Jesus on Trial (Luke 22:66–23:25)

The experience of Jesus in the high priest’s house was not an official trial in the sense of it being legal. But the officials there knew that unless they could have a valid reason for condemning Jesus he would not be punished. In order for him to be punished he would have to be found guilty by a Jewish court and a Gentile court (the Roman governor would be the judge here). The problem they had was that the same reasons for punishing him would not be acceptable in both courts, which explains the different approaches in each case.

Jesus Before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71)

At daylight, Jesus was taken to the Sanhedrin which was composed of different Jewish groups. It contained both religious leaders and civil rulers and it was also composed of different religious parties such as the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Given the diversity, it would not usually be easy for such a body to agree unless the prisoner was guilty of a serious charge such as blasphemy. Even then, it would be hard to prove it unless the prisoner admitted it or made a statement that could be regarded as blasphemous. 

Luke focuses on how the accusers obtained their evidence. They asked Jesus if he was the Christ. His answer was clear, confident and challenging. It was clear in that he said he was the Messiah. It was confident in that he knew where he as Messiah would reign – his place of power would not be in Jerusalem but at the right hand of God. It was challenging in that it forced his accusers to consider who he was.

We can think briefly about these responses of Jesus. First, there is the clarity of his answer. It is the case that the shorter the answer to a question the better if nothing else needs to be said. Jesus knew that his accusers were aware of all the evidences that existed for him being the Messiah such as his miracles and his teaching. They had seen him perform those signs and they had heard his instructions to his disciples. All he had to say was that he was the Messiah and then their own knowledge of his ministry would come to mind. But he knew that they were not interested in his mission.

Second, rather than point them to what was past he informed them of his future. They had a plan for his future that they were determined to bring about and they would not have realised what he was saying to them. Their plan was to have him killed and he knew that their plan would be the route by which he would travel to his rightful place at God’s right hand. Before that would happen, he would die on the cross, rise from the dead and ascend to heaven. As he stands on trial he is calm and confident about his future. We may wonder how he could be so. One answer is that he knew what the scriptures said about him, passages such as Psalm 110, a passage that he had referred to during this last week. And he also linked in his destination with him fulfilling the prophecies in Daniel about the Son of Man.

Third, the clear answer of Jesus led them to ask another question about whether he was the Son of God. Since they did not belief that God had a Son, it looks as if they recalled that he claimed to be the Son of God and wanted him to say something in that connection. From their point of view it was blasphemous to suggest that God had a Son and more blasphemous for a person to claim that he was that Son. But the Saviour had no wish to hide who he was. He freely admitted that he was the Son of God even although he knew that it would result in him being condemned for blasphemy.

The Sanhedrin imagined that they had sufficient evidence to convict Jesus before a Jewish court. But they did not have the authority to pass a death sentence on him. For that to happen, he would have to be condemned by Pilate.

Jesus' First Trial Before Pilate (Luke 23:1-5)

When they came to Pilate’s residence, they presented their accusation. We should observe that their accusation was not on the point for which they had condemned him for blasphemy. They knew that if they brought the accusation that he claimed to be the Son of God to Pilate, then the governor would merely regard Jesus as mad and would also regard them as bringing a pointless case to him. So they had to have another, more suitable, accusation which was that Jesus was initiating a political rebellion. We should bear in mind that Pilate had just suppressed that kind of revolt and three of the participants were going to be executed later that day.

Perhaps they imagined that Pilate would not bother with the normal process of justice and condemn Jesus along with those who had been involved in the revolt. Whether they did or not, Pilate proceeded to question Jesus. We need to imagine the scene here. Jesus has been beaten and treated very badly in a physical sense. He would have appeared in a very bad way. It did not take Pilate long to realise that Jesus was not a threat to the Roman Empire in a political or a military way. When Jesus admitted that he was the King of the Jews, Pilate may have felt pity for a person he assumed was powerless. Yet he found that he himself was powerless because although he wanted to release Jesus he could not do so because of the intense pressure of the crowds wanting him to condemn Jesus. He latched on to the information that Jesus was from Galilee as an escape route and send him to Herod’s residence since he was in the city at that time.

