Where in the scene of Peter’s Denial (Luke 22:54-65), the focus and center of the narrative was Peter, here the focus returns to Jesus. In this trial (hearing, meeting) by the religious authorities of Jerusalem, the role of Jesus as prophet and Messiah is at the forefront of the narrative. Jesus had foretold the primary events of this scene—both Peter’s threefold denial before the crowing of the cock (v. 34; vv. 56–61) and his own maltreatment (esp. 18:32; cf. 20:10–11 and 22:63–65).

As Joel Green has noted (786), the scene before the Sanhedrin is the first of four scenes: the Sanhedrin (22:66–71), the hearing before Pilate (23:1–5), the hearing before Herod (vv. 6–12), and the sentencing of Jesus (vv.13–25). Although Jesus appears in each scene, other than minimal responses to the Jewish council (22:68–70) and to Pilate (23:3), he is silent and a passive participant in these trials. The single constant in these narratives is the active presence of the Jewish leadership. They are obviously and necessarily central in the first hearing, but also appear as Jesus’ accusers before Pilate and Herod; when Jesus is returned to Pilate, they are again present, calling for Jesus’ demise. Luke describes the leadership as “elders,” “leaders,”  chief priests, scribes, and “the crowds.” Especially against the backdrop of Pilate’s attempt to vindicate Jesus, it is evident that Jesus’ death is the consequence of the relentless and overpowering presence of the Jewish leadership. 

What is at stake is who is the authentic interpreter of the will of God?  Jesus or the Sanhedrin? What is behind the scene is the heart of the intersection of God’s love and human freedom. The Son of God would lay down his life freely to redeem those who oppose him, but God would not refuse them the freedom to oppose him.  What love is this that will neither cease to love nor overrule our freedom to reject that love?

The Trial Before the Sanhedrin: ⁶⁶ When day came the council of elders of the people met, both chief priests and scribes, and they brought him before their Sanhedrin. ⁶⁷ They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” but he replied to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, ⁶⁸ and if I question, you will not respond. ⁶⁹ But from this time on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” ⁷⁰ They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.” ⁷¹ Then they said, “What further need have we for testimony? We have heard it from his own mouth.” 

The long nighttime ends with an early morning session before the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews in Jerusalem. Although the gospel accounts give this event the semblance of a “trial” it was probably an informal hearing as the leaders prepared their case against Jesus for presentation before the Roman governor. Luke’s description of a single meeting of the Sanhedrin, taking place at daybreak, is more likely than that of Mark and Matthew, who describe a night meeting followed by a morning session to carry out the decision. A night meeting of the Sanhedrin is otherwise unknown. 

Jesus is unwilling to identify himself as the kind of Messiah popularly expected; rather, he speaks of himself as authoritative judge in his role as the Son of Man (Dan 7:13–14). They interpret this answer (correctly) as an affirmation of a special divine status; they can only view this as blasphemy, sufficient reason to condemn him to death (see Mark 14:62–64). The Sanhedrin was (likely) not empowered to impose the death sentence; they had to submit their accusation to the judgment of the Roman authority.

Luke’s narration of the events is distinctive for what it lacks in comparison to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew: there is no succession of false witnesses, no rending of the documents by the chief priests, no cry of blasphemy or statement that Jesus deserves death. As well there are unique features in what Luke includes: the whole Sanhedrin is involved in the questioning – thus the rejection is not from the chief priest alone, but the whole of the religious leadership.  And perhaps more importantly, Jesus’ response concerning his being Son of God is answered, not in terms of the parousia (as in Mark and Matthew), but in terms of the resurrection – after which the risen Christ will be seated at the right-hand of the Father.

Luke brings us quickly to the heart of the issue: the reader of this gospel knows from the opening scenes of the infancy narrative that Jesus is the “Messiah” and the “Son of Man”. But the opponents are closed to this truth.  They have not believed his words and deeds and an admission that he is the “Son of God” will not help their unbelief, because they do not seek him. Perhaps ironically, Jesus tells them, “in your very question, you possess the answer and the gateway to eternal life”: “You say that I am” (v.70).

