Lucas 23
R.C.H. Lenski · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 23
Lenski - This chastisement is a morsel that is offered these insistent accusers. Pilate is asking whether they cannot be satisfied if he orders this. They will then not lose face by being turned down completely. They will have accomplished much, if not all. Pilate was again hopeful, but every play he made only made his defeat surer. To yield an inch from his first verdict (Lk 23:4) overthrew the entire verdict. That is why the Sanhedrists hung on. All they had to do was to hang on, and they did. He who yielded so much would yield also the rest. It was just as unjust to chastise Jesus for no crime that merited chastisement as to put him to death without proving a crime that was worthy of death. Pilate's proposal is a self-indictment of criminal injustice. He shrank from the bloodguilt of executing Jesus; he did not shrink from chastising him. The fearful inconsistencies of worldly logic in moral matters are astounding. To hope to escape the devil by paying him a half-price is the folly of making him certain that you will pay also the other half. (BORROW The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel PAGE 1116) Will punish (3811)(paideuo from país = child) refers primarily to the training children. At one end of the spectrum the training is by teaching, instructing, educating or nurturing and at the other end it is by punishment. In the present context the idea of punishment is clearly indicated and it is undoubtedly more severe then just a "spanking of a child." BDAG suggests that paideuo in Lk 23:16, 22 means to "discipline by whipping or scourging" which is the sense in several OT (Septuagint) uses (1 Ki 2:11, 14, 2 Chr 10:11, 14). W E Vine adds paideuo "also has the meaning to chastise with blows, to scourge, said of the command of a judge, Luke 23:16, 22." And so the NET version has "I will therefore have Him flogged and release Him." Luke's use of the verb paideuo instead of the verb phragelloo used by Matthew and Mark for scourging suggests that Pilate is referring to punishing Jesus not with a severe scourging like that which He suffered prior to His crucifixion. Pilate clearly viewed Jesus as not guilty, and so his goal was to placate the Jews by having Jesus punished with a reprimand that was short of brutal scourging. He apparently continued to misinterpret the intent of the Jews -- they did not just want their "pound of flesh," they wanted Messiah's life blood! Nothing short of that would satisfy the blood lust in their evil hearts. For comparison notice that Mt 27:26 and Mk 15:15 use the verb phragello to describe Pilate's scourging of Jesus before handing Him over for crucifixion. BDAG says that phragelloo means to "flog, scourge, a punishment inflicted on slaves and provincials after a sentence of death had been pronounced on them." In short, the verb phragelloo described a more intense degree of scourging. And as stated, it was the common practice to inflict this harsh punishment after the pronouncement of a death sentence prior to execution. Clearly, the beaten, wounded, bloody victim would then die faster while hanging on a cross. John 19:1 uses a different verb for scourge (mastigoo) which means to beat with a whip or lash. Carl Schneider in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT Volume 4, page 519) has the following note on Jesus' scourging: The scourging of Jesus in Jn 19:1 and in the prophecies of the passion in Mt. 20:19 == Mk. 10:34 == Lk. 18:33 is not the synagogue punishment but the Roman verberatio. Mt. 27:26 = Mk. 15:15 have the Lat. loan word φραγελλόω (phragelloo)instead of μαστιγόω (mastigoo). Lk. 23:16 has the weaker παιδεύσας (paideuo) and says nothing about its execution (ED: THAT IS LUKE DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE CARRYING OUT OF THE SCOURGING). Here is one of the many instances of Luke’s softening of the passion story. John seems to think in terms of a compromise between true verberatio and a separate whipping. The aim of Pilate is to awaken pity by the scourging. It seems as though he wants to impose only a scourging without crucifixion. (This would be a kind of examination, cf. 3. and Schl. J. on 19:1.) According to Roman law the verberatio always accompanied a capital sentence, condemnatio ad metalla, and other degrading punishments with the loss of freedom or civil rights.17 In many cases it was itself fatal. It usually preceded crucifixion.18 It was so terrible that even Domitian was horrified by it.19 Women were exempted.20 We know little about the details. The number of strokes was not prescribed. It continued until the flesh hung down in bloody shreds. Slaves administered it, and the condemned person was tied to a pillar.21 RELEASE: A KEY WORD IN JESUS' TRIAL In another of the many ironies on this day, if is ironic that "release" is a key word in the trial of our Lord, because He in fact was not released. Of course, this is according to the predestined plan of God (Acts 4:27, 28, 2:23) to provide a Lamb, so that when believers pass away, the death angel will pass over us, and we will pass into the presence of the Lamb Who was slain for our sin. Leon
Lucas 23
