Luke/Acts for Beginners, this is lesson
number 12. The title of this lesson is The Consummation, and it's part one. We will be
covering Luke 22, verse one to 23:25. So with this lesson we
begin the last main section in our outline of Luke's gospel.
There's our outline that we have followed in this study. Part 1, The
Beginning, chapter one to three. Jesus in Galilee, His northern ministry,
chapter four to nine. Jesus Facing Jerusalem, the idea of the things that
took place as He was on His way to Jerusalem. Jesus Entering Jerusalem,
chapters 18 to 21, the activities and teachings that took place while He was
around the city, near the city. And then, the consummation, which we begin now. So in
our lesson today, we're going to cover Luke's description of events from the
preparation of the Passover to Jesus's second appearance before Pilate. So the
first thing to notice about the entire consummation section is that Luke has
very little information that he himself provides exclusively. If you're
looking at Luke in the context of all four Gospels. Only Jesus's brief appearance
before Herod is found exclusively in Luke's Gospel. Everything else from
chapter 22 to 24:53 is also found in Matthew and in Mark. And in some
instances, in John as well. Since John was an eyewitness of these events he could be
writing from his memory of events or sampling key events from Matthew and
Mark, or even Luke's records since John wrote his gospel last. As I mentioned to
you in our introductory lesson at the very beginning, the Gospel writers
borrowed from each other and included events and
teachings that were contained in another gospel writer's gospel, if you wish.
And so, they kind of mixed and matched a little bit. Alright, so
preparing for the Passover is the section where we are at and we'll begin
in chapter 22. It says, "Now the Feast of of Unleavened Bread, which is called the
Passover, was approaching. The chief priests and the scribes were seeking how
they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people." So in two
simple verses Luke sets up both the time of the year and the time in Jesus's
ministry arc. So the time of the year: the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover,
it was the time in the year in the festival calendar for Passover and the
Feast of Unleavened Bread, which are mentioned together, but are separate
things. You often say the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
Bread as if it's one thing, but it's not. It's two different things. The
Passover observance was limited to one 24-hour period and it commemorated the
night when the angel of death struck down every firstborn human and animal in
Egypt, but spared the Jews who were living in slavery there at the time. I
think we're familiar with that. God had warned the Jews of this event and He
promised that every family that put the blood of a sacrificed lamb on their
doorposts and ate the sacrificial meal in the safety of their
homes would be spared. Now when the angel of death came and saw
the blood of the Lamb he would pass over. Thus, that's where the term comes from. He would pass over that home and not exact judgment. When the Jews
were freed from slavery God commanded Moses to instruct the people to
commemorate this incident by sharing a Passover meal consisting of the same
elements that they had eaten at the original time. There was the sacrificial
lamb itself, there was unleavened bread, unleavened because in their haste to
leave Egypt there was no time for the bread to rise, as in normal baking,
bitter herbs were herbs that had a harsh or bitter taste, things like chicory or
wild lettuce, coriander, dandelion, some of the types of herbs that they used for
this mixture. These were eaten as a reminder of the harsh treatment that the
Jews experienced in Egyptian captivity. That meal was not exactly
the tastiest thing in the world. I mean, unleavened bread, bitter tasting salad or lettuce, not exactly the best thing, but it was a ceremonial meal. Later on, when the Jews arrived and
settled in the promised land, several cups of wine were added to the meal
symbolizing the happiness and the prosperity of the promised land that
they had finally reached. The meal was conducted as a ceremony with the father
or the chief person leading the people around the table. In other words, he would
first eat of the meat and they would follow suit. He would then dip the
unleavened bread into the bitter herbs and eat and they would do likewise. He
would take his cup of wine and offer a blessing and the others would say amen. So
it was a meal, but very much a ceremony. In a family situation, at some
point, a younger person would ask the father to explain the meaning of the meal
and this would permit the leader an opportunity to teach the family about the
history and the significance of this commemorative meal, very much like we go to church together, with our children and we sit there
and the preacher preaches a sermon on a certain topic and we go home,
we're having a meal sometimes that sermon becomes the topic of the
conversation. Or, it could be, rather than that preacher went on so
long I was falling asleep, we could use the topic of the sermon as a subject
matter to discuss with our children and our spouse. Well, in the same way, they were
using the meal as a way to discuss their faith, the purpose of their faith.
