Sermon Tone Analysis

PRAY

INTRO: Truth is not pliable.

Truth is not simply relative to your perspective.

Truth is truth.

Truth is not something to be twisted for your own purposes.

Similarly, justice is not merely a tool to be wielded in the hands of those in political power.

Justice is a righteous judgment based on what is right and what is wrong.

Truth is truth, and justice is justice.

[Review where we are in Luke’s Gospel: prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, followed by betrayal and arrest (betrayed, denied, mocked).]

We now come to scenes where Jesus is on trial, basically for being who he is.

What is the essence of what takes place in the Jewish phase of the trial of Jesus?

On trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus is convicted of blasphemy for admitting the truth of who he is.

(Luke 22:66-71)

When day came, the council officially convened.

- This gives us a hint that all of the questioning at night was not precisely legal (although many members seem to have been present), so they would have needed a formal convening and decision.

Luke emphasizes the official decision.

As they question Jesus, Luke is here providing either a summary of the Jewish phase of the trial, or more likely the last part of that trial with questions that were repeated in the daytime to elicit the answers necessary to reach the desired ruling.

Similar things were already asked and answered during the dark morning hour interrogations (as we see in parallel accounts), but this at day break was the formal proceeding required.

Even then it’s merely a veiled effort to follow the law, since Jesus is convicted on his own testimony rather than that of other witnesses (which the law required), and because they really had already made their decision at night…

In fact, Luke has been telling us that they’ve been after this goal of getting rid of Jesus, of putting him to death, for quite some time.

They are simply seeking some semblance of sufficient cause to turn him over to the Roman authorities, who can authorize capital punishment.

The council was made up 71 members from three groups: the chief priests, some elders of the people, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees.

(While they often were competing factions among themselves, here they are united against Jesus.)

When asked if he is the Christ (the Messiah), Jesus doesn’t give a direct answer.

Instead, he draws attention to their unbelief and their refusal to answer his questions.

First, their minds are already made up, and Jesus knows it.

(You can probably relate to that experience of being asked a question when the questioner’s mind is clearly already made up.)

And secondly, Jesus has proven that they are unwilling to accept what the evidence plainly suggests, first about John (“from heaven or from man?” Lk 20:3-8), and similarly (to an even greater degree) that Jesus’ own authority is clearly from God and not from man.

The Messiah is the “anointed one” sent from God.

Who has demonstrated greater authority from heaven in his teaching and healing than Jesus?

This is blatant refusal to believe and to give a necessary response to who Jesus is?

The question isn’t, Is he the Christ?

The question is, Why do you refuse to believe the plain evidence that Jesus is the Christ?

Jesus hits the nail exactly on the head.

It’s not that he has given any untrue indication about himself, but that they refuse to believe the evidence.

In his answer to the question, Jesus turns the tables on these men who think that they sit in judgment over him.

(And this is a unique contribution of Luke’s account.)

—> v. 69! - Jesus’ authority will be vindicated “from now on” because of his innocent sacrificial death and resurrection from the grave and exaltation by the Father.

This very path of suffering that he willingly walks will provide the vindication of who he is.

Who is really in the position of authority here?

Where will the Son of Man be seated after he has walked this path of sacrificial death that leads to vindication in victory?

To be seated at the right hand of the power of God is to say that he will receive the highest place of honor and authority.

Point of application here: It should be a great comfort and encouragement, and also a motivator, to know that God’s justice is perfect and that he is the ultimate judge.

If we should suffer injustice, especially for the cause of Christ, but really this is true of any injustice of any kind… we know that perpetrators of injustice sit under the judgment of God.

And if we hold a position of authority, the kinds of judgments we make are subject to and measured by the justice and mercy of God.

So the judgments that these religious authorities have made concerning Jesus are not based upon the evidence of who Jesus is and where his authority comes from, or even whether or not what he is doing is truly harmful to people or to the name of God.

They have made their judgment about Jesus concerning what is religiously and politically expedient for themselves and their own power and authority.

The religious leaders understand the implications of his reference to being the cosmic ruler (Son of Man) prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14, and they understand that being elevated to the right hand of power would be the highest place of honor and authority.

So this leads them to a followup question (also only recorded in Luke), and apparently it elicits an emotional response from the whole group, as they are “all” asking him, Are you the Son of God, then?

Since men can sometimes be called sons of God, the qualifier here is the definite article, “the.”

They are asking Jesus if he is claiming to have some kind of unique relationship to God, essentially putting himself on equal footing with God (to sit next to God as virtual equal), for what mere man could possibly sit at the right hand of God?

Jesus’ response is enigmatic to us because it is not something that we have an exact translation for in our language.

I mean, we have translated it literally, but the way it is used in their language and culture is not something that we do in ours.

“You say that I am,” or “You have said so,” is like a qualified affirmation that deflects responsibility for the way it is being stated back on the speaker, but without denying that their is some accuracy in it.

