Luke 23:1 - 25
Then the whole company of them arose and brought him before Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” 3 And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” 4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.” 5 But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”
6 When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. 7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. 9 So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. 10 The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. 11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him. Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate. 12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.
13 Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. 15 Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and release him.”
18 But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”— 19 a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder. 20 Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus, 21 but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” 22 A third time he said to them, “Why? What evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death. I will therefore punish and release him.” 23 But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus over to their will.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Pilate not find guilt in Jesus after He admitted He was a king?
2. Why did Herod send Jesus back to Pilate?
3. Why were Herod and Pilate enemies and why did they become friends?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard says:
ReplyDeleteI would like you to be thinking of four questions as we read this account: The first one is, why did Pilate marvel at the silence of Jesus? Second, Why did the crowd choose Barabbas instead of Jesus? Third, Why did Pilate scourge Jesus before his crucifixion? And fourth, Why did the soldiers mock him with such passion and cruelty?
Now be alert to these as we read this account, because as we seek to answer these questions, we will get at the story behind the story.
that momentous night when he had been betrayed and arrested, brought before the high priests and condemned by them in an illegal night meeting. But early the next morning he is brought before them again, and the priests hold a consultation with the entire Sanhedrin. Their meeting at night was illegal. In order to justify their actions, they have to hold a meeting in the daytime.
The reason they had to consult together was because they knew that the charge on which they had condemned Jesus would never stand before the Roman governor. They condemned Jesus for blasphemy. They said that he claimed to be God, so he was worthy of death. But the Romans would pay no attention to that charge, so they had to come up with something else before they sent him to Pilate. Luke tells us that they levied three charges against him: First, he was charged with perverting the nation, that is, arousing troublemakers, creating riots and dissension. Second, he was charged with forbidding the payment of tribute to Rome, teaching people to not pay their taxes. Third, he was charged with wanting to be king instead of Caesar. Now it is this last charge that Pilate seized upon as being the only important one of the three.
Pilate seized the occasion to say to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Now Jesus' answer has puzzled a lot of people. He did not say, as he had previously said to the priests, "I am." He said, "You have said so," or "So you say." Many have been troubled by that, for it is neither an affirmation nor a denial, but simply, "That is what you say. Am I the King of the Jews? According to your way of thinking, you would call me King of the Jews." Why was he not more positive? I think the answer is clear in John's gospel. John 18:36, 37 says Jesus went on to say, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, ..." He makes clear to Pilate that his kingship is no threat to Rome whatsoever. I think it is very clear that Pilate understood it that way and was relieved of any fear that Jesus was indeed trying to foment a revolution against Rome.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeleteIf we read between the lines here we can see the priests began to see that Pilate understood that Jesus was not challenging the authority of Rome and their case was beginning to fall apart. They are angry, Mark tells us, and begin to accuse him of many things. Pilate "perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up." Now Pilate was no fool. He saw through all these empty charges and understood what the priests were trying to do and why. What the priests wanted was Jesus' power and authority with the people. Again and again they had tried to gainsay what he said, and to trap him with his own words, but they could never catch him. He always had a word, a simple word, that utterly demolished them and all their schemes. Such craft and power made them angry and envious.
Now to all these additional charges that the priests heaped upon him, Jesus remained absolutely silent. He just stood there. Now why did Jesus remain silent, and why was the governor so struck by this silence of Jesus?
I think that here, before Pilate, it was quite possible for Jesus to save himself from the cross. For it was evident to him that Pilate knew he was innocent and wanted to deliver him and was seeking some way to do so. If he had replied to Pilate in any way, the governor would have used his words to dismiss the charge and free him immediately. It is obvious that Pilate's sympathy at this point is with Jesus, not with the priests.
Now I think we have to ask the question, Why did they choose Barabbas? The answer seems to be that they were disappointed with Jesus. Now, when they saw him standing helpless before the Roman governor, saw his apparent unwillingness or inability to make any defense or to get out of this by any means or to do anything against the Romans, all their loyalty to him collapsed.
the crowd was demanding it, and Pilate was a man-pleaser. So he scourged Jesus. Now it was not the normal practice to scourge a prisoner before crucifying him. There is no evidence that the other thieves who were crucified with Jesus were scourged before they went to the cross. But Pilate ordered Jesus to be scourged. I often have wondered why it was that Pilate ordered this scourging, knowing that crucifixion would follow. But I think it is clear that this was the last attempt by Pilate to spare Jesus. He hoped, by the scourging, to awaken the sympathy of the crowd.