Lenski quips that the Jews "merely continue their insistence and shout the louder at the sight of his complete weakening. And they are right—one more shove, and over he goes." (BORROW The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel PAGE 1122) Rod Mattoon - As a choir raises their voices together to sound forth their song, this mob was singing for slaughter and bellowing for blood. The monotonous chant of this fickle, emotion-charged, screaming rabble of rebels was, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" Envy was at work here (cf Pr 27:4) as the united voice of the Sanhedrin was insistent in demanding the Lord be crucified. You can tell a great deal about a person by what they detest and what they like. The character of this crowd is revealed as they thirst for the destruction of someone who was godly, kind, and loving. Pilate attempted to restrain this mob, but they would not listen to what he had to say. They were in a feeding frenzy like pirana consuming a cow crossing a river. (Treasures from Luke) As Matthew affirms Pilate "knew that because of envy (phthonos) they had delivered Him up." With loud voices asking that He be crucified (stauroo) - "Loud voices" is picturesque in the Greek being derived from megas and phone (cf English "megaphone"). Leon Morris on loud voices - The mob was insistent. Their loud cries give the impression that a riot was beginning to build up. It must have been obvious to Pilate that the situation was becoming increasingly ugly. The mob’s shouts won the day. (BORROW Tyndale New Testament Commentaries – Luke PAGE 324) The verb asking (aiteo) is in the present tense (continually asking) middle voice which was used to express business demands, such as "to ask what is due," or what one has a right to ask. They sensed Pilate's weakening will and like a lion stalking its prey, they leaped on his vacillation and indecision. And their voices began to prevail (katischuo) - The idea of the phrase began to prevail is that the battle against Pilate was gaining momentum but even now was not entirely won. Nevertheless, the shouts to "Crucify" Jesus were beginning (imperfect tense - again and again) to gain ascendancy and to succeed in persuading Pilate's weak will, winning out over his refrain of "not guilty!" In this context of rising resentment and roaring in the crowd, surely Pilate grew concerned that a riot was about to ensue, which would be an unacceptable outcome for Pilate in the eyes of Imperial Rome. That must be avoided at all costs, in this case the "cost" of an innocent Man's life! The KJV adds another phrase not found in the more modern Greek manuscripts declaring "the voices of them (Jews) and of the chief priests." While this phrase is not in the modern manuscripts, it does present an accurate picture of whose voices were beginning to prevail. Matthew gives us Pilate's reaction to the cry of the Jews to crucify Jesus, essentially claiming he did not concur with the decision of the Jews and thus (in his mind) was innocent. In essence Pilate is implying that the Jews were the one's guilty of forcing him to commit this gross miscarriage of justice in killing an innocent man... When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” 25 And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Mt 27:24-25+) Insistent (1945)(epikeimai from epí = upon + keímai = to lie on) means to lie upon, to be placed on, to lie on (literally of the stone against Jesus' tomb - Jn 21:9, of fish on the fire of coals - Jn 21:9). Epikeimai is used in Luke 5:1+ to describe the crowd pressing around Jesus, which while a literal use, does help give us a sense of the "pressure" the Jews were bringing to bear on Pilate. Prevail (2729)(katischuo from kata = against + ischuo = to prevail) means to be strong against someone or and thus to prevail over. Katischuo pictures the shouting from the crowd becoming so loud and persistent that they prevailed with Pilate. O, the difference a few days can make in one's heart response -- many had hailed Him and wanted to crown Him King on His Triumphal Entry (Lk 19:38+). Now probably some of these same voice cry for His crucifixion like a criminal. But Jesus always gets the last word for He uses katischuo in His prophecy declaring "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower (katischuo) it." (Mt 16:18) In addition, the first use in the Septuagint in Genesis 49:24 is one of three descriptions of the coming Messiah as "the Mighty One (katischuo) of Jacob, (from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel)." Gilbrant adds that "The Greek for prevail is katischuo meaning to gain the ascendancy or to gain a victory. This was not a yelling contest between the Jews and Pilate. Rather, the thrust of the language is that by their constant and loud demanding, the people got what they wanted." (Ibid) Question: Why did the crowds shout, “Crucify Him!” when Pilate wanted to release Jesus? Answer: When the Sanhedrin brought Jesus before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, Pilate could not find any fault in Jesus, and he said so three times (Luke 23:4, 14–15, 22). Late in the trial, Pilate sought a way to free Jesus (John 19:12). It was a Passover festival custom that the governor release a prisoner to the people, so, in a ploy to appease the crowd of Jewish leaders who had gathered and to secure Jesus’ release, Pilate allowed them to choose between a convicted criminal named Barabbas and Jesus. Instead of choosing Jesus, as Pilate had hoped, the crowd chose Barabbas for release. Shocked that they would free a hardened criminal, Pilate asked, “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” (Mark 15:12). The crowd cried out, “Crucify him!” (verse 13). It is well that Pilate was confused by