Luke 23

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 23 JESUS BEFORE PILATE AND HERODLuk_23:1-25 Luke 23:1 —And the whole company of them rose up,—Parallel ac¬counts of this event are found in Matthew 27:2 Matthew 27:11-14; Mark 15:1-5; John 18:28-38. Jesus had been subjected to a threefold trial before the Jews— first, before Annas, next before Caia- phas with a few members of the Sanhedrin present, and last before the entire Sanhedrin after daylight. They condemned Jesus as a blasphemer, but as they could not put him to death without the permission of the Roman authorities, they brought him before Pilate. The Roman trial also comprised three stages: (1) the first appearance before the Roman governor, Pilate; (2) the appearance before Herod Antipas, the native ruler of Galilee appointed by the Romans; and (3) the final appearance before Pilate. “ The whole company” means “ the assembly of the elders of the people” which composed “ their council.” (Luke 22:66.) The Sanhedrin had held its session “ as soon as it was day” that morning in order to ratify the previous decision; it was probably held at the palace of Caiaphas as John says: “ They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.” (John 18:28.) Pilate was the Roman procurator, or governor. Matthew speaks of him as “ the governor.” (Matthew 27:2.) Matthew often speaks of him simply as the governor, but Mark never so speaks of him; Luke speaks of him only once as the governor. (Luke 3:1.) It is very probable that Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, members of the Sanhedrin, were not present. When Pilate became governor his first act was to bring the silver ea-gles of the Roman legion to Jerusalem, and to use money from the temple treasury for secular purposes; this greatly enraged the Jews. Luke 23:2 —And they began to accuse him,—The account of the charges against Jesus is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John as well as by Luke. Matthew and Mark record about the same facts that are given by Luke, while John gives a much fuller record. The Sanhedrin would not enter into the praetorium, but made their charges to Pilate who came out to them. They simply wanted Pilate to ratify their decision; this he refused to do without knowing their accusation and the evidence that they had to give. The Jews felt that this was an insult to their high tribunal, the Sanhedrin. It is to be noticed that the charges they preferred against Jesus before Pilate were different from the ones they preferred against him in their own court; before the Sanhedrin he was charged with the crime of blasphemy, but before the Roman governor he is charged with “ perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.” These three charges before Pilate were false; Jesus had neither perverted the Jewish nation, nor had he forbidden to pay tribute to Caesar, neither was he a “ King” aspiring to an earthly throne. Luke 23:3 —And Pilate asked him,—Pilate simply asked Jesus if the charges were true, and especially if he was “ the King of the Jews.” Before Jesus answered Pilate, he brought out clearly the distinction between a civil and a spiritual kingdom, declar¬ing that his kingdom was “ not of this world.” (John 18:36.) Jesus answered: “ Thou sayest.” This was an affirmative an¬swer. (See Luke 22:70.) All four of the writers of the gospel record Pilate’ s question to Jesus in the same language. (Matthew 27:11 : Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3 : John 18:33.) Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Jesus’ answer in the same language, while John gives a fuller answer.Luke 23:4 —And Pilate said unto the chief priests—Here Pilate declares the innocence of Jesus; his judgment was not pro¬nounced until after the private interview Pilate had with Jesus. Only John relates this interview. (John 18:33-38.) It seems that thus early in the day a multitude had now assembled, and was present with the Sanhedrin. This is the first mention of “ the multitude”; it was now after daybreak; the procession of the Sanhedrin would naturally draw a crowd; some of them may have come to ask for the release of Jesus. (Mark 15:8.) There was need of haste if the condemnation went through before friends of Jesus came. Luke 23:5 —But they were the more urgent,—The Jews kept insisting that Pilate pass judgment on Jesus; it seems that they thought that Pilate had taken the matter too lightly; hence, they were more vigorous in repeating the charge that he perverted the nation or stirred up the people. Pilate had been convinced that Jesus had committed no crime of treason against the Roman government; he was not concerned about their being aroused over any religious teaching. In fact, Pilate did not like the Jews, and he did not care who disturbed their peace of mind so long as they remained peaceful citizens of Rome. The Jews had found that their charge against Jesus as a king did not disturb Pilate, hence they emphasized the charge that he was an insurrectionist. Luke 23:6-7 —But when Pilate heard it,—The Jews had mentioned the fact that Jesus had disturbed their nation “ throughout all Ju-daea, and beginning from Galilee,” hence Pilate is prompted to ask if Jesus “ were a Galilaean.” It is probable that the Jews intended to excite prejudice against Jesus by mentioning Galilee, knowing that Pilate had no love for Herod or the Galileans. If they thought that they would excite prejudice against Jesus by speaking of Jesus as a Galilean, they were again disappointed. So soon as Pilate learned that Jesus was a Galilean, he sought to evade any responsibility by referring Jesus to Herod. Herod was in Jerusalem at that time. Some think that Pilate was not seeking to get rid of a troublesome case, but that he was seeking for an occasion to become reconciled to Herod. At any rate, Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. It was easy for Pilate to do this, as Herod was in Jerusalem at that time, probably to attend the feast. Luke 23:8—Now when Herod saw Jesus,—Herod had longed to see Jesus; he had recovered from his fright that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead. (Matthew 14:1-2.) Herod was still selfish; he wanted to witness some miracle; he was not interested in Jesus as the Messiah or as a Savior; he was weak and sensual and cunning, but superstitious and cruel; he was revengeful. (Matthew 14:9; Luke 3:19 Luke 9:9 Luke 13:32.) Herod’ s curiosity had been excited greatly by the reports that he had heard of the miracles of Jesus; he wanted to be entertained by Jesus’ working miracles; he had no further interest than to gratify his vain curiosity. Luke 23:9-11 —And he questioned him in many words;—Jesus had no desire to satisfy the wicked curiosity of Herod; he asked Jesus questions; we know not what the questions were, save than to know that he was not searching for the truth. Doubtless they were weak and frivolous questions, corresponding to the character of Herod. Jesus made no reply to Herod; he knew Herod’ s motive, and he had no intention of satisfying his curiosity. When Herod propounded his questions to Jesus the “ chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.’’ These Jews were afraid that Herod would not render a verdict in their favor; hence they loudly and piously accused Jesus; what they lacked in facts they attempted to make up in their vehement charges. Herod and his soldiers “ mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.” Herod was greatly disappointed, and he is willing to let his bodyguard join with the Jews in reviling him. The Son of God stood before them, but they could see in him only an object of contempt and derision! Luke 23:12 —And Herod and Pilate became friends—Luke does not state why enmity existed between Herod and Pilate; neither does profane history record the cause of enmity between them. Some have thought it arose from some encroachment of Pilate upon the jurisdiction of Herod. Herod seems to have regarded the case of Jesus as beneath his judicial notice, and Pilate wished to escape judging the case; yet it becomes the occasion of the reconciliation between Herod and Pilate. Pilate had performed an act of courtesy toward Herod, which gave him an opportunity to become friendly with Pilate We find that Luke is the only writer that records the part that Herod had to do with this transaction. We notice that before Herod, Jesus maintained persistent silence, having not the least respect for his character, and being by no means disposed either to gratify his curiosity or recognize his authority in the matter. It is a strange affair for two Gentile rulers at enmity with each other to become reconciled in the trial of Jesus. It is probable that they both agreed in despising Jesus, and in insulting him; it is common today to see the enemies of Jesus agreeing in their opposition to the church. Luke 23:13-15 —And Pilate called together the chief priests—Herod sent Jesus back to Pilate, and Pilate called “ the chief priests and the rulers and the people” together; we are not told why he called “ the people” with the rulers; perhaps he thought Jesus might have some friends among the people who would help him plead for Jesus. Pilate was about to deliver his de¬cree or judgment, hence if the people were present and in sympathy with Jesus, it would make it easier for Pilate to release Jesus. When they were assembled Pilate plainly told them that they had brought “ this man” to him and had preferred certain charges against him, but that he had examined him in their presence and had “ found no fault in this man”; he told them that their accusations against Jesus had not been sustained. Furthermore, he told them that he had sent Jesus to Herod, and that Herod had examined him, and had returned him without any charges proved against him. Pilate thus strengthens his own decree by the official judgment of Herod. He was not worthy of death; he had done nothing which seemed to be a violation of Roman law. Pilate delivers his judgment with emphatic words which imply that the Jews themselves could see that there was nothing to the charges which they made. Luke 23:16 —I will therefore chastise him,—Pilate was convinced that Jesus had done nothing worthy of death, or even worthy of any punishment; but in order to satisfy the Jews, he offers to “ chastise” Jesus and release him. “ Chastise” in the original means “ to bring up a child,” hence “ to instruct,” “ to discipline or correct.” This word is not synonymous with “ punish,” but since it always inplies an infliction, it gradually took the meaning of “ punishment.” ’’ chasten” is derived from this word and properly means to “ purify.” Instead of punishing Jesus with death, Pilate thought to “ chastise” him in order to teach him better. The chastisement that Pilate suggested here was that of scourging. It was a Roman custom to inflict upon criminals before crucifixion such punishment; sometimes during the trial of a prisoner, the Romans inflicted scourging in order to make the prisoner confess to the crime. The Roman scourging was more severe than the Jewish; the number of lashes was not limited to forty among the Romans. The whips were fitted with bones or lead to render the blow more fearful and to tear or lacerate the flesh. The criminal was generally bound to a low block, in a stooping posture, and received the fearful blows upon the naked back. The scourging before crucifixion was generally exceedingly cruel, and victims frequently died while being scourged. Luke 23:17 —The American Revised Version omits verse 17; it seems not to occur in the best manuscripts now available. In the King James Version it is inserted and inclosed in parentheses. It is found in Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; John 18:39. “ Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner.” Though this verse is omitted from Luke, yet the other writers and history fully establish the custom established by the Ro¬mans of releasing a prisoner at the feast; the custom was established to conciliate the Jews and make them more submis¬sive to Roman law at their feast; the Jews gathered from all countries at Jerusalem to keep their feast, and oftentimes they were rebellious. Many insurrections among the Jews occurred at their feasts. Luke 23:18-19 —But they cried out all together,—Matthew and Mark particularly describe the character of Barabbas; Matthew records the dream and message of Pilate’ s wife. (Matthew 27:19.) “ They” include the chief priests, the rulers, and the people; the rulers had “ persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.” (Matthew 27:20.) Mark mentions only the “ chief priests” as being the ones who stirred up the multitude to ask the release of Barabbas. (Mark 15:11.) From Matthew we learn that Pilate himself had suggested the release of Barabbas. (Matthew 27:17.) The Jews who claimed to be sticklers for the law deliberately violate their own law in preferring to release a murderer and put to death the Messiah. (Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-24.) Peter said later in accusing the Jews of the death of Jesus that they had delivered him up, “ and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.” He further charges them that they had denied “ the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted” unto them. (Acts 3:13-14.) The multitude was made up of those who had come to-gether during the arrest and trial of Jesus, and those who had gathered from the streets as they marched Jesus as a prisoner to Pilate’ s court. Luke 23:20-21 —And Pilate spake unto them again,—Pilate, like most weak men, was evidently superstitious, as the tone of his wife’ s message implies. (Matthew 27:19 Matthew 27:24.) He desired to re¬lease Jesus because he knew that he was innocent and that the Jews were envious of him. The people had made their choice; it was opposed to the judgment of Pilate; Pilate asked them what he should do with Jesus. Pilate had hoped that they would choose to release Jesus; he had put up one of the worst criminals that was held in prison at that time, thinking that surely they would choose to release Jesus rather than Barabbas; but now when they chose to release Barabbas, Pilate seeks another way of releasing Jesus. Hence, according to Matthew and Mark, he asks what he should do with Jesus. They, in answer to this query, “ shouted, saying, Crucify, crucify him.” Their clamor was so loud and so persistent that Pilate is swayed by their choice; however, he knows that Jesus is innocent. Luke 23:22 —And he said unto them the third time,—Pilate was persistent in his attempt to release Jesus. He asked them the third time what wrong he had done; they had proved none of their charges; Pilate had let them know that he did not accept the evidence that they gave; furthermore, he let them know that he did not believe that Jesus had done anything worthy of death. In asking them the third time the reason for their demand, Pilate was rejecting all former charges and evidence formerly given. The Jews were as persistent in demanding the death of Jesus as Pilate was in desiring to release him. Instead of acquitting Jesus, Pilate partially laid aside his rights as a judge and asked the decision of the people. (Mark 15:12.) Pilate now, having heard their decision, accepts the situation, but strives to reason with them. If they insist on his death, they must show some crime meriting such a punishment.