Now, the feast of unleavened bread was part of the Passover commanded by God and
it fell on the day after Passover. So the day before Passover was known as
the day of preparation, where the Jews prepared for both the Passover and the
Feast of Unleavened Bread by cleaning their homes, preparing the lamb and the
meal, and removing all unacceptable forms of leaven in their homes, because
leaven signified decay and sin and this exercise reflected a person's desire to
root out and eliminate sin in their lives. And I just want to go back to the
Old Testament here to read where this was commanded. Exodus 12:14-15, it says, "Now
this day will be a memorial to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the
Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance.
Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread," there's the Feast of Unleavened
Bread, the week there, "seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the
first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats anything
leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off
from Israel." So for seven days after the Passover the people celebrated the Feast of
Unleavened Bread with convocations at the temple and also refraining from
eating bread with leaven. So these were the first feasts given to the Jews to
celebrate in the first month of their ecclesiastical calendar. That was the
month of Nissan, which for us would be in the springtime, kind of, between March and
April. So Luke situates the time of year, springtime, and the religious
significance against which the following events would take place, the Jewish
Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This is a time when
Jesus recalled their rescue by God and their devotion to purity and obeying
the will of God. I mean, do you see the irony of this? When Luke starts and he says it's during the time of Passover and the Feast of
Unleavened Bread, which means the time of year when the Jews are reflecting on
purity and holiness and devotion to God. And then in the same sentence,
he said, during this time, the Jewish leaders had decided to kill Jesus. I mean,
the juxtaposition, the holiest time of the year and what are they doing? They're
plotting to kill their own Messiah. Now remember I said, in just two sentences,
Luke sets up the time and also the arc of Jesus's ministry. So let's look
at the arc of Jesus's ministry. Luke describes the intent of the Jewish
religious leaders and their motivation. They plan to have Him killed, since they
had failed in trying to debate Him, humiliate Him, or trap Him, in some kind
of inconsistency. We talked about that last week. Everything they tried didn't
work. They feared that continued unrest among the people would lead to their
rejection by the people, in favor of Jesus or a military solution imposed by
the Roman superiors. The Roman superiors figured, well, we'll let the Jews kind
of govern themselves, social issues, religious issues. We'll let them collect
the taxes for us, but we'll keep a garrison of soldiers here and if they
get out of hand we'll just take over. The Jewish leaders that had a
little bit of leash from the Roman overseers, they didn't want that to
happen, they wanted to maintain their power, and Jesus was kind of
rocking the boat, so to speak. So as far as Jesus and His ministry was considered,
their firm intent that He was to be killed meant that the part of His
ministry that included miracles and various other teachings was over and the
final stage, that is, His death and burial and resurrection was about to begin;
what we refer to as the passion. Luke shows that the plot to kill Jesus
was gaining momentum as Judas succumbs to his doubts and greed and he
joins forces with the Jewish leaders in the plan to arrest and stop Jesus. I
want you to note in verse 5 it says, "They were glad and agreed to give him money."
The Jewish leaders were glad and agreed to give him, meaning Judas, money. This
verse tells us two things. One, the plotters were glad, they rejoiced in
the plan. Finally, finally, we have a way to get to this guy. And number two, the
leaders agreed to give Judas money. This was his idea, the money was his idea. It's
not that the Jewish leaders came up to him and said, look, we'll give you money.
The money was his idea and Matthew tells us that he was paid right then and there.
