Our blessed Lord before his death passed two trials or examinations. The one before the Jewish sanhedrim, whose proper province it was to try such as were accused as false prophets, or blasphemers. This was a kind of ecclesiastical court. The high priest was the chief judge in it, and we are told that they used to sit in his palace. The other was before Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea at that time; he principally took cognizance of criminal things, such especially as concerned the peace of the country, considered as a part of the Roman empire. These verses give an account only of the former. Blasphemy was the crime they charged upon him. We cannot from any one evangelist have a full account of either of them.

See Poole on “Mat 26:57” and following verses to Mat 26:68, when have fully considered what all the evangelists say.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

And as soon as it was day,….

[See comments on Mt 27:1].

The elders of the people; or “the presbytery of the people”, that were chosen from among the people to sit in the sanhedrim; the Israelites, as distinct from priests and Levites, and the doctors:

and the chief priests and the Scribes came together; which made up the great sanhedrim, or council of the nation:

and led him into their council; or sanhedrim, the place where the sanhedrim sat, which was in the temple, and in the chamber called

, “the paved stone chamber” n; here they usually met, and so the Persic version renders it, “where their congregation was daily there”.

n Misna Saobedrin, c. 10. sect. 2. & Middot, c. 5. sect. 3.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

As soon as it was day ( ). Mr 15:1 (Mt 27:1) has “morning.”

The assembly of the people ( ). The technical word for “the eldership” (from , an old man or elder) or group of the elders composing the Sanhedrin. The word occurs in the LXX for the Sanhedrin. In the N.T. occurs only here and Ac 22:5 of the Sanhedrin. In 1Ti 4:14 Paul uses it of the elders in a church (or churches). The Sanhedrin was composed of the elders and scribes and chief priests (Mr 15:1) and all three groups are at this meeting. Luke’s language (both chief priests and scribes, … ) seems to apply the word to the whole Sanhedrin. Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes) were nearly equally represented.

Into their council ( ). The place of the gathering is not given, but Jesus was led into the council chamber.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The elders [] . More correctly, the assembly of the elders. So Rev. ===Luk23

CHAPTER XXIII

1 – 5. Compare Mt 27:1, 2; 11, 14; Mr 14:1 – 5.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

JESUS LED INTO THE SANHEDRIN COUNCIL V. 66-71

1) “And as soon as it was day,” (kai hos egeneto hemera) “And when day came,” when daylight came. The court of the Sanhedrin could only be held legally in the daytime; Hence what was done and recorded by the scribes at Caiphas’ house the previous night had to be redone in open court to have any semblance of legality.

2) “The elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes,” (to presbuterion tou laou) “The body of elders of the people, (the Sanhedrin),” (archiereis to kai grammateis) “Both the chief priests (administrative priests) and the scribes,” or keepers of the archives, who had held the clandestine session during the previous night; The body of elders (presbytery) made up the Sanhedrin, Act 4:26; Act 22:5. Where they met in the morning is not clear.

3) “Came together,” (sunechthe) “There was assembled,” again, Mar 15:1, to arrange for false witnesses against Jesus, to go with them to Pilate that morning, Mat 26:59-62; Mat 27:1.

4) “And led him into their council, saying,” (kai apegagon auton eis to sunedrion auton) “And they led him away into their council,” that of the Sanhedrin, elders of the Jews, for a few moments only, just to confirm their decision of the previous night, that He should be put to death for blasphemy, Mat 26:65-66; Mar 14:63-64.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Butlers Comments

SECTION 6

Confirmation (Luk. 22:66-71)

66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said, 67If you are the Christ, tell us. But he said to them, If I tell you, you will not believe; 68and if I ask you, you will not answer. 69But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God. 70And they all said, Are you the Son of God, then? And he said to them, You say that I am. 71And they said, What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.

Luk. 22:66-69 Adjured: Early Friday morning, Jesus was taken, still bound, no doubt, from the palace of the high priest, traditionally quite some distance from the Temple, to the meeting place of the ruling council of the Jews. Luke calls this council the assembly of the elders of the people . . . both chief priests and scribes. . . . The Greek word for elders is presbuterion from which the English word, presbytery, or presbyterian, comes. The word Luke used in Greek is sunedrion and is translated council, and means literally, seated together. The Sanhedrin usually met in the portion of the rooms immediately surrounding the court of Israel, called, Gazith, or Hall of Hewn Stones. This is probably where they took Jesus for trial Friday at sunrise. There is no historical evidence for the existence of the Sanhedrin before the Greco-Syrian era. It seems to have been originally known as the Gerousia which signifies an aristocratic council of elders presided over by an hereditary high priest. During the Roman rule of procurators in Judea it was composed of 70 officials plus the Roman-appointed high priest and restricted in its power to Judea. This is probably the reason Pilate sent Jesus to Herod when he discovered Jesus was a Galilean. Herod Antipas ruled Galilee. Once Jesus came to Judea, however, the Sanhedrin, under Jewish custom, could indict Him. Its power was annulled after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. although it continued in name. According to Josephus, the Sanhedrin was formally ruled by Sadducean high priests in Jesus time, but really controlled by the Pharisees who had the backing of the people. Seventy-one men sat in a semi-circle in the Hall of Hewn (Polished) Stones exercising not only civil jurisdiction, but also criminal jurisdiction (under the limitations, of course, imposed upon it by the Roman emperor). It was the final appeals court for a Jew. It determined questions of peace and war. It could try high priests, kings (even Herod was afraid to disobey a summons from it) and all citizens. It had the right to pronounce capital punishment until about 30 A.D. After that it could not execute a sentence of death without the confirmation of the Roman procurator. The Sanhedrin could meet any day except Sabbath and holy days. They met from the time of the morning sacrifice until the time of the evening sacrifice. Twenty-three members formed a quorum. Acquittal could be pronounced by a bare majority. It took two more than a majority to secure a guilty verdict. In capital cases, judgment was pronounced on the same day only when it was for acquittal. If the judgment was guilty it had to wait for the next day to be pronounced. Capital cases were never tried on Friday (except in Jesus case) on account of the above rule forcing a guilty verdict to have to be pronounced on Sabbath. These men are so intent upon killing Jesus they cast all their own rules and ethics to the winds of hate and greed. They had even decided upon a guilty verdict before they met and heard the case (cf. Mat. 27:1). They had decided that at the unofficial and illegal kangaroo court held at the home of the high priest the night before (cf. Mat. 26:66; Mar. 14:63-64). Thus far we have documented several blatant illegalities in the arrest, trial and conviction of Jesus:

a.

He was arrested without a warrant, by a mob, on a feast day.

b.

He was taken before someone who had no official standing and interrogated, abused and not released when He Himself called for evidence for His arrest.

c.

He was taken before an illegal gathering of Jewish officials (at night), having never been officially accused, and having no witnesses accuse him (contrary to Mosaic Law). This council, meeting illegally, had already pre-determined His guilt and sentence.

d.

Witnesses were bribed to bear false testimony.

e.

Their witness, even bribed and coached, did not agree.

f.

He was adjured to testify against Himself.

g.

All the evidence and claims He made in His own behalf were not introduced into the court proceedings.

h.

He was allegedly arrested for one charge, and, when brought before the illegal meeting of the council, was condemned for another charge.

i.

He was abused, mocked, reviled and physically assaulted in the presence of civil officials charged with law and order and humane treatment of defendants.

j.

Finally, He is brought before the Jewish council, convened on a Friday and given a guilty sentence, which was contrary to legal practice of this council.

There was no warrant for arrest, no charge, no evidence, no testimony, and no legal proceedings. There was no case. Jesus deserved to be dismissed, even on a legal basis. A mistrial should have been declared, notwithstanding the fact that He was innocent!

This morning trial before the council was to give the councils murderous machinations a facade of legal correctness. The council demanded, If you are the Anoined One (Christ), tell us. Standing before Annas (Joh. 18:19-23) Jesus said, I have spoken openly . . . I have said nothing secretly. . . . Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said. Next, before the council in Caiaphas house, under oath, when asked if He were the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus replied I am (Mar. 14:62). Now, with the semblance of official correctness on their side, in the morning meeting of the council, they demand again that He say He is the Christ.

Jesus answer is a masterful expose of their prejudice and hypocrisy. He had already told them plainly, not once, but many times. He had confirmed His claims with many miracles, some of which the men on this council saw with their own eyes. If He told them now again, they would not believe. They had their minds already made up to kill Him for their own reasons. If He questioned them and tried to discuss the matter (which they pretended to want to investigate), they would not answerbecause they really did not want to know the truth. He had many confrontations with these men earlier in the week and much earlier in His ministry, but they did not answer His questions then, either, for they had determined to murder Him.

Then Jesus said a very significant thing: But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God (Luk. 22:69). In this statement He is informing them that as the Messiah (Son of man is a messianic term, Dan. 7:1-28, etc.). He fully expected to survive the death they had planned for Him and to be seated forever at the right hand of the power of God. Even though they were presently judging Him, He would soon be enthroned as their Judge with all the power of God Almighty given to Him. He had said this earlier, the night before, at Caiaphas house. There He added the implication that He would be coming on the clouds of heaven exercising His judgmental powers against them and their city and their nation (see comments in Luk. 21:1-38), at the Roman destruction in 70 A.D.

Luk. 22:70-71 Adjudged: That statement by Jesus infuriated the council and prompted them to all cry out together, Are you the Son of God, then? They wanted it on the official record that this Galilean rabbi had claimed to be not only the Messiah, but that the Messiah was Gods Son (that is, God in the flesh). This was the great stumbling block to the Jewish mentality. That God could ever become flesh was an impossibility to them because they judged the concept on the basis of human experience rather than accepting it as a revelation from God by faith (see comments, Luk. 20:41-44). Their interpretation of the Shema (Deu. 6:4-9), Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord . . . was that God could never become two, or three, or four. But the real meaning of that passage is that God can never be double-minded, at variance with Himself. Jesus proved conclusively that He and God were one-minded, one in teaching, one in power, one in actioninvariable and in perfect unity. Father and Son, were, One! There was nothing, two, or three, about them.

Jesus answer, as recorded in Greek by Luke, is significant. Literally, Luke writes it, You are saying that I am being I am. Jesus is saying, Youve got it! I am Jehovah. The statement, I am being I am, is the same as the statement of God in Exo. 3:14, eheyeh esher eheyeh, which in Hebrew means, I am that I am. Luke put it in Greek, hoti ego eimi. Jesus is claiming to be God. The council members knew it. So they shouted, What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips. They did not need any further testimony. There had been more than enough evidence to substantiate Jesus claim as true. More evidence would not have changed the council members conclusion, because their conclusion had been made in spite of the evidence they already had.

The Jewish rulers rejected the claims of Jesus to be the Incarnate God. The apostles rejected the teaching of Jesus that their Messiah must die a humiliating death. So these last hours surrounding the Passover, the Lords Supper, the foot washing, the discourses on the Holy Spirit (Johns gospel) and Gethsemane were focused on saving and preparing the (now eleven) apostles to become heralds of the glad tidings throughout the world. Although these apostles deserted Jesus after His arrest, they were not cowards. They did not despise Jesus, nor had they wanted to exploit Him as Judas had. They were simply disillusioned because He had not fulfilled their materialistic fancies concerning the kingdom of God. They would gladly have joined Jesus in a war to bring in by force a kingdom to renovate the then present Jewish system. But it appeared to them that Jesus had become a passive victim of the system. To understand how they thought and felt one has only to read ahead the words of the two disciples on the way to Emmaus (cf. Luk. 24:17-27).

These apostles understood and acknowledged Jesus way when they saw Him later as the Christ of glory, when they acknowledged, almost incredibly, that He had become victor, not victim.

STUDY STIMULATORS:

1.

Can Satan take over a person without that person agreeing to it? What do you think about all the modern motion pictures portraying people being innocently victimized by Satan?

2.

Why do you think Jesus chose the Passover time to institute what is called, The Lords Supper? Wouldnt some other time have been equally appropriate?

3.

How could these apostles be so insensitive to these hours of pathos in Jesus personal life as to be arguing among themselves about being greatest? Why hadnt they accepted this matter as having been settled long ago by Jesus?

4.

Is the Lords Supper a sacrament? In what way is the Lords Supper a participation for the Christian? Do you really believe Jesus is communing with you every time you partake? Why do you believe that?

5.

Are the elements (bread and wine) of the Supper actually the flesh and blood of Jesus?

6.

Peter was ready to die for Jesusare you? Are you willing to live for Jesus?

7.

What do you think of Jesus command for the disciples to arm themselves with swords? Why didnt they just surrender like Jesus did? Arent we to follow Him in this example?

8.

Can you name, in order, the great discourses of Jesus (in Johns gospel alone) spoken between the Last Supper and the Garden of Gethsemane?

9.

Is it encouraging to you to know Jesus had to struggle with Himself to fulfill Gods will in His life?

10.

What does Jesus prayer in Gethsemane say to us about our feelings and what the Lord has revealed about His will for us in the Bible? Have you ever had to do the Lords will when you didnt feel like it? How did you get it done?

11.

Did Jesus really sweat blood? Have you ever been in deep agony over the conflict in your soul and the Word of God?

12.

Were the apostles cowards? Why did they all leave Jesus and flee at the time He was bound and arrested? Why did Peter go into the courtyard of the high priests house?

13.

Why did Peter, so willing to fight for the Lord earlier, deny knowing Jesus? Have you ever denied Him? Why? Is it something to weep bitterly over?

14.

How many illegalities were there to these early trials of Jesus? Why didnt one of the council members protest? Would you have?

Appleburys Comments

The Trial of Jesus Before the Jews
Scripture.

Luk. 22:66-71 And as soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people were gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council, saying, 67 If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: 68 and if I ask you, ye will not answer. 69 But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. 70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. 71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.

Comments

If thou art the Christ, tell us.This is actually the third phase of the trial before the Jews. It was held early in the morning to plan the presentation of the case before Pilate, for they had to get his permission in order to have the death sentence carried out. Their question was how to get a confession from Him that would justify them in doing what had already been determined to do.

Jesus answered, If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. Jesus had told them before that He was the Son of God, but they did not believe Him (Joh. 5:18; Joh. 10:36). There was no reason to suppose that if He should repeat the statement that they would believe Him. On the other hand, when He had asked them, What think ye of the Christ; Whose Son is He? they had refused to answer. Had they done so, they would have involved themselves in the confession that Davids son was also his Lord.

But from henceforth shall the son of man be seated.Jesus called attention to the fact that He was soon to be seated on the right hand of the power of God. In His final statement in the Jewish trial, the third phase of which was just then being hurriedly conducted, Jesus referred to Himself as Son of Manthat is, Messiah. But Messiah, of course, was not only the Son of man, He was also the Son of God. This is seen in Peters confession when he said, Thou art the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the Living God.

The Jews evidently understood that Son of Man means also that He was Son of God, for their next question was, Art thou, then, the Son of God? He answered them affirmatively, Ye say that I am. A similar answer was given to Pilate. Paul comments on it, saying that Jesus confessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate; that is, He acknowledged that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God (1Ti. 6:13).

What further need have we of witnesses?This seemed to satisfy them; they had finally forced from Him the confession that justified them in condemning Him as a blasphemer; they had heard it from His own mouth.

Summary

The enemies of Jesus had long since determined that He must be destroyed. They were only searching for a way to get it done without arousing the people. The feast, they thought, would be a poor time. But Satan, the chief conspirator, showed them how it could be done even during the Passover. He entered the heart of Judas who bargained for the thirty pieces of silver to deliver Jesus into their hands. He knew the place; he knew how to get the thing done quietly.
Jesus, of course, was well aware of what was going on. He had told the disciples that He must die in Jerusalem. He was eager to eat the last passover with them, for He would soon become the Lamb that would be sacrificed for the sins of the people. At the feast He pointed out the traitor.
Jesus instituted the Lords supper that the disciples might be caused to remember His death for them until He comes again.
But the disciples were still thinking of an earthly kingdom. They began to argue about which of them was to be the greatest. Jesus again reminded them that true greatness was to be found in the humble servant. He had set the example for them. And they would see times when they would need to remember this lesson. Satan had desired to have all of them. He must have thought that all of them could be bought as Judas had been. Jesus supplication for Peter did not prevent his denying that he had ever known such a person as Jesus, but it did leave the way open for his return.
The agony of Gethsemane brought Jesus near physical death. He asked that the cupwas it the cross or death in Gethsemane?be removed, but was willing to submit to the Fathers will. Angels strengthened Him and He finished His work as He gave Himself to die that man might be saved.
After the arrest in the Garden, Jesus was taken hurriedly through a three-fold Jewish trial. The Jews convinced themselves that they had found the excuse for putting Him to death. In their minds He was guilty of blasphemy.

Questions

1.

What is the feast of unleavened bread?

2.

What is the relation of the Passover to the feast of unleavened bread?

3.

When did the Jews decide that Jesus had to be put to death?

4.

Why hadnt they carried out their plot to kill Him?

5.

What were they looking for at this time?

6.

How had Satan entered into the heart of Judas?

7.

In the light of what God said to the serpent in the Garden, why did Satan use Judas to bring about the death of Jesus?

8.

What was Gods purpose in the death of Jesus?

9.

Why had Jesus called Judas a devil? How different from demon?

10.

What was Judas motive in betraying Jesus?

11.

Where did the betrayal take place?

12.

What evidence according to the Scriptures is there to suggest that Jesus was crucified on Friday? On what day did the resurrection take place?

13.

What is suggested as to the supernatural knowledge of Jesus in the account of the preparation for the passover?

14.

What evidence is there to show that Jesus and the disciples ate the passover meal at the regular time?

15.

Why did Jesus say that He had earnestly desired to eat this passover meal?

16.

In what way was it fulfilled in the kingdom of God?

17.

How is the significance of the Lords supper suggested by the fact that it was instituted at the passover meal?

18.

What is the meaning of the cup? the bread?