This mockery was a strange thing. They did not usually do this with those sentenced to crucifixion. They could callously take a man out and nail him to a cross, then go to breakfast. But they went through this mockery of Jesus that seems to have a tremendous passion behind it. Notice they called the whole band together, all the soldiers who were off duty or lounging around, so they were all joined together in this. It was spontaneous. They did not have to do this, they decided by themselves to indulge in this cruel and insulting mockery. They made the crown of thorns and jammed it down on the Lord's head; they put a reed in his hand as his scepter and bowed down before him; they spit on him, and jerked the reed out of his hand and hit him over the head with it.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeleteWhy this strange insulting mockery? Now, they were not angry at Jesus. What they were angry at was the Jews. All the pent-up hatred and resentment against this stubborn and difficult people came pouring out and found its object in this lonely Jew whom they understood was regarded in some sense as King of the Jews. All the foul mass of bigotry and racial hatred came pouring out against Jesus.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeleteThis trial was held immediately, in the morning for good reason. "It was necessary for the Sanhedrin to bring its business to Pilate as soon after dawn as possible because the working day of a Roman official began at the earliest hour of daylight. Legal trials in the Roman forum were customarily held shortly after sunrise.” (Lane)
The Jewish leaders took Jesus to Pilate because they did not have the legal right to execute their own criminals. There were times when the Jews disregarded this prohibition of the Romans and executed those they considered criminals, such as at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:57-60). Yet they did not take things into their own hands regarding Jesus because they knew the multitudes had a favorable opinion of Jesus and if Pilate executed Him, they could distance themselves from the political fallout.
The Jewish leaders had reason to expect a favorable result when they sent Jesus to Pilate. Secular history shows us he was a cruel, ruthless man, and completely insensitive to the moral feelings of others – surely, they thought, Pilate will put this Jesus to death.
There was something working against this expectation. History tells us that Pilate simply didn’t like the Jews, and that he believed they were a stubborn and rebellious people. Since he was constantly suspicious of the Jews, when they brought him a prisoner for execution he immediately suspected there was a hidden agenda at work.
Ironically, Jesus stood accused of doing exactly what He refused to do: taking a political stand against Rome.
Jesus was indeed the king of the Jews, but not in a political or military sense. This is why He said “yes” to Pilate’s question, but “yes” with a reservation (It is as you say).
No doubt, Pilate had seen many men grovel for their lives before him. He also stood in judgment of many men as the governor of a Roman province. Yet there was something different about Jesus that Pilate marveled at.
Pilate knew Jesus was an innocent man (Luke 23:14 records him as saying, I have found no fault in this Man). Yet Pilate had a politically explosive situation on his hands. He had the choice between doing what was right (free an innocent man) or what was politically expedient (execute a man brought before him by the Jews for treason).
In addition, Pilate was no friend of the Jews. He could see through their manipulation, and he knew that the chief priests had handed Him over because of envy. This made Pilate want to find a way to free Jesus even more.
“If one wonders why the crowd was fickle, he may recall that this was not yet the same people who followed him in triumphal entry and in the temple.
Add to Jesus’ condition the horror of being scourged. The goal of the scourging was to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse and death. The physical and mental abuse meted out by the Jews and the Romans, as well as the lack of food, water, and sleep, also contributed to his generally weakened state. Therefore, even before the actual crucifixion, Jesus’ physical condition was at least serious and possibly critical.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeleteWhy did Jesus remain silent when questioned by Pilate? Why didn't He defend Himself against the accusations? Hamilton says, "Some see His silence as another occasion when Jesus was intentionally fulfilling the words of the prophets, in this case Isaiah 53:7:
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
"I picture dignity; resolve; a certain righteous disdain for the high priest; and an awareness that the trial will end in His own death, regardless of what He says, and that God will use His death to change the world forever."
Born in a stable, sought out by shepherds from the fields and wise men from the east, Jesus was born for just this moment. That's why He remained silent.