Jesus had done nothing worthy of crucifixion. Instead of stopping to reason with them, Pilate should have retraced his steps and acted the part of a righteous judge and released Jesus. However, he again offered to “ chastise him” and release him. Though he had found no evil in him, yet as a matter of expediency, he again proposes to conciliate the Jews by the milder punishment of scourging. The Jews saw their advantage and made the most of it. Luke 23:23-24 —But they were urgent with loud voices,—The Jews with loud and importunate cries demanded that Jesus be crucified. The people led by the rulers prevailed upon Pilate to comply with their wishes. “ Prevailed” implies great and persistent effort before they could induce the governor to pass sentence upon him who they knew and Pilate knew was inno-cent. Nothing short of death by crucifixion would satisfy their rage and bitter hatred. Pilate gave his judicial sentence after the renewed efforts to release Jesus. He had tried every means and method that he knew to release Jesus; he was too weak to exercise his own good judgment; he was too wicked to uphold a righteous judgment. He had no right to pro¬nounce what he knew to be an unrighteous condemnation, and to relieve himself of the responsibility of a judge was impossible.

At this time Matthew records that Pilate took a basin of water and washed his hands before the multitude (Deuteronomy 21:6-9) and said: “ I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man: see ye to it” (Matthew 27:24). Pilate could not have escaped full legal and moral responsibility for his cowardly surrender to the Sanhedrin; the guilt of the Pharisees and Saddu cees unites in the demand for the blood of Jesus, hence they are not free from his blood. This was a bitter mockery of justice in the sentence that Pilate passed; his sentence is not according to the guilt of the prisoner, not in harmony with the testi-mony, but was a yielding to the hatred of the Jews toward Jesus. Luke 23:25 —And he released him that for insurrection and murder—The Jews had asked for the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus; they knew the character of Barabbas; they chose him, not so much because they preferred or endorsed murder, but because they hated Jesus so much. Luke omitted from his record the scourging of Jesus, the mockings of the soldiers, Pi-late’ s appeal to the sympathy of the Jews, their declaring him worthy of death because he made himself the Son of God, Pilate’ s greater fear and his bringing Jesus again into the judg-ment hall, Jesus’ speaking of Pilate’ s power and the greater sin of the Jews, Pilate’ s seeking again to release Jesus, the declar-ing of the Jews that Pilate is not Caesar’ s friend if he let Jesus go, Pilate’ s bringing Jesus to his judgment seat on the pave-ment, the Jews’ answer to Pilate’ s final appeal. THE Luk_23:26-38 Luke 23:26 —And when they led him away,—Jesus was led away to be crucified; Pilate had given his judicial sentence; the rulers of the Jews were now satisfied; they had won a victory. Luke’ s account of the crucifixion is the fullest; Mark describes Simon of Cyrene more fully than do the others. Parallel records may be found in Matthew 27:31-34; Mark 15:20-23; John 19:16-17. As they led Jesus away, “ they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene.’’ He was led out of the city, for the crucifixion took place without the gates of the city. (Leviticus 16:27; Hebrews 13:12.) Criminals were executed outside the city, and ejsus was crucified as a criminal. (Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 15:35; 1 Kings 21:13; Acts 7:58.) The four soldiers (John 19:23) under the direction of the centurion, who usually rode on horseback, led the procession; the victim to suffer followed. Simon of Cyrene came along as Jesus bore his cross; Matthew and Mark record that they compelled Simon to bear the cross of Jesus. We know nothing further of this Simon; Cyrene was an important city in northern Africa between Egypt and the territory of Carthage; many Jews resided there at this time.

Probably Simon with others had come to Jerusalem to the feast; we know that some Jews attended the feast from Cyrene. (Acts 2:10 Acts 6:9.) We know not the weight of the cross; the cross was in various forms. It was originally a simple stake; afterwards it was made of two pieces of wood crossed like the letter T; sometimes it was in the form of the letter X. The transverse beam crossed the upright beam a short distance from the top. Luke 23:27 —And there followed him a great multitude—This multitude was mingled with friends, foes, and those who were cu-rious to see what was to be done. The women who followed lamented; they evidently were not of the company who shouted: “ Crucify, crucify him.” The original conveys the idea that they “ bewailed,” literally “ beat themselves,” and “ lamented,” literally “ wept aloud” for him. Luke is the only writer that records this scene. Usually wailing was accompanied by beating the breast in token of grief. Women were the only ones recorded as weeping for Jesus as he marched to the place of crucifixion; women were the last at the tomb and the first at the tomb on the morning of the resurrection. Luke 23:28 —But Jesus turning unto them said,—This shows that the women were weeping for Jesus, and that they were not from Galilee, but Jerusalem. Jerusalem was soon to be destroyed and these women were to suffer untold evils themselves; Jesus in tenderness and loving-kindness foretold these sufferings. He was going to a glorious victory through death, not for himself, but for others, and they need not weep for him. They should weep for themselves and their children because their children would be involved in the destruction of Jerusa-lem. The sorrow which they were now experiencing was only the beginning of that which would soon come upon them. Luke 23:29-30 —For behold, the days are coming,—The prediction here admits of application to any times of distress and calamity in the history of the Jews; but it seems to have direct reference to the sufferings that should come upon them in the destruction of Jerusalem. “ Blessed are the barren” because, if they had children, they would have to see them suffer the destruction that awaited the doomed city. Such intense sufferings would characterize those days that those who had never borne children would be regarded as fortunate. Among the Jews it was considered very unfortunate for wives to be barren ; but the time would come when this would be reversed. The universal dread of barrenness was felt by every Jewish female in ancient days, but the time would come when they would be glad that they were barren. This language seems to have been taken from Isaiah 54:1. Luke 23:31 —For if they do these things in the green tree,—Jesus here uses a common proverb to convey more vividly the awfulness of their coming sufferings. The green tree is the symbol of the righteousness and the dry tree of the wicked. (Psalms 1:3; Ezekiel 20:47.) If an innocent man should so suffer, what would be the fate of the wicked? The green tree is represent¬ative of one which bears fruit, while the dry tree represents the one that does not bear fruit, but is ready to be burned. The Jewish people were now rejecting him and leading him forth to the death of the cross; upon them would come fearful judgment. They were more guilty than those who would take no part in the crucifixion. (1 Peter 4:12-18.) Luke 23:32 —And there were also two others, malefactors,—“ Malefactor” means evildoer; Matthew and Mark call them “ robbers” (Matthew 27:38 Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:27); they were guilty of some crime, probably that of robbing. Some think that they belonged to the band of Barabbas; however, we cannot determine this. We do not know when the malefactors were condemned ; it seems that they had been condemned previous to the condemnation of Jesus, and were awaiting their execution. It was prophesied that Jesus should be numbered with the transgressors, but nowhere is he called a malefactor. (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 22:37.) These malefactors were conducted by the soldiers to the place of execution and were compelled to bear their own cross. Luke 23:33 —And when they came unto the place—The corresponding word for “ skull” in the Aramaic or Hebrew is “ Golgotha,” while in the Latin it is “ Calvary.” It is thought that it was called “ skull” because the shape of the mountain or hill resembled a skull. Jesus was crucified between the two robbers and on the cross probably that Barabbas was to have suffered on. The governor was accustomed to crucify criminals at the Passover; it was a suitable time, as it would impress on the multitude the importance of submitting to the Roman law. They nailed Jesus to the cross; it is not known whether he was nailed to the cross before it was erected, or after it was erected; both methods were used at that time. Death did not ensue in most cases until many hours after the victim was thus affixed to the cross. Luke 23:34 —And Jesus said, Father, forgive them;—There are seven recorded statements that Jesus made while on the cross; this is the first one that Luke records. We do not know the chronological order of the seven recorded utterances made by Jesus on the cross; they are called “ the seven words.” They are as follows: “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34) ; “ Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43); “ Woman, behold, thy son!” “ Behold, thy mother!" (John 19:26-27) ; “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46); “ I thirst" (John 19:28); “ It is finished" (John 19:30); “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46). They were ignorant of the enormous crime that they were committing; this ignorance, though it did not excuse.them, may have mitigated somewhat their sin. (Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8.) “ Parting his garments among them, they cast lots"; criminals were crucified naked; some think that a linen cloth was bound about the loins; from John 19:23-24, it appears that the four soldiers who are engaged in the crucifixion divided some of the garments among themselves, but cast lot for his coat, as it was without a seam and woven throughout. Luke 23:35 —And the people stood beholding.—Both Matthew and Mark speak of the people scoffing him as they pass by; Luke does not deny this, but adds that the “ rulers also scofTed at him." Luke tells us just what they said: “ He saved others; let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen.” The rulers could not let him die in peace; they were not willing for him to have a quiet moment in which to die. They had been compelled to acknowledge his supernatural power in saving others, and should have believed on him; but they now taunt him with having lost that power when he needed it for his own deliverance; they treated him as an impostor. They thought that if he was what he claimed to be he would be able to save himself; they mocked his claim as the Son of God. They sneered at him and heaped all indignities upon him in his dying moments. How great was their sin! Luke 23:36-37 —And the soldiers also mocked him,—The soldiers joined in the popular excitement and clamor. They were willing in their cruel and crude way to add to the humiliation suffering of Jesus. We are told that they brought him vinegar to drink and derided him ; they mocked him and his claims to be King of the Jews. They used almost the same language that the chief priests used. (Matthew 27:42.) The rulers derided Jesus as the Christ, while the soldiers jeered him as the King of the Jews. “ The Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever” they could against Jesus. (Acts 4:27-28.) They meant that Jesus pretended to be a king and that now was the time for him to show his authority ; they did not understand the nature of his kingdom. Luke 23:38 —And there was also a superscription over him,—It was the custom to write the crime for which the victim was dying and place it over his head on the cross. Sometimes a public crier announced it; he would follow the victim as he bore his cross and announce to the people along the way the crime for which he was to die. It seems that Pilate had written this in-scription. (John 19:22.) Sometimes the inscription was written on a white tablet and hung about the neck of the criminal. In some instances all three methods were followed: one would follow or lead and announce the crime, then the victim would have a placard bound around his neck telling the crime, and then another would be placed on the cross. This inscription was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew so that all could read it. All four writers of the gospel give this inscription ; they differ as to the wording of the inscription.

