Jesus Condemned by the Sanhedrin. Luke 22:63-71 In Luke’s account of Jesus before the council of the high priest and the Sanhedrin, there is much that is omitted, which is included in Matthew and Mark. There is no mention of the false witnesses or all the things the Jews did to Jesus before He was mocked, blindfolded, and hit repeatedly in the face. Their mockery and charges of being a false messiah, perhaps, stemmed from their knowledge of the words of Isaiah, chapter eleven. The abuse was because of the verdict that had already been decided, because the council was determined to condemn Jesus as a false messiah worthy of death.
It is dangerous to apply the scriptures to a situation in which we find ourselves without first interpreting them. When we understand the scriptures in the context in which they were written and recognize that they are settled and without private interpretation, then we can seek to see how they can be applied to a specific event or problem. Popular belief about current events can mislead people into fear of what will happen next when scripture is misapplied. Fear can make people want to hunker down and hide, waiting for the Lord to come, instead of motivating us to press forward in the work to which we have been called.
The majority of people today, when they are confronted with the just claims of God over them, “Do not want this Man to reign over them.” Recognizing that, the attitude of most people should motivate us to be more diligent in proclaiming the Gospel publicly and living out the truth of the Gospel before those who know us. What those who mocked the Lord Jesus said in sarcasm was, in fact, the truth. He was a false prophet to them, even though His predictions were true. They didn’t know, but Peter and the disciples understood that the predictions Jesus made about Peter’s denial and his treatment at the hands of men came true right then.
Jesus was taken from the house of Caiaphas, the high priest, to where the Sanhedrin met. Seventy Jewish leaders represented the whole nation of Israel. Jesus stood before the elders, who were the nation's responsible political representatives. The chief priests were present, representing the traditional forms of Judaism. The teachers of the law who were present would have been the legal authorities when questions arose about civil and religious laws.
That gathering of leaders was a formal meeting of Israel’s highest authorities, convened to question Jesus’ authority and claims, which they perceived as superior to their own. It was evident to them all that Jesus was no ordinary man. By the power of His words, He healed the sick and raised the dead. His teaching was both profound and practical, in contrast to their ambiguity. People understood what He said and were impressed by the authority of His gracious words when He explained the truth of the scriptures.
Consequently, the spokesmen of the Sanhedrin had only two questions to ask Jesus. Each question was legal, according to the law, and each one carried a capital sentence. The meeting at night in the high priest’s house was not a legal trial, so all they said and did there was not only wrong but was out of order. They had already come to a verdict without any semblance of legality. To make their verdict legal, they had to do it lawfully during the day, which they did at daybreak.
Those involved were very careful about the small things, even though they were determined to condemn and kill an innocent Man. The council limited the entire proceeding to two questions without calling any witnesses to testify in the proper court in the light of day. “Are You the Messiah?” “Are You the Son of God?” Luke has divided the single question asked by Matthew and Mark into two parts. That speaks to the legal claims and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and provides the only way they could condemn Him to death.
When we are asked questions by those who are hostile to God, the Gospel, and the Bible, we must be careful about how we reply. If the questions are sincere, even though they are antagonistic in origin, the answer needs to open the minds of the questioners to what their motive was for asking the questions in the first place. If what we are asked can be taken seriously, we should consider the answer we give and base it on what the scripture says and the truth that should be regarded personally by the inquirer.
The Lord Jesus Christ was aware of the deception of those who questioned Him. Their attitude was, “Don’t bother to tell us the truth. It won’t make any difference. Just tell us what we want to hear.” So, Jesus gave neither a plain answer nor did He ask them a question that He would have asked if His question had been taken seriously. In other words, He took control of the situation and exposed it for what it was. He was letting them know that He was aware of what they would do. It was all a sham trial that ignored the law and made a mockery of the word of God.
He answered, “If I tell you the truth, you will not believe Me. If I ask you a question, you will not answer Me.” Then, consistent with the theme of the Gospel of Luke, He identified Himself as “The Son of Man,” which He had done many times before. He went even further by pointing out that He was the King sitting in the place of authority and judgment over the universe. In one sentence, He moved the whole matter from being earthly to heavenly.
He had the right to question them and to judge them. He would be doing that, and they would all see Him as the true Messiah. He made all that clear without saying anything for which they could condemn Him. In His brief reply to their questions, the Lord moved the scene from His place and position on earth to the far more overreaching heavenly sphere. The words, “From now on,” made it plain they had only that brief moment as “your hour.” Far from getting rid of Him, they would see Him in the place of supreme authority and power and would be the losers. They would be allowed to kill Him, but His death on the cross was the beginning, not the end.
One wonders what those listening to their spokesman would think when they heard this exchange. Likely, there was a palatable silence for a short time before the second question was asked. “Are You the Son of God?” Jesus’ answer was clear without hesitation: “You are right in saying I am.” They had made the statement, and He had agreed without saying it Himself. It was a positive reply to their words, but had no hidden meaning that could be read into what they said. He had agreed with their words, giving them no reason to condemn Him for what He said. The careful words of the Lord meant no more than what they said, but the accusers still made that into a reason to justify the decision they had made long before. They were going to see that Jesus was killed, and they were not going to allow that to be hindered by the truth.
LUKE 23 THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS