This study will finish the 23rd chapter of Luke, concerning itself with verses twenty-six through fifty-six. Many of us have seen multiple movie representations of the life and death of Jesus. Speaking just of the trial and crucifixion scenes, a more or less generalized image has developed and taken root in our basic concept of these events.
This is the picture: a rushed and secretive condemnation by the Sanhedrin, a Romanized public trial complete with a brutal beating, a march to Calvary replete with soldiers flogging Jesus and pushing back the crowd, and a beaten Lord too weak to carry his cross – falling several times until the soldiers snatch a random man from the crowd and force him to bear the load.
The Luke account does not present such an image. So, let us take a closer look at the particulars of this account. First of all, we know that the accusers of Jesus numbered between twenty-three and seventy-one members and may have included the temple guards who had arrested him. The Luke account of the secretive condemnation, in its brevity, does not include false witnesses.
However, by the time that the trial ends and his accusers, in the company of Roman soldiers, lead him away for crucifixion, an ample crowd of sympathetic people has gathered to follow the procession. On the trailing end of that crowd, we may assume some of the closest followers were also present.
Simple mockings had occurred, but no movie-style beatings are recorded. The scene does not appear overly crowded, nor do the soldiers seem especially aggressive. I assume there is a modicum of dignity afforded to Jesus, as it is my assertion that he was an actual Rabbi in the order of the Pharisees. Sure, he had gone rogue on them, but he was one of them, after all.
The accusers had gotten their way in the matter, so I assume that at that point, marching down the street, their attention was on themselves. They felt justified and vindicated and would have thought all eyes were on them; they would have marched stiffly with their shoulders proudly squared back for all to see. They were occupied with conversations between their members.
No crown of thorns is mentioned, but I assume that Jesus still wore the “gorgeous robe.” The tempo of the march to Calvary was such that Jesus, standing, was able to turn to the mournful women and speak as he normally spoke to people. He was not prodded by the soldiers, nor did he fall beneath the cross. In fact, it is presented as an almost immediate occurrence past the gates that a man coming out of the country was engaged as the cross bearer.
We find “one Simon” in verse twenty-six bearing the cross “after Jesus.” There also followed a “great company of people” with the women wailing and lamenting the fate of Jesus. As crowd dynamics go, that seems to put Jesus' position as coming after the accusers with possible room for a couple of Roman soldiers to attend a more or less well-behaved crowd. Jesus not only had the time and opportunity but as well the composure to turn and address the crying women.
As for Simon, why was the cross put on him? In what fashion was it laid on his shoulders? Was Simon an itinerant looking for work? Did they put a coin in his hand? If the Sanhedrin was showing Jesus that much courtesy and respect, was it they, rather than the Romans, who pressed him into service? If it was the case that the accusers arranged for Jesus not to carry the cross, what was there real motive? Did they deliberately deny him the cross because of certain things he had been heard to say?
Let us take up another salient point. Jesus was already on the cross when the “sixth hour” is mentioned. He had already had a conversation with one of the thieves on a cross beside him. He had already said, “Father, forgive them.” His clothing already had been parted and had lots cast for them, which makes more sense when the “gorgeous robe” is taken into account.
There is, admittedly, some confusion among the experts as to the exact placement of the sixth hour. For our purposes, we need only look at the whole account to see how the timeline unfolded. The Sanhedrin convened, according to Luke 22:66, just after dawn. After a hasty condemnation, they arose and led Jesus to Pilate, which in my estimation would have been between eight and nine. They Herod episode would have taken it to ten or eleven. The final determination and the march to Calvary could have all been accomplished before noon.
Some sources have the sixth hour reckoned at about noon, but recall, the text of the Luke account has much of the crucifixion accomplished before the sixth hour is mentioned. The three hours on the cross are the long wait. It is my thought that the Roman practice of crucifixion deliberately included a prolonged period of time in which the crucified were meant to suffer and the onlookers were meant to consider the might of Rome. They did not just stand around, idling, until at last, they said “Screw this! Let's break their legs and go home.”
The darkness during those three hours was of note for the simple reason that it was not yet night. It was noted that Jesus, on the cross, cried out before he uttered his final statement in verse forty-six, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” That brings the timeline to the few hours before evening. It makes sense that Joseph was able to return to Jerusalem and plead for the dead body of Jesus. Had it been too late, Joseph might not have been able to obtain an audience with Pilate. Another point thought worthy of note was that found in verse fifty-four, “the Sabbath drew on.”
In the reckoning of the Jewish day, the day took a particular precedent from Genesis 1:5, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” If Jesus died around three in the afternoon, then the Sabbath was only a few hours away.
The author of the Luke narrative thought certain points were worthy of note. We should not overlook these points. One such point was the conversation that Jesus had with one of the thieves. The manner in which the thief spoke to and about Jesus shows us a depth of familiarity on the part of the thief. Was the thief one of the multitudes who had followed Jesus?
Another point was the centurion. Who heard his remark clearly enough to record it? Would that not place the one who heard the centurion close to the cross? It was noted that the remark of the centurion glorified God. When we read the comment in verse forty-seven, “Certainly this was a righteous man,” we must ask why.
Was it enough that a Roman recognized righteousness in a man? Else, if it had nothing to do with the nature of a gentile, it had everything to do with the words. Does it glorify God simply to think that a man is good or just? Would it not glorify God much more to recognize Jesus as the son of God rather than simply a “righteous man?” On that note, did the description of Joseph in verse fifty glorify God? The author noted that Joseph was “a good man, and just.”
Also of note to the author were the placement of the followers of Jesus in verses forty-eight and forty-nine. Some watched and left, “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.” Was that a Jewish thing, an act of sorrow? Breast smiting was mentioned in one of the parables Jesus told his followers. Did the accusers, the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, the elders, and that lot – did they also smite their breasts in attrition?
So, all those people left, but some lingered – “afar off.” Who were they? Why did the author describe them in the words he used? Verse forty-nine states, “And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things.” They did not want to get too close to the Romans and the Sanhedrin.
Who were the acquaintances of Jesus, and why were the women listed separately? The mention of Galilee is the mention of the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Some of those women are actually named elsewhere. There was his mother, Mary. There was, of course, Mary Magdalene. There was also Joanna, Susanna, and Salome.
Why were not these women designated as acquaintances? Were acquaintances only men, or did that designation include family? Were the brothers and sisters of Jesus there? Were people like Lazarus, considered friends, present? Were his close followers there? Were there secret supporters There?
Luke's account is the simplest account, seemingly not trying to present an agenda, but merely giving the bare-bone facts of the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment