Bible Study series: Luke 22:66-71. Jesus told the truth. He really was the Son of Man who was about to come into the glory of the Right Hand of Power (God). His inquisitors considered this truth blasphemy, which carried the death penalty.
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
In the next link to the original chapter, I comment more and offer the Greek text. At the bottom you will find a “Summary and Conclusion” section geared toward discipleship. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Luke 22:66-71
66 And as morning came, the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law gathered together and led him before their council. 67 They said, “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you would in no way believe. 68 If I were to ask you, you would in no way reply. 69 ‘From now on the Son of Man will be sitting on the right hand of the power of God.’ [Ps. 110:1] 70 All of them said, “Are you, therefore, the Son of God?” And he said, “You are saying that I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we still need witnesses? For we ourselves have heard it from his mouth!” (Luke 22:66-71)
Comments:
Here we have a scene of irony. This term means that you think you know something, but in reality you do not; you are ignorant.
Comic irony: In the 1960s sitcom Hogan’s Heroes, Col. Klink brags that there has never been a successful escape from Stalag Thirteen. The truth: there are all kinds of escapes and they successfully accomplish their missions. Stalag Thirteen is like “Mole City” under his feet.
Tragic irony: King Oedipus believes he is wise, and he will investigate why a plague is attacking Thebes. But he is ignorant of the fact that he is the cause, until later on in the play. He learns the truth too late. It is tragic.
A biblical example is Job and his friends. They were trying to figure out why Job met with disasters, and though they had a small level of understanding—and the poetry is beautiful—they really did not know as much as their confidence allowed. God showed up on the scene and told them so.
Divine irony of the wise and powerful: Caiaphas and the council should know who the Messiah is because they are wise about matters of the law. They have read the Messianic prophecies. In reality, however, they cannot discern or figure out that the Messiah is standing right in front of them. They are victims of divine irony. God know; Jesus knows, but they do not, even though they believe that they do. Not only do they not see that he is the true Messiah, they accuse him of blasphemy.
Elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law: You can read about them here:
Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts
Now let’s unpack the divine irony verse by verse.
66:
This verse merely sets the stage. For chief priests and teachers of the law, see v. 1. The elders were likely Jewish civic leaders, as distinguished from the priestly ones. They were prominent social leaders (Deut. 19:1-13; 21:1-9, 19; Ezra 10:14).
Bock lists the irregularities of Jesus’s trial before the Sanhedrin. The tractate in the Mishnah is in fact called the Sanhedrin (the Mishnah is a book of oral law and traditions compiled in and written down in about AD 200):
|
Irregularities at Jesus’ Trial |
|
| A | Proceedings in high priest’s house, instead of the temple (m. Sanh. 11.2) |
| B | Jesus was tried without a defense council (m. Sanh. 4.1) |
| C | By pronouncing the divine name, Jesus was accused of blasphemy without actually blaspheming in the technical sense (m. Sanh. 7.5) (see below for more information on blasphemy) |
| D | Verdict came in one day, instead of the required two days (m. Sanh. 4.1) |
| E | Jesus was tried on a feast day (though which exact time the Last Supper was held is debated) |
| F | Contradictory testimony can nullify evidence (m. Sanh. 5.2) |
| G | Pronouncement of guilt by high priest contradicts normal order, which starts with the least senior member (m. Sanh. 4.2) |
| Bock, p. 1792, slightly edited, comment on Luke 22:66. | |
Bock also lists the evening and morning portion of the Jewish and Roman examination of Jesus:
|
Evening and Morning Jewish and Roman Examination of Jesus |
|
| 1 | Inquiry before Annas (John 18:13) |
| 2 | Evening meeting with Caiaphas presiding (Mark 14:55 = Matt. 26:59-66) |
| 3 | Morning confirmation before an official Jewish body, probably Sanhedrin (Mark 15:1b-5 = Matt. 27:1, 2-11 = Luke 23:1-5 = John 18:29-38) |
| 4 | Initial Meeting with Pilate (Luke 23:6-12) |
| 5 | Meeting with Herod (Luke 23:6-12) |
| 6 | A second, more public meeting with Pilate and the people (Luke 23:13-16), and the consequence is to condemn him and release Barabbas: Matt. 27:15-23 = Mark 15:6-14 = Luke 23:17-23 = John 18:39-40 |
| Bock, p. 1793, slightly edited, his comment on Luke 22:66. | |
67:
They ask him whether he is the Messiah, the Christ. He answers indirectly, challenging their confident “knowledge” that they really do not have; they are actually ignorant. If he tells them, they would not believe it or him. The direct object (it or him) is missing, so I left them out. “You (plural) would in no way believe.” The negation is emphatic. So why bother telling them clearly at this stage in the interrogation? They would be unbelievers, yet they are the highest religious authorities in the greatest and God-ordained monotheistic land in the world. They have the clearest revelations of all in the Torah and the prophets. Yet they are the most ignorant about an issue of national survival and significance.
