J. Jesus sentenced (23:13–25)
J. Jesus sentenced (23:13–25)
Now we see how Pilate was compelled to sentence Jesus to death. But Luke makes it clear that this was very much against the governor’s wishes, for Pilate recognized that Jesus was innocent. Indeed four times he said this (4, 14–15, 22; cf. John 18:38; 19:4, 6). The pressure of the high priests for sentence against an innocent man posed a terrible dilemma for Pilate, and the Gospels make it plain that he tried hard to avoid making a decision. He started by trying to get the Jews to deal with the whole matter themselves (John 18:31). Later he sent Jesus to Herod (7). He attempted to get the Jews to accept Jesus as the prisoner to be released at Passover (Mark 15:6), and he offered to beat Jesus and release him (16). But in the end he could not avoid making the fateful decision.
13–14. Pilate’s summoning of the chief priests and the rulers and the people shows that he was preparing for a public announcement. He repeated part of their charge and referred to an examination before you. This makes it plain that Luke has omitted much. It makes it plain also that Pilate had had a good look at the charges. And having done so, he found Jesus not guilty.
15. And this verdict was not alone. Herod supported it for, Pilate says, he sent him back to us. AV reads ‘for I sent you to him’, but this is the reading of inferior MSS and we should accept RSV. Pilate reasons that the tetrarch would not have acted as he did unless he was convinced that Jesus was not a malefactor.
16. The suggestion that Jesus should be chastised before being released strikes us as curious. If he was innocent, he should have been released without further ado. But in Roman law a light beating was sometimes given together with a magisterial warning, so that an accused might take greater care for the future. Many commentators speak of this as scourging and remind us that men were known to have died under this punishment. But A. N. Sherwin-White shows that what is meant here is a lighter punishment.6 Pilate was apparently trying to appease the Jews. If he vented some judical displeasure on Jesus they might be satisfied and acquiesce in the release of the prisoner.
17–19. In some MSS the words which appear in AV as verse 17 are found, but they are inadequately attested and appear to be an importation from Mark 15:6. Such an insertion would be favoured by the fact that verse 18 does not follow on very smoothly from verse 16 and a scribe might well try to improve the connection. Luke’s narrative is highly compressed. The custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover (Mark 15:6; John 18:39) is not attested outside the Gospels, but this kind of thing was done elsewhere. There is nothing unlikely about it. When Pilate spoke of release the crowd immediately called for Barabbas (the name means ‘son of the father’). From the beginning they made it clear that it was this man, not Jesus, whom they wanted. This would no doubt have been partly because the high priests knew how to manipulate the comparatively small number who could crowd round the praetorium, partly because the partisans of Barabbas would have taken advantage of the opportunity to try to get their friend set free, and partly because nobody would have taken seriously the thought that Jesus was a criminal. If they were having a prisoner released, let it be a real one! Barabbas was evidently a member of what we would call the resistance movement, judging from the reference to insurrection. No doubt the murder (cf. Acts 3:14) had taken place in connection with this uprising.
20–21. Pilate did not give up immediately. But the crowd rejected his approach and called for a crucifixion. This is the first time this ominous shout appears. In all the Gospels the demand for Jesus’ crucifixion arises only after Pilate has proposed releasing him as the favoured prisoner at the festival.
22. For the third time Pilate protested Jesus’ innocence (actually it is the fourth occasion, but v. 15 might be regarded as reporting Herod’s view). Luke makes it very clear that Pilate was not only convinced of Jesus’ innocence but that he also said so repeatedly. Apparently in desperation Pilate now reverted to the suggestion of beating and release that the Jews had already rejected (16).
23. The mob was insistent. Their loud cries give the impression that a riot was beginning to build up. It must have been obvious to Pilate that the situation was becoming increasingly ugly. The mob’s shouts won the day.
24–25. Pilate gave his decision. Luke begins and ends by referring to the Jews, first to their demand that Pilate granted and finally to their will to which he gave Jesus up. We cannot miss the emphasis on the Jews’ responsibility for Jesus’ death. Luke repeats the information that Barabbas had been imprisoned for insurrection and murder, thus highlighting the contrast with the innocent Jesus. There may also be a hint ‘at the substitutionary death of Jesus. The one guilty of death is pardoned (apolyō; cf. 6:37), and the innocent one dies in his stead’ (Ellis). Perhaps we should add that Luke is not being anti-Semitic, much less providing grounds for anti-Semitism in our own day. He is dealing with a specific group of people and maintaining that they brought about Jesus’ death. It was not Pilate nor his Romans who called for Jesus’ execution: it was the Jewish chief priests and their followers. But this means no more than that one group of men was guilty. Luke is not indicting a race and neither should his readers.