This difference is accounted for in the fact that it was written in three languages; one writer would give the translation in one of the languages, another in another language. The writers could give only the meaning of the inscription and not the words of it. THE THIEF ON THE CROSSLuk_23:39-43 Luk 23:39 —And one of the malefactors—Both Matthew and Mark say that the “ robbers” or “ they that were crucified with him reproached him.” (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32.) Luke speaks of only one who railed upon him, and records that only one asked him if he were “ the Christ,” and if he be the Christ to save himself and “ us.” This is harmonized by the fact that both at first may have joined in the reproaches hurled at Jesus by the rulers and people; but one of them, being afterward convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, repented. It seems that the climax of the picture is reached in the reproaches of his fellow sufferers. The agonies of crucifixion did not suppress nor subdue the enmity toward Jesus. If he be the Christ, then he should show his power by coming down from the cross. Luke 23:40-41 —But the other answered, and rebuking him said,—The rebuke was conveyed in the question: “ Dost thou not even fear God?” The meaning seems to be that those who were railing upon Jesus among the rulers and chief priests did not fear God, and this malefactor, by railing upon Jesus, put himself in the class of those who did not fear God. The meaning is, have you no fear of divine justice, that at this awful moment you can taunt and jeer at an innocent man? This robber confessed that he and his fellow robber were suffering justly; that they, by their crimes and wickedness, merited in a judicial sense the punishment that they were suffering. “ But this man hath done nothing amiss. Both were soon to appear before God; Jesus had nothing to answer for, but the other had added to his former sins the sin of reviling an innocent man in his death. Even in the mind of this malefactor the commission of one of the greatest crimes that the human mind could conceive would not justify such taunts, jeers, and insults as were being heaped upon Jesus by the rabble who had gathered around the cross. Luke 23:42 —And he said, Jesus, remember me—The penitent malefac-tor now turns to Jesus and pleads that he may be remembered when Jesus comes into his kingdom. He seems to pray to Jesus, not for deliverance from the cross, nor for any present good, but for a blessing which can be conferred only after his death, which he recognized as inevitable. Some think that he had a misconception of the nature of the kingdom that Jesus was to establish, and that he thought, in some way, that Jesus would come into possession of his earthly kingdom, and that he might save him from the cross. If he understood the nature of the kingdom that Jesus was to establish he had a deeper insight into the spiritual nature of the kingdom than did the apostles, or anyone else, at that time. This penitent malefactor had confessed his sins, reproved his companion, defended Jesus, and now asked Jesus to remember him. We do not know how much knowledge of Jesus and his claim this robber had.

We only have Luke’ s record of the account. The kingdom had not been established at this time, and this robber lived and died under the law of Moses; he must be judged by it. Luke 23:43 —And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee,—The an¬swer that Jesus gave to this penitent malefactor has received many different interpretations. Jesus used his familiar form of speech to preface his answer. Jesus said to him: “ Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Jesus had observed the most profound silence amidst the jeers of the rulers and multitude, but now he is ready to make reply to this penitent, dying man. The statement that Jesus gave him can be understood when we know the general teachings of the Christ. “ Today,” not at some time in the distant future, but this very day, you are to be associated with me in the pains and death of the cross and are to be associated with me in “ Paradise.” “ Paradise” originally meant “ an enclosed park or pleasure-ground.” In the Septuagint Version (Genesis 2:8) it means the Garden of Eden. We are told that in Jewish theology the department of Hades where the blessed souls await the resurrection is calld “ Paradise”; it is equivalent to “ Abraham’ s bosom.” (Luke 16:22-23.) It occurs three times in the New Testament— in this passage, 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7. It always seems to mean the abode of the blessed.

Some doubt that the evidence in the scripture is strong enough to warrant a belief in the intermediate state of the dead. Whatever may have been the conception of the early Hebrews with regard to the separation between the righteous and the wicked in Sheol, those of a later period did conceive a separation; hence to them Hades and Sheol designated the place of the righteous and the wicked dead; Hades was the place for the blessed and called Paradise, while the wicked dwelt in the abyss called Tartarus. Evidently Jesus did not mean that this robber would go with him to heaven that day, as it seems clear from other statements that Jesus did not go to heaven that day. His day of ascension came about forty days after that time. After Jesus was raised from the dead and appeared to Mary, when she recognized him he said to her: “ Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father.” (John 20:17.) THE BURIAL OF JESUS Luke 23:44-56 Luke 23:44 —And it was now about the sixth hour,— Parallel records of this are in Matthew 27:45-50; Mark 15:33-37; John 19:28-30. It seems that Jesus was crucified or nailed to the cross about nine o’ clock Friday morning, as Mark says that “ it was the third hour, and they cricified him.” (Mark 15:25.) The first three hours that Jesus remained on the cross would bring the time to twelve noon; some think that only three of the sayings of Jesus were spoken during these hours, which seems to be correct. “ About the sixth hour” or twelve o’ clock noon, “a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.” That is, darkness came over the land of Palestine from twelve o’ clock to three o’ clock in the afternoon. The darkness began at “ the sixth hour”; that is, twelve o’ clock, and lasted until three o’ clock in the afternoon. The heavy veil of the temple which separated the holy from the most holy place in the sanctuary of the temple was rent from top to bottom; this signified that a new, “ living way” was consecrated, whereby all believers might come into the presence of God. It is not claimed that this darkness was caused by an eclipse, nor was it the natural darkness that precedes an earthquake; it was a miracle; this is the only way that we can account for it. Luke 23:45-46 —the sun’ s light failing:—we can only account for the physical phenomena that occurred by saying that a miracle was worked; the Son of God was dying and the physical ele¬ments were drooped in mourning of the awful occasion; after the darkening of the earth the sun and moon were obscured; during this time the veil of the temple was rent, which signified that the end of the temple service had come. This veil separated the temple into the two parts—holy and most holy. When this veil was rent, the distinction between the two places was destroyed, and that signified the services of the high priest and other priests were at an end. The high priest entered into the most holy place only once in the year to make an atonement for the people. (Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:15-17; Hebrews 9:7.) So the rending of the veil destroyed the sanctity of these two divisions of the temple. Jesus, our great high priest, entered into the most holy place to make atonement through his blood for our sins. (Hebrews 9:12-14 Hebrews 9:25-26.) Luke 23:47 —And when the centurion saw what was done,—Matthew records that the centurion “ and they that were with him watching Jesus” “ feared exceedingly.” (Matthew 27:54.) We do not know how much the centurion knew of God; he is recorded as glorifying God and saying: “ Certainly this was a righteous man.” His conclusion was drawn from the physical phenomena which accompanied the death of Christ. Luke mentions several centurions who were good men. (Luke 7:2 Luke 23:47; Acts 10:1; Acts 22:26-27) He felt that Jesus was a righteous man when he saw the forgiving spirit and the earthquake and heard all that Jesus had said on the cross. Luke 23:48-49 —And all the multitudes that came together—The people had been urged on to their course by the chief priests and rulers; it seems that some had been held back. When they saw the remarkable character they were troubled and left the scene smiting their breasts as an expression of extreme grief and deep mental anguish. Jesus had died earlier than some die on the cross. Sometimes the victim on the cross would not expire for one or two days; the Jews wanted to hasten the death of Jesus and the two who were crucified with him by breaking their bones. (John 19:31-32.) However, when they came to examine Jesus’ body they found that he was dead, and they broke the bones of the two malefactors to hasten their death, so that they would not remain on the cross over the Sabbath. It is strange that they would be so particular about the Sabbath when they were committing the high crime of crucifying the Son of God! They were fulfilling the state¬ment that Jesus had made to them when he said that they were “ blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!” (Matthew 23:24.) A study of those who were present at the crucifixion leads us to group them into four classes.

