Luke 22:54-71

2. The Judgment of Jesus: Luke 22:54 to Luke 23:25.

1 st. The Ecclesiastical Trial: Luke 22:54-71.

This account contains three things: (1) St. Peter's denial (Luke 22:54-62); (2) The evil treatment practised by the Jews (Luke 22:63-65); (3) The sentence of death pronounced by the Sanhedrim (Luke 22:66-71).

Luke places the sitting of the Sanhedrim at which Jesus was condemned in the morning, when the day dawned (Luke 22:66). This morning sitting is also mentioned by Matthew (Matthew 27:1, the morning was come) and Mark (Mark 15:1, straightway in the morning). But, according to those two evangelists, a previous sitting had taken place at the house of Caiaphas during the night, of which they give a detailed description (Matthew 26:57-66; Mark 14:53-64). And this even, according to John, had been preceded by a preparatory sitting at the house of Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas. John does not relate either the second or the third sitting, though he expressly indicates the place of the latter by the πρῶτον, Luke 18:13, and the notice, Luke 18:24. This, then, is the order of events: Immediately on His arrest, between one and three o'clock, Jesus was led to the house of Annas, where a preliminary inquiry took place, intended to extract beforehand some saying which would serve as a text for His condemnation (John 18:19-23). This sitting having terminated without any positive result, had not been taken up by tradition, and was omitted by the Syn. But John relates it to complete the view of the trial of Jesus, and with regard to the account of Peter's denial, which he wishes to restore to its true light. During this examination, the members of the Sanhedrim had been called together in haste, in as large numbers as possible, to the house of the high priest. The sitting of this body which followed was that at which Jesus was condemned to death for having declared Himself to be the Son of God. It must have taken place about three o'clock in the morning. Matthew (Matthew 26:59 et seq.) and Mark (Mark 14:55 et seq.) have minutely described it. John has omitted it as sufficiently known through them. In the morning, at daybreak, the Sanhedrim assembled anew, this time in full muster, and in their official hall near the temple. This is the sitting described by Luke, and briefly indicated, as we have seen, by Matthew and Mark. Two things rendered it necessary: (1) According to a Rabbinical law, no sentence of death passed during the night was valid. To this formal reason there was probably added the circumstance that the sentence had not been passed in the official place. But especially (2) it was necessary to deliberate seriously on the ways and means by which to obtain from the Roman governor the confirmation and execution of their sentence. The whole negotiation with Pilate which follows shows that the thing was far from easy, and betrays on the part of the Jews, as we have seen in our Comment. sur l'évang. de Jean, a strategical plan completely marked out beforehand. It was no doubt at this morning sitting that the plan was discussed and adopted. Matthew also says, in speaking of this last sitting (Matthew 27:1), that they took counsel ὥστε θανατῶσαι αὐτόν, about the way of getting Him put to death. Then it was that Judas came to restore his money to the Sanhedrim in the temple (ἐν τῷ ναῷ, Matthew 27:5).

Bleek admits only two sittings in all, the one preliminary, which was held at the house of Annas (John), and during which Peter's denial took place; the other official, decisive, in which the whole Sanhedrim took part, related by the Syn., who erroneously connect Peter's denial with it, and which is divided also erroneously by Matthew and Mark into two distinct sittings. Langen, on the contrary, with many commentators, identifies the examination before Annas (John 18:13; John 18:19-23) with the nocturnal sitting which is described in detail by Matthew and Mark. Against this explanation there are: 1. The entire difference between the matter of the two sittings: in John, a simple examination without judgment; in Matthew and Mark, the express pronouncing of a capital sentence; 2. Luke 22:24 of John, “ Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas,” a verse which, whatever may be made of it, implies two sittings, the one at the house of Annas, the other at the house of Caiaphas, in the same night. The opinion of Bleek would be more allowable. But we should be authorized in ascribing to the first two Syn. the serious confusion, and then the false division, which Bleek imputes to them, only if the two sittings of the night and morning could not be sufficiently accounted for. Now, we have just seen that it is quite otherwise. A minute particular which distinguishes them confirms their historical reality; in the night sitting there had been unanimity (Mark 14:64). Now, if Luke is not mistaken in declaring, Luke 23:51, that Joseph of Arimathea did not vote with the majority, we must conclude that he was not present at the night sitting at the house of Caiaphas, but that he took part only in that of the morning in the temple, which agrees with the fact that Matthew (Matthew 27:1) expressly distinguishes the morning assembly as a plenary court, by the adjective πάντες, all. The two sittings are thus really distinct. Luke has mentioned only the last, that of the morning, perhaps because it was only the sentence pronounced then for the second time which had legal force, and which therefore was the only one mentioned by his sources.