Original Meaning
THIS ACCOUNT COMES in three parts: Peter’s denials (22:54–62), the mocking of Jesus (22:63–65), and the trial of Jesus (22:66–71).1 This section shows the wide array of reactions to Jesus, traces the public failure of one prominent disciple, and outlines the discussion that leads the Jews to recommend to the Romans that Jesus be crucified. Since Rome alone had authority to execute, a charge had to be found that would be worrisome to Rome. Luke 23:2 shows the result.
After his arrest, Jesus is brought to the house of the high priest. Since “High Priest” is a title that stays with a person for life, even those not currently serving, it is not clear if Annas or Caiaphas is meant in verse 54.2 John 18:13 refers to Annas, while 18:24 speaks of Jesus being bound and sent to Caiaphas (Matt. 26:57 also refers to Caiaphas). Neither do we know if there is a brief meeting with Annas before more official proceedings begin with Caiaphas. Complicating the discussion further is the fact that Annas and Caiaphas may have lived in different wings of the same house. Thus, making a clear decision about the number of trials is difficult. It seems clear that what starts in the evening concludes early in the morning, whether it is one long meeting or has up to three separate smaller ones.3
Peter has trailed at some distance and ends up sitting down by a fire in the courtyard area of the location where Jesus is being held. It is a cool mid-spring evening. Most large homes had open courtyards. The servants of this particular house are gathered there; the events of the evening have stirred them. One of the maidservants recognizes Peter as one of Jesus’ followers and says so: “This man was with him.” But Peter denies that he even knows Jesus. The text never tells us why Peter engages in these denials, but the uncertainty and danger of the moment offer plausible explanation. The disciples have failed to pray in preparation for this moment, and Peter’s confidence, so strong in the privacy and safety of a meal, has wilted. His denial sounds like the Jewish ban formulas of what the synagogue said to a Jew they dismissed: “We no longer know you.”4
Sometime later, someone else repeats the claim. “You are also one of them.”5 Peter replies instantly, “Man, I am not!” The words of Jesus in 22:34 are coming to pass. Peter’s denial here is not only of knowing Jesus, but of any association with his fellow disciples.
The last denial follows about an hour later. Peter has been hanging in there, though by a thread. A third person becomes insistent: “Certainly, this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” Peter’s accent identifies him as a man from the northern region of Israel, and he responds, “Man, I don’t know what you are talking about.” He claims they have the wrong person. The disciple who said he was ready to go to prison and even die for Jesus denies for a third time any connection to Jesus. The “rock man” (which is the meaning of Peter’s name) has been crushed to pieces by the pressure.
With the third denial, the rooster crows, just as Jesus predicted. In an additional touch of drama, the Lord looks at Peter, an act that indicates he knows what Peter has just done. Whether Jesus is being moved from one place to another at that time, can glance through a window, or is outside for a moment is not clear. The Lord’s glance leads Peter to recall the prediction of a threefold denial. It is too much. He departs, weeping bitterly. His heart knows what he has done. The pain of his action expresses his real allegiance, a connection his lips cannot utter. Peter has experienced a major failure of nerve. The Lord’s word, as always, has come true. He knew Peter better than Peter did.
Meanwhile the soldiers—in all likelihood, the temple guards who arrested Jesus—are having a grand time with him, mocking him mercilessly. The game appears to be some type of version of Blind Man’s Bluff, though three ancient games might fit the description.6 In addition, they beat him. In their mocking, they identify him as a “prophet,” the most popular conception of Jesus. But the Jewish leadership needs a stronger charge than that to get Jesus before the court of Rome. Rome worried about would-be kings, not prophets. The soldiers continue to “insult” Jesus (v. 65). Luke tells the story with a sense of pain, using the Greek word from which we get our word “blasphemy.”
At daybreak, the “council” (probably the Sanhedrin, composed of leading Jews) meets with Jesus. Collective responsibility for this action will make it more persuasive when Rome is eventually called to respond. The account of the trial has several irregularities, if the Mishnaic tractate Sanhedrin is any guide of more ancient practice.7 Here are a few of the procedures that are at variance with the rules in the Mishnah. (1) The proceedings did not take place at the temple. (2) Jesus is allowed no defense. (3) Jesus does not blaspheme in the technical sense of the term by using the divine name (San. 7:5). (4) The verdict comes on the same day as the trial, when two days were required for capital crimes. (5) Jesus is being tried on a feast day, normally prohibited. (6) Contradictory testimony is supposed to exonerate the defendant (San. 5:2; this point applies more to the temple discussion in Matthew and Mark). (7) The high priest is not supposed to issue the pronouncement of guilt. Exceptions to some of these procedures might be allowed in certain situations, but the mass of them indicates just how quickly (and illegally?) the trial proceeds.