68:
If he were to ask them, they could in no way reply correctly. The negation is emphatic again. Their ignorance would be showing. So let’s say that he did ask them. “What do you believe? Am I the Messiah?” Of course they would say no. However, the Messiah is standing right in front of them. Ignorance, despite their confident belief that they know. Don’t you see their fancy clothes and where they are holding the interrogation? In the council room of the highest religious governing authority in capital of the nation of Israel, which God called into existence.
Incidentally, was Saul of Tarsus in the room, standing off to the side? Was he in Jerusalem in about AD 30-31? Maybe, but I don’t know.
69:
Now he answers, referencing Ps. 110:1: The LORD says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’” (ESV). He also has in mind Dan. 7:13-14:
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14, NIV)
The Ancient of Days is God. Jesus was about to ascend and be enthroned on high, sitting next to God. So his coming here in v. 69 refers to his ascension and enthronement. Jesus was granted authority over heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), and the fact that the gospel was spreading all over their known world indicates that the ascended Jesus has authority and dominion over Caiaphas and the council. This makes the most sense of v. 69, in light of Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13-14.
And no, v. 69 does not refer to the grand and glorious Second Coming when the whole earth will be overtaken by his glorious appearing.
See my comments on Luke 21 for how Jesus’s ascension and enthronement (and later coming-in-judgment on the temple) and the parousia (Second Coming) must be kept distinct.
Luke 21:5-33 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple
Luke 17:22-37 and 21:34-36 Teach the Second Coming
Bottom line: Jesus will rise in authority in three short days, and the high priest and Sanhedrin will feel its effects by the power of the church in Acts. Peter stood before them, preaching powerfully. Here is just one sample in Acts 5:17-32:
17 At this time, the chief priests and those with him, who were of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with envy 18 and nabbed the apostles and put them in public prison. 19 But at night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison and led them out and said, 20 “Go and steadfastly speak to the people in the temple all the words of this salvation and life!” 21 They obeyed and went to the temple at daybreak. The high priest and those with him arrived and summoned the Council [Sanhedrin] and all elders of the descendants of Israel and sent to the prison to escort them out. 22 But the assistants did not find them in the prison, so they turned back and announced, 23 “We found the jail locked up very securely and the guards standing at the doors, but, opening them, we found no one inside.” 24 As the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard this account, they were perplexed about all of this—what might happen.
25 Someone came in and announced to them, “Amazing! The men whom you put in prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people!” 26 Then the captain left with the assistants and led them away without violence, for they feared the people stoning them. 27 Leading them onwards, they stood them right in front of the Council [Sanhedrin]. The high priest examined them, 28 “We ordered you strictly not to teach in this name! And look at you! You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood on us!” 29 But Peter answered and the apostles replied, “We have to obey God rather than man! 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had done away with by hanging him on wood. 31 It is this man whom God exalted the Overall Ruler and Savior at his right hand, to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of this storyline and of the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to all who obey him!” (Acts 5:17-32, my tentative translation)
After Stephen said the temple was of no real importance because God does not live in an object made with hands (Acts 7:44-50), much like Jesus’s false accusers emphasized the temple made with hands, Stephen says he saw the exalted Son of Man:
Being full of the Holy Spirit and fixing his gaze on heaven, he [Stephen] saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, “Look! I see the heavens opening wide and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55-56)
“power”: Jesus is exalted at God’s right hand, which indicates his power and authority.
70:
Then they try to gang-tackle him verbally. They must have leaped up and asked him, “So are you the Son of God?” I hear in that question: “We dare you answer that!” Their ignorance was fading away, but not entirely because they really did not believe with full knowledge, just as Jesus said they would not (v. 67). But they may have recognized the ascension and enthronement verses.
“You are saying that I am.” I believe that Jesus’s words “I am” refer to the “I am” statement in Exod. 3:14 (through the Septuagint or LXX).
No, they did not believe he was the Son of God, but if he answers them directly, then their confusion would be lifted. Instead, he says “You are saying that I am.” He wants them to remain in their ignorance, even just a little. Once again, this is divine irony from the most “knowledgeable” council in all of Judaism.