---
When we put all four Gospels together, we see that Jesus endured a night of six trials. The first trial was before Annas, the political boss of Jerusalem. The second was before Caiaphas, the high priest. The third trial was held at daybreak before the Sanhedrin to make it legal. A trial at night was invalid. The fourth trial was before Pilate, and Pilate found no guilt in this Man from Nazareth. The fifth trial was before the Jewish monarch, Herod, who demanded a miracle, and when Jesus would not perform for him, he had Him beaten and sent Jesus back to Pilate. The sixth trial was before Pilate again in which he again found no fault in Him but put Him before the people to be released, but the people chose Barabbas.
Their charge against Jesus was blasphemy; therefore they believed Jesus was worthy of death. But they also understand that the charge of blasphemy would be of no interest to Pilot. They had to come up with a political charge that would force Pilot to take action. So the charge is that Jesus is claiming to be King of the Jews. That would make Him guilty of high treason.
A little history on Pilate:
Pilate, whose name is Latin for "one skilled with a javelin," was the Roman counsel for Judea and Samaria for ten years, from AD 26 to AD 36. He was the fifth Roman counsel in this region, and the name Pontius means: "fifth" and may be more of a title than a name. Little is known of him prior to coming to Jerusalem, but much of his activities there and his subsequent career is recorded by Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and later Eusebius.
The region that he controlled for Rome was considered the most difficult of postings, the combination of religious and political differences between the Romans and the Jews made this a volatile region of the Roman Empire. When Pilate governed Judea and Samaria, he was a comparatively young man. Historians of the time gage him to be in his late twenties or early thirties.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeletePilate did not like the Jews, nor did he like making concessions to them as he had proven rather cruelly in the past. But he was wary of them and their sometime influence in Rome and knew he had to tread carefully. The description of him as "inflexible, merciless, and obstinate" was a Jewish viewpoint, but had some truth in it. He was quite ready to shed blood to have his way. He was a typical Roman procurator, a military man exalted above his rank as a demonstration of favor. But that he had some idea of justice comes out in his dealings with Jesus.
Early in his appointment by the Emperor Tiberius as the procurator of Judea, Pilate moved his army by night from Caesarea into Jerusalem bearing ensigns with the emperor's image. Previous procurators had avoided bringing any kind of image into Jerusalem since it offended the Jews who recognized this as emperor worship and as breaking the first and second commandments. Pilate was still at his palace in Caesarea when this happened, so a large delegation of Jews incessantly pleaded outside the palace for five days for these idolatrous images to be removed. Pilate sent in the soldiers on the sixth day, threatening death at their insults of Caesar. But the Jewish demonstrators prostrated themselves, bared their throats for the Roman swords, showing their willingness to die, if need be, to rid Jerusalem of idols. Pilate relented and removed the images.
After that, he "appropriated" funds from the sacred temple treasury (the "Corban") to build an aqueduct. In response to the Jewish outrage for this blatant act of stealing from the temple treasury, Pilate sent soldiers among them dressed as Jews, yet armed with clubs. They viciously beat and murdered many of the people, delivering Pilate from their complaints but adding to his reputation for savagery. Additionally, he ordered golden shields placed in Herod's Palace in Jerusalem, shields inscribed with Caesar's image. The Jews complained so strongly that word came to the emperor, who ordered Pilate to remove the shields and their offensiveness to the Jews.
Pilate's desire and demand for power finally caught up with him when a large number of Samaritans gathered at Mt. Gerizim to search for the hidden golden objects of the Tabernacle. Some were armed, and Pilate saw this as a threat and had his troops massacre many people. A formal complaint of this incident was registered with Rome, and Pilate was removed from office in disgrace.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDelete"King of the Jews" is a loaded title and implied that He was therefore planning rebellion, for many insurrectionists had taken the title "king." There had recently been such an insurrection which had failed, and there were at the time prisoners there who had killed during that insurrection and were awaiting punishment, one of whom was called Barabbas.
Had Jesus given a direct affirmation of the question, and said, "YES," the proceedings would have ended, and Pilate would have had the legal right to sentence Him to die. But Jesus did not really give an affirmative answer, He said"It is, as you say."