They were as follows: (1) the centurion and his soldiers; (2) the Jewish leaders; (3) the women who were his disciples, and who “ stood afar off”; (4) and the crowd or multitude that gathered around the cross. This group of women who had “ followed with him from Galilee” appeared to be a different group of women from those who followed him as he bore his cross. (See verse 27.) This group of women included the mother of Jesus. Luke 23:50-52 —And behold, a man named Joseph,—Parallel records of the burial of Jesus are found in Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; John 19:31-42. All of the records recite that Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus. John records that he was a disciple, “ but secretly for fear of the Jews” was not an open disciple. However, Mark records him as going to Pilate “ boldly” and asking for the body of Jesus. He was a member of the Sanhedrin, a good, just, and rich man. He had not voted with the council to condemn Jesus; he alone is named as not agreeing to the verdict of the council, but it is probable that Nicodemus, who is present, must have voted against the decision of the Sanhedrin.

It is not known whether Joseph or Nicodemus were present, though it is specifically stated that Joseph “ had not consented to their counsel and deed.” The exact location of Arimathea is not known, but some think that it was about six miles north of Jerusalem. Luke describes the faith of Joseph by saying that he “ was looking for the kingdom of God.” This shows that he expected the Messiah and expected the kingdom of God to be set up. His boldness in asking Pilate for the body of Jesus is put in contrast with his being a secret disciple of Jesus; it is hard to understand why he should be so timid during the life of Jesus, yet so bold as to ask Pilate for his body. John is the only writer who informs us that Nicodemus was with Joseph in the burial of Jesus. (John 19:38-39.) We have only three mentions of Nicodemus in the New Testament, and John is the only writer that mentions Nicodemus. (John 3:1-9 John 7:50 John 19:39.) Luke 23:53 —And he took it down, and wrapped it—Joseph had “ asked” or made an urgent request of Pilate for the body of Jesus. He was aided by Nicodemus and perhaps by some servants, as he was a “ rich man.” He took the body from the cross and “ wrapped it in a linen cloth.” This was a “ winding sheet” in which the body of the dead was wrapped; the mummies of Egypt were wrapped in “ fine linen”; the body of Jesus was wrapped “ in a clean linen cloth,” according to Matthew. Mark records that Joseph “ bought a linen cloth” (Mark 15:46), and John records that Nicodemus brought “ a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds” (John 19:39), and in this way they embalmed the body of Jesus and placed it in Joseph’ s new tomb. Both Matthew and John state that it was a “ new tomb” ; this “ new tomb” was hewn out of rock. The tombs of the Jews were generally cut out of solid rock; some-times they were below the level of the ground, but often they were above the ground on the sides of hills and mountains. It seems that the tomb of Joseph was the family vault.

Joseph being a rich man could give the body of Jesus such a burial. The prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled here, “ and they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death.” (Isaiah 53:9.) Luke 23:54 —And it was the day of the Preparation,—The day before the Sabbath was called the day of Preparation; hence this was the sixth day of the week, or what we call Friday. Matthew and Mark say nothing about the “ day of the Preparation,” but both Luke and John mention it. The Sabbath “ drew on,” or literally “ began to dawn,” meaning the evening light of the Sabbath, not the morning; it was the dawn at sunset, for the Sabbath began at sunset. The women of Galilee observed where and how the body of Jesus was placed. Luke does not here speak of the twelve-hour day which began with sunrise, but the twenty-four-hour day which began at sunset. Luke 23:55 —And the women, who had come with him—These women had followed from Galilee; they watched where the body of Jesus was placed. Evidently the Jews had also observed what Joseph and Nicodemus had done; they were little concerned now since Jesus was dead as to what would be done with his body. It seems that while Joseph and Nicodemus were bury¬ing the body the Jews had gone to Pilate and asked that a guard be placed around the tomb. Though Matthew did not speak of that day as being “ the Preparation” day as did Luke and John, yet Matthew speaks of “ the day after the Preparation.” (Matthew 27:62.) This group of women from Galilee had often ministered to Jesus; they were standing afar off during the dreadful scene of the crucifixion, and are now observing the burial of his body. Luke 23:56 —And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.—Luke (Luke 23:54) notes that “ the sabbath drew on” after the burial on Friday afternoon; the Sabbath began at 6:00 P.M.; then Luke notes that the women rested during the Sabbath, which would be Friday night and Saturday. The spices and perfumes that they prepared would complete the proper em-balming of the body; these were bought and prepared, but owing to the late hour, seemed to be laid aside until after the Sabbath. They rested on that day according to the command-ment of Moses. (Exodus 12:16 Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:1-15.) The teachings of Jesus served to make them careful observers of the moral law as well as the law regulating the Sabbath. Some think that the two Marys remained too long at the tomb to make purchases on Friday. Matthew (Matthew 27:62-66) records the sealing and guarding of the tomb, the chief priests and Pharisees asking Pilate to make the sepulchre secure, and his granting their request.

Verse 1 Here is Luke’s record of the final trials of Jesus before Pilate (Luke 23:1-7), before Herod (Luke 23:8-12), and before Pilate again (Luke 23:13-25), Simon of Cyrene bearing the cross, the prophecy to the daughters of Jerusalem, and the crucifixion of the malefactors (Luke 23:26-32), the crucifixion of our Lord, three sayings from the cross, the inscription, and the death of Jesus (Luke 23:33-49), and the entombment (Luke 23:50-56). And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate. (Luke 23:1) Pilate was the fifth procurator of Judea, holding office from 28-36 A.D. In view of all that is known of this evil ruler from the writings of Philo, and from the New Testament itself, it is incredible that one would say that “There is not enough information about him to make a valid judgment of the kind of man he was”![1] Luke recorded that Jesus himself mentioned Pilate’s mingling the blood of Galilean worshipers with the blood of their sacrifices in the temple itself (Luke 13:15); and what is in this chapter alone provides ample information upon which to form a definitive judgment regarding what kind of man Pilate was. The Sanhedrin had just concluded the formal daylight trial at which they had condemned Jesus to death; but since they were prohibited by the Romans from the execution of such a sentence (John 18:31), they were compelled to pursue their objective in the court of the pagan governor. ENDNOTE: [1] Ray Summers, Commentary on Luke (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1973), p. 294.

Verse 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king.There was no mention by those hypocrites of the true reason for their condemnation of Jesus, which was this, that he claimed to be the divine Messiah, the Son of God. Concerning the triple allegations in this verse, Barclay accurately said: They charged Jesus: (a) with seditious agitation; (b) with encouraging men not to pay tribute to Caesar; and (c) with assuming the title king. Every single item of the charge was a lie, and they knew it.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 300.

Verse 3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest.Luke’s record, like all of the Gospels, omits some things found in the others and includes some things not found in the others, the only proper understanding of such records being found in the composite record of all four Gospels. As Spence noted, the very first thing Pilate did was to attempt an avoidance of condemning Jesus, or even judging him at all. “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law” (John 18:31); to which the Sanhedrinists replied that they were not allowed to put any man to death … revealing their deadly purpose in the case of Jesus.[3]Some have understood this verse as indicating Pilate’s willingness to accept the third charge against Jesus (that he laid claim to being a secular king), that being the reason for the question here; but that simply cannot be true. As Ash observed: “Pilate knew the Jews would follow a king, not deliver him up."[4] Thus, the third charge was as clearly false in Pilate’s understanding of it, as were the others. If Jesus had been what the Sanhedrin said he was, a claimant of secular kingship, they would have followed and supported him unto death. In fact, some of those very hypocrites had spent an entire day trying to get Jesus to be the quartermaster of a secular army against Rome (see in John 6). Thus Pilate’s pinpointing the third charge had no reference to his being taken in by such a lie, but rather shows his astonishment at it. Thou sayest … This has been interpreted as noncommittal, a denial, and as an affirmation of Jesus’ kingship, the latter being the true meaning. From John, it is learned that the Lord explained thoroughly to Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world. There is no evidence at all that Pilate ever doubted Jesus’ word on this. See underLuke 23:38. This is proved by Pilate’s immediate announcement of Jesus’ innocence. [3] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 235. [4] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), p. 135.

Verse 4 And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man.This is another effort of Pilate to avoid condemning Jesus, there having been at least seven of these in all. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:13-24. This was the point at which Pilate should have dismissed the charges, called out the soldiers in the tower of Antonio, and dismissed the mob; but in the meantime he had a brilliant idea, prompted by what the Sanhedrinists next said. See under Luke 23:5.