Not after. Right then and there. So think about it, Judas attended
the Passover meal with the money in his bag, seeking, even then
and there, how he would betray the Lord. So in verses seven to thirteen, I'm not
going to read, don't have the time, just summarize this. So Jesus sent only two to
prepare the lamb. Remember the day of preparation, what I said? That's when they -
okay, so now it's the day of preparation. Jesus sends only two. He didn't send
three or five Apostles, just two Apostles to prepare the lamb, because Jewish
temple rules limited the number of those who presented Passover lambs to two
persons. Why is that? Traffic control. Traffic control. There are thousands and
thousands of people coming. So no more than two people at a time to bring the
sacrificial lamb, in order to celebrate the Passover with their family. So Peter and John are selected.
Peter and John's sense of importance may have been heightened because of
their selection to present the lamb, but also to set up the room and
the seating arrangements for the meal. And we'll show that in a minute. We
get a hint of this later on when a dispute arises among the apostles about
rank and position. You ever wonder why that - why did that come up? Why did that
become an argument? So now we move to the Lord's Supper, as we call it. Let's
read those verses, 14 to 18, "When the hour had come, He reclined at the
table and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, 'I have earnestly
desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall
never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And when He had
taken a cup and given thanks, He said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves;
for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on
until the kingdom of God comes." So once again He reminds them of His
imminent death, linked so closely to the symbolism of the Passover meal. He was
the true sacrificial lamb whose blood would shield all believers from the
final and eternal death. He was eager to eat this particular Passover meal
because it was to be the last symbolic meal, preparing the people for the true
sacrificial lamb to be offered for sin. Note that He takes a cup of wine and He
gives thanks. And sometimes there's confusion. They said, well, wait a minute
here, He took the wine before the bread. No, that was the final cup of wine for
the Passover meal. Remember, there were four, sometimes five cups shared, where
the father or the host would offer a blessing, which Jesus does. So the
third or fourth cup of wine He takes it, He takes a sip, He offers a blessing and
He says, I'm not going to be taking it. And then He takes the
bread and then He takes the wine for the Passover, excuse me, for
the communion, all right. So verse 19 and 20, "And when He
had taken some bread and given thanks," notice, here comes the
bread, now after the cup. So the cup was the final cup in the symbolic Passover
meal. "And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it
to them, saying , 'this is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of
Me.' And in the same way He took the cup," the final cup, which was taken for
the Passover meal, but now that final cup has been reserved for the new
symbolism, okay. saying, "This is my body which is given for you; do this in
remembrance of me.' And in the same way He took the cup after which the cup after
they had eaten, saying, 'This cup which is poured out for you is the
new covenant in My blood." As far as communion is concerned, there
are three main teachings about the meaning of Jesus's words. I think it'd be
helpful for us if we do a little detour here and talk about that for a moment.
Three main teachings within Christianity. The first of which is called
transubstantiation. This is a teaching by the Catholic
Church that says that the bread and the wine are miraculously transformed into the
actual body and blood of Christ only the appearance of bread and wine
remain. That's the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation. This teaching stems
from the words in verse 19 where Jesus says, this is my body;
and in Matthew 26:28, this is my blood. Roman catholic theologians interpret these expressions literally. The whole idea behind the
Catholic Mass every Sunday, there's a miracle every Sunday, there's a miracle, a
miracle happens right before your eyes. The priest says the prayers, he raises
the host, the bread is called the host, and then the chalice, the cup, he
raises that up, they ring a bell. A miracle happens every
Sunday, every time there's mass a miracle happens. That's why only the
priest can handle it. That's why only the priest can distribute the communion.
Some Catholic churches are more modern, they give both. I grew up
in the Catholic Church, only the priest could distribute and only just the host.
You didn't get - if you were a member, you didn't get to drink the wine, you just got the host and only because the priest. You couldn't go up
there and take it for yourself. No, no. It had to be handled by the priest because
the priest was the conduit through whom the miracle was done.
