CRITICAL NOTES
Luke 23:1. Whole multitude.—Rather, “company” (R.V.). The word is a different one from that so often used to denote “the crowd,” or “the mob.” It here simply means the members of the Sanhedrim. Pilate.—His rule in Judæa had been marked by many acts of harshness and cruelty. His hatred of the people rendered it necessary for considerable adroitness to be made use of by the Jewish rulers to get him to do as they wished. They drop the charge of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God, and concoct an accusation of a political character.
Luke 23:2. We found.—This a legal term, implying “we have tried and convicted him of.” This fellow.—Rather, “this man” (R.V.). Perverting.—Seducing, deceiving. The nation.—Rather, “our nation” (R.V.). Forbidding to give tribute.—This is a direct falsehood. See Luke 20:20-26. Christ a King.—This is a translation of the term Christ, or Anointed One, for Pilate’s benefit.
Luke 23:3. And Pilate asked Him.—The history in the fourth Gospel casts great light on Luke 23:3-4 (see John 18:33-38). Jesus had been brought into the Prætorium, while His accusers were without. Pilate examines Him, and finds that the kingdom spoken of is not “one of this world.” Then he returns to the accusers and declares Jesus to be innocent of the charge. Without the supplementary narrative of St. John, Pilate’s words in Luke 23:4 would scarcely be intelligible. Pilate must have known well that one who had done the things laid to the charge of Jesus would be no such object of hatred to the Sanhedrim. He may have had some previous knowledge of the actual character of Christ’s public ministry.
Luke 23:5. And they were the more fierce.—Rather, “but they were the more urgent” (R.V.); or perhaps the words mean “they strengthened” or “redoubled the charge.” All Jewry.—Rather, “all Judæa” (R.V.). This is another indication of more prolonged labours in Judæa than are recorded in detail in the synoptical Gospels. From Galilee.—Perhaps this is mentioned to provoke Pilate against Jesus, because of his quarrel with the Galilæans (Luke 13:1) and enmity against their ruler (Luke 23:12); it serves, however, only to give Pilate an apparent way out of the difficulty.
Luke 23:7. Sent Him.—The word is a technical one, and implies transference of a case to a court of competent jurisdiction. Also was at Jerusalem at that time.—I.e., the Passover-time. Herod usually resided at Tiberias, but had come up to Jerusalem to the celebration of the Passover; Pilate, who usually resided at Cæsarea, had come up to see to the maintenance of order while the capital was crowded with pilgrims. The purpose of Pilate in sending Jesus to be tried by Herod was to remove the responsibility of condemning an innocent person from himself, and to conciliate the Jewish ruler At that time.—Lit., “in these days” (R.V.).
Luke 23:8. Desirous to see Him.—Cf. Luke 9:7-9. St. Luke shows himself specially well informed in matters concerning Herod Antipas. Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3), was in Jerusalem at this time (Luke 24:10), and was a most faithful disciple of Jesus. She may have supplied information concerning Herod’s relations with our Lord. Heard many things of Him.—Omit “many things”; omitted in R.V. “Had heard concerning Him.”
Luke 23:9. Answered him nothing.—“The murderer of the Baptist, who was living in open incest, and who had no higher motive than curiosity, deserved no answer” (Farrar).
Luke 23:10. Vehemently accused Him.—Probably this refers to accusations of blasphemy, added to those made before Pilate; the former, Herod, as a Jew, might be expected to treat as of grave importance.
Luke 23:11. Men of war.—I.e., the body-guard in attendance upon Herod. Set Him at nought.—Treated as deserving of nothing but contempt. Gorgeous robe.—“The same word as in Acts 10:30—‘shining’—not purple or scarlet (as in Matthew 27:28; John 19:2), but white, in allusion to the claim to kingly dignity” (Speaker’s Commentary).
Luke 23:12. Were made friends together.—Rather, “became friends with each other” (R.V.). At enmity.—The cause is unknown; probably it was about some question of jurisdiction. Herod may have resented Pilate’s summary procedure in the case of the Galilæans above mentioned.
Luke 23:14. Ye have brought.—Rather, “ye brought” (R.V.).
