Luke 23:2Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

For He declared: “Ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power.” Now, I ask you, who is more deserving to sit with the Father than He who is by nature the Son? Among all created beings, none can claim the honor of sitting upon the throne of the Divine, as all creation is placed under the authority of the supreme nature that governs all things and transcends creation itself. Only God the Father occupies the highest throne, yet He shares it with the Son, who is eternally with Him and originates from Him by essence. Thus, your inquiry has afforded you complete certainty that He is the Christ. However, in your desire to accuse Him, who has manifested His glory to you, of blasphemy, you asserted, “Why do we need additional witnesses? For we have heard from His own lips.” Remarkably, you have disregarded this, or have perhaps chosen to ignore the grounds on which He was condemned by you, presenting a succession of accusations of an entirely different nature, claiming, “We found this man subverting our people.” What does this supposed subversion entail? He preached solely repentance. When did He forbid paying tribute to Caesar? Indeed, you dispatched some of your members, along with those known as Herodians, to tempt Him, asking, “Teacher, is it lawful to pay tribute to Caesar or not?” Christ then replied, “Show me the denarius of the tribute.” He asked, “Whose image and inscription is on the denarius you have brought?” When they answered, “Caesar’s,” He responded, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Where was the prohibition against giving tribute to Caesar? Their only aim was to execute Him who was bringing them life. To this end, they devised their schemes, engaged in malicious acts, concocted falsehoods, and let loose bitter words through their wicked mouths. Yet the law clearly states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Moreover, it says, “Thou shalt not kill the holy and righteous.” To such a tongue, unleashed in its fury, God, in His anger, has spoken through one of His holy prophets, saying, “But draw near, ye wicked children, ye seed of adulterers and harlots: upon whom have ye made merry? And against whom have you opened your mouth? And against whom have you unleashed your tongue? Are you not the sons of perdition, a lawless seed?” The psalmist David also characterizes them in the Psalms, addressing God the Father in heaven: “You have scattered them by your might and restrained them, O Lord, my helper. The sin of their mouths is the word of their lips, and they shall be caught in their pride.” By giving voice to their ungoverned tongue against Christ, as if “lifting up their horn on high and speaking iniquity against God,” as written, they fell through their arrogance. Certainly, they should have remembered, being proud of their understanding of Divine law, that God commands, “Thou shalt not kill the godly and righteous;” yet they disregarded the law, driven by an unbounded desire for their own satisfaction, and constructed numerous unfounded accusations against Christ that were neither true nor capable of being substantiated.

Yet, the chief priests escalated their pressure, directly accusing Jesus of inciting unrest among the people, claiming He discouraged tribute to Caesar. They began to reinforce their initial accusation, stating that He had come with this teaching from Galilee (Luke 23:2).

On that pivotal day, they were to partake of the Passover lamb and, concerned about becoming unclean through this act, refrained from entering Pilate’s abode. They felt at liberty to condemn the Innocent to death without ritual contamination, yet the mere thought of having a Gentile’s dust on their sandals was abhorrent to a Pharisee! The Sanhedrin's relationship with Pilate was not cordial, and they could not expect his favor, which heightened their anxiety as they approached him in full strength. Shifting their focus from the religious dimension of the accusations, they charged Jesus with inciting rebellion against Caesar. They claimed, "We find that He corrupts our people and forbids them to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King." Pilate, of course, was skeptical of the chief priests’ fervor for safeguarding Roman authority; he understood that their true ambition was to undermine that power. He was likewise unimpressed by the claim of the accused being the Christ, as he recognized that the Messiah anticipated by the Jews was conceived to be the King of the Jews who would restore their sovereign nation.

If the chief priests had directly articulated their earlier claim that “we have a law, and by our law he must die, because he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7) at the start of their accusations, it would have been uncertain how Pilate would have proceeded. As governor, he possessed the authority to uphold their law or oversee its implementation; however, he might have, like Gallio, perceived the situation merely as a quarrel over semantics, even while recognizing that these words had significant implications for the state. Nevertheless, the transformation in the nature of the accusations eliminated his option. If we acknowledge the phrases used by Luke as tantamount to an indictment under Roman law, or as the sworn testimony of at least two witnesses under Jewish law, the context of the situation will become clearer. The charge of corrupting (δίαστρεφοντα), which implies both “subverting” and “deceiving” the populace, was articulated sincerely during the Jewish proceedings of the previous night. While this accusation may have been ambiguous to a Roman audience, that ambiguity did not deter the accusers from presenting it. They had previously reasoned, “If we leave Him thus, all will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take possession of our place and people” (John 11:48). The principal accusation that Jesus claimed to be “Christ the King” was accurate and acknowledged by the accused, though likely not in the manner the accusers anticipated he would interpret it. However, upon examining Luke's account, we find that the accusations did not stop at this imprecise and ineffective form. The leaders of the prosecution presumably did not intend to present a blatantly false accusation to the secular tribunal. They aimed to channel the animosity arising from the prophet's impending execution toward the foreign authority with as few fabrications as possible. Yet Pilate's unexpected declaration of Christ's innocence (Luke 23:4) appears to have forced them into a objectionable position they would have preferred to avoid: to the vague allegations of corrupting the populace and usurping the royal dignity of the Messiah, they appended, as a form of clarification, the assertion of prohibiting tax payment to Cæsar. This latter charge was entirely unfounded, and some among the accusers likely recognized that it contradicted Jesus' well-known stance on the matter. This false indictment was intended to introduce a detail that they believed would lend substantial weight to the other, albeit vaguer, but true elements of their charges, precluding any possibility for the governor to dismiss the case. Thus, we can clearly outline the nature of the offense being alleged. It constitutes “insult to majesty,” regarded as the gravest offense within Roman law and representing the most severe affront to the Roman sensibility, i.e., a direct attack on the supreme authority of the Roman state. In the early days of the republic, the term perduellio was employed to signify treason and insurrection, with citizens convicted of such an offense facing extreme penalties. As Roman law expanded its influence over the world, treason came to embody attacks on the dignity of the world-sovereign city, leading to revised laws defining this crime and its prosecution procedures, prominently featuring the law of Julius (Lex Julia). This legislation mandated that any accusation of treason against a Roman citizen be articulated in the form of a written denunciation. Inevitably, a citizen from a Jewish province did not enjoy such protections. Faced with the procurator of Cæsar, he had no recourse against the potential abuse of unchecked power other than the principles of justice.

