The
pronouncement of Jesus’ innocence by Pilate (Lk 23.4, 14-15, 22) and Herod
(23.15a) is commonly seen as exonerating them of any culpability in the
crucifixion. In this regard they are frequently compared to the second thief
and the centurion who likewise pronounce Jesus innocent (23.41, 47) and are
treated sympathetically by the author. But Pilate’s threefold pronouncement of
Jesus’ innocence may serve purposes other than Pilate’s own vindication. Luke’s
interest in Jesus’ innocence of all charges is clear, as has already been
noted. Pilate’s pronouncements make that point plainly but may nevertheless
imply nothing about his own guiltlessness. In fact, by pronouncing Jesus
innocent three times and then turning him over to be crucified, Pilate appears
all the more culpable for having knowingly turned an innocent an over to
execution. Herod’s similar pronouncements of innocence is accompanied by
mocking and beating (Lk. 23.11). Not only is such treatment hardly commendable
handling of an innocent, it also corresponds to the description of Jesus’
sufferings through the agency of εθνη in Lk. 18.32. Even
if Herod has Jesus beaten as a troublemaker who is nevertheless innocent of the
charges brought against him, his action cannot be positively regarded from Luke’s
editorial perspective. Luke is concerned to show that Jesus is innocent before
Rome, and that concern may reflect his respect for Roman law. But the implication
of the narrative is that Pilate’s actions were a perversion of that law.
Furthermore,
the verb παραδιδωμι in Lk. 23.35 may carry a sinister connotation.
The verb is used 31 times in Luke-Acts, and in 18 of those cases it indicates a
giving over in persecution, betrayal, arrest or execution (Lk. 9.44; 12.58;
18.32; 21.12, 16; 22.4, 6, 21, 22, 48; 23.25; 24.7, 20; Acts 3.13; 8.3; 12.4;
21.11; 22.4). Particularly important is the fact that it is the regular verb
for betrayal in the passion predictions. And aside from 23.24, in the passion
narrative it refers only to the act of betrayal. Furthermore, each time παραδιδωμι appears with a personal object in Luke, it
connotes at least callous disregard and at most outright hostility toward its object
(Lk. 12.58; 20.20; 22.4, 6; 23.25). Given the circumstances of Pilate’s
handing over of Jesus and the consistent use of παραδιδωμι earlier in the narrative, the word may carry
this sinister connotation in Lk. 23.25.
Other
telling details indicate that Pilate has charge over the crucifixion. One is
the second person singular verb σταυρου
in Lk. 23.21, which clearly implies the crowd’s expectation that Pilate is the
one who will crucify. Luke appears to have chosen this form deliberately, since
he differs from Mark (15.13-14) in using the present instead of the aorist and
from Matthew (27.22) in using the active. In fact, Matthew’s passive rendering
demonstrates that Pilate’s involvement could be minimized without eliminating the
crowd’s cry. Luke is, of course, readily able to transform actives into
passives to suit his purposes (cf. Lk. 18.31-34). But there he makes no effort
to efface the suggestion of Pilate’s involvement in the crucifixion. Similarly,
Luke follows the traditional account of Jesus’ burial in which Joseph of
Arimathea goes to Pilate for Jesus’ body, it can reasonably be assumed that
Pilate is the authority under whom Jesus is executed. Indeed, it is the plan of
the conspirators from the beginning to turn Jesus over the ‘rule and authority of
the governor’ (20.20, Luke only). Pilate’s concession to the will of the
Jerusalemites (23.24-25) does not therefore appear to be an abdication of this
authority in Jesus’ execution; it indicates weakness, not innocence. Rome
continues to exercise the final control.
These
considerations, taken together, present a consistent picture. The instigators
of the crucifixion are the Jerusalem leaders associated with the temple. They
are supported in the decisive moment by the people of Jerusalem. But the
political authorities are involved as well. Although they recognize Jesus’
innocence and, in Pilate’s case, seek to release him, ultimately they surrender
to pressure and exercise their power against Jesus. Luke may reduce the
emphasis on Roman involvement, although such a judgment depends on a thorough knowledge
of Luke’s sources which is unavailable to us. In any case, he does not
eliminate Roman involvement, and he does sharpen it at some points. What is clearer
in his emphasis on the involvement of the leaders of Jerusalem, whose provocation
of the crucifixion is always at the forefront of the narrative. (Jon A.
Weatherly, Jewish Responsibility from the Death of Jesus in Luke-Acts [Journal
for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 106; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994], 95-97)