Verse 5 But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.Stirreth up the people … had, in context, connotations of sedition and was as false as all the other charges. Again and again, Jesus had carefully avoided arousing any inordinate enthusiasm of the people. Galilee … That was the word that caught Pilate’s attention, giving him what he hoped would be a means of avoiding responsibility.

Verse 6 But when Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And when he knew that he was of Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him unto Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in these days.Tinsley, after observing that this incident appears only in Luke, said, “Some scholars have doubted whether this trial before Herod ever took place.[5] It may be assumed that Tinsley is among that group of scholars. However, such opinions lose their force when it is recalled that “some scholars” deny God; some scholars deny the New Testament; some scholars deny the supernatural; some scholars deny the existence of angels, or prophecy, or the resurrection of the dead, or any such things as heaven and hell or the final judgment. The sheep of God, however, know their Shepherd’s voice. Every word in the sacred Gospels is historical truth. Pilate’s maneuver here, in sending the Lord to Herod, was a skillful political ploy, resulting in a reconciliation between these contemporary Roman subalterns (see underLuke 23:12). ENDNOTE: [5] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 198.

Verse 8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was a long time desirous to see him, because he had heard concerning him; and he hoped to see some miracle done by him.Luke alone recorded the “friendly” warning of the Pharisees to Jesus that “Herod would fain kill thee” (Luke 13:31); and it was fully in keeping with Luke’s thoroughness and dependability as a historian that he should have included this incident, proving, absolutely, that the Pharisees who thus addressed Jesus were lying. Herod indeed wanted to see Jesus, but it was from curiosity, not from intent to murder. As Frank L. Cox commented: “The frivolous Herod, looking upon Jesus as a juggler or magician, was eager for him to satisfy his vulgar curiosity."[6]ENDNOTE: [6] Frank L. Cox, According to Luke (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1941), p. 7O.

Verse 9 And he questioned him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.The false charges of the Jewish leaders were so obviously impossible of being true that the Lord did not need to say anything: and, in addition to that, the known character of Herod was such that it would have been an unnecessary waste on the part of Jesus to have honored any of his questions with a reply.

Verse 11 And Herod with his soldiers set him at naught, and mocked him, and arraying him in gorgeous apparel sent him back to Pilate.Herod’s conduct in this episode suggests what many in all ages have done with regard to Jesus; they have set him at naught. Herod, in the false security afforded by his palatial residence, his bodyguard of soldiers, his wealth and human eminence, saw nothing in the lowly Jesus that he should either honor or respect; but ironically, that evil man’s place in history is due altogether to the fact that Jesus the Christ stood before him for a brief while during that eventful week. Herod, after indulging in the shameful business of the mockery, acquitted Jesus and sent him back to Pilate.

Verse 12 And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day: for before they were at enmity between themselves.Cause of the enmity is not known, but it is commonly believed to have been Pilate’s slaying of the Galileans mentioned in Luke 13:1-2. It was Pilate’s civility and deference to Herod which healed the breach.[7]It has often been noted that old enemies often become friends when there is a common opportunity to wound the Lord in the person of his followers. In this whole episode, Herod appears as the most contemptible. Hobbs agreed that “In all this horrible picture, no figure appears so ignominious as Herod."[8]Before leaving this unit of teaching, attention should be directed to the slander that this episode “was included as part of (Luke’s) attempt to remove responsibility for the death of Jesus from the Roman authorities."[9] Not only is there no such attempt in this paragraph, nor in the whole New Testament, to do such a thing; but, on the other hand, the culpability, dastardly cowardice, unfeeling injustice, and utter incompetence of Pilate are overwhelmingly evident throughout the chapter. THE SECOND TRIAL BEFORE PILATEThe six trials of Jesus were: before Annas, before Caiaphas, before the Sanhedrin at daybreak, before Pilate, before Herod, and again before Pilate. Some twenty pages of comment regarding these six trials are given in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57 ff. The trial here is the last of the six. [7] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 605. [8] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 328. [9] E. J. Tinsley, op. cit., p. 198.

Verse 13 And Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers of the people, and said unto them, Ye brought unto me this man as one that perverteth the people: and behold, I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accused him: no, nor yet Herod: for he sent him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.In the last sentence of this passage is the shameful injustice of Pontius Pilate. Having declared Jesus to be without “fault,” and further announcing Herod’s corroboration of such a verdict of innocence, Pilate proposed that he would “chastise him”! Translating the paragraph into the vernacular, Pilate said, “The man is absolutely innocent, and I will beat him half to death!” The scholars who find in this some exoneration of Pilate find what is not in it.

Verse 17 Now he must needs release unto them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out all together, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas.Luke 23:17 (the first sentence) has been removed from the text on sufficient grounds; but it is true nevertheless, being valuable as a commentary. The full teaching of this omitted verse is found in John 18:39, where its authenticity cannot be denied. Spence commented that: As a Hebrew custom, it is never mentioned save in this place. Such a release was a common incident of a Latin Lectisternium, or feast in honor of the gods. The Greeks had a similar custom at the Thesmophoria. It was probably introduced at Jerusalem by the Roman power.[10]There is every evidence that Pilate tried to utilize such a custom in his efforts to find a way of releasing Jesus. The wicked hierarchy, however, merely stirred up the people to clamor for the release of Barabbas, a notorious robber, murderer and seditionist, as mentioned in the next verse. ENDNOTE: [10] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 236.

Verse 19 (Barabbas) one who for a certain insurrection made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.Barabbas … This name is usually understood to be patronymic, meaning “son of father”; but Spence pointed out another possible meaning which seems to be more probable, Bar-Abbas indeed meaning “son of father,” but Bar-Rabbas means “son of Rabbi."[11]The choice of Israel in their preference of this wicked criminal instead of the holy Jesus eventually came down upon the whole nation like an avalanche. See the article, “Why God Destroyed the Temple” in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 13:2. ENDNOTE: [11] Ibid.

Verse 20 And Pilate spake unto them again desiring to release Jesus; and they shouted, saying, Crucify, crucify him.Summers has a very interesting comment on this, in which he pointed out that the mob took up a chant, as also indicated in Luke 23:18 in the words “all together.” He said: Transliterated into English-character syllables it is: [Greek: Stau-rou], [stau-rou-ton]! [Greek: Stau-rou], [stau-rou-ton]! Even in English words, the cadence of a chant is present: Cru-ci-fy, cru-ci-fy-him! Cru-ci-fy, cru-ci-fy-him! That was the most dreadful “one-two - one-two-three-four” beat ever to sound in the ears of men.[12]One can only stand in amazement at the cowardice and injustice of a weakling governor who had the legions of the Roman army under his command, but who nevertheless yielded to a mob’s rape of justice by any such device as this. ENDNOTE: [12] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 299.

Verse 22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath this man done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and release him. But they were urgent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. And their voices prevailed.Far from Luke’s attempting to exonerate Pilate, he omitted a number of efforts on the part of the pagan governor to release Jesus. Here is a list of the efforts Pilate made to release the Lord: PILATE’S EFFORTS TO AVOID JESUS1. He asked that the Jews take him and judge him according to their own law (John 18:31). 2. He announced a verdict of innocence (Luke 23:4). 3. He sent him to Herod. (Luke 23:5-10). 4. He announced Jesus’ innocence had been confirmed by Herod also (Luke 23:13-15). 5. He twice offered to substitute a lighter punishment (chastisement) (Luke 23:16; Luke 23:22). 6.

He offered a choice between Barabbas and Christ, hoping the people would choose Jesus to be released (Matthew 27:15 ff). 7. He suggested that they take Jesus without legal process and crucify him (John 19:6), promising to “look the other way” if they did. 8. He even appealed to Jesus to perform some wonder, by implication, that would make it easy to release him (see in my Commentary on John underJohn 19:11). 9. He “sought the more” to release him (John 19:11). In view of the above, there can be no justification for the notion that Luke in any manner colored his narrative to improve the image of Pilate. As a matter of fact, Pilate’s image appears starkly ugly enough in the chapter before us. And their voices prevailed … Prevailed over what? Over a cowardly governor who, with an army at his back, allowed himself to be bullied by the evil priests. Pilate signed the death warrant of a man he had repeatedly declared to be innocent; and, if there is anything worse than this that a governor might be guilty of, it is surely unknown to this writer.

Verse 24 And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be done. And he released him that for insurrection and murder had been cast into prison, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.There was no extenuation for such a crime on Pilate’s part, his knowledge of Jesus’ innocence, as proved by his repeated efforts to release him, only aggravating his guilt, not diminishing it. As Luke said, “He gave sentence … Jesus he delivered up,” the same being the Crime of the Ages, nor does Luke’s record soften or excuse it in any manner whatsoever.

Verse 26 And when they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to bear it after Jesus.SIMON OF CYRENEMost commentators identify this Simon as the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21) and with Rufus and his mother (Romans 16:13). The inference is that Simon became a Christian, that his sons Alexander and Rufus were distinguished members of the church in Rome, and that Simon’s widow (?), the mother of Rufus (Romans 16:13), was a close friend and associate of the apostle Paul. Although incapable of being proved, such assumptions are quite reasonable. Cyrene … “This was a principal city of northern Africa, between Carthage and Egypt, corresponding with modern Tripoli."[13] “The Jews formed one of the four recognized classes in the city … it was represented in the Pentecost crowd (Acts 2:10) and evidently had its own (or shared) synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9).[14]Coming in from the country … Summers thought that Simon might have been “traveling to Jerusalem for Passover and arriving late."[15] However, the Passover was held that night, not the night before (John 18:28). This is another example of numerous New Testament verses which have been misinterpreted due to the Friday crucifixion tradition. [13] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 132. [14] New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 285. [15] Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 300.

