Luke 23, Part One

Jesus before Pilate, number 1 (vs. 1-5)--Luke has it very nicely and very logically laid out for us. At the end of chapter 22, he explained the "justification" of the Jewish leaders for putting Christ to death. But as I noted, that wouldn't mean anything to the Romans, so here in the first part of chapter 23, when they bring Jesus before Pilate--who had power of life or death over Him--they accuse Christ of "saying that He Himself is Christ, a King" (v. 2). That was designed to get the governor's attention.

Yet, Pilate was suspicious. He asked Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews," to which Jesus answered in the affirmative (v. 3). But then Pilate told the Jews, "I find no fault in this Man" (v. 4). The only conclusion I've been able to come to is that the governor thought Jesus was a harmless nut. The Jews responded to this by accusing Jesus of stirring up the people, creating dissension and civil disorder (v. 5). That would bother the Romans, too, but it's possible that Pilate had never heard of Jesus, or if he had, had no evidence that He had been creating disturbances. Pilate recognized, as Matthew wrote, that the Jewish leaders were simply jealous of Jesus and therefore, that He had done nothing wrong, much less deserving of death.

Jesus before Herod (vs. 6-12)--Luke provides this part of Jesus' trial, which is omitted by the other writers. When Pilate learned that Jesus was a Galilean, and thus under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him there, hoping that Herod could handle the matter. Herod had long wanted to see Jesus, "and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him" (v. 8). There's no pure motive here. Herod questioned Jesus, and when the Lord wasn't forthcoming with what was wanted, "treated Him with contempt and mocked Him," (v. 11), and returned Him to Pilate. Luke adds the curious thought that, though Pilate and Herod had been at odds up to that time, they now became friends. Why? Who knows? Maybe they had a good laugh together. Barnes suggests that the civility Pilate showed to Herod in the case may have had something to do with it, but it looks to me like the Roman governor was simply trying to get rid of Jesus, not show Herod respect. It's something we don't know for sure.

Before Pilate, number two (vs. 13-25)--So Jesus' fate rests in the hands of Pontius Pilate. Pilate again states that he found no fault with Jesus, "neither did Herod...and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him" (v. 15). So, the governor was going to "chastise Him (a sop to the Jews, no doubt) and release Him" (v. 16). Pilate, who was not a good man (see my addendum at the end of Matthew 27, Part 1, for some history of the man), was, however, in this case being imminently fair--with the exception of having Jesus beaten. There was no cause for that. But the hatred and lack of control of the Jewish rabble that had been brought together by the chief priests caused the governor some concern. Luke plainly says that Pilate wanted to release Jesus (v. 20), but it had to have been equally obvious to him that by doing so, he would have small riot on this hands. Pilate was in a quandary. If he crucified an innocent man, the Roman government was going to want to know why; Roman law was fair on these matters. But if Pilate couldn't control the people he governed, Rome would want to know the answer to that one, too, and he would probably have been replaced. Finally, however, he bent to the will of the Jewish leaders and condemned Christ to death. It was the easy way out for the governor, and does not speak highly of his ruling abilities.