19.

How was the traitor pointed out?

20.

What caused the argument about the greatest in the kingdom?

21.

How did Jesus settle it?

22.

What is meant by the fact that the apostles were to sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?

23.

Why had Satan asked to have the apostles?

24.

What did Jesus supplication for Peter do for him?

25.

What instruction did Jesus give Peter in view of the trials through which he was to go?

26.

What caused Peter to deny his Lord?

27.

What may be said about Peters loyalty?

28.

Why did Jesus say that the two swords were enough?

29.

How did Judas know where Jesus would be?

30.

What was the condition of Jesus as He entered the Garden?

31.

What were the words of His prayer?

32.

To what cup did He refer? What are the various views?

33.

What bearing does Jesus prayer at the time the Greeks came seeking Him have on the meaning of the cup? (Joh. 12:27).

34.

Why did Judas betray Jesus with the kiss?

35.

What did Jesus mean by asking Judas about the kiss?

36.

How is the arrest accounted for?

37.

What are the three phases of the Jewish trial?

38.

What led Peter to follow and to deny his Lord?

39.

What effect did Jesus have on Peter by looking at him?

40.

What was the final decision of the Jews? On what charge?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(66-71) And as soon as it was day.See Notes on Mat. 27:11-14; Mar. 15:2-5. The special mention of the hour, though agreeing with what is implied in the other Gospels, is peculiar to St. Luke.

The elders of the people.Literally, the presbytery of the people. St. Luke uses here, and in Act. 22:5, the collective singular noun, instead of the masculine plural. St. Paul uses it of the assembly of the elders of the Church, in 1Ti. 4:14.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

‘And as soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away into their council, saying,’

The Sanhedrin consisted of chief priests, Scribes, and lay elders/aristocrats of the people. These were now all gathered together, having hurriedly been assembled. Many would not have been pleased at having been dragged away from the festivities. But they had been made to recognise that the matter was important. So they were probably mainly concerned to get the matter over as soon as possible. Handing the matter over for Pilate to judge, especially as there appeared to be a capital charge involved, probably seemed a good idea.

We are clearly intended to read here ‘the elders of the people — including the chief priests and Scribes’, for Luke was well aware of the threefold nature of the Sanhedrin (Luk 9:22; Luk 20:1; Act 4:5; Act 4:23; Act 6:12; etc.).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Official Trial Before The Sanhedrin (22:66-71).

Luke is only concerned with the official and final trial before the Sanhedrin (all the Synoptics agree that such a final trial did take place – Mat 27:1; Mar 15:1). He is keen to establish the fact that ‘all’ the Jews were involved in this travesty of justice (see Act 4:27). It was not just a few miscreant leaders who sentenced Jesus, it was the highest Jewish body in the land. Nor was he interested in the detail of the trial. He centres only on the final conclusion. To him that was the point that mattered.

With regard to regulations governing how the Sanhedrin had theoretically to operate, we have a general idea of these, although probably in an idealistic form, for they were formulated after the Sanhedrin had ceased to exist. Examples of these are:

All charges had to be evidenced by at least two witness, independently examined (that had been true from the time of Moses).

A majority of at least two was required for any condemnation.

Execution could not take place on the day that the sentence was given, because time must be allowed for reflection.

But these regulations might well have been seen as not applying to an informal night time ‘preparation’ meeting by people who were not too fussy about their behaviour and were full of their own importance and the ‘justice’ of their case. And except in so far as what was done there would actually need to be repeated in front of the official meeting of the Sanhedrin, they were probably not overly concerned. After all, no one would ever know but them. And indeed, in view of this, what is interesting is rather how carefully they did on the whole stick to the most important rules out of habit, partly in order to justify themselves to their own consciences, and partly with the whole Sanhedrin in mind. It was only when he became over-exasperated at the failure to make any charges stick that the High Priest forgot himself. And he did not do it before the official Sanhedrin. Nor was it in the end relevant whether the Sanhedrin had to wait a day before carrying out sentence, for they did not actually intend to carry out any sentence. Having made their decision they rather intended to hand Jesus over to Pilate to be tried as a ‘self-confessed’ Messiah and revolutionary. And there were no such restrictions on Pilate. They would assure themselves that it was not their fault if he did it in a hurry.

But what we can certainly say beyond question is that they did not observe the spirit of the Law. However, that is hardly unusual, even in our own less authoritarian days. It is in fact very rarely that authorities observe the spirit of the law unless it is in their favour. All they are concerned about (where they are concerned) is being able to do what they want while being at the same time able to prove that they have not broken the letter of the law. And we are given no grounds for thinking that the official Sanhedrin broke the letter of the Law. Even the adjuring of Jesus to speak the truth about a question put to Him by the High Priest did not take place at the official meeting of the Sanhedrin, where it would almost certainly have been frowned on, if not illegal. It took place in private. It certainly broke the spirit of the Law, but perhaps in view of the occasion it did not strictly break the letter of the Law. And once they had had His unofficial confession, the Sanhedrin then only had to ask Him whether it was true when He was undergoing questioning, the better of them possibly not even being aware of what led up to it. (And even that is not said to be a trial, for they did not pass a sentence. Rather they decided to hand Him over to Pilate). So when He replied ‘satisfactorily’ they did not need to resort to illegal tactics. On paper they were satisfied that all was legal. In reality it was a mockery.

Analysis.

a As soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away into their council, saying (Luk 22:66).

b “If you are the Messiah (the Christ), tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer (Luk 22:67-68).

c “But from henceforth the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luk 22:69).

b And they all said, “Are you then the Son of God?” And He said to them, “You say that I am” (Luk 22:70).

a And they said, “What further need have we of witness? For we ourselves have heard from His own mouth” (Luk 22:71).

Note how in ‘a’ He is brought before the Council (the Sanhedrin) to be tried and in the parallel they consider Him convicted out of His own mouth. In ‘b’ they question whether He is the Messiah and He replies, while in the parallel they question Him as to whether He is the Son of God, and He replies. Central to all in ‘c’ is His declaration that He will shortly be seated at the right hand of the power of God. It is that which is to be emphasised the most.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Summary of the trial:

v. 66. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying,

v. 67. Art Thou the Christ! Tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe;

v. 68. and if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go.

v. 69. Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

v. 70. Then said they all, Art Thou, then, the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye say that I am.

v. 71. And they said, What need we any further witness? For we ourselves have heard of His own mouth.

