Luke 22
BolesLuke 22:1-6
SECTION SIX
, ARREST, TRIALS,
OF JESUS
Luke 22:1 to 23:56
- THE OF JUDAS
1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew high,—Parallel records are found in Matthew 26:1-5 and Mark 14:1-2. Luke states “’the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh”; Matthew and Mark record the fact that “after two days” the Passover cometh. Matthew does not speak of the “feast of unleavened bread,” but only of the “passover”; Mark speaks of “the feast of the passover” and “the unleavened bread.” The difference between Mark and Luke is that Luke makes the “feast of unleavened bread” “the passover,” while Mark speaks of “the feast of the passover” and “the unleavened bread.” In the Old Testament there were two feasts: the Passover, which came on the fourteenth day of the first month, and “the feast of unleavened bread,” which began immediately after the Feast of the Passover and continued seven days. (Leviticus 23:5-6; Numbers 28:16-17.) Josephus made a distinction between these two feasts; but in later times they were regarded as one feast. The Passover came on the fourteenth day of the first month; at this feast they were to put away all leaven. The feast of unleavened bread began on the fifteenth day of the first month; hence one followed the other and later one name was applied to both feasts; sometimes “the feast of unleavened bread” included the Passover and sometimes “the passover” included the feast of unleavened bread.
2 And the chief priests and the scribes—Luke and Mark mention “the chief priests and the scribes,” while Matthew mentions “the chief priests, and the elders of the people.” (Matthew 26:3.) Matthew states that they “were gathered together” “unto the court of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas.” They took counsel “together that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.” (Matthew 26:4.) Jesus had predicted that “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.” (Luke 9:22.) Since, according to Matthew, they assembled at the palace of the high priest, it seems very probable that the Sanhedrin held a brief session to determine what should be done. They had purposed to put him to death, but “they feared the people.” Their problem was to put him to death without incurring the condemnation of the people, they did not want to put him to death on the feast day, for the popular feeling strongly supported Jesus, and the rulers feared a tumult of the people. They “sought”; that is, they were seeking the ways and means of destroying Jesus. “Sought” in the original is in the imperfect tense, “were seeking,” and means contemporaneously with the approach of the feast. At this stage they planned to “take Jesus by subtlety, and kill him.”
3 And Satan entered into Judas—Frequently “Satan” is called “the devil.” This statement is peculiar to Luke. As the rulers were seeking an opportunity to destroy Jesus, it soon presented itself; it comes from Judas, who was one of the chosen apostles. He is called “Judas Iscariot” to distinguish him from other men of that name. Some think that he was a native of Karioth, a small town in the tribe of Judah. “Satan” means “adversary,” the Old Testament name of the chief of fallen spirits; “devil” means “slanderer.” Both names are descriptive of his character and work. He is known by the name Beelzebub, “prince of the demons” (Matthew 12:24), “the prince of the powers of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), and “the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). It seems that Judas had taken offense at the rebuke of Jesus (John 12:4-8), and he yielded to the temptation of the devil, who worked upon his avaricious disposition (John 12:4-8). Judas being one of the twelve aggravates his crime and fulfills the prophecy in Psalms 41:9.
4 And he went away, and communed with the chief priests and captains,—Judas went off under the impulse of Satan and after the indignation over the rebuke of Jesus at the feast in Simon’s house to confer “with the chief priests and captains.” It is thought that between this and the preceding section the supper at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:2-8) occurred; this is the supper at which Judas with others murmured against the use of the expensive ointment and Jesus’ rebuke to Judas and others. “The captains” were in charge of the temple. (Verse 52; Acts 4:1.) It was the duty of the captains to maintain order in the temple; they were especially busy during the feasts when crowds would be present. Judas sought the captains and the chief priests to propose his plan for betraying Jesus secretly into their hands.
5 And they were glad,—The chief priests and captains were glad that one of the twelve had offered to betray Jesus into their hands. “Glad” with a hellish glee; they were pleased to know that one would assist them who could be of real help, but they must have had no respect for the traitor; they lost no time in completing the arrangements. They “covenanted to give him money”; Matthew says: “They weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver.” (Matthew 26:15.) Thirty shekels was the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32); some think that this was a fulfillment of Zec 11:12. The “thirty pieces” was equal to about fifteen dollars in our money. If this was all that was paid, it shows the contempt of the chief priests for Jesus as well as the sordid meanness of Judas who betrayed his Lord for so small a sum.