Another theory, if you wish, is consubstantiation. Consubstantiation, a
primarily Lutheran teaching which says that the bread and the wine at communion
remain physical elements, but the body and blood of Jesus coexist with the
bread and the wine at communion. So this is based on the same premise where
Jesus says, this is my body, this is my blood, but a different conclusion. This
idea of consubstantiation was developed by Martin Luther. And then the third commemoration, a simple ritual, the
communion is a simple ritual with bread, representing the body of Jesus and wine,
representing His blood to remember His sacrifice for us. This teaching is based on
verse 19 where Jesus says, do this in remembrance of me. That's why on communion tables usually those words are inscribed. Why not the whole thing? Why not carve the
whole thing? Because our concept, our idea, our interpretation
of communion in the churches of Christ and in most other, I would say
evangelical, like the Baptist across the street. If I went and taught
just over there, they would be quite comfortable with this idea, because this is
what they also believe - that the bread and the wine simply represent the body
and the blood of Jesus. Why? Because He said, do this in remembrance of Me. So you might find a table like that over there or across the street in
the Grace Church, Community church. So we reject the other two
reasons - transubstantiation, consubstantiation, because they are based
on faulty understanding of Jesus's use of metaphors in His teaching method. For
example, He said, "I am the door." John 10:7. Right? "You can't get to the Father except through Me."
I am the door. Was He actually a door? No. It's a metaphor. We understand
that. And John 15:5, He says, "I am the vine." Was He a plant? Did He become a plant? Of
course not. We understand it's a metaphor. This is my body. Is the bread actually
His body, His physical body? No, it's a metaphor. It represents, same thing. So did He really, literally mean that He was a door or a plant? Well, of course not. We understand. So to be consistent
when you're interpreting the scripture, well, whenever there's a metaphor,
use the metaphor reason to explain what He said. So in the
communion scene, Jesus, once again, uses metaphors to help the apostles and
future disciples, that's us, correctly remember the nature of His sacrifice, by
eating the bread and the wine. In verses 21 to 23 Luke summarizes the reaction of the apostles when He declares that there's a
traitor among them. He spends little time reviewing the response of the apostles
and the departure of Judas, preferring instead, to devote a long section to a
dispute among the eleven, Judas having left before the Lord's Supper was
given. We read about that in John 13:30. In my research, as I was
preparing this - I mean, how do you prepare a lesson? Well, you ask
yourself questions and you go find the answers, thinking maybe other people have
those questions too. Now, there are a lot of people that think that Judas stayed
for the Lord's Supper. No. Only the faithful ones stayed
for the supper. He was there for the foot-washing, Luke doesn't talk
about that, John does. But he was there for the foot-washing. Imagine, Jesus going
around washing everybody's feet, washing even Judas' feet. But it was after
that that Judas left. And then the communion was done. Get these things in
the kind of proper sequence. So we get to the point where the question is or the
theme is, who is the greatest, in Luke 22. So this section begins with the
dispute about who is the greatest among the apostles. Think now, He's washed their
feet. He's done all kinds of things and they're arguing about who's the
best, who's the first. This may have been caused by Peter and John's seating
arrangements, since they're the ones that set the table and the places. They may
have taken the most honored positions for themselves, to the right and to the
left of Jesus. And I found this image here, an artist's rendition
of how meals were taken in those days. I think we know this, we've talked about
this in other classes. It was low. They didn't have chairs. I mean, they had
chairs, but they didn't sit at chairs around tables like we do today, but
rather a low table, low to the ground, oriental style with cushions all around.
And the way that it worked is the first place there on the bottom left,
that was the host, the one who welcomed everyone, had set up the meal. That was
the host, he sat there. And next to the host was the guest of
honor. In this case it would be Jesus. He's the guest of honor.
the role of the host would be to make sure that the guest of honor is being
served properly, also to protect him. And then after that,
to the left of the guest of honor, the rest of the invited guests would be
placed in order of importance. So if you were on the right hand of this diagram, here on the right hand side, at the end there, you were the last. So
what do you think John, whose mother had said to Jesus at one time, hey, when the kingdom comes, make sure that my sons are on the right and the left. So what do you think John and Peter did when they set up the table? Well Peter says, I'm good, I'm the boss, I'm the head guy. He puts himself on one side of Jesus and John said, okay, I'll be on the other side
of Jesus. And then all the others were set. That's why the dispute
started, who is the greatest. I mean, it's so human.