Verse 27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him.JESUS’ TO THE OF “The warm feeling with which all classes of women regarded Jesus is especially marked in this `the Gospel of womanhood’."[16]ENDNOTE: [16] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 768.

Verse 28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.Daughters of Jerusalem … indicates that the vast majority of these were residents of that city; and significantly, Jesus thought more about the woe which was coming upon the Holy City than of his own terrible sufferings. Such selflessness was never known except in Jesus.

Verse 29 For behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us, for if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry.Blessed are the barren … As Spence said, “This is a strange beatitude to be spoken to the women of Israel, who through all their checkered history, so passionately longed that THIS might not be their portion."[17]The green tree … the dry … This proverbial expression has been variously interpreted; but it would appear that Farrar’s explanation is correct: “If they act thus to me, the Innocent and the Holy, what shall be the fate of these, the guilty and the false?"[18] There is here a dramatic prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, in which women especially would be deprived and suffer tribulations. The green tree represents the innocent and holy Saviour in the spirituality and vigor of his life; the dry tree represents the morally dead and sapless people, typified by the fig tree, blasted by his word, four days earlier.[19]Thus, by this prophecy, as Jesus left the city for the last time, he prophesied its doom no less than he did upon entering it (Luke 19:41f). Not even the prospect of immediate death took the Saviour’s mind away from the awful penalities that would fall upon Jerusalem for his rejection. The fires of suffering consuming Jesus (the green tree) would be nothing to compare with the fires of destruction that would burn up the dead tree (Jerusalem, judicially and morally dead). [17] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 239. [18] Ibid. [19] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press), II, Luke, p. 335.

Verse 32 And there were also two others, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.This was Pilate’s doing, and was probably designed as an insult to the Jews who would not have been favorable to such executions in such proximity to their great Passover (that night); but God overruled this vengeful deed of the governor in the fulfillment of prophecy. “He was numbered with the transgressors,” and “he made his grave with the wicked” (Isaiah 53:12; Isaiah 53:9).

Verse 33 And when they came unto the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.THE None of the Gospel writers dwelt upon the horrors of the terrible death; and perhaps their restraint should be a caution to all people. The crucifixion of the Christ had been prophesied the better part of a millenium before it occurred, in Psalms 22, at a point in history when such a means of execution had never been invented. Long ago, such a torturing death was outlawed by the conscience of all mankind, tenuous and imperfect as such a conscience is.

Verse 34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots.Father, forgive them, etc. … This was the first of the seven utterances of Jesus from the cross; and it has the utility of indicating two centers of forgiveness, one on the earth, the other in heaven. It may not be supposed that Jesus’ prayer for the forgiveness of the soldiers who crucified him implied their immediate forgiveness in heaven. Jesus, AS A MAN, forgave them; but the matter of their eternal forgiveness was still contingent upon their faith and acceptance of the terms of the Christian gospel. See full discussion of this under “The Seven Words from the Cross,” in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots … As Barclay noted: Every Jew wore five articles of apparel: the inner tunic, the outer robe, the girdle, the sandals, and the turban. There remained the great outer robe. It was woven in one piece (John 19:23-24). To cut it would have ruined it; and so the soldiers gambled for it.[20]For further discussion of this action of the soldiers in fulfillment of prophecy, and regarding the garments of Jesus, see in my Commentary on John, under John 19:24. The prophecy fulfilled was Psalms 22:18. ENDNOTE: [20] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 297.

Verse 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also scoffed at him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen.What the rulers meant by this was evil, and it was also untrue in the sense in which they meant it. Jesus could indeed have saved himself by coming down from the cross, because he did a far more wonderful thing three days later by coming out of the grave. However, it was not possible for Christ thus to save himself (by coming down from the cross) without aborting his mission of human redemption; and in this spiritual sense, what the evil rulers said was true: “He saved others” but was unable to “save himself.” Such taunting mockery seems nearly incredible in the mouths of the rulers of Israel. How deep was their hatred, how blind their perception, how unfeeling their hearts, and how wicked were their purposes that they should thus have joined in such a mockery of the world’s only Saviour!

Verse 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the King of the Jews, save thyself.Spence observed that there were three instances of vinegar being offered to Jesus, as follows: (1) There was a draught prepared with narcotics and stupefying drugs (Matthew 27:34), which Jesus refused. (2) The one here mentioned in Luke…was one of the tortures of the crucifixion, (the soldiers) lifting sour wine to his lips and then whisking it rapidly away. (3) The third was when the Lord was almost exhausted (John 19:28-30), … the soldiers possibly acting in this case out of compassion. There is no indication that Jesus accepted any wine while on the cross, out of respect to the vow in Luke 22:18 and parallels.

Verse 38 And there was also a superscription over him, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.Harrison said that “The full inscription was probably: THIS IS JESUS OF THE KING OF THE JEWS."[21] Of course, this is most certainly correct, being a composite of what all four of the sacred Gospels have recorded. For a fuller discussion of this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:37. The notion that Pilate believed, even in the slightest degree, that Christ was a claimant of Caesar’s throne, is rejected, absolutely. As Geldenhuys succinctly expressed it: We know that Pilate was thoroughly conscious of the fact that Jesus laid no claim to kingship (in an earthly sense); and it is certain that by means of this superscription he revenged himself on the Jews and was not mocking Jesus.[22]However, the inscription, intended by its author as a sadistic joke on the Sanhedrin, was another instance of the wrath of man praising God; because it was highest truth that Jesus of Nazareth was King of the Jews, the only rightful king they ever had, even the ancient monarchy being contrary to God’s will (1 Samuel 8:6-9). [21] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago Moody Press, 1971), p. 270. [22] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 610.

Verse 39 And one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him, saying, Art not thou the Christ? save thyself and us.At first, both criminals reproached Jesus (Matthew 27:44); and Luke’s mention of what one of the two said is not a denial of that; and quite likely the one referred to here was the more vehement of the two; because, as Luke would relate in a moment, the other wrongdoer turned to the Lord and received forgiveness.

Verse 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.This priceless episode, peculiar to Luke, has marvelously enriched the Christian Gospel. The penitent malefactor, despite the fact of having indulged in the reproaches against Christ at the beginning of the crucifixion, as the day had progressed, became more and more aware of the suffering Saviour at his side; and later, when the impenitent malefactor took up his mocking reproach again, this repentant thief rebuked him, confessing at the same time that the awful punishment he was receiving was no more than he deserved. One corollary of the soul’s awareness of God’s presence is the accompanying recognition of one’s own unworthiness; and upon this premise, it is safe to conclude that the penitent thief had recognized God himself in the person of Jesus Christ the Lord. Such a conclusion appears mandatory in view of the awful punishment being endured and the wrongdoer’s confession that he deserved it. Such an evaluation of sin and its consequences is impossible except through an awareness of God’s presence.

Verse 42 And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.In some of the old versions, the thief is quoted as saying, “Lord, remember me, etc.”; and, although this address has been removed upon sufficient textual evidence, the full idea is nevertheless in the passage (see under preceding verse). This is the second of the Seven Words spoken by Jesus from the cross; and for extended comments on this and all of them, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 25:66. Paradise … Ash noted that “In some elements of first-century Judaism, (this word) described the heavenly abode of the soul between death and the resurrection."[23]Without much doubt, this is the meaning here. After Jesus rose from the dead, he stated that he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17); therefore, Paradise is not identified as the final abode of the blessed. It is the same as “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:11). ENDNOTE: [23] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 143.

Verse 44 And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun’s light failing; and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.These verses introduce two of the Calvary miracles, of which there are seven; and they are important enough to warrant extensive treatment, which will be found in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:51, where thirteen pages are devoted to “Phenomena Accompanying the Crucifixion and Resurrection.” These great wonders were “signs” in the supernatural sense, attesting the godhead of Jesus Christ. No rationalistic explanation of these occurrences is possible. For example: “Probably Mark’s version was intended to imply an eclipse, but Luke makes this explanation explicit."[24] Gilmour here relied upon a false reading of the sacred text. The Greek says, “the sun’s light failing” (English Revised Version (1885) margin), Besides that, no eclipse ever lasted any longer than about an hour; and also it was the full moon! One may not suppose that the learned physician Luke was ignorant of so basic a fact as this, or that he intended here to assert an impossibility such as an eclipse of the sun at Passover! It is not LUKE’S ignorance which shines in an attempted rationalization such as this! It is Gilmour’s. Another example: “Matthew also points out that the earth quaked, which may have caused the rent veil”![25] Indeed, Indeed! Was there ever on this earth a shaking that could tear even a piece of cloth in two? Furthermore, the temple was not shaken at all in that earthquake mentioned by Matthew; and, in addition, the veil was rent squarely in two parts “from the top to the bottom,” not from the bottom upward, a phenomenon that was witnessed by the entire company of temple priests, and which probably accounts for the conversion of so many of them (Acts 6:7). [24] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), p. 412. [25] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 338.

Verse 46 And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost.This was the final of the Seven Words from the cross. See under Luke 23:43. The three utterances given by Luke are omitted in the other Gospels, just as Luke omitted the utterances they included. All seven of these utterances of Jesus are authentic, historical words truly spoken by the world’s Saviour while upon the cross. Such a conceit as that of Gilmour, who said that “Luke substitutes an apt quotation from Psalms 31:5 for the one (by Mark) from Psalms 22:1,"[26] is a travesty on Biblical exegesis. Luke gave a saying that Mark did not record; and Mark gave one that Luke did not record, both being absolutely genuine. He gave up the ghost … The loud voice just mentioned was significant. “The loud voice shows that Jesus did not die of exhaustion."[27] If death had come from exhaustion, his vocal chords would not have functioned at all. Jesus’ death was conscious and voluntary, fulfilling his prophecy recorded in John 10:17-18. [26] S. MacLean Gilmour, op. cit., p. 412. [27] Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., p. 144.