Then the Jewish leaders, realizing that nothing would be accomplished through arrogance, and fearing that their case could be jeopardized, began to present their allegations to Pilate. Caiaphas strategically infused a political dimension into the entire affair to clearly impress upon the procurator the serious nature of the decision he had to make, necessitating the full attention of the Roman authorities. Bolstered by the voices of the assembly, Caiaphas accused the prisoner of “corrupting the people, and forbidding them to give taxes to Caesar, calling himself Christ the King." One cannot overlook the pronounced political undertone of this accusation. During the nighttime session of the Sanhedrin, the chief justification for condemning Christ to death was His claim to be the Son of God (Luke 22:70, 71), a statement that horrified Caiaphas to the extent that he tore his garments. However, this accusation held no relevance for Pilate, who was a pagan Roman; therefore, Caiaphas rephrased the charge into a strictly political accusation, portraying it in a grossly misleading manner. Pilate understood well that the first two elements of the accusation were completely unfounded, and his officials could certainly inform him later of how the Galilean Teacher had responded to their treacherous questions regarding tribute to Caesar (Luke 20:22-25).

However, it was the third charge that held the most significance: unlike the vagueness of the previous accusations, the claim regarding taxes was straightforward and serious enough to immediately capture Pilate's attention toward the gentle and composed prisoner standing before him in bonds. This accusation represented one of the gravest offenses as defined by Roman law. It pertained to majestas, or crimen laesae aut minutae majestatis, which translates to the criminal outrage or diminishment of majesty (akin to treason in contemporary legal terms). In the early Republic, such a verdict often led to the accused being ‘deprived of fire and water’ or subjected to execution on a ‘miserable tree.’ Hence, the trial of the Lord Jesus Christ before Pilate is now fully underway. To gain a deeper understanding of the situation, Pilate returns to the Praetorium, where the Defendant is also summoned by his command.

By stating, “We have found,” they invoke their authority as members of the ruling council, entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the people's welfare as official advocates for their interests. In contrast, Pilate later declares, “I find no fault with him” (Luke 23:4), and emphasizes that this is not just his opinion, as even Herod concurs (Luke 23:14-15).

The claim that Jesus "misleads our people" suggests that He is directing their spiritual and political lives toward a harmful and erroneous path, leading them away from the righteous way they should follow for their own good and the peace of the Roman regime. This accusation is entirely baseless. The use of “our people” reveals the hypocrisy of the accusers, who feign concern for the people's well-being while genuinely opposing any threat to their own interests.

The accusation that He “forbids giving taxes to Caesar” is explicitly political, as paying taxes is an acknowledgment of Caesar’s authority. If Jesus were actually to prohibit this obligation, it would imply a rebellion against the Roman emperor. However, this claim was completely false; on the contrary, Jesus taught that taxes should indeed be paid to Caesar (cf. Luke 20:25 and parallels).

The allegation of "calling himself Christ the King" is also political and connected to the previous accusations. By claiming to be king, they argued He incited the people against Caesar by discouraging tax payments. In the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was expected to be a political liberator, thus portraying Jesus, whom they did not recognize as the true Messiah, as a potential insurrectionist against Roman rule. Nevertheless, Jesus later clarified to Pilate the true nature of His kingship (John 18:33-38).

These accusations were strategically designed to turn Pilate against Christ. Surrounded by crowds, Jesus revealed His identity as the Messiah-King, yet not in the manner anticipated by the Jews, who were misled by their false spiritual leaders.

This prediction was realized when Jesus was delivered to the Roman authorities, who sentenced those without Roman citizenship to crucifixion when deserving of death. Within the Sanhedrin, Jesus was condemned for blasphemy due to His claim of sonship to God. However, this accusation alone would not have sufficed for Pilate to issue a death sentence, and it is likely he would have preferred to dismiss the case due to its religious implications. As a result, the Sanhedrin altered their charge against Christ. Those who had long opposed Caesar’s rule, and who had envisioned a popular uprising to dismantle Roman governance, now approached Pilate proclaiming themselves as staunch supporters of Caesar’s authority. They accused Jesus of misleading the populace and prohibiting them from paying taxes to Caesar, identifying Himself as Christ the King (Luke 23:2).