Jesus said something similar to Judas in Mt 26:25 when he asked if it was he who would betray, and to Caiphas when he asked hours earlier at night if Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (Mt.

26:63-64).

Luke records Jesus saying it here again and yet again in response to Pilate.

The point seems to be that Jesus is saying that they are correct, even if he might have said it differently, but that the questioner himself is the one responsible for the measure of truth coming out of his own mouth.

The irony is thick, then, because at the very moment in which Jesus is telling them that they themselves are speaking the truth, it is at this point that they also conclude Jesus has convicted himself from his own lips.

v. 71 (which they consider blasphemy: Mt. 26:65)

REVIEW:

Q1: Just tell us plainly if you are the Christ (the Messiah).

A1: I won’t answer that again, because you have proven that your minds are made up.

… But I will tell you this, you have two things backwards: who the real authority is here, and what this will accomplish.

Q2: Are you claiming a unique relationship to God?

A2: Your own mouths convict you for making the connection that I am the unique Son of God.

Jesus speaks the truth, and his reply about his identity ends up being the cause of his own conviction.

Is Jesus the promised Messiah?

Yes.

Is Jesus the Son of Man, the authoritative and divine cosmic ruler prophesied in Daniel?

Yes.

Is Jesus the unique Son of God? Yes.

But because they have concluded that Jesus cannot be who he must be in order for these things to be true, the leaders of the Jews bring Jesus to Pilate because they want him executed.

Luke’s conclusion, which he desires for the reader to come to share, is that Jesus is who he says he is.

What is your conclusion about Jesus? … Or are you more resolved as to the identity of Jesus?

Now the focus shifts from the Jewish phase of the trial to the Roman phase, where Jesus is… (brought before pilate on charges of insurrection, of which he is clearly innocent.

Yet Jesus willingly suffers this injustice to accomplish something bigger: salvation)

Brought before Pilate on charges of insurrection, Jesus is plainly innocent but willingly suffers injustice.

(Luke 23:1-5)

So the Sanhedrin has given their verdict that Jesus deserves death (Mt.

26:66), which was really their intent all along (John 11:53, Luke 22:2).

But they are not supposed to exercise the death penalty, because the Romans closely guarded that privilege for themselves throughout the empire.

(Which makes sense because they can’t have their subjects killing one another, especially if a sub-leader in a region should decide to kill some of their more loyal supporters!)

There is also a second reason that the Jews would want to do this.

You’ll recall that they fear the people, so while they might get away with something like stoning him to death (as they did to Stephen in Acts) because the Romans might decide to overlook it and avoid further trouble, this would further provide them some buffer for ultimate responsibility for Jesus’ death.

(We know that God is providentially at work, for Jesus himself had prophesied by what kind of death he would be executed.

Jn 18:31-32)

To show how serious they are, and to apply a lot of pressure on Pilate, the whole group of the Sanhedrin brings Jesus before Pilate.

(This could be the full number of 71 members of the council, but we know that at least one of them, Joseph of Arimathea, was a dissenter in this verdict and pressure on Pilate to put Jesus to death.

Lk 23:50-51)

The Jews come before Pilate because they need him in this case, not because of any affinity for Pilate, who is remembered in history as being insensitive to Jewish faith, greedy for personal gain, and sometimes ruthless in his actions toward them (Lk 13:1).

In fact, Pilate, whose normal seat of government was in Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, would have been in Jerusalem for the purpose of trying to prevent any rebellious activities when Jews were gathered together there in such large number.

The Jewish leaders go to Pilate now only because it serves their own purposes.

And in order to serve their purposes, they must shift the accusation concerning Jesus from something religious to something political.

The charge of blasphemy would be of no concern to Pilate, but if they could paint Jesus as an insurrectionist in danger of stirring up a revolution, they could get Pilate to act.

So they accuse Jesus before Pilate of three things: 1. Misleading our nation (by which they probably intend for Pilate to hear as him attempting to turn Jewish loyalties away from Rome), 2. Forbidding people to pay taxes to Caesar (this second accusation is a blatant lie, since Jesus had given the opposite answer in Luke 20:20-26), and 3. claiming to be Christ… and this is important, being Messiah would mean he’s a king.

Now Luke’s readers can see quite plainly that the substance of these accusations is false.

Jesus told them to pay taxes, he had never said anything about rising up against Rome, and his intent with his kingship was not at this time to set up any kind of political kingdom.

So when Jesus answers Pilate’s question about his kingship, Jesus again gives that qualified answer: “You have said so,” meaning I cannot say that you are wrong, but that isn’t precisely the way that I would explain it.

While Luke gives Jesus’ first short answer to this question from Pilate (or just that single answer as a summary — all of this is shorter in Luke than in the other Gospels), John’s Gospel gives further detail in response to Pilate continuing to probe with this question about Jesus’ kingship:

In other words, I am not political threat, if that’s what you are asking.