See Mat 26:59-66; Mar 14:55-64. Luke gives a summary of both the night meeting at the palace of the high priest and of the morning meeting, in which the sentence of the night was repeated and confirmed. As soon as it was morning, the entire Sanhedrin convened in the Hall of Polished Stones. It was necessary that the sentence of death be taken into consideration once more, and that the travesty upon justice be made not quite so apparent. The demand of the members of the Sanhedrin was short and insolent. He should tell them whether He really were the Christ, the promised Messiah. Jesus gently reminded them of the fact that their entire trial was a farce and a mockery, for they neither believed His words nor answered His questions. One word, however, He told them with great solemnity, namely, that He, the. Son of Man, would be sitting at the right hand of the power of God. When these His judges see Him again, their roles will be exchanged. Then He will be the Judge, and the enemies of Christ will shrink back in terror when they are haled before the throne of His judgment. Then they will call upon the mountains to fall upon them, and upon the hills to cover them. And when they all, following the example of the high priest, demanded a short statement whether He were the Son of God, He gave the majestic answer: You say it; for I am. With this statement Bounding in their ears, the unjust condemnation of the council was in reality the most perfect vindication of the innocence and holiness of Jesus. The reason, then, why the Jews wanted Jesus to die was because He was the Son of God and as such had told them the truth, had rebuked their evil works, and exposed their hypocrisy. But we Christians thank our dear Lord Jesus Christ for having permitted this sentence to be pronounced upon Him, and for testifying to this fact to the very last, confirming it with a solemn oath, that He is the Son of the most blessed God. Now we know that we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanest us from all sin.

Summary. While Judas offers to betray his Master, Jesus has Peter and John prepare the Passover meal in a designated house, eats the supper with His disciples, institutes the Holy Eucharist, teaches a lesson in humility, warns Peter against overconfidence in self, suffers the agony of Gethsemane, is betrayed to the Jews by the kiss of Judas, and in the court of the Sanhedrin is condemned to death, while Peter denies Him three times.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Luk 22:66. As soon as it was day, When the band of soldiers arrived at the high-priest’s with Jesus, they found many of the chief-priests, and scribes, and elders assembled there. Some persons of distinction however may have been absent, for whose coming they would wait; wherefore, although the soldiers brought Jesus to the high-priest’s a little after midnight, his trial did not begin till about three in the morning; for if the passover this year fell late in April, the sun must at that season have arisen to the inhabitants of Jerusalem about twenty-three minutes after five, and the day have dawned about fifteen minutes after three: wherefore, since St. Luke fixes the appearance of Jesus before the council to the dawn, his trial must have begun about three in the morning. This is confirmed by the account which St. Matthew gives of the hour when Jesus was led away to the governor, ch. Mat 27:1-2. The intermediate time between the taking of Jesus and his trial might have passed in procuring witnesses, in sending for the absent members, in gathering the clerks and officers of the court, and in sitting up an apartment for the trial; for that Jesus was tried by the council, not in the temple, as many suppose, but in the high-priest’s palace, is evident from Joh 18:28 where we are told expressly that they led Jesus from Caiaphas’s house to the praetorium.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Luk 22:66-67 . According to Luke, the Sanhedrim now first comes together after daybreak, and Jesus is led in for trial. Where it assembled Luke does not say, and there is nothing therefore opposed to our finding in this place the leading away from the court of Annas (see on Luk 22:54 ) into the house of Caiaphas (Joh 18:24 ). The trial itself, as to its matter, is plainly the same which Matthew although immediately after the bringing in of Jesus makes to be held in the house of Caiaphas. See Mat 26:59 ff. Luke relates the matter and proceedings in a merely summary and imperfect manner.

. . .] the elders of the people , (the) chief priests, and scribes . These are the three constituent elements of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Luk 9:22 , Luk 20:1 . On , denoting the elders as a corporation, comp. Act 22:5 . By the non-repetition of the article the three parts are bound into a unity, in respect of which the difference of the gender and number is no difficulty (comp. Plato, Pol . vi. p. 501 D: ; Soph. Oed. C . 850: ), especially in respect of the collective nature of . See in general, Krger, 58. 2. 1; Winer, p. 115 f. [E. T. 157 f.].

] The subject is the assembled members of the Sanhedrim who had caused Him to be brought up. indicates a locality situated higher , as contrasted with the court of Annas, in which locality the Sanhedrim were met.

. ] into their own concessus , into their own council gathering , in order now themselves to proceed further with Him. Comp. the use of of the Amphictyonic council, also of the Roman and the Carthaginian Senate (Polyb. xl. 6. 6, i. 11. 1, 31. 8).

Luk 22:67 . . . .] may mean: If thou art the Messiah, tell us (Vulgate, Luther, and most commentators), or: Tell us whether thou art the Messiah (Castalio, Bornemann, Ewald, and others), or: Is it the case that thou art the Messiah? Tell us (Erasmus). The first is the simplest, and corresponds to the purpose of framing the question so as to elicit an affirmative answer.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

Ver. 66. See Mat 27:1 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

66 71. ] HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL. (Probably) Mat 27:1 .Mar 14:1Mar 14:1 . It seems probable that Luke here gives us an account of a second and formal judgment held in the morning . The similarity of the things said at the two hearings may be accounted for by remembering that they were both more or less formal processes in legal courts, one the precognition, the other, the decision, at which the things said before would be likely to be nearly repeated.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

66. . . ] Some trace of a meeting of the Sanhedrim after daylight I believe our Evangelist to have found, see Mat 27:1 and to have therefore related as then happening, the following account of what really took place at the former meeting.

