there was no doubt. [rw]
“Ye denied the Holy One
and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you,” Acts
was cast into
prison.) Whether anyone else was caught or not, we
are not informed. Whatever had been done or not done in the
disturbance, he had been caught and his guilt of such a major crime
assured that the heaviest possible punishment was coming down on his head.
In depth: The
“sedition” (typically rendered “insurrection,” “rebellion,” or “revolt” by more
modern translations) that Barabbas was involved in [rw]. We know nothing of the nature of this
insurrection but can make a few reasonable inferences from the scanty data:
(1) It
had been recent: the Romans would have
no good reason to needlessly prolong the wait between conviction and
crucifixion.
(2)
Because of this, it also shows the potential for unexpected turmoil even
at the most pious of occasions, such as the Passover. Even assuming it attracted only 100,000
pilgrims—a thoroughly unrealistic undercount—and that only 1% of the group was
willing to engage in the “anonymous” violence of riot and revolution, then you
always had a 1,000 potential troublemakers.
Multiply that number by the number of 100 thousands you believe attended,
and you obtain an even more eye opening number.
No wonder the Romans stationed extra troops in the city at the feasts!
(3) The
troublemaking was
(4)
Unless there had already been executions in the matter, then the known
participants were Barabbas and, quite possibly, the
thief who was crucified with him.
(5)
Only one person is known to have died from the violence—at the hands of Barabbas himself.
In short this sounds more like a riot than
an insurrection, but with a large population center (especially at feast time), even a modest size riot can degenerate into something far
more serious, especially if those who start it are loudly shouting their hatred
of
“Revolutionary?” From the standpoint of a
historian writing at his desk two thousand years later, quite likely not. But from the standpoint of the Roman
governor and, quite possibly public opinion of the day, that “mere” riot was
the potential beginning of an attempt at revolution whether explicitly aimed at
that purpose or not. Any major
riot was such. Hence
the label given—one which we ourselves would surely have given if we had been
living in the city at that time. (Especially as Gentiles, a small minority!)
WEB: Then
Pilate spoke to them again, wanting to release Jesus,
Young’s: Pilate again then -- wishing to release
Jesus -- called to them,
Conte (RC): Then Pilate spoke to
them again, wanting to release Jesus.
Or (and less likely): He did not make them a second speech, but
simply called out again his question as to their choice. [56]
Weymouth: They, however,
persistently shouted, "Crucify, crucify him!"
WEB: but they
shouted, saying, "Crucify! Crucify him!"
Young’s: but they were calling out, saying,
'Crucify, crucify him.'
Conte (RC): But they shouted in
response, saying: "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
saying, Crucify him,
crucify him. It was the first mention of this awful mode
of execution. [52]
The first explicit mention, yes, but the very trouble the
religious authorities are going through to present Jesus as a dangerous Man to
Pilate surely implies such a fate. Short
of death, what could Pilate do to Him that the religious authorities themselves
couldn’t do under cover of enforcing the Mosaical
system against religious dissidents and deviants? [rw]
WEB: He said
to them the third time, "Why? What evil has this man done? I have found no
capital crime in him. I will therefore chastise him and release him."
Young’s: And he a third time said unto them, 'Why,
what evil did he? no cause of
death did I find in him; having chastised him, then, I will release him.'
Conte (RC): Then he said to them
a third time: "Why? What evil has he done? I find no case against him for
death. Therefore, I will chastise him and release him."
Why, what evil hath He done? He does
what a responsible governor should do automatically: demand evidence. Here he has the religious authorities and
their backers in the audience demanding that he do what their religious code of
the Torah prohibited them from doing—(1) convicting without evidence and (2)
doing so because the influential and powerful wanted it done! The “heathen” lands up standing for a higher
standard of behavior than the supposedly “pious!” [rw]
I have found no cause of death in Him. He wants a true “cause” not just a mere
excuse. Truth be told, did he have
enough justification for even the beating he proposes as a compromise? Perhaps he reasons that there is no way Jesus
is going to get out of this situation without a major injustice occurring. He could be reasoning that this hideously
painful injustice was the best he could arrange without the situation flying
totally out of hand—for both Jesus and himself.
Though he had no desire to see the unjustified execution of a pilgrim,
he also had the utilitarian desire and responsibility not to see the city
thrown into total chaos--which, if things continued at this rate, they could
well do. [rw]
I will therefore chastise Him, and let Him go. This was a
horrible punishment. The condemned person was usually stripped and fastened to
a pillar or stake, and then scourged with leather throngs tipped with leaden
balls or sharp spikes. The effects,
described by Romans, and Christians in the 'Martyrdoms,' were terrible. Not only the muscles of the back, but the
breast, the face, the eyes, were torn; the very entrails were laid bare, the
anatomy was exposed, and the sufferer, convulsed with torture, was often thrown
down a bloody heap at the feet of the judge. In our Lord's case this punishment, though not
proceeding to the awful consequences described in some of the 'Martyrologies,' must have been very severe: this is evident from His sinking under the
cross, and from the short time which elapsed before His death upon it. [18]
WEB: But they
were urgent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. Their voices
and the voices of the chief priests prevailed.
Young’s: And they
were pressing with loud voices asking him to be crucified, and their voices,
and those of the chief priests, were prevailing,
Conte (RC): But they persisted, with
loud voices, in demanding that he be crucified. And their voices increased in
intensity.