Luke 23:15. For I sent you to him.—A better supported reading gives, “for he sent Him back unto us” (R.V.). Is done unto Him.—R.V. has “done by Him.” A much better rendering is suggested in The Thinker, September 1893: “Nothing deserving death has been laid to His charge.” The writer contends that the word is used as a technical term for taking proceedings against any one accused, and he points out that this view is substantiated by the rendering in the Vulgate, not “factum ab eo,” but “actum ei,” ago, meaning bringing a suit, raising an action, or taking proceedings, civil or criminal—against any one.
Luke 23:17. For of necessity, etc.—This verse is omitted in the R.V., as insufficiently supported by MS. authority. It may be a gloss, but one phrase in it, translated “of necessity,” is highly idiomatic and characteristic of St. Luke’s style. It is not a mere repetition of any of the parallel passages. In some MSS. it occurs after Luke 23:19. “The Gospels are our only authority for the existence of the custom of releasing a prisoner at this religious festival, but it is in accordance with Roman policy” (Farrar).
Luke 23:18. All at once.—R.V. “all together”; lit. “in full number.” Barabbas.—The name is not strictly a proper name, but means “son of a [distinguished] father,” or if the reading Barrabban, found, as Jerome says, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, be preferred, “son of a teacher.” In Matthew 27:16 some MSS. of no great authority have “Jesus Barabbas.” As an insurgent against Roman rule, he probably enjoyed a certain measure of popularity in some sections of Jewish society.
Luke 23:20. Willing to release Jesus.—Rather, “desiring to release Jesus” (R.V.).
Luke 23:21. But they cried.—Rather, “but they shouted” (R.V.).
Luke 23:22. Hath He done.—Rather, “hath this man done” (R.V.).
Luke 23:24. Gave sentence.—The word is a technical one, and means “gave final sentence.”
Luke 23:25. Him that for sedition, etc.—This substitution of a description for the name Barabbas is an indication of the writer’s indignation. It is but seldom that the evangelists display personal feeling in their narratives. Whom they had desired.—Rather, “whom they had asked for.”
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Luke 23:1-25
Various Forms of Antagonism to Christ.—In the trial before the ecclesiastical court of His nation Jesus had been condemned to death on the charge of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God. He is now brought before the civil court, in order that the sentence of death may be ratified, and is subjected to examination both by the Roman judge and by Herod, to whom, as the ruler over Galilee, the case was referred. A court of justice is usually an impressive sight, and suggests to a thoughtful mind the Divine tribunal before which all men must appear. But in this case accusers and judges are seen to be animated by malign and unworthy motives, and the forms of justice are simply used to cloak the murder of an innocent man. We see enmity, frivolity, and injustice in those who co-operated together to put Jesus to death.
I. The enmity of the priests.—The grounds of their hatred were their dislike of the teaching of Christ, their irritation at His correction of the abuses at which they had connived, and their jealousy at the popularity which He enjoyed in certain parts of the country and in certain sections of society. They felt forced into antagonism towards Him—that they must either submit humbly to Him or crush Him; for He did not merely ask for toleration, but required them to accept Him as the Messiah and the Son of God. And a like choice is now forced upon all to whom Christ is presented; they must either yield to Him or resist Him. He cannot be ignored. So resolute are they in their determination to secure His death, that they are unscrupulous in selecting means for their end. A heathen judge, they know, would probably refuse to sanction a sentence of death on a charge of blasphemy, and therefore they proceed to accuse Him of being a disturber of the public peace and of setting up claims to sovereignty which must necessarily lead to insurrection against the Roman power. And when these accusations break down, they use their influence with the people, to stir them up to demand the death of the prisoner, in spite of the judge’s repeated protests that he could find no fault in Him. Their conduct strikes us with the deeper horror when we reflect that they were men who served at God’s altar, and who should have been conspicuous examples of uprightness and compassion. The evil-doing of a minister of religion is all the more heinous because of the vows of consecration which rest upon him.