but first took place the referred to in Luk 22:71 ; and the person who said this was the high-priest, and with an adjuration, Mat 27:63 . The ordinary rendering is the most natural and correct: If thou art (not if thou be ) the Christ, tell us. The others, ‘ Tell us whether thou be the Christ; ’ and, ‘ Art thou the Christ? tell us ’ (see the question in Luk 22:49 ), are forced and unusual.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 22:66-71 . Morning trial , the proceedings of which, as reported by Lk., correspond to those of the night meeting reported by Mt. and Mk. (Mat 26:59-66 , Mar 14:55-64 ), only much abridged. No mention of the attempt to get, through witnesses, matter for an accusation, or of the testimony concerning the word about destroying the temple. The Messiah question is alone noticed. Perhaps Lk. omitted the former because of their futility, though they were important as revealing the animus of the judges.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 22:66 . , to the council chamber, in which the Sanhedrim met. , introducing the proceedings, in a very generalising way. Cf. the graphic account of the high priest rising up to interrogate Jesus, after the first attempt to incriminate Him had failed, in parallels (Mat 26:62 f., Mar 14:60 f.).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 22:66-71

66When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, 67″If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” 71Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.”

Luk 22:66 “When it was day” If the night trial occurred on Thursday (Nisan 14), then this occurred on the Friday morning (Nisan 14). Jesus will be crucified by noon (Nisan 14, cf. Luk 23:44) and buried before the beginning of the Sabbath at twilight on Friday (Nisan 15, cf. Luk 23:54).

The timing and order of these trials vary from Gospel to Gospel. We must remember these are not western histories or biographies, but salvation tracts targeted to certain people groups. The variety does not diminish the inspiration or trustworthiness of the events themselves!

“the Council of elders of the people assembled” This was done by the Sanhedrin (See Special Topic at Luk 9:22) to give a semblance of legality to the illegal nighttime trial.

SPECIAL TOPIC: Illegalities of the Sanhedrin’s Night Trial, Mat 26:57-68

Luk 22:67 “If” The first “if” in this verse is a First class conditional. It usually denotes the reality of a statement, but here it is used sarcastically, which shows how literary context affects grammatical form. There are no hard and fast rules. Context, context, context is crucial!

NASB, NKJV

NJB”the Christ”

NRSV, TEV”the Messiah”

Here is a good example of Aramaic speakers being recorded in Greek. They are asking Jesus if He is the promised Anointed One of Godthe Messiah!

“tell us” This is an aorist active imperative. They want a clear “yes” or “no.”

“if” The second “if” in this verse is a third class conditional, which denotes potential action.

“you will not believe” The Sanhedrin did not want information about Jesus. They wanted to condemn Him. Remember this encounter was after two lengthy night trials before Annas and Caiaphas (Luk 22:54). Whatever Jesus said, their minds and hearts were already hardened. No faith response was possible. The unpardonable sin had occurred. See Special Topic at Luk 11:19.

This verse (as does Luk 22:68) has the grammatical form of the strongest negation in Koine Greek.

1. the double negative, ou + m

2. Aorist subjunctive

Luk 22:68 “if” This is another third class conditional sentence. Jesus had tried, on many occasions, to enter into a dialog with the Jerusalem leadership, but they would not or could not answer His questions. Jesus knew them well!

“not” This is a strong double negative with the aorist subjunctive, which is emphatic negation!

Luk 22:69 “the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” This is an incomplete sentence which is a reference to Psa 110:1, a specifically Messianic text, related to “the” special descendant of David linked to the coming Messiah.

The phrase “at God’s right hand” is an anthropomorphic phrase speaking of God as if He were a man. In reality God is Spirit and has no body and, therefore, no need of a physical throne or hand (see Special Topic at Luk 1:51). Jesus answered their question in unmistakable OT prophetic terms!

Luk 22:70 “and they all said” Notice the plural. Those present spoke with one voice!

“Are You the Son of God, then” We learn from Mar 14:55-59 that the false witnesses had failed in their accusations. At this point the Sandehrin tried to get Jesus to incriminate Himself. This was illegal in Jewish Law. The phrase “Son of God” is used in the OT for the nation of Israel, the king of Israel, and the Messiah. It definitely had Messianic connotations. See Special Topic at Luk 1:35.

NASB”Yes, I am”

NKJV”You rightly say that I am”

NRSV, TEV,

NET”you say that I am”

NJB, REB”it is you who say I am”

NIV”you are right in saying I am”

Jesus, in a round-about way, affirms that He is the Messiah (cf. Mar 14:62). He knew they would take this title in such a way as to accuse him before Rome.

Moffat’s translation at this point is very helpful to catch the subtle connotation of this phrase. “That is your word, not mine, I would not put it like that, but since you have, I cannot deny it” (cf. Mat 26:64).

A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 277, makes the pertinent analysis that Jesus admits to being

1. the Christ (Messiah), Luk 22:67

2. the Son of Man at God’s right hand, Luk 22:69

3. the Son of God, Luk 22:70

All of these phrases are used in a parallel way.

Luk 22:71 This verse shows the purpose of their questioning. They wanted Him to admit to what they considered blasphemy. They were attempting to justify their attitudes and actions!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

was = became.

the elders = the assembly of the elders, as in Act 22:5.

and, &c. Read “both chief priests and scribes”. There are no Articles.

council. Greek. sunhedrion.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

66-71.] HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL. (Probably) Mat 27:1. Mar 14:1. It seems probable that Luke here gives us an account of a second and formal judgment held in the morning. The similarity of the things said at the two hearings may be accounted for by remembering that they were both more or less formal processes in legal courts, one the precognition, the other, the decision, at which the things said before would be likely to be nearly repeated.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

And as soon

For order of events on the day of the crucifixion, (See Scofield “Mat 26:57”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

as soon: Mat 27:1, Mar 15:1

elders: Psa 2:1-3, Act 4:25-28, Act 22:5

Reciprocal: Psa 119:23 – Princes Pro 4:16 – General Mat 21:15 – when Mat 26:63 – that Mar 11:33 – Neither Luk 23:1 – General Luk 24:20 – General Joh 18:28 – early Act 4:5 – rulers Act 5:21 – But Act 5:27 – set

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6

The council was the Sanhedrin, which was the highest court the Romans permitted the Jews to have in the time of Christ and the apostles.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Luk 22:66. And when it was day. Roman law forbade a final condemnation before dawn, and Jewish usage forbade even the investigation of capital crime at night.

