Luke Chapter 23
To get back on track with Luke, the previous chapter told of Peter's denial, Jesus is mocked by the guards, and Jesus is led from the house of Annas to "their council", apparently another place, more official, and the council convicts Jesus of blasphemy punishable by death based on his testimony of himself. It was believable enough for them to condemn him to death, but not enough for them to believe he was the Messiah. Then we move to 23.
From the council, Jesus is taken to Pilate. Luke says the accusers charged Jesus with 1, misleading the nation, 2, forbidding tribute to Caesar - a demonstrable lie, and 3, saying he is Christ - a king. Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king, and Jesus answers "You have said so." He makes no such claim himself. This is the same kind of answer he gave the council. "You say that I am." Pilate says he finds no guilt. But the crowd insists that Jesus is a rabble rouser and must be dealt with. They mention that he is also rousing rabble in Galilee.
Pilate seizes the opportunity to send Jesus to Herod instead, since Jesus is from Galilee, and that is Herod's territory. Herod is glad to have opportunity to question Jesus. Herod has heard the stories of miracles and wants to see one. The questioning goes on for some time, but Jesus remains silent. Ultimately, Herod and his soldiers show contempt for Jesus, and mock him - likely because he doesn't do a miracle for them. So Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate.
2022 - I never noticed this verse before: 10 The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. [Luk 23:10 ESV]. So when Jesus was sent to Herod, the accusers went along, and continued to accuse him even while he was there. I had always assumed that Jesus' questioning by Herod was a private matter, with only Herod and his people present. Not so at all. No wonder Jesus didn't answer.
Pilate says he finds no guilt in Jesus. He says Herod found no guilt in him either, or he wouldn't have sent him back. Pilate's words are "I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges". Pilate's summation:
15 ...Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and release him." [Luk 23:15b-16 ESV]. But the crowd will not have it...
2021 - I would point out here that there has been no mention of the Pharisees in this chapter. I did a quick check, and the last time the Pharisees are mentioned in the book of Luke is back at 19:39, at the triumphal entry, when they urged Jesus to stop his disciples from praising him. The last time before the crucifixion in Matthew was during Jesus discourse in chapter 23. I believe this was in the Temple the second day Jesus was there. Jesus really berates the Pharisees here. They show up one last time in Matt 27:62, when they come with the Chief priests to ask Pilate for a guard on the tomb. Mark last speaks of the Pharisees in 12:13, when some are sent to the temple to try and trap Jesus into saying something he shouldn't. That is, I believe, the same as in Matthew. They were unsuccessful, and after that, dared not question him further. So in the three synoptics, the Pharisees are not shown to participate in the arrest, mock trial, Roman trials, or crucifixion of Jesus. That is quite an interesting thing.
In many Bibles, vs 17 says that Pilate was required to release a prisoner to them. Some Bibles put this after vs 19. Other Bibles exclude the verse altogether. In any case, the verse is introductory to vs 18, which says the crowd asked for Barabbas' release. Yesterday, I think in Mark 15, it seemed to me that some in the crowd may have asked Pilate to release Jesus, but when the conspirators figured out what they were doing they had these people shouted down.
As I read it, Pilate tried to release Jesus three times, and the crowd shouted him down each time. The guilt lays at the feet of the Jews. And yet...Pilate lets them crucify a man that he himself is convinced is innocent. Surely this makes Pilate - and by extension Rome - guilty of complicity in Jesus' death. Here is the verse: 24 So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. [Luk 23:24 ESV] After this, Jesus is led away to be crucified.
Simon of Cyrene is pressed into service. A large crowd is following Jesus, including women mourning and lamenting for him. He addresses them. Including it here:
28 But turning to them Jesus said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.' 31 For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" [Luk 23:28-31 ESV]
I don't think any of the other writers include this. It corresponds - in my opinion - to the time when Jerusalem will be encompassed by armies. It would be bad to have a baby during a prolonged siege. You'd likely be watching your child starve. The reference to the mountains falling ties more to language in Revelation. This phrase is used several times there. These verses should be included in any attempt at explaining Matt 24. 2021 - There are also Old Testament passages that talk about asking the mountains to fall on them. Those too should be included in any study of the phrase. This would truly be an interesting study.