6 And he consented, and sought opportunity—Judas agreed to the price that the chief priests offered. There were five steps in the corrupt bargain: (1) Judas sought the chief priests (2) he offered to betray Jesus; (3) they gladly made a bargain with him for money; (4) Judas agreed to the bargain; (5) he sought to fulfill his wicked pledge. He knew, as did the chief priests, the popularity of Jesus, and he adroitly sought an occasion when the multitude could not he used to defend him against assault. Judas sought to keep his betrayal a secret, and the chief priests sought to do their dastardly deed “in the absence of the multitude”; they desired that a tumult of the people be avoided. It seems to. have been a part of the bargain to work “under cover” or secretly.
Luke 22:7-23
- THE LAST SUPPER
7 And the day of unleavened bread came,—Parallel records of this are found in Matthew 26:17-19 and Mark 14:12-16. Some think that Jesus anticipated the Passover; that is, ate it the day before the regular time for it; however, Luke seems to make it clear that Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover at the regular time. The law required the sacrifice to be made upon that clay “between the evenings” (Dent. 16:5, 6) or “at the even.” The Passover came on the fourteenth day of the first month, Nisan or Abib. (Exodus 12:2; Exodus 13:4.) This Jewish month corresponded to the last half of March and the first half of April. All leaven had to be removed from every Jewish house. The lamb was known as the paschal lamb; it had to be slain by the head of the family. (Exodus 12:6.) The controversy about the day when Christ ate the last Passover meal has given much concern to many; however, there is no valid reason for concluding that there were any irregularities with Jesus and his disciples.
8 And he sent Peter and John,—Luke is the only one who names the disciples who prepared the Passover; they were to get the room, the lamb, the bitter herbs, the wine, and whatever else would be required. Mark 14:13 has only “two” disciples, while Matthew 26:17 makes the disciples take the initiative. “The passover” as used here means either the meal, the feast day, or the whole period of time, while “eat the passover” refers to the meal as here or to the whole period of celebration in John 18:28. The task of making ready the Passover was an important one; hence, Peter and John were entrusted with that responsibility. They had to select the room, search diligently and remove all leaven, kill and roast the paschal lamb, and make such other arrangements as were necessary
9, 10 And they said unto him,—The disciples asked him where they should make the preparation; this was an intelligent question for them to ask; they wished to please their Lord. Jesus then told them that when they entered Jerusalem they would meet a man “bearing a pitcher of water,” and that they should follow him. The specific direction that Jesus gave Peter and John would enable them to find the exact place where the Master wanted to eat the Passover. It was the custom in the East for women to bring water; hence this sign was a peculiar one; this man would have a “pitcher” of water the original for “pitcher” here means an earthen vessel. Water was usually carried in leathern vessels, or vessels made of the skins of animals; but this was another peculiar thing, this “man,” not a woman, should have an “earthen” pitcher, not a leathern pitcher. This man was probably a slave and Peter and John were to follow him into the house, or central court, and then make their wishes known. An entrance thus far into an eastern house was not an intrusion.
11, 12 And ye shall say unto the master of the house,— Many think that this man was one of the disciples of Jesus, and that he would recognize Jesus as the “Teacher”; however, it is not necessary to suppose that any previous arrangements had been made between Jesus and the master of the house. They were to ask him: “Where is the guestchamber” that Jesus and his disciples could eat the Passover. Peter and John, having followed the man bearing the pitcher of water into the house, would ask the master of the house for the guestchamber. It was customary for Jews to be very hospitable, and, according to the Talmud, they would not let rooms for hire at the Passover Feast. Jesus shows his divinity by telling them in detail what the master of the house would say to them. They were told by Jesus that he would show them “a large upper room furnished.” They were to make ready the Passover to be eaten in that “upper room.” They were to ask for the “guestchamber,” or small lodging room, but the master of the house will offer them “a large upper room”; they were to make ready the room, but the master of the house would show them a room that was already “furnished” that is, prepared for the Passover.
13 And they went, and found—Peter and John found everything as Jesus had predicted; this should have strengthened their faith in him. “They made ready the passover”; that is, the paschal supper was prepared. They slew the lamb, or had it slain, in the temple; its blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar, and its fat burned thereon, the bitter herbs, the unleavened bread, and the wine were prepared.
