“And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:”
My Notes
What Does Luke 23:50 Mean?
"And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just." Luke introduces Joseph of Arimathea with four descriptors: named (identified, not anonymous), a counsellor (bouleutēs — a member of the Sanhedrin, the very body that condemned Jesus), good (agathos — morally excellent), and just (dikaios — righteous, upright). He's a member of the court that just sentenced Jesus to death — and Luke emphasizes he didn't consent to their decision (v. 51).
The introduction with "behold" (idou) signals: pay attention to this man. Among the corrupt council that condemned Jesus, there was one member who was good and just. The system that produced the unjust verdict also contained a just man who dissented.
Reflection Questions
- 1.Where are you the Joseph — the good person inside a corrupt system who withholds consent?
- 2.What does quiet dissent (refusing to go along) cost you inside an institution that expects unanimity?
- 3.How does Joseph's public act (requesting the body) follow his private dissent (not consenting to the verdict)?
- 4.What corrupt system in your life contains a 'Joseph' you might not be seeing?
Devotional
Behold. Among the corrupt council. One good man. One just man. Luke says: look at this — in the middle of the institution that killed Jesus, there's someone who didn't go along.
A counsellor. Joseph is a member of the Sanhedrin — the same council that just unanimously condemned Jesus (or so it appeared). He sits in the room where the verdict was rendered. He's part of the institution that committed the greatest injustice in history. And Luke says: he was good. He was just. The corrupt institution contained an incorrupt member.
He had not consented to the counsel and deed of them (v. 51). Joseph dissented. He voted no — or abstained, or was excluded from the night proceedings. The consent that the rest of the council gave, he withheld. The unanimity that the crowd expressed, he refused. One man in the room said: I won't participate in this.
The courage of the quiet dissenter is often missed because it lacks the drama of public protest. Joseph didn't stand on a table and shout. He didn't disrupt the proceedings. He withheld his consent. And then — after the execution, when the risk was highest — he went to Pilate and asked for the body. The dissent that was private during the trial became public in the burial. Joseph didn't speak up in the council. He showed up at the cross.
The good and just person inside the corrupt institution has a specific kind of courage: the courage to not consent. To sit in the room and refuse to raise your hand. To bear the social cost of disagreement without the social reward of public martyrdom. Joseph's justice is expressed not in what he said but in what he wouldn't agree to.
Every corrupt institution has a Joseph — someone who's good and just despite the system. Someone who withholds consent when everyone else gives it. Someone whose dissent is quiet during the trial and visible at the burial. The institution's corruption doesn't mean every member is corrupt. And the one good person inside the broken system might be the one who provides the burial when everyone else provides the nails.
Commentary
Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.
And they returned,.... To the city, and to their own houses, or to some one of them;
and prepared spices and…
Joseph of Arimathea - See the notes on Mat 27:57-60 (note), and those especially on Mar 15:43 (note).
We have here an account of Christ's burial; for he must be brought not only to death, but to the dust of death (Psa…
- 54. Joseph of Arimathaea. The taking down from the Cross. The Entombment.
50. a counseller i.e. a member of the…
Cross References
Related passages throughout Scripture