With chief priests and teachers of the law gathered together, Jesus is examined. Luke narrates only the central question. “If you are the Christ, tell us.” This question is designed to get a political charge against Jesus so that they can claim Jesus is a revolutionary, an alternative king to Caesar. It also focuses on the key title of the early portion of the Gospel (1:32, 35; 2:11, 26; 3:15; 9:20; 20:41). In the question is probably rooted the Jewish expectation of a great political deliverer (cf. Pss. Sol. 17–18). If Jesus accepts this title, then his own words can be presented against him. Jesus’ reply is like his reaction in Luke 20:1–8: “If I tell you, you will not believe me.” He subtly raises the question whether they really want to have a fair trial here, or if their minds are already made up.
Jesus then goes on to make one of the most significant statements in this Gospel: “From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” He makes three claims here, if we remember that he has called himself the “Son of Man” throughout this Gospel and that Son of Man refers to the supranatural figure of Daniel who receives authority from the Ancient of Days and rides the clouds like God (Dan. 7:13–14). (1) Jesus predicts that he will eventually be seated at God’s right hand in heaven, an allusion to his approaching resurrection-ascension. (2) He claims to have authority from God, an authority he will exercise from this moment on. (3) He has authority over them. This may be their trial, but he is the one who will ultimately judge. Jesus answers their question indirectly, but his reply is actually more than they may have anticipated.
His interrogators follow up the claim with an additional question. “Are you then the Son of God?” Note how Luke is weaving titles together here: Christ, Son of Man, and Son of God. Jesus replies to the Son of God question with (NIV), “You are right in saying that I am.” This is the implication of the Greek’s more elliptical, “You say that I am.” The audience takes it positively (see also Mark 14:62). They have their man. “Why do we need anymore testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
The nature of Jesus’ remarks is significant on two levels. (1) He supplies the testimony that brings about his conviction. What the leadership has been unable to do, namely, to get convicting testimony against Jesus, the Lord brings against himself. In essence, Jesus is the witness the leadership sought and sends himself to the cross. Jesus, of course, spoke as he did because his claim is true.
(2) The nature of Jesus’ blasphemy (cf. Mark 14:64) has always been a subject of debate. Was it a claim to be God? Was it the claim to be Messiah? Was it the claim to sit at God’s side in heaven? Just what did Jesus say that was so condemning in Jewish eyes? The key remark appears to be his claim to be Son of God (i.e., the Messiah), not merely in a regal sense, but as it is tied to the claim of being the Danielic Son of Man. Jesus in effect is claiming the right to go directly into God’s presence and be seated with him in heaven. To Jewish ears this is highly offensive—worse than claiming the right to walk in and permanently reside in the “Holy of Holies” at the temple, since the temple represented God’s presence in heaven. Jews fought wars over attempts to profane the temple. Thus, the leadership sees the remarks as blasphemous, even as Matthew and Mark indicate when they mention the priests’ rending of garments.8 In a real sense, Jesus sends himself to the cross because he is faithful to his identity in the midst of an audience that rejects his claims. He makes no effort to save his life by denying who he is. So the Sanhedrin sends him on to trial before the Roman governor.
Bridging Contexts
THE PASSION ACCOUNT functions as both history and narrative. Its major concern is to summarize Jesus’ initial trial, but it also documents the failure of Peter, predicted by Jesus. The account informs us both of the trials and of the shocking treatment Jesus receives as his trial approaches. The major feature of the Jewish trial is that Jesus’ claim about himself is what sends him to his death. He is the issue, not only of this scene but of the entire Gospel. Luke wants his readers to reflect on who Jesus is. His claims force a decision. A neutral position is a position that rejects him.
On the narrative level, each of the characters reveals something. (1) The failure of Peter stands in stark contrast to the nerve of Jesus. This disciple fails because peer pressure of the world and the threat of death are too great for him to bear. (2) The soldiers show how some in the world do not take Jesus seriously. For them religion is a game, and this leader is a joke to be played with. Their mockery and belittling of Jesus reveal a spirit that is not unusual in our world. (3) The Jewish leaders are more civil than the soldiers, but their view of Jesus is just as negative. He is someone whose presence and visibility need to be removed. He is a nuisance, not a king or Savior.