The NIV, which states, "Yes, it is as you say," is too positive a translation of Jesus' words. His answer to Pilate's question is, essentially, "The statement is yours." The form of expression is not a direct affirmation; but it is certainly not a denial. Jesus was acknowledging that it was in some way so, but not in the terms in which Pilate understood it. The Fourth Gospel gives us more details.
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36 NASB)
Pilate obviously understood what Jesus was saying, Jesus said that He was a king, but not in a political way. Pilate did not see Jesus as a political enemy to Rome. He found no guilt in Jesus.
The chief priests were bringing charges against Jesus, and Pilate wonders why Jesus doesn't respond to their charges. Jesus' silence did more to convince Pilate of His innocence than any protest. He was experienced enough to recognize the special pleading of the accusers and to note that they had no real evidence. And he didn't like them anyway.
By Roman law, a defendant who refused to make a defense had to be assumed guilty; yet Roman officials typically offered a defendant three opportunities to respond before convicting by default, and Pilate offers Jesus at least two here. It is no wonder, then, that Pilate is amazed by Jesus' silence.
Notice that the man the crowd wants released is guilty of the very thing they falsely charge Jesus with insurrection.
Barabbas was most likely a leader of a group of Jewish revolutionaries called Zealots. They were zealous in their resolve to eliminate, exterminate, and extricate the Romans. The Zealots used the Biblical prophecies of the Messiah crushing the enemies of Israel, as a Biblical basis for their rebellion.
Barabbas was what the people wanted--he fulfilled the expectations of the people, whereas Jesus did not. Barabbas was more of a Messiah, in the eyes of the people, than was Jesus. Israel viewed Messiah as a warrior-prince who would expel the hated Romans from Israel and bring in a kingdom in which the Jews would be promoted to world dominion. Jesus didn't fit this, but Barabbas did. Barabbas was more of a savior to the people, in their estimation, than was the Lord Jesus Christ.
So his wife tells him to have nothing to do with Jesus, because He is a righteous man, and he knows that Jesus is innocent so he wants to release him. As a side note here, many historical records indicate that Pilot's wife became a Christian following the crucifixion.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeleteThis is the One who touched the untouchables; the One who loved the unlovables. Why did this crowd want Him dead?
The answer to that comes in understanding who this crowd is. This crowd did not come from among the pilgrims who had kept the Passover, and having eaten their meal would be resting and preparing for the day ahead, not knowing of the drama that was being carried out. Rather it would come from those in Jerusalem, who had a particular purpose in being there because of the custom and because of the men who were being held. They had probably come specifically seeking the freedom of one of the insurrectionists.
This cry to "crucify him" could only first have arisen from the enemies of Jesus; the religious leaders of Israel. But the others probably joined in, not because they hated Jesus, but because they wanted their man, Barabbas, set free. Barabbas was in support of violent action against Rome, Jesus was not.
It was clear to Pilate that they were not to be trifled with. Passions were running high. Pilate would have recognized the signs of a crowd approaching the point of getting out of control.
The Romans had a saying about their law: "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." Nothing was to come before justice in the Roman mind, but Pilate was thinking for himself, trying to secure the power he had and giving in to the pressure of the people.
Pilot is on very thin ice politically. Pilot was a representative of the Roman government, but it had numerous clashes with the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem. The religious leaders had filed formal charges against Pilot on several occasions, and Rome was tired of it. Pilot was convinced if it happened again, he would probably lose his post. So he's in a very delicate position politically. By now Pilate had given up on any idea of justice. His only desire was to pacify this crowd that had suddenly become so fired up, and if it meant the life of an innocent man, it was out of his hands.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2019/04/mark-151-15-very-early-in-morning-chief.html?view=flipcard continued:
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents: Answering questions:
1. Why did the chief priests hand Jesus over to Pilate?
Two Reasons: a. They did not have the authority to execute someone. b. They were trying to avoid blame from the people who were still fans of Jesus.
The chief priests sometimes did execute people (like Stephen), but they played political games. Although they were envious of Jesus and wanted Him dead for that reason, they also had political reasons to want Him dead. Jesus' fans wanted Him to be their Messiah and lead a rebellion against Rome. The chief priests wanted to avoid the wrath of Rome, so they delivered Jesus over to them. But, when Pilate found Jesus innocent of rebelling against Rome, they still wanted Jesus dead out of envy.