As we think of this trial, some questions no doubt come to mind. First, why did Jesus not explain more fully what his kingship was about? We know from other Gospels that he did say that his kingdom was not of this world, but that did not impress Pilate. He also told Pilate that his teaching was truth, but Pilate did not believe in any form of truth. So why did Jesus affirm that he was the King of the Jews? The answer is both simple and sublime. He affirmed it because he was the King of the Jews. He does not affirm that one day he will be their King. Nor does he say that he will become their King should they decide to accept him. Rather he claims to be King which means that he was stating that his accusers were rebels against him. They accused him of rebelling against Rome, but he stated that their actions were against him, a much greater King than Pilate could even imagine. Paul reminds us that Jesus gave a good confession before Pilate, not merely a brave one. He would never deny who he was.

Jesus Before Herod (Luke 23:6-12)

Herod was pleased that Pilate had involved him in the process because he had often wished to see Jesus, and it also meant that he and Pilate were friends again. Herod was more than curious in this regard because we know that he had assumed previously that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead and having been raised he was able to do miracles. It would amuse Herod if such a miracle would be done. On previous occasions when he had met John, John had condemned him for his sins and urged him to repent. On this occasion, the one he had imagined was John but who he discovered was not John had nothing to say to him despite Herod doing his outmost to get Jesus to speak. All Herod with his soldiers could do was deride Jesus and give him new clothing, perhaps a robe to wear over his other clothes.

What ideas come to mind as we think of this appearance before Herod? As far as we can see, Herod did not pronounce a verdict on Jesus unless we want to assume that him giving Jesus some clothes was a sign that he did not believe he was deserving of death. After all, what would be the point of giving new clothes to him unless it was to further the derision. Yet there is something very grand and impressive here, and that is the silence of Jesus. Amid the questioning of Herod, the persistent screaming of accusations by the priests and the taunts of the soldiers, there is one person full of dignity, showing by his silence that this performance in Herod’s place was not worth speaking about. He graced the Sanhedrin with a few sentences, he did the same with Pilate, and he showed his assessment of the antics in Herod’s residence by saying nothing. Solomon had once written that there is a time to speak and a time to refrain from speaking. Jesus knew when to do both.

Jesus before Pilate again (Luke 23:13-25)

Pilate summoned the Sanhedrin and the crowd to hear his verdict, which was that he and Herod found no reason for condemning Jesus to death, although it looks as if Pilate thought Jesus had been guilty of some minor offence for which he should be punished in a lesser way. Perhaps he hoped that this punishment would suffice, but if he did, he had not realised the degree of hatred that the Jews had for the Saviour and how determined they were that he should be killed.

When it came down to it, the Jews preferred someone who deserved his penalty to be released and someone who was innocent to be punished. Pilate revealed his weakness, and the crowd revealed their venom. The outcome was that Jesus was condemned to death by crucifixion.

Lessons

What lessons can we take from these incidents? An obvious one is the clear innocence of Jesus. He can only be condemned by his judges breaking their own law and engaging in injustice, whether it is the Jewish law or the Roman law. Our Saviour was never guilty of any wrongdoing, and we should rejoice in the vindication of his perfect life that was revealed even in the circumstances of sham trials.

A second lesson is the incredible fulfilment of prophecy that occurred. Isaiah had foretold that the Messiah would suffer. Yet he would suffer in an unusual manner. In Isaiah 53:7, this prediction was made: ‘Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.’ Twice here we see his silence, at the trial under Herod and at the second trial before Pilate.

A third lesson that is that judging Jesus has consequences for those involved. We have seen that the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate made their responses to the Saviour. They looked at the evidence and made conclusions. The Sanhedrin decided he was guilty of blasphemy, Herod decided he needed some clothes, and Pilate decided that the death of an innocent man was worth it to keep the peace and avoid trouble. They made their decisions centuries ago, but they are still experiencing the consequences of their choices. Each of them was close to Jesus then, but the real question is whether they are close to him today on his throne. Some of the Sanhedrin disagreed with the decision (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) and perhaps others later repented. But many of them are now in a lost eternity.

A fourth lesson is that we mustmake a judgement about Jesus. Even as meeting him put the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate on trial, so us thinking about him puts us on trial. No doubt we have heard the claim that Jesus was either mad (claiming to be the divine Saviour) or bad (pretending to be the divine Saviour) or he was who he said he was. He puts us in a corner, and we come out of it in one of two options. We either accept he is who he said he is or we decide he is not who he said he is. The fact is, we will make a judgement about him, and we may join the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate on the one side, or we may join those who put their souls into his hands because they know that after his ordeal he went to God’s right hand.