II. The frivolity of Herod.—Jesus was sent to Herod because, as a Galilæan, He belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction. Could there be a greater contrast between king and subject than was here presented? The record of Herod’s life is black with many a stain. He had been a debauchee and a murderer, and his guilt was enhanced by the fact that he sinned against the light—he had stifled the voice of conscience, violated the precepts of the religion he professed, and resisted and slain the messenger from God who rebuked his evil life. He was the only man concerning whom Christ used an epithet of sheer contempt—“that fox.” He had once been susceptible to religious impressions, and for a time shown some signs of amendment of life, in obedience to the preaching of John the Baptist. But the sin he would not give up had seared his conscience and hardened his heart. He had once trembled at the report of Christ’s teaching and works, from the superstitious belief that this new prophet was the Baptist come to life again. But all this is now past. He has now no fears in the presence of Christ Himself, but is glad to see Him, as one of whom he has heard so much. He thinks of Christ as a wonder-worker, and hopes to induce Him, as the price of His acquittal, to perform some miracle. So frivolous and debased has he become that he looks upon Jesus as a kind of juggler or magician, who may provide some amusement for him by performing some wonderful feat. “Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing.” He had nothing to say to one of Herod’s temper and spirit. There were no formal judicial proceedings conducted by the Jewish king, or Christ might have opened His lips in defence or protest, as He had done in the presence of His other judges. The Saviour was silent because He would not gratify the cravings of an empty curiosity. Yet let us not imagine that mere indignation and contempt animated our Lord in thus dealing with Herod. The silence He maintained was the very thing most fitted to speak home to the conscience and heart of the Jewish king. “Had there been a spark of conscience left in him, those Eyes, looking him through and through, and that Divine dignity, measuring and weighing him, would have caused his sins to rise up out of the grave and overwhelm him. Jesus was silent, that the voice of the dead Baptist might be heard.” The profound significance of the silence of Jesus was evidently not understood by Herod, or he did not wish to understand it. He affected to treat Christ as a pretender whose claims had broken down and whose power had deserted Him; and with mockery and contempt he dismissed Him from his presence.
III. The injustice of Pilate.—Had the Roman judge been called upon to deal with religious questions, his task would have been a difficult one, owing to his ignorance and inexperience, and we would sympathise with the perplexities of his position. As it was, the path of duty should have been very plain to him. He had found the Prisoner innocent of the charges brought against Him—charges which were of a kind easily dealt with, as they involved merely matters of fact and not of belief or opinion. All that he was required to do was to order the release of a man whom, after full examination, he had found innocent of the charges brought against Him; and his failure to do this has rendered his name infamous in history. He was fully aware of the evil motives that animated the enemies of Christ, and of their hypocrisy in pretending to be zealous for the maintenance of Roman authority and for the payment of tribute to Cæsar. Yet he allowed himself to be used as the tool of men whom he despised, for the gratification of an enmity in which he did not share. His sole motive was to acquire a little popularity with his subjects, and he did not consider the judicial murder of an innocent man too high a price to pay for it. Nor would he have hesitated to do as he was asked but for the strange impression produced upon him by the demeanour and words of Jesus. And so he tries one way after another to escape from the perpetration of the crime into which he was being forced; he seeks to impose the responsibility of dealing with the case upon another; he suggests scourging as a substitute for death; and he proposes to grant release as an act of favour. His miserable subterfuges only revealed his weakness and indecision to those who were resolute that their victim should not escape out of their hands. The case of Pilate shows us how dangerous it is to resist the voice of conscience, to what fatal errors indecision and infirmity of purpose may expose us, and how selfish aims may blind the soul to the beauty and majesty of Christ.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luke 23:1-25
Luke 23:1-12. Jesus before Pilate and Herod.
I. The Jews brought three charges against Jesus.—All of these were carefully chosen to influence Pilate against Him. Two of them were false—that He perverted the nation, and that He forbade to give tribute to Cæsar. The third was true in the letter, but thereby the more treacherously false in the spirit—that He claimed to be Christ—a king. Pilate took up the last only, and learned that Christ’s kingdom was not temporal, but spiritual.
II. The mob expected this.—But Pilate can be moved by clamour and threats. And Pilate gladly evades responsibility by sending Jesus to Herod.
