Awaiting the vindication of a righteous man: a reflection for Holy Saturday

“…the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought Jesus to their council.  They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us.” He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” (Luke 22.66-69) 

     As Jesus lies in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Lk. 23.50-56), let us reconsider the judicial process that put him there.  Luke – in both his Gospel and Acts – demonstrates a particular interest in both Jewish and Roman jurisprudence and legal proceedings.  Jesus undergoes a series of four hearings – before the Sanhedrin, as well as an appearance before Herod Antipas in between two hearings before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea.

     Jesus’ “trial” by the Sanhedrin is summarized very succinctly – no witness testimony is included in Luke’s account (Lk. 22.66-71; cf. Mk. 14.53-59).  As is the case with many trials, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  The council’s question to Jesus is itself the charge they are bringing against Jesus.  Ironically, for Jesus, to be who he is (i.e. the Messiah) is to find himself condemned by the supreme legal body of his nation.  The hostility of the chief priests towards Jesus originated in his “cleansing” of the Temple (cf. Lk. 19.45-48; 20.1-8, 19-20; 22.1-2).  By his actions in the Temple, Jesus had advanced an implicit messianic claim, which leads to the chief priests demanding to know where his authority comes from (Lk. 20.1-8).  The king of Israel had always been understood to have authority over the Jerusalem Temple – David had prepared for the first temple’s construction, Solomon had built it, and – closer to Jesus’ own day – Herod the Great had tried to legitimize his claim to be “King of the Jews” – a title granted to him by Rome – by undertaking an enormous and highly successful project to expand and beautify the second Temple (cf. Lk. 1.5; Jn. 2.18-21).  For (most of) the members of the Sanhedrin, it was impossible that anyone who would enact judgment against the “house” of Yahweh and thus express contempt for their authority could ever be considered the Messiah.  This explains why, in response to their question regarding the origins of his authority over the Temple, Jesus tells them the “parable of the wicked tenants”, thereby describing himself as the “son” of the vineyard owner who is the last in a series of “servants” who are rejected and persecuted by the tenants (Lk. 20.9-19).  Of course, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the prophets are known as the “servants of Yahweh” (cf. Jer. 7.25; 25.4, etc.).  So, the chief priests had been convinced, since “Palm Sunday”, that Jesus was a threat that had to be done away with.

     Following this rather hurried first hearing, the chief priests bring Jesus to Pilate and, with biting cynicism, charge him with being a would-be messianic figure of the sort that the Romans were well acquainted with (Lk. 23.1-5; cf. Ac. 5.36-37; 21.38; Lk. 20.20-26).  The fact that they accuse Jesus of a capital offense clearly demonstrates their desire to see Jesus put to death (cf. Lk. 19.47-48).  Pilate seems utterly uninterested in their allegations against Jesus and, once he ascertains that Jesus is a Galilean, jumps at the opportunity to hand Jesus over to Herod Antipas, who was in Jersualem for the Passover (Lk. 23.6-7).

     And so, Jesus is made to appear before Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee and son of Herod the Great (Lk. 23.8-12; cf. 3.1).  Antipas is overjoyed to finally meet Jesus, this wonder worker about whom he has heard so much (cf. Lk. 9.7-9).  Despite Herod’s curious queries and the Sanhedrin’s vehement accusations, Jesus keeps his own counsel.  Herod responds by vesting Jesus in an elegant robe in “honour” of his supposed kingship, and sends him back to Pilate.  That day, Luke tells us, Herod and Pilate – previously hostile to each other – became friends (Lk. 23.12).

     Jesus’ fourth and final legal hearing finds him once again before “the bench” occupied by the representative of Roman justice.  Pilate informs “the chief priests, the leaders, and the people” of his verdict – he has found Jesus to be innocent of every charge they have brought against him (Lk. 23.13-14; cf. 23.4).  Pilate then proposes to have Jesus flogged and then released (23.16).  At that point, the chief priests, the leaders, and the crowds begin to earnestly demand that Pilate release a rebel on death row by the name of Barabbas, who had been convicted of the very crime they have accused Jesus of – insurrection/inciting and stirring up the people (Lk. 23.19, 25; cf. 23.1-2).  When Pilate protests – again – that Jesus is innocent, they call for his crucifixion (23.20, 23).  No explanation is provided as to why the release of Barabbas was an option (cf. Jn. 18.39; Mt. 27.15; Mk. 15.6).  However, in the end, Pilate grants the chief priests, the leaders, and the people their wish, and hands over Jesus to be crucified while Barabbas – Luke spells out his crimes again – is set free (Lk. 23.25).

     The fact that Jesus – the Messiah who had preached peace and love of enemy (Lk. 6.27, 35; 19.41-42) – is substituted for Barabbas – the murderous revolutionary – demonstrates with blinding clarity both that Jesus has come “to seek out and to save the lost” (cf. Lk. 19.10; 23.39-43) and that Jesus is taking the fate of his rebellious “generation” upon himself (cf. Lk. 23.27-31).  Jesus had already foretold what lay at the end of the path of violent revolt against Rome (cf. Lk. 13.1-5, 33-35; 19.41-44; 21.5-32).  Jesus will die the death of the rebellious subject of the empire, taking the judgment of both Rome and Yahweh upon himself.  Jesus will atone for the “sin” of his nation, i.e. her rebellious refusal to heed the word of Yahweh through his Son to pursue peace.  In a paradoxical twist, Israel’s desire to violently “defend” its status as the elect people of God is interpreted by Jesus as an offense worthy of the disaster which will befall Jerusalem in the year AD 70 – a politico–military catastrophe which, as Jesus had painstakingly spelled out, would in fact be the judgment of Yahweh upon this “evil generation” (cf. Lk. 11.29; 21.29-33).  The kingdom proclaimed by Jesus – the rule of peace – literally “released” Barabbas, both from Roman chains and from satanic bondage to endless cycles of violence (cf. Lk. 13.16), and offered genuine freedom to all those who had been pursuing a kingdom ruled by vengeance.  This is the new Exodus, and Jesus – the prophet like Moses (cf. Ac. 3.22; 7.37) – is leading the way to liberty. 

     It is very important for Luke – again, both in his Gospel and Acts – to demonstrate that neither Jesus nor any of his “witnesses” (cf. Ac. 1.8) have been found guilty of any crimes against Roman law.  Though deeply subversive and “anti-imperial” in virtue of both its allegiance to Jesus as Lord as well as its novel approach to economic and social life, Luke takes great pains to point out that the early Jesus-movement is a law-abiding “organisation” and one that has no intention of taking violent or illegal action against the imperial authorities or the Pax Romana.  Again, the switch of Jesus for Barabbas would have served to rub the noses of Roman readers of his Gospel into this fact.  Those imperial power-brokers who condemn Jesus-followers to death do so, Luke insists, without just cause.  “When these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near” (Lk. 21.28).  Amen.