14 And when the hour was come,—What hour? The usual time of eating the paschal supper, on Thursday evening, after sundown. This showed that there was no irregularity in the time of their eating the Passover. “He sat down”; the usual posture was to “fall back” or recline. They did not sit on chairs or benches, as the celebrated painting of Leonardo da Vinci represents them as doing. The early custom was to stand, but this had been long departed from, and they now reclined. According to Exodus 12:11 the Passover was to be eaten standing with loins girded, as if they were going on a journey; but the Jewish doctors introduced reclining, the usual posture at meals, as it symbolized the rest which they sought in leaving Egypt and found in Canaan. It may he that the first Passover eaten in Egypt should have been eaten standing as they were to march out of Egypt that night, but no stress was placed on the posture as they kept the feast; the law given upon Mount Sinai did not require any particular posture.
15, 16 And he said unto them, With desire—Here Jesus expresses a very strong desire, an intense desire, “to eat this passover” with them before his crucifixion. The expression “with desire I have desired” is similar to rejoiceth with joy (John 3:29) and threatened with threatening (Acts 4:17) in the original. This was to be his last Passover with them, the time when he should institute the Lord’s Supper. He would not eat again the Passover in its literal use any more, but in a spiritual sense he would eat it “in the kingdom of God.” The law with all of its types and shadows found their fulfillment in Christ and his kingdom; hence he would not eat it “until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” The “until” does not mean that he would again eat the Passover after the establishment of the kingdom;but it does mean that the type was to vanish in the presence of the antitype;the type should be superseded by the antitype, by the sacrifice of the true paschal Lamb. Christ is declared to be our Passover. (1 Corinthians 5:6-8.)
17, 18 And he received a cup,—There has been some controversy as to whether Luke departs from the order of Matthew and Mark and mentions the institution of the supper earlier in the evening; many think that Luke brings the supper before Judas left the company, while others think that the supper was not instituted until after Judas left. The wine used at the Passover was generally mixed with water in the proportion of one part wine to two of water. “A cup” was given him and he gave thanks. The “cup” here named was probably the last cup that was passed; it was called the “cup of blessing.” This was drunk after the lamb was eaten. A cup was passed at different intervals; they would eat for a while, then pass the large cup or vessel that contained the wine, and each one would fill his own cup, and as they drank, different scriptures would be recited.
19 And he took bread,—The original means “a loaf”; hence, he took a loaf of the bread that they used at the Passover, which was unleavened bread he gave thanks, broke the loaf, and gave unto the disciples, saying: “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” There has been much discussion as to the meaning of this: “This is my body.” This is similar to the expression, “the seven good kine are seven years” (Genesis 41:26), and “the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom” (Matthew 13:38), the rock was Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), “this Hagar is mount Sinai” (Galatians 4:25). In all of these expressions it is clear that the word “signify” is to he understood; so when Christ said of the loaf that it was his body, he meant that it represented or signified his body. “This do in remembrance of me” means that they were to remember him in the eating of this loaf; this is repeated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24. Matthew and Mark omit this command.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper,—Having offered thanks to God for it as he did for the bread, he gave instruction to his disciples. This signified a covenant or promise on the part of God to his people sanctioned with the blood of victims. (Exodus 24:3-12; Dent. 5:2.) The same wine or fruit of the vine that was used at the Passover was used here; as the unleavened bread was used at the Passover, so that kind of bread was used here. However, the Lord’s Supper is a New Testament ordinance, and nowhere in the New Testament do we find the definite kind of bread or wine specified to be used; hence, the controversy as to the kind does not come within the scope of revealed things. It is left to the good judgment and pious conviction of those who are to use these in commemorating the death and sufferings of our Lord. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The old covenant that was sanctified by the blood of animals was fulfilled, and now a new covenant is given which is sealed and sanctified by the blood of Christ.