It's so typical. I mean, 12, well, now 11, but I mean, 12
guys there and they're looking around. Imagine the guys on the other end of the
table. Who do they think they are sitting next to the Lord? So
the dispute comes up again. Luke summarizes Jesus's repeated
teaching on this topic, that in the kingdom, the greatest are the least and
those who serve. In verses 28 to 38, He reassures them that they are destined
for greatness in the kingdom of heaven. But before that happens Peter will be
tested by Satan. He will deny Jesus. They will be without His protection and He
will be killed. There's the good news for you boys and girls. This is how He answers them,
while they're debating who's important. He tells them,
yeah, you'll be important, you'll get your reward, but before that, you'll deny
Me. You'll run away. I'll be killed. This isn't what they were
anticipating. Boy, when our ship comes in, we're going to be in
charge. That was the attitude. So we get to the passion part, Luke 22 to Luke
23. Once Jesus and the remaining 11 apostles leave the Upper Room and head
for the Garden of Gethsemane, the Lord's passion begins. Now the term passion
comes from the Latin word passionem, which means, suffering or enduring. And
it's used to refer to all of His suffering and His death on the cross.
So when you're talking about that whole section of events there, you're talking
about the passion. There are 10 major events that occur during Jesus's passion.
So whenever you hear that word, passion, it's referring to these 10 events: the
prayers in Gethsemane, His betrayal and arrest, Peter's denial and
fall, Jesus before Annas, the high priest, and also Caiaphas,
the other high priest. Annas was his, Caiaphas' father. He had formerly been the
high priest and now - father-in-law, rather - and now Caiaphas was the high
priest. The son-in-law was the high priest who was ruling at that time. But
just like former presidents, President Bush, for example, they still
refer to him as President Bush, even though he is not the acting president. In
the same way, the high priest, once you were the high priest, you're
always the high priest, even after you retired. Number five, Jesus before Pilate the first time, Jesus before Herod, Jesus
before Pilate the second time, Jesus' torture and the bearing of His cross, His
eventual death on the cross, and His burial. Those are the ten events. So we're
going to briefly review the events from the garden to Jesus' final appearance
before Pilate, which led to His condemnation and death. And we're going to
conclude Luke's Gospel in this series next week. Okay, so very quickly,
Gethsemane, Luke provides an abbreviated version of this event
including only one rebuke to the apostles for sleeping and not the three
that are mentioned by Matthew, in Matthew 26. Luke is the only one to record that an
angel appeared to comfort Jesus and that His sweat turned into drops of
blood. The point to note here is that this was a test of faith and obedience
for Jesus' human nature, not His divine nature. It wasn't His divine nature that
was saying, God please let this cup pass from me. It was His human nature. And Luke includes this. God in His wisdom
included this, to demonstrate to us that Jesus was fully human and it would be
completely natural for a human being to want to not have to die in the way He
was about to die. So the human part of His nature had to accept the will of the
Father, not the divine. Secondly, His betrayal and arrest. Again, I'm not
reading it. I think we're familiar with this. Judas and several hundred soldiers,
along with a crowd of onlookers convene on the scene. Interesting, Judas
steps forward to kiss Jesus. This was a pre-arranged sign to point out the
one to be arrested. Lensky, a Greek commentator, writes that the verb that
Matthew and Mark used to describe the kiss that Judas gives, suggests that
Judas was repeatedly kissing Jesus. It wasn't just, I step forward, okay
go get Him. It was mm-hmm, it was one of those. Luke notes that
Jesus makes Himself available to His captors, in order to protect the other
apostles with Him. Even as they make an attempt at defending Him. Now, John says
that Peter struck Malchus, a high priest's servant, and cut off his ear. Luke reports
that Jesus healed this slave of this injury. So it's funny that Matthew