The assembly of the elders, lit, the eldership (presbyterion); a formal assembly of the Sanhedrin, at the usual place of holding the council.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. Christ was judged and tried before a court that had no authority to judge or try him, verse 66. They let him into their council. This was their great Sanhedrin, or ecclesiastical court, which, according to its first constitution, was to consist of seventy grave, honorable, and learned men, who were to judge impartially for God, according to Num 11:16 But this, alas, consisted of a malicious pack of Scribes and Pharisees, men full of malice and revenge, and over these Caiaphas now presided; an head fit for such a body: but though there was, at our Saviour’s trial, a face of a court amongst them, yet their power was much abridged by the Romans, so that they could not hear nor determine, neither judge nor condemn, in capital matters.

Observe next, the indictment of blasphemy is brought in against him; What need we any further witness? We have heard his blasphemy. Abominable wickedness! It is not in the power of the greeatest and unspotted innocency to protect from slander and false accusation.

Observe farther, the great meekness of our Saviour under all these ill suggestions, and false accusations: as a lamb before the shearer, so is he dumb, and opened not his mouth.

Learn thence, that to bear the revilings, contradictions, and false accusations of men, with a silent and submissive spirit, is an excellent and Christ-like temper. Though a trial for his innocent life, was now managed most maliciously and illegally against him, yet, when he was reviled, he reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatened not. Oh may the same meek and humble mind be in us, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, instead of reviling his accusers, prayed for his murderers, and offered up his blood to God on the behalf of them that shed it! Lord Jesus, help us to set up thy instructive example continually before us, and to be daily correcting and reforming of our lives, by that blessed pattern. Amen.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 22:66-71. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief-priests, &c., came together When the band of soldiers arrived at the high-priests with Jesus, they found many of the chief-priests, and the scribes, and the elders assembled there. (Mar 14:53.) Some persons of distinction, however, may have been absent, whose coming the rest would wait for. Wherefore, although the soldiers brought Jesus to the high- priests a while after midnight, his trial did not begin till about three in the morning: the intermediate time being spent in procuring witnesses, in sending for the absent members, in gathering the clerks and officers of the court, and in fitting up an apartment for the trial. For, that Jesus was tried by the council, not in the temple, as many suppose, but in the high-priests palace, is evident from Joh 18:28, where we are expressly told, that they led Jesus from Caiaphass house to the pretorium. Saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us Dost thou give up the pretensions thou hast formerly made, or dost thou maintain them? If thou art indeed the Messiah, tell us plainly, and it will bring matters to a short issue. It seems, these wretches hoped to gain a great advantage against Jesus either way; if he confessed it, they would condemn him on that confession; and if he denied it, they would expose him on that denial, as afraid to maintain the pretensions he had made. And he said, If I tell you That I am the Christ, and give you the most convincing proofs of it, you are resolved that you will not believe. And if I ask you What you have to object against the proofs I produce; you will not answer me Here he seems to refer to their silence, when he put a question to them which would have led them to his own authority, Luk 20:5-7. Nor let me go If I be not the Christ, you ought to answer the arguments by which I prove that I am; if I be, you ought to let me go; but you will do neither: you will only overbear me with renewed violence. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit, &c. The day will come, when ye shall see the Son of man, who now stands in this despised and lowly form at your tribunal, exalted to all the dignity and glory which that high title imports; sitting on the right hand of the power of God And coming with irresistible strength to take vengeance on the proudest of his enemies. See on Mat 26:59-64; and Mar 14:53-65. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? A number of them cried out together, feigning great astonishment at the blasphemy, as they were pleased to call it, of his answer, and desiring him to repeat it, lest they might have mistaken him, asked, Art thou then the Son of God? Both these, the Son of God, and the Son of man, were known titles of the Messiah, the one taken from his divine, and the other from his human, nature. And he said unto them, Ye say that I am This, according to the Jewish manner of speaking, was a plain and strong affirmation of the thing expressed. When the high-priest heard our Lords second reply, he solemnly rent his clothes, crying out, that he had spoken blasphemy; and, appealing to the council, he said, What need we any further witness? (Luk 22:71.) And they said, What need we, &c. The council replied, As you have justly observed, what need have we of witnesses now, seeing we ourselves have heard in what manner he hath blasphemed? And being asked what punishment he deserved, they answered, that he deserved death. Mat 26:26; Mat 26:66.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

(3.) Luk 22:66-71. The Morning Sitting.

It is impossible to determine to what extent the Sanhedrim required to repeat in their morning sitting what had passed in the night one. But we are justified in allowing that some details of the one were applied to the other by tradition and by our evangelists. There was nothing in itself blasphemous in one calling himself the Christ. This claim, even if it was false, was not an outrage on the honour of God. If the assertions of Jesus regarding His person appeared in the judgment of the Jews to be blasphemy, it was because in His mouth the title Son of God always signified something else and something more than that of Messiah, and because the latter was in His lips only a corollary from the former. In proportion to the care with which Jesus in His ministry had avoided making His Messiahship the subject of His public declarations, He had pointedly designated Himself as the Son of God. Hence, in the sitting described by Matthew and Mark, the high priest, when putting to Him the question: Art thou the Christ? takes care to add: the Son of God? well knowing that the first assertion cannot be the foundation of a capital charge, unless it be again completed and explained as it had always been in the teaching of Jesus by the second. The question of Luk 22:67, in Luke, was simply, on the part of the high priest, the introduction to the examination (comp. Luk 22:70). But Jesus, wishing to hasten a decision which He knew to be already taken, boldly and spontaneously passes in His answer beyond the strict contents of the question, and declares Himself not only the Messiah, but at the same time the Son of man sharing the divine glory. The particle (Luk 22:67) may be taken interrogatively: Art thou the Christ? Tell us so in that case. But it is more natural to make it directly dependent on : Tell us if thou art…

De Wette has criticised the answer here ascribed to Jesus (Luk 22:67-68). The second alternative: If I ask you, appears to him out of place in the mouth of an accused person. It is not so. Here is the position, as brought out by the answer of Jesus: I cannot address you either as judges whom I am seeking to convince, for you are already determined to put no faith in my declarations, nor as disciples whom I am endeavouring to instruct, for you would not enter into a fair discussion with me. Had he not questioned them once and again previously on the origin of John’s baptism, and on the meaning of Psalms 110? And they had steadily maintained a prudent silence! Jesus foresees the same result, if He should now enter into discussion with them.