21 But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me—Some think that verses 21-23 are transposed; in order of time these verses should be placed before verses 19 and 20. However, no violence was done to the truth if we consider them transposed, or if we consider them in their consecutive order. Luke merely refers to the traitor after relating the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which makes a central point in his narrative, and which the mention of the first cup at the Passover may have led him to introduce. In John 13:30 we are told that Judas went out immediately after receiving the sop. So if this fact is here recorded in its true order by Luke, we must surely conclude that Judas was present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as well as at the beginning of the Passover; many hold this view. At that time Jesus said to Judas: “What thou doest, do quickly.” (John 13:27.) If Judas was pointed out before the supper, we must place his departure before it. This was the first announcement that Jesus had made to his disciples that one of them would betray him at that time.
22, 23 For the Son of man indeed goeth,—The Messiah was to go in the path of humiliation, suffering, and death; this was according to the prophecies. (Isaiah 53:4-12; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 13:7.) “But woe unto that man through whom he is betrayed!” In the original we have the present participle form—“is now engaged in betraying.” It was “determined” that Jesus should go this way, but the purpose of God in no way released those who participated in his crucifixion of the guilt of those who put Jesus to. death.
This statement greatly excited the disciples and “they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.” The anxious, surprised, and troubled faces of his disciples showed their anguish of soul. It seems that they had not suspected Judas; this brief reference to the traitor warrants the inference that Luke adds these facts here to his account to complete his sketch of these events, but without intending to place them in chronological order. The woe upon the traitor points him out as an object both of pity and of wrath; God’s purpose was foretold by the prophet, yet the murderers and betrayer were without excuse. (Acts 2:22-24.)
Luke 22:24-30
- STRIFE ABOUT RANK
24 And there arose also a contention—It is strange that this contention should be renewed at this time; it had frequently been raised among the apostles as to who should be the greatest in the kingdom. (Matthew 18:1-4; Matthew 20:20-28; Luke 9:46-48.) They were still at the Passover supper; Jesus had an-nounced that one of them should betray him; yet at this late hour the apostles raised the question and argued among themselves as to who would be the greatest. Jesus had mentioned his kingdom in connection with the institution of the Lord’s Supper; this mention of the kingdom gave the occasion for the old question to be raised. It shows that the disciples were still laboring under an erroneous conception of the kingdom; they thought that it would be an earthly kingdom, and there were still ambitious for positions of honor in that earthly kingdom. They were thinking of royalty, high positions, worldly states, and ranks in an earthly kingdom. At the supper John appears to have had a place next to Jesus Peter was not very far from him we do not know how the others were arranged. Possibly the arrangement at the supper renewed the old question and gave rise to the contention among them.
25 And he said unto them,—It seems that their contention was in the presence of Jesus; he gives them further instructions as to the nature of his kingdom. He calls attention to the fact that “the kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them”; this is the spirit of all human governments. Those who exercise the lordship over their subjects are puffed up by flattering titles such as “Benefactors.” Jesus had given a sim-ilar rebuke in Matthew 20:25-26. The title “Benefactor” as used here means a “doer of good,” or one who had brought a blessing to them. Rulers like for the people to think that they are “benefactors” to them.
26, 27 But ye shall not be so:—The “shall” is not in the original, and Jesus simply says: You are not to be as these Gentile kings; though they are distinguished by grace, yet they are not to love and seek superiority. On the contrary, the “greater among” them is the one who renders the greatest service to them. They should avoid the appearance of lordship; each one should he ready to do anything that will ac-commodate and serve a disciple. Jesus illustrates this principle by simply calling their attention to a common custom and courtesy among them. The one that sits at the table is honored by the one who serves; and since greatness is to be determined by service, the one who serves the most is greatest among them. He further emphasized this truth by stating: “I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.” Evidently they ascribed greatness to Jesus; he was greater, in their own conception, than all the others;yet he was serving them in a way that others had not served them.
28, 29 But ye are they that have continued—His disciples had now been following him for many months; they had witnessed his many temptations, and had continued with him in his temptation. “Continued” here means “have remained through” his temptation. The life of Jesus was full of temptation. His temptation had begun soon after his baptism, and he was never free from temptation he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15.) When Satan tempted Jesus, “he departed from him for a season” only. (Luke 4:13.) “I appoint unto you a kingdom” means that they should come into possession of the kingdom from the Father; they should attain through trials and service, even as Jesus had experienced, unto his kingdom. Jesus bequeathed as by will or testament to them the kingdom that he came to establish. This shows that they were not at this time in his kingdom, neither were they in full possession of the blessings of that kingdom; but they should through trials and sufferings attain unto it. The new dispensation was inaugurated on the first Pentecost after the ascension of Jesus; at that time the kingdom was established and these apostles became the charter members of it.