records the injury, Luke reports or talks about the healing, the
miracle. Jesus' only response to Judas is to question his method and the
seriousness of his treachery. He says to him, you betray the Son of Man, the divine
Messiah, using a false act of love and friendship, a kiss. So this was both a
comment on his treachery and a judgment on Judas. Peter's denial, verses 54 to 62, Peter, along with another disciple unknown to us, follows the soldiers and
the crowd to Caiaphas' courtyard to witness the interrogation of Jesus by
the high priest and the other leaders. Peter is in danger because he is a known
apostle and because he's the one who injured the slave. Don't you think that
slave and the others want to find the guy that attacked them? He's vulnerable,
because he is known and his Galilean accent gives him away as one from the
same region as Jesus. So as Jesus had predicted, Peter denies his knowledge in
association with Jesus when pressured by different people in the courtyard. He
even curses. I'm not going to curse for effect here, but he even curses them, to make sure. Don't you believe me? That night, think about it, that night two
of Jesus' apostles actively deny Him. And the other ten run away in fear. Only
one of the deniers would be restored and I'll tell you why at the end of this
lesson. Number four, Jesus before Caiaphas and the council. Want to read some of
this for you, it says, "Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were
mocking Him and beating Him and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him,
saying, 'Prophesy, who is the one who hit you?' And they were saying many other
things against Him, blaspheming. When it was day, the council of elders of the
people assembled both chief priests and the scribes and they led Him away to
their council chamber, saying, 'If you are the Christ, tell us.' But he said to
them, 'If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I ask a question, you will not
answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the
power of God. And they all said, 'Are you the Son of God then?' And He said to them,
'Yes, I am.' Then they said, 'What further need do we have of testimony? For we have
heard it ourselves from His own mouth." Now there were two sessions of the
Sanhedrin council that took place. Sanhedrin, 71 elders, 70 plus one, made up
of judges and priests, lawyers. Two sessions were required when deciding
capital cases, meaning cases involving execution, the death penalty. And these
sessions were to be separated by a 24-hour period. So if you were
considering a capital offense with someone, you had to have the trial, first of
all. If he's convicted, you then had to have a 24-hour cooling-off period, a time of
reflection, and then you had to have a second trial to be sure, making sure all facts are substantiated. That was the rule. In John 18:13, says that Jesus was first questioned by Annas, the
father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest who had previously served. Luke
only records the two illegal meetings where Jesus was not only charged, but was
also mocked and tortured by actual members of the Sanhedrin. Think now, think,
it's as if a judge in a trial permitted the jury to make fun of and
torture the accused in open court. That's exactly what happened. Now
both meetings were illegal for many reasons, according to their own laws, but
here are two: one, He was held in the middle of the night. I mean, one of the
trials was held in the middle of the night. That was not allowed. That was
forbidden. And two, they did not allow the 24-hour recess between the first and
second trials. So both Matthew and Mark record that many false witnesses and
accusers were brought forward, but Jesus remained silent throughout the
accusations and abuse, didn't defend Himself. Only when He is directly asked
if He is indeed the Messiah does He reply in the affirmative, because even
though His opponents and apostles denied Him, He, Himself, could not deny
this truth. They asked Him straight out, are you the Messiah? What's He going to say?
Maybe? Even if it meant His sure death, He did not deny His witness. Jesus before
Pilate, first time, having obtained the evidence necessary for an execution
according to the Jewish law, Jesus claiming that He was the divine Messiah,
that accusation, that offense there, was not a death penalty under Roman law.