Verse 47 And when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.Luke here added another quotation from the centurion who had charge of the crucifixion. Quibbles which have been raised regarding these words and others from the parallels are refuted by a careful examination of what the holy records have recorded. Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things which were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. - Matthew 27:54. And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. - Mark 15:39. From Matthew’s account it is clear that the words, “Truly this was the Son of God,” were not spoken by the centurion only, “they that were with him” also being subjects of the verb “saying.” Thus there were multiple speakers, and this necessarily means that there were multiple sayings also. The most astounding physical wonders ever known on earth were occurring. The miracles of the loud voice (and it was that) was precisely the act that prompted the centurion’s utterance that “Truly this man was the Son of God,” as plainly stated in Mark’s account. Note that it was when the centurion saw that Jesus so gave up the ghost, that he recognized Jesus as the divine Son of God. As Dr. Lloyd Bridges, a Central Church of Christ minister, Houston, Texas, said in a sermon: The Greek New Testament has no article in the title the centurion gave Jesus, being simply SON OF GOD. It is wrong to translate this “a Son of God,” the true meaning being “the Son of God.” There is only one Son of God! Luke here stated that the centurion “glorified God.” How? By confessing that Jesus is the Son of God! In the further quote given by Luke that the centurion said, “Certainly this was a righteous man,” is there any denial that he also said, “Truly this man was the Son of God”? Indeed there is not. There is no way to deny, either honestly or intelligently, that the situation points to MANY having been uttered on that awesome occasion, not merely by the centurion but also by the men who were with him. The fact of the sacred Gospels having written down only two remarks that were made cannot be made to read that these were all of the remarks uttered. Likewise, Luke’s having given one remark, and Matthew and Mark another, is incapable of denying that both are genuine. Some have attempted to scale down the impact of “the Son of God” by rendering the words, “a son of God”; but the English Revised Version (1885) is correct in the rendition, “the Son of God.” C. E. B. Cranfield, a renowned scholar, declared unequivocally that “The Greek text does not at all necessitate the rendering, `a son’."[28] It is not, therefore, the Greek text, but skepticism, that motivates the changing of these words. Certainly this was a righteous man … Matthew Henry’s reasoning on this statement is thus: The centurion who commanded the guard … This testimony amounts to the same as “Truly this man was the Son of God”; for if Jesus was a righteous man, he said very truly when he said he was the Son of God; and therefore that testimony of Jesus concerning himself must be admitted; for, if it were false, he was not a righteous man.[29][28] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), p. 469. [29] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 316.

Verse 48 And all the multitudes that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their breasts.This verse corroborates all that Matthew recorded with regard to the earthquake, the opening of the Calvary graves, the darkness over the whole earth, etc.

Verse 49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed with him from Galilee, stood afar off, seeing these things.All his acquaintance … is a reference to the multitudes from all over Palestine, and to the numbers of them who were personally acquainted with Jesus through having seen his mighty deeds and heard his discourses. Only malice can read this as a reference to “the apostles,” and then allege that Luke contradicted Mark who said that they all “forsook him and fled” (Mark 14:50).

Verse 50 And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councilor, a good and righteous man.THE BURIAL OF JESUSSee my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:57 for a discussion of the honorable councilor Joseph, his secret discipleship, and the motivation that might have inspired his conduct here. All of the Gospels contain an account of Joseph of Arimathea and his supplying the tomb in which Jesus was buried. This quadruple testimony emphasizes the importance attached to this event. See my Commentary on Matthew under Matthew 27:57, and my Commentary on Mark under Mark 14:42, and my Commentary on John, under John 19:38, for additional comments on this subject.

Verse 51 (He had not consented to their counsel and deed), a man of Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was looking for the kingdom of God: this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.It appears from the parallels that the verdict pronounced by the Sanhedrin at daybreak had been unanimous; and from this it is supposed that neither Nicodemus nor Joseph had been invited to the meeting, or that, if invited, they had refused to attend, knowing the certain outcome of it and being unwilling to consent to such a judicial murder. Arimathaea … This place was identified by Eusebius and Jerome with Ramah, the birthplace of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:19); but the exact location of it is not known.[30]Went to Pilate … asked for the body … This was a courageous thing to do; but, as ever, when some great crisis occurred, God raised up a Joseph to meet it. So it was during the famine in Egypt; so it was when Jesus was an infant; and so it was here. ENDNOTE: [30] New Bible Dictionary, op. cit., p. 81.

Verse 53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain.Rather extensive studies were completed and presented in the Gospel of John (see my Commentary on John) regarding “The Two Graves of Jesus,” a description of the tomb in which Jesus was buried (that of Joseph of Arimathea), and “Concerning the Cloths” in which the body was wrapped. See in my Commentary on John, under John 19:40 and John 19:41. Also, regarding the “Undisturbed Grave Clothes of Jesus,” see in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:52, and in my Commentary on John under John 20:5. Where never man had yet lain … The Old Testament miracle of a man’s having been raised from the dead by his body’s being thrust into contact with the bones of a prophet (2 Kings 13:21) might have given the enemies of the Gospel the idea of attributing the resurrection of Christ to some similar thing; but Providence countermanded any such conceit by causing the burial of Jesus in a virgin tomb.

Verse 54 And it was the day of the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on.The sabbath drew on … This was not the ordinary sabbath (which came every Saturday), but the special “high day” (John 19:31) sabbath marking every 15th of Nisan (which could come on any day of the week); and this verse says that THAT sabbath “drew on,” meaning that it would begin at sunset, after which the solemn Passover meal would be observed, the following twenty-four hours being, by God’s special commandment, also called “a holy convocation” upon which “no servile work” could be done, and having full status as a holy sabbath. See Leviticus 23:7-8; Numbers 28:18; Numbers 28:25, and Exodus 12:16. Since this sabbath was tied to the 15th of Nisan, it could fall on any day of the week; and, in the year 30 A.D., it fell upon Friday, which by Jewish reckoning began at sunset (about the time Jesus was buried) on Thursday, the day he died. See full discussion of this in my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 15:42. That this solemn Passover meal was actually eaten AFTER Jesus was dead and buried appears from John 18:28.

Verse 55 And the women, who had come with him out of Galilee, followed after, and beheld the tomb, and how his body was laid.It is good that Luke recorded this, because it refutes the lie that on the morning of the resurrection perhaps the women went to the wrong grave! No more dependable group of witnesses could be imagined than a multitude of women, all of whom saw the grave and observed the manner in which the body was buried.

Verse 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.This is not a denial that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus might also have made such preparations for anointing the body, a tender act of love that could not be rendered because of the sudden onset of the holy Passover and its special high sabbath. Significantly, by the falling of that high day upon a Friday (beginning Thursday at sunset), there were back-to-back sabbaths, Friday and Saturday, a truth witnessed in the Greek text of Mat 28:1 which speaks of “the end of the sabbaths (plural)” and says that the first day of the week came toward the “end of one of the sabbaths,” after which the events of the resurrection began to unfold. Every Greek student on earth knows of this reference (twice) to plural sabbaths, that is, back-to-back sabbaths, in Matthew 28:1; but despite this, out of deference to the Friday crucifixion theory, it is still translated “the sabbath” even in the version before us. The word of God is true. Considering the lapse of three nights and two whole days BEFORE the anointing of the body of Jesus, or the wrapping in spices, could begin, due to double sabbaths, it is not hard to understand why those who intended thus to minister to a dead body would have been about their business “very early” on the first day of the week (Mark 16:2). As God would have it, however, no ministration whatever was required for the body of our Lord, other than that which is mentioned in these verses. He rose from the dead even before the women arrived to anoint him.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 231. here did they lead Jesus? 2. What general accusation did they make? 3. What specific charge did they make? 4. Tell what the governor asked him. 5. And the answer. 6. How was Pilate impressed? 7. Tell how this affected the crowd? 8. What inquiry did Pilate make ? 9. State what prompted this inquiry. 10. What did Pilate then do with Jesus? 11. In what city did he meet this ruler? 12. What made Herod glad? 13. For what favor did he look from Jesus? 14. In what form did he address Jesus? 15. Repeat the answer Jesus gave. 16. Who accused Jesus in this hearing? 17. What did Herod then do with Jesus? 18. What reconciliation did this incident bring about? 19. Tell whom Pilate now called together. 20. What did he announce to them? 21. Tell his remarks about Herod. 22. What did Pilate propose to do? 23. State the custom they observed at this feast. 24. What demand did they make? 25. Whom would Pilate have released to them? 26. Tell what information he called for. 27. Was it given him? 28. Whose voices prevailed? 29. Tell what Pilate then gave. 30. What kind of man did he release? 31. Tell what Simon was made to do. 32. Who followed them? 33. State their condition of mind. 34. What did Jesus tell them not to do? 35. For whom should they weep ? 36. What days were coming? 37. Then what will be said ? 38. Who is better, Christ or the Jewish nation? 39. Which is better, a green or a dead tree? 40. Who were to be crucified with Jesus? 41. At what place did the crucifixion occur? 42. Repeat the prayer of Jesus. 43. How was the raiment disposed of ? 44. What did the people and rulers say ? 45. Tell what the soldiers did. 46. What did they say? 47. Tell the words written over the cross. 48. What about the complaint of the thief? 49. Who rebuked him? 50. State the request he made to Jesus. 51. And the reply. 52. What began at the sixth hour ? 53. For how long did it continue? 54. What happened to the temple? 55. What words did Jesus cry to God? 56. Then what happened ? 57. How did the centurion express himself? 58. Tell how the people were impressed? 59. What is said of his acquaintances? 60. State the position held by Joseph. 61. What was his character? 62. For what was he looking? 63. How had he stood in the verdict against Christ ? 64. What did he ask of Pilate? 65. Where did he place it? 66. What is said of this sepulchre? 67. Tell what this day was called. 68. From where did the women come? 69. Returning what did they prepare? 70. Then what did they do?