III. Herod is pleased to see Jesus.—But his pleasure arises from vulgar curiosity—he hopes to see some miracle done by Him. But Jesus is silent before Herod. What a lesson in that! He conversed with the ignorant Roman, but to the well-taught Hebrew’s questions He has nothing to say. For Herod has thrown away exceptional opportunities, and now what is there but a fearful looking-for of judgment? Hastings.
Luke 23:1. “Led Him unto Pilate.”—The heathen world becomes partaker with the Jewish in the greatest wickedness that has ever been committed. In this it appears that the true light is hated as well by those who are under the Law as by those who are without the Law, and the judgment (Romans 3:19-20), appears as a perfectly righteous one. But at the same time there is also revealed therein the grace of God, as having appeared to all who believe, without respect of persons (Romans 3:21-31).—Van Oosterzee.
Luke 23:2. Began to accuse Him.”—Note
(1) the contemptuous description—“this fellow” or “man,” without naming Him;
(2) the affected gravity of the accusers—“we found”;
(3) the pretence of consulting for the best interests of the people—“our nation” (R.V.).
The Threefold Accusation.—
1. His seeking to turn the people aside from the good road on which they and the Romans would have them to walk.
2. Forbidding payment of tribute to Cæsar.
3. Claiming to be a king.
“Christ a King.”—The explanation of Christ as meaning a king is a stroke of malice. It was only by attributing a political meaning to the title of king that the accusation of forbidding to pay tribute could be brought against Him. If He were a king in the ordinary sense of the word He must necessarily forbid the payment of tribute to any other but Himself. They declare that He has done what, according to their theory, He was logically bound to do.
Luke 23:3. “The King of the Jews.”
I. Jesus did not look much like a king.—He stood there, with hands bound, and a cord round His neck. Pilate’s question sounds like ridicule. Yet Jesus answered, “Yes, I am a King.” Strange answer! Where were His throne, His crown, His sceptre, His royal robe? Who recognised His sway? Pilate probably looked at Him with mingled contempt and pity.
II. But to us to-day how different does it all appear!—Christ is on the throne. In heaven He is honoured as “King of kings.” On His head are many crowns. All over the earth, as well, His sway is felt.
III. And He was really a king when He stood before Pilate.—For His kingdom is spiritual, a kingdom of truth, righteousness, grace, holiness, love. He seemed the weakest of men; in reality He was the grandest, mightiest, kingliest. The real power of the world is Christ’s power—the kingdom whose sway is over human hearts and lives.—Miller.
Luke 23:4. “I find no fault.”—Though Jesus had confessed that He claimed to be a king (Luke 23:3), the conversation which is recorded in John 18:33-38 had clearly proved to Pilate that he had not to do with one who was a rival to Cæsar.
Luke 23:5. “He stirreth up the people.”—The false accusations are a testimony to Christ’s integrity. None of the things He had actually said and done could be brought forward as a charge against Him.
“To this place.”—An allusion to the triumphal entry of Christ into the city a few days before.
Luke 23:6. “Whether the man were a Galilæan.”—Those who gave the information to Pilate were ignorant of the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Luke 23:7. “Sent Him to Herod.”—Not necessarily to relieve himself from responsibility, but perhaps either to obtain a favourable opinion from Herod concerning the accused or to elicit some further information in reference to the case, as well as to show courtesy to the Jewish king.
Luke 23:8-12. Jesus and Herod.
I. Herod’s reception of Jesus was characteristic.—He was not abashed or terrified. He once had been so, but all that was past. He was “exceeding glad” to see Jesus. It was a new excitement. And it was also a compliment from the Roman. And chiefly he hoped to see Jesus work a miracle. Now was his chance to gratify his curiosity and wonder. He put Christ on the level of a new singer or dancer. He expected entertainment from Him. He addresses Him in a friendly way. He talks of religion, and waits for no replies. No mouth is more voluble than that of a characterless man of feeling.