The exultation of Jesus to the right hand of God is beginning in the Sanhedrin session; it will be advanced on the cross, where Jesus will speak of being in paradise this day (23:43); and it will be fulfilled in the ascension of Jesus which concludes the Gospel (24:50-51)

The Trial Before Pilate and Herod: ^23:1 Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate. ² They brought charges against him, saying, “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.” ³ Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He said to him in reply, “You say so.” ⁴ Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, “I find this man not guilty.” ⁵ But they were adamant and said, “He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here.” 

⁶ On hearing this Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean; ⁷ and upon learning that he was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was in Jerusalem at that time. ⁸ Herod was very glad to see Jesus; he had been wanting to see him for a long time, for he had heard about him and had been hoping to see him perform some sign. ⁹ He questioned him at length, but he gave him no answer. ¹⁰ The chief priests and scribes, meanwhile, stood by accusing him harshly. ¹¹ (Even) Herod and his soldiers treated him contemptuously and mocked him, and after clothing him in resplendent garb, he sent him back to Pilate. ¹² Herod and Pilate became friends that very day, even though they had been enemies formerly. 

The leaders bring Jesus to Pilate and begin to charge him with serious crimes. Luke alone emphasizes the political nature of the charges against Jesus: “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah a king” (23:2). Later they repeat the charges: “He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here” (23:5).

Pontius Pilate had been procurator, or Roman governor, of Judea for about five years. His seat of government was at the seacoast town of Caesarea, but he was in Jerusalem because of the large gathering of Jews for the feast of Passover. Luke follows Mark’s outline but makes several additions to throw into high relief Jesus’ innocence. 

One of the charges is clearly false — the opposition to Roman taxes (see 20:20–25). Jesus has not spoken clearly to the Sanhedrin about being the Messiah (22:66), but he has not denied it; his entry into Jerusalem implied it (19:28–40). Luke has added the explanatory “a king” for the sake of his Greek readers. After Jesus’ noncommittal reply, Pilate pronounces him innocent. No reason is given, because in abbreviating the account Luke has taken the arguments for granted. The charges are repeated, this time in terms that encompass Jesus’ whole ministry as traditionally described, beginning in Galilee and eventually affecting the whole land (Acts 10:37) – forcing Pilate’s hand as the Roman keeper of imperial order.

The mention of Galilee gives Pilate the opportunity to divert the case to the tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas, who was also in Jerusalem for the feast. Herod’s curiosity about Jesus was mentioned earlier (9:9). Jesus does not respond to the request for a sign nor to the ill-motivated questions, as he never does in the Gospels. Herod’s mocking treatment of Jesus ironically heals an enmity with Pilate (whose conduct cited in 13:1 may have been one of the causes). The cooperation of the two is later seen as the fulfillment of prophecy (Ps 2:1–2; Acts 4:25–28).

As for the Jewish religious leaders, their initial and subsequent attempts to shape the civil authorities to take deadly action against Jesus have come to naught, despite their continuing harsh accusations (v.10). There is only one course of action left them.  For them to create the civil disturbance that Pilate will want to stop.

Fr. Donald Senior’s comments on this section are noteworthy:

Luke’s account is filled with irony. It is ironic that the leaders whose responsibility was to defend the freedom and faith of Israel would become concerned with the rights of Caesar. But the reader of the gospel is aware of another level of irony: in fact, Jesus’ powerful ministry of justice was a profound threat to the oppressive might of Caesar. And indeed his mission had intended to “stir up the people” as the Lucan Jesus has journeyed majestically from Galilee to Jerusalem. But the revolution Jesus incited was not the predictable clash of alternate political systems, but a call for fundamental conversion and a vision of a renewed human family built on justice and compassion–a vision capable of shaking the foundation of every oppressive political system.

Further irony is found in the fact that the secular authorities, Pilate and then Herod, find Jesus innocent while the religious leaders tenaciously seek to destroy him. Luke has the Roman Governor and the vassal king of Galilee repeatedly affirm this. “I find this man not guilty”, Pilate declares (23:4). And in a curious scene unique to Luke (23:6-16), even when Jesus is mocked as a bogus prophet by Herod Antipas, the corrupt king and murderer of prophets (9:7-9; 13:31-33) could find no guilt in Jesus.