Even though the council didn’t fully understand who the Son was, we do, so let’s look at this title more deeply.
Let’s briefly discuss the Sonship of Jesus in systematic theology. Jesus was the Son of the Father eternally, before creation. The Son has no beginning. He and the Father always were, together. The relationship is portrayed in this Father-Son way so we can understand who God is more clearly. Now he relates to us as his sons and daughters. On our repentance and salvation and union with Christ, we are brought into his eternal family.
6. Titles of Jesus: The Son of God
When Did Jesus “Become” the Son of God?
71:
The chief priests, elders, and teachers of the law conclude that he committed blasphemy (see Matt. 26:64-65 // Mark 14:62-64), which deserves death (Lev. 24:10-16, 23). In those verses in Matthew and Mark, the chief priest tore his clothes, indicating shock and even sorrow.
Now the question is: Can they make the charge of blasphemy stick before the Roman authorities? No, so they have to add politics to the charge against him. They accuse him of making himself king. And there is no king but Caesar. This will take place in the next chapter.
In any case, the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law are still swimming around in divine ignorance. They are about to advocate the crucifixion of their true Messiah, which also fulfills Scripture they don’t understand: Is. 53. The Messiah has to suffer and die.
Bock wrote a book on blasphemy happening before the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and particularly before the Mishnah was collected in AD 200. Commentator Osborne summarizes Bock’s finding:
1.. Blasphemy centered on the misuse of the divine name and acts of blasphemy.
2.. Few were allowed to approach the throne of the holy God—not even the archangel Michael was allowed to sit on the right hand of God, so Jesus’s claiming he was about to sit at the right hand of God was blasphemy.
3.. This was not a capital trial but a hearing, so the Sanhedrin did not have to be technically correct.
4.. Sources of the information of the trial was plentiful (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus), so this trial / hearing is not a fiction.
5.. Two levels of blasphemy: Jesus claims to have comprehensive authority from God; and then he claims to be the judge of Jewish leaders (violating Exod. 22:28 on not cursing God’s leaders). This latter claim could be used against Jesus because he could be accused of challenging Rome’s authority.
Source: Grant R. Osborne, Matthew: Zondervan’s Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Zondervan, 2010), p. 999.
In his commentary Bock says that in the early second century, Rabbi Akiva was involved in a dispute because he said that David would have a “session” (being seated) at God’s right hand, and other Rabbis said that this notion profaned the shekinah; the idea was considered blasphemy (m. Sanh. 6.4).
Bock continues:
For most Jews, the idea of coming directly into God’s presence and sitting with him in constant heavenly session without cultic purification or worship was an insult to God’s uniqueness. It was the essence of blasphemy since a human seated by God diminishes his stature. The dispute with Rabbi Akiva makes this clear, as does the leadership’s response to Jesus. Biblical figures who go into God’s presence are first cleansed (Isa. 6, Ezek. 1). In early rabbinic tradition, only God sits in heaven. Anything else insults his person. … One could stand with him, but not sit with him … Thus, when Jesus says that he can sit at God’s right side, then implications emerge about Jesus’ person. The leadership understands these implications. The defendant claims to be the Judge. (p. 1799)
Then Bock states the irony: “With strong irony, the Jews think that Jesus is on trial, but what they do to him does not matter, since he is the true Judge. The very remarks that the Jews think lower God’s stature, in fact, show how exalted Jesus is” (p. 1799).
They are in the small “bubble” of divine irony. When Jesus ascends and then enacts his ultimate vindication at the destruction of the temple in AD 70, then they still won’t understand. No, this irony does not mean the events never happened. They did; it is not a literary invention contrary to fact. Jesus himself is the one who kept the knowledgeable ones in the dark.
Starting here in this pericope, we have four different trials (if one can call them that):
(1). The council of the elders (22:66-71);
(2). Before Pilate (23:1-6);
(3). Before Herod (23:7-12);
(4). Before Pilate again (22:13-25)
(BTSB, p. 1879).
GrowApp for Luke 22:66-71
1. How did you come to know that Jesus is the Messiah? What was your opinion of Jesus before your conversion? When and how did your ignorance get replaced with the revelation that he is who he says he is?
RELATED
11. Eyewitness Testimony in Luke’s Gospel
3. Church Fathers and Luke’s Gospel
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND MORE
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom. You will also find a “Summary and Conclusion” for discipleship.