II. Christ has nothing to say to such a man.—Herod grew angry at His silence, but Jesus held His peace. For one thing the entire proceedings were irrelevant. Jesus had been sent to Herod to be tried, not to be made a spectacle of. Religion to Herod was a mere diversion. So Christ will not stoop to please him. He has nothing to say to such a character. There are many to whom religion and its services are only a form of amusement or dissipation. Christ never speaks to the soul in such surroundings. Did Jesus miss an opportunity? Should He have spoken? His silence was in itself an eloquent appeal. Christ’s silence is the most eloquent of all appeals.
III. Did Herod understand the meaning of Christ’s silence?—We cannot tell. It is impossible to say. Probably he did not wish to understand it. At all events, he acted as if he did not; he treated it as if it were stupidity. Jesus, he thought, was discredited, was an impostor, a mere pretender. So he thought, and so he said, and his satellites chimed in. And they would, doubtless, think it a great stroke of wit for Herod to send Jesus back to Pilate with a gorgeous robe cast over His shoulders, probably in imitation of the white robe worn at Rome by candidates for office. The suggestion was that Jesus was a candidate for the throne of his country, but one so ridiculous that it would be a mistake to treat Him with anything but contempt.—Stalker.
Luke 23:8. “Hoped to have seen some miracle.”—No petitioner, however humble, ever had his hopes disappointed when he applied to Christ for relief; yet Christ defeats the hopes of this frivolous prince.
Luke 23:9. “Answered him nothing.”—Mark
(1) the wisdom,
(2) the dignity,
(3) the eloquence of this silence. “The shade of John could have observed no more inviolable silence, if it had really appeared to his murderers” (Van Oosterzee).
I. The hatred of the priests.
II. The contempt of the courtiers.—How easily might Christ have overwhelmed both with confusion! Yet He refuses to work any miracle for His own advantage now, as in the temptation in the wilderness.
Luke 23:10. “Vehemently accused Him.”—From Luke 23:15 we learn that Pilate had commanded His accusers to appear before Herod. Doubtless in any case they would have gone, in order to try to prevent their Victim’s escape from condemnation. The indifference manifested by Herod only increased their vehemence in accusing Him; yet, after all, it was Herod’s disappointment, and not their accusation, that led to fresh ignominy being heaped upon the Saviour.
Luke 23:11. “Set Him at nought.”—“He is despised and rejected of men. He was despised and we esteemed Him not.”— Isaiah 53:3.
“Mocked Him.”—The priests accuse the Saviour, the courtiers mock Him. The former are animated by hatred, the latter by contempt.
“A gorgeous robe.”—Unconsciously Herod did honour to Christ, as did Pilate afterwards in the title which he ordered to be affixed to the cross.
Luke 23:12. “Became friends together.”—Though the coalition of Herod and Pilate was not based upon any active enmity to Christ, yet by the indecision of the Roman judge and the indifference of the Jewish king, the way was prepared for the unjust sentence of death being passed upon the Saviour. And so their conduct was a virtual fulfilment of the prophecy in Psalms 2:2. Cf. Acts 4:27.
Luke 23:13-25. “Back to Pilate.”—Herod’s worldliness was of a frivolous type. Pilate’s was strenuous—the worldliness which makes self its aim and subordinates everything to success. The more common type. It reveals itself in Pilate under the search-light of Christ’s scrutiny.
I. Pilate should have released Jesus, on receiving Him back from Herod.—But he most unjustly threatens to scourge Him, as a sop to the rage of the mob, and then set Him at liberty as a tribute to justice. A most unjust proceeding! but characteristic of the man. The spirit of compromise was characteristic of Rome. Manœuvre and expediency were universal. It is not true that this spirit is always and everywhere displeasing to God?
II. He grasps at a way of escape.—It was the custom to release a prisoner on the Passover morning. He welcomes the chance of releasing Christ. He offers Jesus to the crowd—unjustly—for Jesus was not a criminal; and worse, he was staking the life of an innocent man on a guess, which might be mistaken, as to the fancy of the mob. He, doubtless, considered it kind. And the offer he makes—Jesus or Barabbas—is the essence of all the great choices of life. Every individual has to face this decision.