the crowd’s reaction, for barely a week earlier the people of Jerusalem had welcomed Jesus into the city with the waving of palm branches and shouts of “Hosanna!” (Matthew 21:1–11). What Pilate may not have known was the extent to which the religious and political leaders hated and opposed Jesus. Over the course of Jesus’ ministry, His teachings had alienated and angered the Pharisees, the scribes, the Herodians, and the Sadducees. Not only did Jesus point out their extreme hypocrisy on many occasions (see Matthew 23; Mark 7:1–14; Luke 20:45–47), but He also claimed to be God, which was blasphemy to the unbelieving teachers of the law (see Mark 14:60–64). The religious leaders wanted to utterly destroy Jesus (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6). Only His death would satisfy them. In Jesus’ time, crucifixion was reserved for the worst of criminals. The torture a person endured on a cross would last for hours, and killing Jesus in this manner likely appealed to the religious leaders who hated Him so deeply. In an effort to hide their move against Jesus from His many supporters, the Jewish leaders arrested and tried Jesus in the middle of the night. When Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate—the only one with authority to order a crucifixion—it was still early in the morning (Matthew 27:1–2). When Pilate presented Jesus and Barabbas to the people, the chief priests whipped the crowd into a frenzy, encouraging them to call for Barabbas’s release (Mark 15:11). When Pilate asked what they wanted done to Jesus, the crowd, again influenced by the chief priests, shouted, “Crucify Him!” Pilate, the people-pleaser, gave them what they demanded. He had Jesus flogged and then turned Him over for crucifixion. At the beginning of the week, there was a crowd in Jerusalem celebrating Jesus as the Messiah; by Friday, there was a crowd crying, “Crucify Him!” The striking change of the city’s heart naturally causes some perplexity. It’s good to remember that not everyone at the Triumphal Entry was celebrating the Lord. Most of the city was puzzled: “When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, ‘Who is this?’” (Matthew 21:10), and the Jewish leaders were indignant (verse 15). Some of the same crowd who shouted, “Hosanna!” may also have been part of the crowd shouting “Crucify Him!” but we can’t be sure. If some people did join both crowds, it may be because they had grown disillusioned with Jesus when they discovered He was not going to set up the kingdom immediately—or perhaps they disliked Jesus’ insistence that they repent. Also, it’s quite possible that the crowd gathered before Pilate at that early hour had been assembled and suborned by the Jewish leaders. In the end, it wasn’t the crowd’s cries of “Crucify Him!” that put Jesus on the cross. Our sin did that. From the very beginning, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, the Lord had promised to send a Savior who would crush the reign of sin and death (Genesis 3:15). Throughout the ages God wove His plan to send a Savior, and that plan culminated in the person of Jesus Christ: God’s own Son who became the perfect God-man so He could take upon Himself the punishment for sin. Although wicked men were involved in Jesus’ death on the cross, His sacrifice was ultimately the will of God (Isaiah 53:10; John 10:18). The shedding of Jesus’ blood fulfilled God’s promise to mankind to provide a Savior and sealed the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). Jesus would then defeat the power of death and the grave by rising again three days later and ascending to His Father’s right hand in heaven. (GotQuestions.org) Billy Graham - Caving In to the Crowd LUKE 23:4, 23 NIV The name of Pontius Pilate will be forever linked to the death of Jesus Christ, for it was he, as Roman governor, who gave the final order condemning Jesus to death by crucifixion. But the name of Pontius Pilate will also stand forever as a prime example of someone who knew what was right—but failed to do it. Repeatedly, he told the mob clamoring for Jesus’ death that he found no basis for condemning Him—but in the end, he caved in to the pressures of the crowd and ordered His death. Publicly he washed his hands and told the crowd that they alone were responsible for Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:24), but in reality Pilate’s cowardice sent Jesus to the cross. How often do you cave in to the pressures of the crowd, seeking the approval of others instead of the approval of God? We all like to be liked—but that can be a very dangerous thing. Make it your goal to live for Christ and be faithful to Him, regardless of what the crowd demands. (Hope for Each Day) Luke 23:24 And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. KJV Luke 23:24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. YLT Luke 23:24 and Pilate gave judgment for their request being done, And Pilate pronounced Mt 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1 sentence that their demand be granted Exodus 23:2; Proverbs 17:15 Luke 23 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries See Trial & Crucifixion of Jesus - Parallel Passages - to arrange the events chronologically and bring out details unique to each Gospel PILATE CAVES TO DEMAND OF JEWS Only Luke's version specifically declares that Pilate passed sentence on Jesus. However, it is notable that Pilate did not give the verdict "Death to Jesus," but that "their demand be granted." The