The last words: , nor let me go, are perplexing, because, while grammatically connected with the second alternative, they refer in sense to both. Either, with the Alex., they must be rejected, or they must be taken as a climax: Nor far less still will ye let me go.

Ver. 69. Jesus Himself thus furnishes the Jews with the hold which they seek. The name Son of man, which He uses as most directly connected with that of Christ (Luk 22:67), is qualified by a description implying that He who bears this title participates in the divine state.

Thereby the trial became singularly shortened. There was no occasion searchingly to examine the right of Jesus to the title of Christ. The claim to divine glory contained in this assertion of Jesus is immediately formulated by the tribunal in the title Son of God. It only remains to have the blasphemy articulately stated by the culprit Himself. Hence the collective question, Luk 22:70.

The form: ye say that I am, thou sayest it, is not used in Greek; but it is frequently used in Rabbinical language. By such an answer the party accepts, as His own affirmation, the whole contents of the question put to Him.

So far, therefore, from this question proving, as is persistently affirmed, that the name Son of God is equivalent in the view of the Jews, or in that of Jesus, to the name Christ, the evident progress from the question of Luk 22:67 to that of Luk 22:70, brought about by the decided answer of Jesus, Luk 22:69, clearly proves the difference between the two terms. As to the difference between the night sitting and that of the morning, it was not considerable. In the second, the steps were only more summary, and led more quickly to the end. All that was necessary was to ratify officially what had been done during the night. As Keim says, the Sanhedrim had not to discuss; they had merely to approve and confirm the decision come to overnight.

In the opinion of those who allege that Jesus was crucified on the afternoon of the 15th, and not of the 14th, the arrest of Jesus, and the three judicial sessions which followed, took place in the night between the 14th and 15th, and so on the sabbatic holy day. Is that admissible? Langen remarks that on the 15th Nisan food might be prepared, which was forbidden on a Sabbath (Exo 12:16). But there is no proof that this exception extended to other acts of ordinary life (arrests, judgments, punishments, etc.). He seeks, further, to prove that what was forbidden on a sabbatic day was not to pronounce a sentence, but merely to write and execute it. Now, he says, there is no proof that the sentence of Jesus was written; and it was Roman soldiers, not subject to the law, by whom it was executed. These replies are ingenious; but after all, the objection taken from the general sabbatic character of the 15th Nisan remains in all its force.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

CXXVIII.

THIRD STAGE OF JEWISH TRIAL. JESUS FORMALLY

CONDEMNED BY THE SANHEDRIN AND LED TO PILATE.

(Jerusalem. Friday after dawn.)

aMATT. XXVII. 1, 2; bMARK XV. 1; cLUKE XXII. 66-23:1; dJOHN XVIII. 28.

a1 Now when morning was come, c66 And as soon as it was day, bstraightway cthe assembly of the [702] elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away into their council, aall the chief priests and {bwith} the elders aof the people band scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and atook counsel against Jesus to put him to death [Since blasphemy was by no means a criminal offense among the Romans, the Sanhedrin consulted together and sought for some charge of which the Romans would take notice. As we follow their course it will become evident to us that they found no new ground of accusation against Jesus, and, failing to do so, they decided to make use of our Lord’s claim to be the Christ by so perverting it as to make him seem to assert an intention to rebel against the authority of Rome]: csaying, 67 If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe [as experience had already proven– Joh 8:59, Joh 10:31]: 68 and if I ask you, ye will not answer. [Thus Jesus protests against the violence and injustice of his trial. His judges were asking him whether he was the Christ without any intention of investigating the truth of his claim, but merely for the purpose of condemning him by unwarrantedly assuming that he was not the Christ. They therefore asked in an unlawful spirit as well as in an unlawful manner. Jesus had a good right to ask them questions tending to confirm his Christhood by the Scripture, but had he done so they would not have answered– Mat 22:41-45. Jesus appeals to them to try the question as to who he was, but they insist on confining the inquiry as to who he claimed to be, assuming that the claim was false.] 69 But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. [See p. 698.] 70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. [The Hebrew mode of expression, equivalent to “Ye say it, because I am.”] 71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth. [Thus they unconsciously admit their lack of evidence against Jesus.] [703] 1 And the whole company of them rose up, a2 and they bound bJesus, and carried {aled} him away, d28 They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium: cand brought him before Pilate. band delivered him up to Pilate. athe governor. dand it was early; [The Sanhedrin could try and could condemn, but could not put to death without the concurring sentence of the Roman governor. To obtain this sentence, they now lead Jesus before Pilate in the early dawn, having made good use of their time.]

[FFG 702-704]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

22:66 {21} And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,

(21) Christ is wrongly condemned of blasphemy before the high priest’s judgment seat in order that we might be acquitted before God from the blasphemy which we deserved.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

3. Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin 22:66-71 (cf. Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1a)

Luke is the only Gospel writer who gave us an account of what happened at this official meeting of the Sanhedrin. It followed informal interviews late at night by Annas and Caiaphas. This meeting took place very early on Friday morning, April 3, A.D. 33. [Note: Hoehner, p. 143.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The Sanhedrin, also known as the council of the elders, was Israel’s supreme court. It could only conduct cases involving potential capital punishment during daylight hours. [Note: Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1.] This seems to be the reason for the time of this meeting. Evidently the Sanhedrin members wanted to send Jesus on to Pilate for trial as early as they could. The Sanhedrin normally met in a building not far to the west of the western wall of the temple. [Note: Josephus, The Wars . . ., 5:4:2; 6:6:3.] But archaeologists have not yet been able to determine exactly where.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)