2022 - I think Jesus is referring to the tribulation that will occur between the revelation of the man of sin and the rapture. That is when all those who believe in him will be hounded and persecuted as never before. That is when you don't go home.
Jesus is crucified. The two thieves are mentioned in Luke as concurrent, not later as was implied earlier. Luke also is the one that tells us Jesus said "Father forgive them..." from the cross. Matthew and Mark don't mention that, but only his "why hast thou forsaken me" words.
The people watch, the rulers scoff, one thief seeks to be included in Jesus' saving himself, but puts no faith at all in Jesus, and the other thief is saved. Again, it is only Luke (so far, at least) who has told us about this thief's conversion.
Luke has the temple curtain torn just before Jesus dies, the debt being paid at that point. Only Luke gives us Jesus last words - "...into your hands I commit my spirit". So the words where they thought he called Elijah were earlier. These other words, that Luke does not record at all, are the only words Matthew and Mark record. Luke's audience was Gentile, they likely wouldn't have known who Elijah was - and certainly they wouldn't have known his significance at this point - so Luke leaves them out. Matthew and Mark put them in because their audience is Jews. Once the debt is paid, Jesus dies. I would think that it was Jesus' death that paid it all, and one shouldn't read too much into timing details which were not the point of Luke's book.
What if...what if someone claimed that because of the way this reads - the curtain torn before Jesus dies - that Jesus suffering had already paid the debt, and there was no need for him to die, but God let him die anyway? There are cruel people who might suggest such a thing. How would we answer them? Here's an interesting thing...the Harmony does not include that phrase at all, but cuts off after "the sun's light failing". Both Matthew and Mark put this last phrase in after Jesus had yielded up his spirit. The Harmony, it turns out, has moved this phrase - this last bit of Lk 23:45 - to correspond with where Matthew and Mark put it. The MSB has a note on Luke 23:45 that sends us to the note on Matt 27:51. That note does not address the exact time the veil tore. So. Were I to have to face this question, my answer would be that Luke put all the signs that accompanied the death of Christ together in one spot, where Matthew and Mark - again, because they were talking to the Jews - made sure to get the order right and so better convey the significance of that event. Remember also that Pompey had sliced that veil also, in 63 BC, and removed the scroll of Moses from the Most Holy Place. A Roman soldier went in there and was not struck dead in the instant. Of course, the Ark was not in there at the time.
Now there is another interesting aside, another "sign" that the Israel was only still around so they could reject the Messiah and to receive double for their sins against God. The Ark was taken from the Temple in 586 BC, when Jerusalem fell. It has not been "accounted for" since that time, and since it was on the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, God has not dwelt in Israel in that way since Nebuchadnezzar's time. So why not just skip the 400 year intertestamentary time? Wow. This fits into place nicely. And until a week or so ago, I thought the Ark was still in the Temple until 70 AD. But it had been gone for over 600 years by then.
Once Jesus dies, the Centurion praises God, the crowds that came to watch beat their breasts, and the women watch all this from a distance. Perhaps Luke got many of the details he includes from talking to those very women, and maybe he even talked to the Centurion.
Luke tells us that Joseph of Arimathea, though on the council, had NOT consented to their decision and action. He asks for Jesus' body. Luke records that Jesus was taken down, wrapped in a linen shroud, and buried in a new tomb. Doesn't say it was Joseph's tomb, though it may well have been. Luke makes it clear that no spices were applied to Jesus body, because it was almost the day of Preparation. They looked to see what they would need, and they planned to come back with the spices after the Sabbath.