Luke 23:1-2

2 See Matthew 27:1-2.

Luke 23:3

3 Thou sayest it is the “good confession” referred to by Paul in 1 Timothy 6:13, showing there is no set form in making the confession.

Luke 23:4

4 I find no fault in this man. This is virtually the same thought that is worded in Matthew 27:23.

Luke 23:5

5 According to Thayer, Jewry means “all Palestine.”

Luke 23:6-7

7 This was Herod Anti-pas, who was governor over the territory of Galilee, but was in Jerusalem at this time because of the Passover. If he could turn Jesus over to him, Pilate thought he might get rid of the problem that was worrying him, which was that of disposing of the case against Jesus. He did not believe that Jesus was guilty of any wrong, yet was hesitating about declaring him free because of political reasons (John 19:12).

Luke 23:8

8 The desire of Herod to see Jesus was prompted largely by curiosity about His miraculous works; in chapter 9:9 this desire is mentioned the first time.

Luke 23:9

9 Jesus knew that Herod had no just reason for his curiosity, hence He maintained the same silence before him that Pilate had received.

Luke 23:10

0 The chief priests and scribes had followed Jesus as he was escorted into the presence of Herod. But their clamor against Jesus did not have much effect on Herod, at least it did not induce him to attach any legal charge against Him.

Luke 23:11

1 The actions listed in this verse were for the purpose of belittling Jesus, not to constitute any formal accusation against Him. (See verse 15.)

Luke 23:12

2 The usual interpretation of this passage is that Pilate and Herod dropped their personal differences, in order to unite against Christ. They did not unite because of any common enmity against Christ, for neither of them had any such a feeling. But Herod wanted to see Jesus, and Pilate granted the courtesy of a personal interview with his noted prisoner. It was this judicial recognition that broke down the long-standing feud between the two political rulers.

Luke 23:13

3 This group which Pilate called together was composed of all the persons who were interested in the case. The chief priests were the ones to get Jesus into the courts (Mark 15:10), and the people were those who had the voice about what prisoner was to be released under the custom (Matthew 27:15), hence it was a representative audience to which Pilate was preparing to speak.

Luke 23:14-15

5 A brief reference is made to this paragraph at verse 12. Here were two court rulers, former personal enemies, but agreeing on the innocence of Jesus.

Luke 23:16

6 It was customary to chastise all prisbners before being released, regardless of whether they were considered “guilty as charged,” or not.

Luke 23:17

7 Of ’necessity denotes it was an established custom to release a prisoner at that time (Matthew 27:15), and Pilate thought it would furnish him a way out of his problem of guarding his political interests, without directly upholding Christ.

Luke 23:18

8 They cried out means the people, for they alone had the legal right to speak on that subject. However, their choice was influenced by the priests and elders and scribes (Matthew 27:20).

Luke 23:19

9 Sedition is from the same word as “insurrection” in Mark 15:7. The meaning is an uprising against a legal government, of which Barabbas had been guilty.

Luke 23:20

0 Willing to release Jesus means his personal feelings were favorable to Jesus. He wished the people would call for His release, so that Caesar would not blame him as a dis loyal officer in the Roman government.

Luke 23:21

1 This cry was the demand of a mob.

Luke 23:22

2 It is an established rule of justice that no man should be punished who is not guilty of doing wrong. Pilate realized that nothing could truly be charged against Jesus, hence his personal conclusion was that he should be discharged, after the customary chastisement, which means the scourging mentioned in other places.

Luke 23:23

3 The two classes in the audience (priests and people), united in the demand for the crucifixion of Jesus. The inspired writer says their voices prevailed. There was no addi tional evidence produced; just the pressure of public sentiment.

Luke 23:24

4 It is bad enough to punish a person when a court is only doubtful of his guilt; but Pilate never expressed a single doubt as to the innocence of Jesus. Not only that, but three attempts to get an expression from the audience as to His guilt had failed. So this unworthy judge condemned Jesus to the cross on the sole motive that it was as they required.

Luke 23:25

5 A seditious murderer was released on the same motive that Jesus was condemned, namely, he was the one whom they desired.

Luke 23:26

6 After is from , and Thayer defines it, “Adverb of place, from behind, on the back, behind after.” It is clear, therefore, that. Simon and Jesus carried the cross together, Simon bearing one end of the instrument but walking after Jesus. See the notes at Matthew 16:24.

Luke 23:27

7 These persons following toward the place of crucifixion were genuine sympathizers. They were not ashamed to be seen showing deep sentiments on behalf of Him, even to the extent of going with him to the place of shame. (See Hebrews 13:13.)

Luke 23:28-29

9 This shows a case of misplaced grief. Jesus was going to suffer the ordeal of the cross, which would be the last of all his sufferings. These people were destined to meet with distress unequaled by any case in history (Matthew 24:21). Blessed are the barren, etc. When parents are forced to see the suffering imposed upon their children, they will wish that no children had been born to them.

Luke 23:30

0 Mountains, fall on us. This is figurative, meaning it would be a milder fate to be crushed by a mountain, than suffer the distress caused by the Romans.

Luke 23:31

1 Green and dry are used figuratively, meaning trees that are alive or dead. In the application, they represent a righteous and an unrighteous person. If such distress will be imposed upon a righteous person (Christ), what may be expected to be done to a wicked nation, and its helpless citizens were destined to share in the general calamity, brought about by the wicked leaders.

Luke 23:32

2 These malefactors (criminals) were thieves (Matthew 27:38).

Luke 23:33

3 Calvary is explained at length at Matthew 27:33.

Luke 23:34

4 This ignorance of which Jesus speaks, applies to the Jews as well as the Gentiles (Acts 3:17). Such ignorance, therefore, does not mean they were to be excused at that time regardless of any repentance on their part. In Acts 2:23, Peter still held the murder of Jesus against this same people. But no forgiven sin is ever “remembered against” a person who has been forgiven. The meaning of the prayer of Jesus, therefore, is that even His murderers were to be given the same access to the benefits of His death that the rest of the world would have. That prayer was answered on the day of Pentecost when hundreds of them were promised “remission of sins” upon repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). Parted his raiment. (See Matthew 27:35.)

Luke 23:35

5 Had it been a matter of power or strength only, Jesus could have even prevented their nailing him to the cross. But the deed had to be performed in order to fulfill the scripture predictions (Matthew 26:54).

Luke 23:36-37

7 The soldiers were the executioners for the government; four of them (John 19:23).

Luke 23:38

8 Superscription is explained at Matthew 27:37.

Luke 23:39

9 One of the malefactors. This is more definite than the account in Matthew 27:44, and it should be used as a guide in interpreting that one.

Luke 23:40

0 The fact that the one thief rebuked the other indicates he had not joined in the reproaching of Jesus. However, we can be certain that one of them took the right view of the situation at the last.

Luke 23:41

1 This man hath, done nothing amiss. The thief who spoke the above words knew that truth when he was first placed on the cross, as well as he knew it when he made the statement. That is one of my reasons for believing he was not partaking in the reproachful language against Jesus at all.

Luke 23:42

2 This man had been leading a sinful life, yet all the circumstances indicate he had known something of the work and plans of Jesus. They both were on the cross and soon were to die, yet he believed that both would live again. The request he made of Jesus was based on his faith of a resurrection. The wish was to be granted at some date farther in the future than the one at hand.

Luke 23:43

3 Jesus granted the penitent a promise to be fulfilled sooner than the favor he requested. Paradise is from and Thayer’s general definition is, “A garden, pleasure ground; grove, park.” In our passage he defines it, “That part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection.” Robinson, Groves and Hickie define it virtually in the same way. We have previously learned (notes at chapter 16:26) that persons who are assigned to this place will always be among those who are “comforted” or saved. The conclusion is, then, that the thief was saved on the cross. That does not affect the subject of baptism or any other of the specific requirements of the Gospel. The Jewish Dispensation was still in force, hence the things that are now required through the apostles were not then binding.

While Jesus was living, he had the right to forgive and save people on any terms He saw fit, or without any terms at all as far as the sinner was concerned. He forgave the woman of chapter 7:47 because of her great love, and we have no evidence that the palsied man of Mat 9:1-2 even had any faith, yet the Lord forgave him. But after the church was set up in Acts 2, no case is recorded where anyone was saved except upon obedience to the Gospel.

Luke 23:44-45

5 The sixth hour is the same as our noon, which was the hour that darkness settled over the land. The event was prophesied in Joe 2:30-31.

Luke 23:46

6 See the comments on Matthew 27:50.

Luke 23:47

7 In this account the centurion describes Jesus as a righteous man. The account in Matthew 27:54 describes him as the Son of God; both statements are true.

Luke 23:48

8 Smiting the breast was an ancient custom in times of mourning or humble anxiety. (See chapter 18:13.)

Luke 23:49

9 The women were faithful to the last, but with feminine timidity they stood some distance away watching. They had come from the same district were Jesus was brought up, Galilee, and had served Him on various occasions.

Luke 23:50-53

3 The notes on Matthew 27:57-60 are pretty full, covering the subject matter of the present paragraph. To conserve space, I request the reader to see them.

Luke 23:54

4 The preparation is ex. plained at Matthew 27:62.

Luke 23:55

5 These women saw the manner of burying for the body of Jesus, including the rolling of a “great stone” up to the entrance (Matthew 27:60). That explains their concern about the stone as they were going to the sepulchre (Mark 16:3).

Luke 23:56

6 Returned and prepared spices. That is, they made such preparation that same day, for the next day was a sabbath or holy day, it being the regular Passover day (Leviticus 23:4-5), which explains the statement about resting the sabbath day according to the commandment.