Jesus’ defense leads to his rejection. He testifies to his position boldly, but he does not defend himself in terms of challenging the verdict as wrong. The injustice he bears here is tragic. In Acts, vigorous defense of the right to preach Jesus will continue. Upon arrest, the disciples do plead innocence and speak forth their testimony. Yet they serve out their arrests until judgment is made or supernatural forces release them. So the example of Jesus’ boldness carries over into the early church.
Finally, Jesus is standing before his accusers and facing a fate he has been predicting (13:31–35). He does not lose nerve. Like a sheep going silently before its shearers and like a lamb headed for the slaughter, he faces death so others may have life. How ironic that the trial of Jesus is really our trial, for what we think of it reveals what we think of him. He is really the judge. In a theological sense Jesus is on trial for us. He stands where we ought to be standing. Without our sin he would not have been there. This is one of the most timeless messages in the Bible. And in Jesus’ resurrection, he assumes a place at the right hand of the Father, so that his claims are vindicated. The judged becomes the judge and calls on us to issue a verdict about this trial, where he took our place. We all face the simple question: How will we respond to the Son of Man, who is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
Contemporary Significance
THE APPLICATIONS OF this text come at various levels. (1) The account is designed to be appreciated as a historical summary of how Jesus got to the cross. Many in our world today question the Bible even on this level. But Christianity is a historically grounded faith. Without a cross, the Christian faith is reduced to a mere form of moral suasion, of no more value than many other religious ethical systems or forms of psychology that seek to make us stronger people. Throughout this Gospel we have seen Jesus make himself the issue; reducing Christianity to moral teaching eliminates the unique person of the Christ from Christianity. Without him and what he accomplished in his death and resurrection, there is not much sense to the faith. Thus, the issue of the trial is the issue of Jesus’ identity. Luke wants us to ponder whose side are we on. If we side with Jesus, we are recognizing his claim to sit at God’s side as judge and Savior. If any king deserves honor, it is the one who sits at God’s side.
(2) Note the varied character of rejection in this passage. The soldiers and the Jewish leadership represent two distinct forms of rejection, though at their base they are similar. (a) The soldiers take Jesus frivolously. We all have met people who have no time for religion and love to mock its existence. What is so tragic about such mocking is that what they treat as frivolous is deadly serious. Sin blinds people from properly perceiving what is significant. Those who mock the faith are often those who could use it the most. Pretending to be above it, they reveal their need for it. This text shows us that we should not be surprised at the existence of such responses.
(b) The leadership reveals another side of rejection—of a more civil but staged character. Though often giving the appearance of fairness, there is a sense in which the jury is stacked in its soul. A hard heart is a tough nut to crack. That is why evangelism in the end must be a supernatural undertaking. We cannot go where the change needs to occur. That is, we cannot enter the heart as the Spirit can. As we will see at the end of this episode, some do listen, either at the trial or before it. Joseph of Arimathea, for example, has an open heart. What the opposition cannot see, he sees (23:50–51). We do not always know how our testimony will strike those who are opposed to us. Sometimes the Spirit uses our lives and words to melt a hard heart.
(3) The lesson of Peter is tragic. Here is a man who thinks he will stand up for Jesus, but he is not as ready for battle as he thinks. It is hard to overestimate the pressure Peter faced here. It shows that without total reliance on God, circumstances can cause even the most intimate of Jesus’ followers to crumble. The disappointment of his fall is great. His failure is so painful that it leaves him in tears. Many of us can identify with his plight because we have been there too. Though it is probably not with as high a set of stakes, we know what it like not to stand up for Jesus. What is encouraging about Peter’s story is that he learns from his failure. Only a few chapters down the road in Acts, we see this same man risking everything to tell about the forgiveness he has found in Jesus. If anyone appreciates what forgiveness and restoration mean, it is Peter.
In fact, the entire story of Peter underscores an important principle about the Christian walk. The goal of the church is not to shoot its wounded to death, but to restore them. One could argue that Peter’s denials should have disqualified him from any leadership position. But Jesus has already set the stage for Peter’s recovery when he noted that after Peter turned, he should strengthen the people (22:32). With a recognition of wrongdoing and a return to the Lord, forgiveness must follow. Though Peter’s failure is great, his victory comes through his restoration, a restoration made possible because Jesus is ultimately about forgiveness.
(4) Finally, Jesus prepares to bear his cross, something Peter has failed to do. He testifies boldly to his identity, even at the prospective cost of his life. In doing so, he becomes an example of a bold witness for the gospel. Several figures in Acts will take the same risk, and many saints since have done likewise, as the classic work Foxe’s Book of Martyrs documents.