2. Why didn't Jesus answer the accusations?
Because He came to earth to die for us. He didn't want to avoid that. Also, there was nothing He could say or do (without resorting to super natural means) at this point to avoid that fate. The chief priests were determined to kill Him and they were not about to let that go.
3. How did the chief priests stir up the crowd to choose Barabbas?
My guess is that, ironically, they convinced the crowd that Jesus wouldn't be the kind of Messiah that they wanted (ironically, because they attempted to convince Pilate that He was). I think the crowd was a plant of blood thirsty people who just wanted to be entertained by a death. At the point they were given a choice, they went with the bloody death that they have been anticipating.
4. How was Pilate trying to satisfy the crowd?
Pilate was on thin ice politically. He had already had complaints against him sent to Rome. He was ready to do whatever they insisted upon. It had gotten to the point where justice was not his top priority.
5. Why did Pilate have Jesus flogged?
Some believe that it was a last ditch attempt to save Jesus life. He may have been attempting to slake the blood thirst of the people by presenting Jesus to them in such sorry shape. From what I have heard, people don't often recover fully from a scourging. I think he may have been giving himself and the people a way out of directly killing Jesus.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/23-1.htm says:
ReplyDeleteThey present three types of unworthy relations to Jesus Christ.
I. We see first the haters of Jesus.
So fierce is their hatred that they swallow the bitter pill of going to Pilate for the execution of their sentence. Their accusation, if it had been ever so true, would have been ludicrous on their lips; and we may be sure that, if it had been true, they would have been Jesus’ partisans, not His denouncers.’ Every man in that crowd was a rebel at heart, and would have liked nothing better than to see the standard of revolt lifted in a strong hand. Pilate was not so simple as to be taken in by such an accusation from such accusers, and it fails.
What a hideous and tragic picture we have here of the ferocity of the hatred, which turned the very fountains of justice and guardians of a nation into lying plotters against innocence, and sent these Jewish rulers cringing before Pilate, pretending loyalty and acknowledging his authority! They were ready for any falsehood and any humiliation, if only they could get Jesus crucified. And what had excited their hatred? Chiefly His teachings, which brushed aside the rubbish both of ceremonial observance and of Rabbinical casuistry, and placed religion in love to God and consequent love to man; then His attitude of opposition to them as an order; and finally His claim, which they never deigned to examine, to be the Son of God.
II. We have Pilate, indifferent and perplexed.
Of course Pilate knew the priests and rulers too well to believe for a moment that the reason they gave for bringing Jesus to him was the real one, and his taking Jesus apart to speak with Him shows a wish to get at the bottom of the case. So far he was doing his duty, but then come the faults.
When Jesus tried to reach his conscience by telling him that every lover of truth would listen to His voice, he only answered by the question, to which he waited not for an answer, ‘What is truth?’
Further, Pilate sinned in prostituting his office by not setting free the prisoner when he was convinced of His innocence. ‘I find no fault in this man,’ should have been followed by immediate release. Every moment afterwards, in which He was kept captive, was the condemnation of the unjust judge.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/23-1.htm continued:
ReplyDeleteIII. We have the wretched, frivolous Herod.
This is the murderer of John Baptist-’that fox,’ a debauchee, a coward, and as cruel as sensuous. He thought of our Lord as of a magician or juggler, who might do some wonders to amuse the vacuous ennui of his sated nature. Time was when he had felt some twinge of conscience in listening to the Baptist. The sure way to stifle conscience is to neglect it. Do that long and resolutely enough, and it will cease to utter unheeded warnings. There will be a silence which may look like peace, but is really death. Herod’s gladness was more awful and really sad than Herod’s fear. Better to tremble at God’s word than to treat it as an occasion for mirth. He who hates a prophet because he knows him to be a prophet and himself to be a sinner, is not so hopeless as he who only expects to get sport out of the messenger of God.
Then note the Lord’s silence. Herod plies Jesus with a battery of questions, and gets no answer. If there had been a grain of earnestness in them all, Christ would have spoken. He never is silent to a true seeker after truth. But it is fitting that frivolous curiosity should be unanswered, and there is small likelihood of truth being found at the goal when there is nothing more noble than that temper at the starting-point.