III. The mob chooses Barabbas.—A surprise, a staggering blow, to Pilate. Jesus is left on His hands. “What shall I do with Jesus?” He tries to free himself of guilt. He washes His hands theatrically. He ought to have exerted them rather. Blood does not come off so easily. He could not thus abnegate responsibility and cast it upon others. He ought to have opposed the popular will at all risks. But this would have meant loss to himself. The mob gained their end. They clamoured for Christ’s blood, and the will of Pilate broke down before their well-directed persistency.—Stalker.
Luke 23:13. “And the people.”—Pilate communicates his views both to the rulers and to the assembled people, for both were now associated together in seeking to have a sentence of condemnation passed upon Jesus.
Luke 23:14. Three Good Points in Pilate’s Procedure—
I. He had carefully investigated the case.
II. He had declared his conviction of the innocence of Jesus.
III. He had sought the opinion of one who was qualified to give a decision upon the questions at issue.
“Perverteth the people.”—I.e., one who turns them from their allegiance to Cæsar.
Luke 23:15. “Nor yet Herod.”—The phrase implies that if even Herod, though well acquainted with the Jewish Law, and, as the sovereign of the accused, especially solicitous that He might not be allowed to stir up the people against the Romans, Herod’s patrons—if even he could find no matter of complaint, the case might be looked upon as decided.
Luke 23:16. “Chastise Him and release Him.”—Pilate hoped, by this proposal, to effect two objects:
1. He would not burden his own conscience by imposing a heavier sentence.
2. He would do something towards satisfying the enmity of the Jews against the Saviour. A certain measure of mercy towards Jesus is implied in the suggestion; but “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”
Luke 23:17. “Must release one.”—And what does this signify but that at this great Feast, the true Passover, we, to whom death is due, are let go free? Christ is taken; we, who are guilty, like Barabbas, escape.”—Williams.
“He must release.”—Perhaps this custom commemorated the great national deliverance from Egypt, and so was appropriate at the time of the Passover.
Luke 23:18. “Release unto us Barabbas.”—I.e., one who was actually a revolutionary—guilty of the same kind of crime as that of which they had accused Jesus.
Luke 23:19. “And for murder.”—In this and in Luke 23:25 there is an undertone of indignation at the blindness and hardness of heart which impelled the Jews to make such a choice. Cf. Acts 3:14, “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.”
Luke 23:20. “Spake again to them.”—The substance of his speech or exclamation is not given, but may be guessed from the words “desiring to release Jesus.” The excited multitude interrupted him and did not allow him to give full expression to his desire.
Luke 23:21. “Crucify Him.”—For the first time the terrible cry is here heard, which, as the secret wish and thought of the chief priests, is now by these placed upon the people’s lips, and with fanatical rage raised by them.—Van Oosterzee.
Luke 23:22. “What evil hath He done?”—It is very noteworthy that Pilate 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.
3. He made an offer to release Him as a boon.
4. He tried to make scourging take the place of crucifixion.
5. He appealed to compassion.—Farrar.
Luke 23:23. “And of the chief priests.”—Even they, unmindful of decorum, join in the impetuous cry of the raging people for blood.
Luke 23:24. “It should be as they required.”—The weakness of Pilate led him to become the confederate of those whose hatred of Christ he did not partake in. His case is a striking illustration of the saying, “He that is not with Me is against Me.”
Luke 23:25. Fatal Decision.
I. So ends Pilate’s weak struggle with his conscience and with his sense of right.—He has tried every way to evade the issue; then he has temporised; at last he has yielded. His name is pilloried for ever as the man who delivered Jesus to the will of the mob. He is known by no other act. Better a thousand times to have remained in obscurity.
II. He took water to wash his hands.—In symbol he declared that he was not responsible for Christ’s death. It was in vain. The water did not wash away one particle of his guilt. On him the final responsibility rested. No other could send Jesus to the cross. That others urge us to sin does not take away our guilt for that sin. No being in the universe can compel us to do wrong; if, then, we do wrong, the sin is our own.
III. The Jews took the responsibility of Christ’s death.—“His blood be on us, and on our children!” The self-imprecation was awfully fulfilled. The story of the next forty years is the terrible record of its fulfilment. The crime was successful, but what came of the success in the end? Sin always brings woe. The worst of all sins is sin against the Lord Jesus Christ.—Miller.