But it was a death penalty under Jewish law. So getting that evidence, the Jewish
leaders bring Jesus to Pilate since only the Romans could actually carry out
an execution. It says, "Then the whole body of them got up and brought Him
before Pilate, and they began to accuse Him, saying, 'We found this man misleading
our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar and saying that He, Himself, is
Christ the King. So Pilate asked Him, saying, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' And
He answered him and said, 'It is as you say.' Then Pilate said to the chief
priests and the crowds, 'I find no guilt in this man, but they kept insisting,
saying, 'He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from
Galilee even as far as this place.' When Pilate heard it, he asked whether
the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's
jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who himself was also in Jerusalem at that
time." So the accusation and lies rehearsed at the trials before the
Sanhedrin are now repeated before the Roman prefect or governor of the Roman
province of Judea, Pontius Pilate. Just a little aside about Pontius Pilate.
Pontus, that's his family name and that's the name of a tribe in central
south Italy, where he came from. Pilate was his title, procurator, Pilate, someone
employed by the Roman Emperor to manage finances and taxes. So Pilate wasn't his
last name. Pilate was his title. So Pilate finds no grounds for execution, but
he recognizes that a decision for or against Jesus will cause trouble either
way, so he hands the matter off to Herod, a subordinate ruler, a Tetrarch.
The Tetrarch of Galilee. Tetrarch means ruler of a quarter. He only ruled part of
the land. He was Tetrarch. But the part of the land he was responsible for was the
northern region, Galilee, where Jesus came from. So Pilate's saying, oh great, I'll hand
him off to Herod, let him deal with this mess. So Jesus before
Herod, Luke 23. Herod was not interested in judging or executing Jesus for
similar reasons that Pilate wasn't interested. After all, Jesus came from the
north and his base of support was up in the north, as well. So he wasn't ready to
start trouble in the area over which he ruled. So Herod was
curious to see a miracle, but when Jesus refused even to answer any of his
questions, Herod sent him back to Pilate. Of course, after mocking Him and
beating Him, sends Him back to Pilate. So back to Pilate we go, Jesus before
Pilate second time. "Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the
people, and said to them, 'You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to
rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this
man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has
Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death
has been done by Him. Therefore I will punish Him and release Him.' Now he was
obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out
all together, saying, 'Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!' He was one who
had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for
murder. Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept
calling out, saying, "Crucify, crucify Him!' And he said to them the third time, 'Why,
what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death;
therefore I will punish Him and release Him.' But they were insistent, with loud
voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate
pronounced sentence that their demand be granted." So Luke is
fairly dispassionate in his description describing, as a journalist might report,
the three attempts by Pilate to set Jesus free, and each time being overruled
by the Jewish leaders and the rabble. Luke presents the facts of the trial, but
makes no mention of motives other than the fact that he believed that by law
Jesus was not a candidate for the death penalty. And he leaves to Matthew the
observation that Pilate knew that the Jews were trying to execute Him
out of envy. And Pilate gave in to the mob out of a desire to
curry favor with the people and fear that the Jewish leaders would cause
trouble for him with his superiors in Rome. And so, in keeping with his factual
style, Luke summarizes the outcome of this momentum event with a few simple
words he says, "And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown
into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will." One last little thing I want to show you here, take one moment before we
quit, and that's the difference - remember, I said, the difference
between Judas and Peter. Judas, this apostle's denial and betrayal of
Jesus was motivated by disbelief. He did not believe that Jesus was the divine
Messiah. And it was also motivated by greed. He wanted compensation for his
evil deed. Because he had no faith, his remorse eventually led to despair and his
despair led him to suicide. Peter, on the other hand, his denial of Jesus was
caused by fear, the threat of arrest, torture, and death, and pride. He thought he
was strong and he found out when push came to shove he wasn't strong, he was
weak. His sorrow and repentance led to restoration, because despite his human
weakness, he did believe. So faith is what determined the outcome of both Judas and
Peter. And it determines our outcome as well. Okay, so one last lesson next
week. Want you to read from 23:26 to the end of Luke 24:53, and we'll try to wrap
up this study on the book of Luke. And then the following week we begin the
book of Acts. Another fascinating study. Thank you very much for your attention