Ridicule is a dangerous weapon. It does more harm to those who use it than to those against whom it is directed. Herod thought it an exquisite jest to dress up his prisoner as a king; but Herod has found out, by this time, whether he or the Nazarene was the sham monarch, and who is the real one. Christ was as silent under mockery as to His questioner. He bears all, and He takes account of all. He bears it because He is the world’s Sacrifice and Saviour. He takes account of it, and will one day recompense it, because He is the world’s King, and will be its Judge.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/23-11.htm says:
ReplyDeleteA gorgeous robe - A white or shining robe, for this is the meaning of the original. The Roman princes wore "purple" robes, and "Pilate," therefore, put such a robe on Jesus. The Jewish kings wore a "white" robe, which was often rendered very shining or gorgeous by much tinsel or silver interwoven. Josephus says that the robe which Agrippa wore was so bright with silver that when the sun shone on it, it so dazzled the eyes that it was difficult to look on it. The Jews and Romans, therefore, decked him in the manner appropriate to their own country, for purposes of mockery.
Sent him to Pilate - It was by the interchange of these civilities that they were made friends. It would seem that Pilate sent him to Herod as a token of civility and respect, and with a design, perhaps, of putting an end to their quarrel. Herod returned the civility, and it resulted in their reconciliation.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-23-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteWe do know from Luke 23:50-51 that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin but "had not consented to their plan and action." Mt 27:57 tells us that Joseph "had also become a disciple of Jesus." John adds that while he was a disciple of Jesus, he was "a secret one for fear of the Jews." Was he absent when the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus? We cannot state with certainty.
---
Pilate came to power about A.D. 26, close to the time when two of his contemporaries, Sejanus in Rome and Flaccus in Egypt, were pursuing policies apparently aimed at the destruction of the Jewish people.
---
Pilate was not a noble character. In fact, if it were not for his influential connections through marriage, he would never have come even to the relatively insignificant post he held as procurator of Judea. He came from Spain, being a native of Seville. He had joined the legions of Germanicus in the wars on the Rhine. After peace had been secured, he went to Rome to make his fortune. There he met and married Claudia Proculla, the youngest daughter of Julia who was the daughter of the emperor Augustus. From the perspective of Pilate's future this was a wise move. Claudia had connections with the highest levels of Roman government. But morally it was a disgrace; for Julia, who thereby became Pilate's mother-in-law, was a woman of such depraved and coarse habits that even in decadent Rome she was notorious. Augustus, her father, avoided her presence and eventually banished her. It is reported that afterward, whenever someone would mention the name of his daughter to him, Augustus would exclaim, "Would I were wifeless or had childless died!" Unlike Pilate, a man of nobler instincts would not have married into such a family. Nevertheless, through his new connections Pilate applied for and was awarded the procuratorship of Judea, which post he assumed in a.d. 26. He was the sixth procurator (Ed: But see prefect). Those before him were: Sabinus, Caponius, Ambivus, Rufus, and Gratus.
---
J C Ryle makes an interesting comment - The mere fact that the Jews were obliged to apply publicly to a foreign ruler to carry out their murderous plan was a striking proof that the 'sceptre had departed from Judah' (Genesis 49:10) when the Messiah came.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-23-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that some time later the Jews did exercise the power of capital punishment, illegally, in the stoning death of Stephen (Acts 7:58), there was a great deterrent in the case of Christ, and that was the involvement of Annas (John 18:13, 24). In A.D. 15, while Annas was the Jewish high priest, he led the Sanhedrin to violate this law when there was temporarily no procurator in Judea. That action resulted in his being deposed by Valerius Gratus that same year. It seems reasonable that Annas would have had a great influence on the decision of Caiaphas, the high priest during Christ’s trial, since he was Caiaphas’s father-in-law, and the case of Christ was one that involved great popular opinion.
the Roman governor had absolute legal authority to deal with noncitizens, such as Christ, and to prescribe the death penalty, without fear of having his authority challenged. As far as the procedure which a governor would follow is concerned, it is documented that he could “deal with crime inquisitorially, i.e., by investigating on his own initiative and by any means at his disposal.“ It is clear that “judicial administration in the provinces was much less precise and technical than that which was required in Rome itself.“ It is this fact which enables the flexibility and informality in Pilate’s dealings with Christ to be understood. There was nothing improper or unusual about it.