NET Note agrees explaining that "Although some translations render epekrinen here as "passed sentence" or "gave his verdict," the point in context is not that Pilate sentenced Jesus to death here, but that finally, although convinced of Jesus' innocence, he gave in to the crowd's incessant demand to crucify an innocent man," as rendered in the ESV "So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted." NET Note - Finally Pilate gave in. He decided crucifying one Galilean teacher was better than facing a riot. Justice lost out in the process, because he did not follow his own verdict. Although some translations render epekrinen here as "passed sentence" or "gave his verdict," the point in context is not that Pilate sentenced Jesus to death here, but that finally, although convinced of Jesus' innocence, he gave in to the crowd's incessant demand to crucify an innocent man. Lenski writes that the use of these two similar forms (aitema and aiteo in the previous passage) "speak of what the Jews demanded as their right. This is, indeed, a strange form of sentencing." (BORROW The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel PAGE 1122) (Bolding added) Preacher's Outline and Sermon Bible - Note a crucial point. It is when we are indecisive or willing to compromise that the pressure to do evil gets to us. Hesitating and being indecisive will cause us to give in to the pressure of sin. Matthew affirms that Pilate began to fear a riot "When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves. And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”” (Matthew 27:24-25) Pilate was vainly attempting to "clear his name" and say that he was not responsible for the death of Christ and yet, in reality he was, because (1) he had the authority to set Jesus free and (2) he thought He was innocent. Peter and John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit leave no doubt that Jesus' innocent blood was on Pilate's "washed" hands (among others) declaring “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, Whom You anointed, both (1) Herod and (2) Pontius Pilate, (3) along with the Gentiles and (4) the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined (proorizo) to occur." (Acts 4:27-28, cf Acts 2:23, Isa 53:10) Yes, God had predestined these events but that did not absolve men like Pilate from their guilt before God's bar of perfect justice (Rev 20:11-15+)! Notice that there four people or groups that colluded to kill the Messiah. As Mattoon says "Pilate is an example of a powerful man with great authority who was dominated by the power of "peer pressure."" (Ibid) Do you (I) ever cave into "peer pressure," and momentarily jettison your loyalty to the Lamb of God? Gilbrant adds "He gave in to their demands. Whatever the lack of evidence, whatever the injustice, whatever the mystery of the man Jesus, Pilate felt it was more important for him to keep the populace under control. We call it appeasement. We may find an image of ourselves in Pilate. Too often we abandon truth or justice because of peer pressure or because we are in the minority." Life Application Bible Commentary adds "No doubt Pilate did not want to risk losing his position, which may already have been shaky, by allowing a riot to occur in his province. As a career politician, he knew the importance of compromise, and he saw Jesus more as a political threat than as a human being with rights and dignity." Spurgeon He had not courage to stem the stream, he feared that they might accuse him to Cæsar if he suffered Jesus to go free, and, therefore, he sold himself to do evil. We need to be firm in our principles or we shall soon be driven into great sin (Interpreter's Bible) And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted - While the previous passage indicated the Jews had begun to prevailed, this verse signifies that had finally won out over Pilate. There are many ironies in the arrest, trial and murder of Jesus. Here we encounter one of the more sobering ironies that the Jews (especially those who were "religious") and Pilate both of whom condemned Jesus, were themselves condemned to judgment. Both the Jews and Pilate were guilty, but as Jesus told Pilate, the Jews had the greater guilt as seen by Jesus' answer to Pilate's question (Jn 19:10)... “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” (Jn 19:11). Pronounced sentence is(1948)(epikrino used only here) is the usual verb for the final decision, the official decision. Epikrino This verb, along with the corresponding subst. evpi,krisij, is very common of the “examination” of persons liable to military service, as e.g, with reference to a man who had been released owing to defective eyesight. Epikrino is also used in connection with the “selection” of boys aged 11–14 for admission to the list of privileged persons who were exempt from the poll-tax. Demand (155)(aitema from aiteo = ask for with urgency to the point of demanding, even as demanding one's share) are petitions that in general are from one who is in a lesser position than the one to whom the petition is made. The word demand speaks of that which is requested peremptorily, in an urgent or commanding manner expecting to be obeyed immediately. The Jews requested urgently, insistently and forcefully for Jesus' crucifixion. NET Note - Finally Pilate gave in. He decided crucifying one Galilean teacher was better than facing a riot. Justice lost out in the process, because he did not follow his own verdict.