And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed. Unmindful
even of properity, they joined in the cry of the
rabble. [24]
The crowd—obviously far more numerous than its priestly leaders—had apparently
led the chanting previously. Now the
priestly clique maneuvering the crowd and the arrest join in so that there can
be absolutely no doubt that there was any division in the audience: it was united in behalf of what the priestly
faction wanted--death. Their screaming
told Pilate that they were beyond the point of even arguing about the
matter. They demanded agreement. Period.
And he had to ponder whether the
result of continuing to protect Jesus was going to result in more general chaos
throughout the entire city. And how was he
going to explain that it was all because he had stood up for a Jew the
officials in Rome had never yet heard of?
Hence he capitulates. Faced with
the unknown and fearful—potential chaos in
However it might have been simply giving up in face of
the crowd supporting the priests rather than their own joining in to the
bedlam: “And of the chief
priests” is left out by the best [Greek manuscript] authorities. [52]
In depth: What
happens before the final sentencing that Luke omits [56]? Luke here
omits the flagellation (Matthew 27:26); the derision and mock homage of the
soldiery—the scarlet sagum and crown of thorns; the
awful scene of the Ecce Homo; the fresh terror of Pilate on hearing that He
called Himself “the Son of God,” and the deepening of that terror by the final
questioning in the Praetorium; the “Behold your
King!”; the introduction of the name of Caesar into the shouts of the
multitude; Pilate’s washing his hands; the last awful shout “His blood be on us
and on our children;” and the clothing of Jesus again in His own garments. (See Matthew 27; Mark 15;
John 18, 19.) To suppose that
there was a second scourging after the sentence is a mistake. Matthew 27:26 is retrospective.
Weymouth: So Pilate gave
judgement, yielding to their demand.
WEB: Pilate
decreed that what they asked for should be done.
Young’s: and Pilate gave judgment for their
request being done,
Conte (RC): And so Pilate issued
a judgment granting their petition.
gave sentence. The two
technical formulae for the sentence of death would be—to the Prisoner “Ibis ad crucem” (“Thou shalt go to the
Cross”); to the attendant soldier, “I miles, expedi crucem” (“Go soldier, get ready the Cross”). [56]
In depth: Pilate’s
behavior in light of all four accounts [56]. We can only obtain from all the four
Evangelists, and especially from John, a full conception of the earnestness
with which Pilate strove to escape from the necessity of what he felt to be a
needless crime. If he was not, as Tertullian says, “jam pro conscientia sua Christianus,” he was evidently deeply impressed; and the
impossibility of doing right must have come upon him as a terrible Nemesis for
his past sins.
It is very noteworthy that
he took step after step to secure the acquittal of Jesus. 1. He
emphatically and publicly announced His perfect innocence. 2. He
sent Him to Herod. He made an offer to
release Him as a boon [favor to the people].
4. He tried to make scourging
take the place of crucifixion. 5. He appealed to compassion.
John shows still more
clearly how in successive stages of the trial he sets aside, i., the vague general charge of being “an evil doer”
(18:30); ii., Of being in any seditious sense “a king” (18:39); iii., Of any
guilt in His religious claims (19:12).
He only yields at last through fear (
Weymouth: The man who
was lying in prison charged with riot and murder and for whom they clamoured he set free, but Jesus he gave up to be dealt
with as they desired.
WEB: He
released him who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus up to their will.
Young’s: and he released him who because of
sedition and murder hath been cast into the prison, whom they were asking, and
Jesus he gave up to their will.
Conte (RC): Then he released for
them the one who had been cast into prison for murder and sedition, whom they were requesting. Yet truly, Jesus he handed over
to their will.
but he
delivered Jesus to their will. Note the “their will.” Pilate made the whole thing
“legal,” but it had nothing to do with his personal preferences.
Note: The time frame
of the events before Pilate [52]: The events of this chapter, hitherto, must
have busily occupied the time from
Books Utilized
(with
number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New
Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes.
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint,
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles
of Peter, James,
and Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887;
1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke.
[Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes,
Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John.
1871.
5 = John Kitto.
Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II:
Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord.
Brothers, 1881.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New
Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes.
1868.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus.
Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John.
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin.
Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus.
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes.
"Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications,
1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels.
In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids,
13 = F. Godet.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders
and M. D. Cusin.
14 = D.D. Whedon.
Commentary on the Gospels:
Luke-John. New
15 = Henry Alford. The
Greek Testament. Volume
I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition.
16 = David Brown. "Luke"
in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament.
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.”
In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1950.
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible
...with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies
in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ.
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N.
Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon
of the New Testament. A New
Translation
by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath
Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment:
St. Luke.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke.
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel.
The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both).
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel
of Luke: An Exposition.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of
Board of the Young Womens
Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel.
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint,
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth.
The Bible Manual: An
Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four
Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel
according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on
the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred
Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition.
1884.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian
Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments.
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ.
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus.
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George
H. Hubbard. The
Teaching of Jesus in Parables.
New
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord.
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
47 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran
Company, [no date].
48 = George
MacDonald. The
Miracles of Our Lord.
George Routledge
& Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke.
50 = Daniel
Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament:
The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
51 = Matthew
Poole. Annotations
on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
Computerized.
52 = George
R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament.
1884.
53 = J.
W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
1914. Computerized.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1654.
Computerized.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
1904.
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to
St. Luke. In “The
the
University Press, 1882.