It is known from history that Pilate was removed from his position as governor in A.D. 36. The event that led directly to this was Pilate’s leading his troops against some restless Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, and conducting a needless massacre (ED: HE FALSELY VIEWED THEM AS INSURRECTIONISTS AND KILLED MANY RELIGIOUS PILGRIMS). The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, the legate of Syria (ED: HE WAS PILATE'S IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR), concerning this, and he immediately deposed Pilate and sent him to Rome to answer the accusations before the Emperor Tiberius. However, by the time Pilate had reached Rome, Tiberius was dead, and Caligula was on the throne. What happened to Pilate following this is a matter of some conjecture. Though there are many traditions, Eusebius stated that Pilate committed suicide (ED: BUT THIS IS NOT DEFINITIVE)....Pilate’s character is not to be envied: he appears as a vacillating, compromising individual more concerned with political expediency than with equity at the trial of Christ. His actions may not be condemned because they were illegal; however, his actions may justly be condemned because he acted against his own conscience (Matt. 27:24), and also against what was morally and ethically correct.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-23-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteJohn MacArthur writes that "Herod’s life ended in disgrace: Herodias would ultimately prove to be Herod’s downfall. After Emperor Caligula granted Herodias’s brother Agrippa I (Acts 12:1) the title of king, she demanded that Herod go to Rome and obtain the same title. But before Herod and Herodias reached Rome, a messenger from Agrippa accused Herod of wrongdoing. As a result, Caligula deposed Herod who, accompanied by Herodias, was banished permanently to a city in what is now France.
---
John MacArthur notes that "The entire series of trials was filled with irony. The one whom men judged is the judge of all men; the one whom men condemned will eternally condemn them. The perfectly righteous, sinless, and innocent one was condemned as a blasphemer and criminal. The one who always pleased holy God did not please sinful men. Men sought to kill the very one who gave them life. The Lord Jesus Christ was declared a blasphemer for claiming to be who He truly is, making His accusers blasphemers. All of the wicked participants in Christ’s trials who judged and condemned Him did nothing but what God had predetermined must happen. Their decisions did not determine His fate, but rather their own. They wasted the most monumental, unparalleled opportunity that anyone could ever have—a personal encounter with the Son of the living God, the Creator of the universe and the Redeemer of sinners."
---
Pilate was again hopeful, but every play he made only made his defeat surer. To yield an inch from his first verdict (Lk 23:4) overthrew the entire verdict. That is why the Sanhedrists hung on. All they had to do was to hang on, and they did. He who yielded so much would yield also the rest. It was just as unjust to chastise Jesus for no crime that merited chastisement as to put him to death without proving a crime that was worthy of death. Pilate's proposal is a self-indictment of criminal injustice. He shrank from the bloodguilt of executing Jesus; he did not shrink from chastising him. The fearful inconsistencies of worldly logic in moral matters are astounding. To hope to escape the devil by paying him a half-price is the folly of making him certain that you will pay also the other half.
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Why did Pilate not find guilt in Jesus after He admitted He was a king?
John records further conversation. Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world, convincing Pilate that Jesus was no threat to Rome. Also, Pilate did realize that the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead out of envy.
2. Why did Herod send Jesus back to Pilate?
It doesn't really say. Pilate said that Herod didn't find Jesus guilty. It's possible that Herod didn't really care. Apparently, the fact that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod in the first place was some sort of honor. Perhaps Herod was trying to honor Pilate by sending Him back?
3. Why were Herod and Pilate enemies and why did they become friends?
When Herod the Great died, the kingdom was broken into four pieces and given to his sons. Herod Archelaus inherited Judah, but did such a bad job that Caesar removed him from power and gave it to Pilate. Meanwhile Herod Antipas (the Herod in question) petitioned Caesar for Judah to be added to his territory. Caesar denied the request. All of this caused bad feelings between Pilate and Herod.
When Pilate recognized Herod's jurisdiction over Jesus, it was a peace offering (whether Pilate meant it as that or was just shirking responsibility).