30 that ye may eat and drink at my table—Jesus has said to his disciples that since they had been with him through all of his earthly toils he would give to them high places in his kingdom of service. In the blessings and blessedness of such service, they would be preeminent, sitting upon thrones, as it were, and administering judgment. This seems to be the same thought as expressed in Matthew 19:28. Eating and drinking “at my table” in this kingdom does not merely refer to the Lord’s Supper, but the promise is that they may partake of the kingly feast upon the merits of the Redeemer, and enjoy the pleasures of the table prepared for the supply of all spiritual blessings in Christ. They should “sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” There have been various inter-pretations given to this. Some think that it means that all would be judged by the teachings of the apostles; others think that the apostles will condemn the Jews, as the Ninevites and the queen of Sheba did in former days (Luke 11:31-32);again others think that it means that the apostles should be cojudges with Christ in the judgment; still others think that it means that the apostles should be preeminent after the second coming of Christ.
Paul expressed a similar thought “Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?” And “angels?” (1 Corinthians 6:2-3.) There may be some truth in all of these positions; the apostles were invested with authority over the true spiritual Israel, and by their teachings all will be judged; through their teachings they continue to exercise their authority. In the final judgment they will virtually judge, for all are to be judged by the will of God expressed through the writers of the New Testament.
Luke 22:31-34
- PETER’S DENIAL
31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you,—Parallel records of this event are found in Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31; John 13:36-38. This is one of the few events recorded by all four of the writers of the gospel. This prediction to Peter was a forewarning that he would deny the Lord. Matthew and Mark, with Luke, locate it after the institution of the Lord’s Supper and immediately before the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Some think that the record in John 13:31-38 was a prediction before this one, and that Jesus here foretells the second time the denial of Peter and the dispersion of the disciples. Jesus calls Peter “Simon” and repeats his name to emphasize that which he is predicting; he does not use the name “Peter” which signifies a more stable character. “Satan” had asked to have Peter; he had demanded Peter as he had demanded Job. (Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-6.) “To have you” is in the plural, and means “you all,” or includes all the disciples.
32 but I made supplication for thee,—In the Greek the word for “you” is plural in fact as well as form, and may apply to all the disciples; but Simon is solemnly addressed and warned, since he was foremost in the strife. Jesus did not invest in Peter any preeminence or sanctity, as is claimed by those who worship the pope at Rome; Peter is regarded as being fallible. When he had “turned again,” or when he had recovered from his fall, then his work would be to “establish” or “strengthen” his brethren. The act of returning is Peter’s; he should correct his wrong, and then teach and encourage others to do likewise. He should confirm others in the faith, especially those who might be influenced by his own fall. Jesus had prayed for him that his faith should not fail; that his trust and conviction that Jesus was the Son of God should not falter.
33 And he said unto him, Lord,—Peter was still full of self-confidence; he little knew his own heart, neither did he know the wiles and snares of the devil. He could now face prison and death for Jesus; a few hours later he could not face the taunts of a housemaid without denying the Lord. Oftentimes, we boast about what we will do or will not do, but when faced with the realities of the situation, we act differently. Peter needed to learn the lesson of depending on God, and not on himself.
34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter,—It is strange as we read this distinct and terrible warning that Peter was off his guard in less than twenty-four hours after this. It has been affirmed that the Jews around Jerusalem were forbidden fowls because they scratched up unclean worms; hence, it is said that this statement was out of harmony with the facts in the case. However, the Roman residents, over whom the Jews had no authority, might keep fowls. Mark says: “Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Mark 14:72), and Matthew says, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Matthew 26:34). The first crowing was about midnight, and the second about three o’clock in the morning; the second crowing more generally marked time, and was the one meant when only one “cockcrowing,” as here, was mentioned. Peter would deny or disown Christ three times.
Jesus simply says that before a single cock shall he heard, early in the night, Peter would deny him. There was a wide contrast in what Jesus predicted and what the self-confident Peter thought he would do.
Luke 22:35-38
- FURTHER
35 And he said unto them, When I sent you forth—Jesus had sent out his apostles on their “limited commission” (Matthew 10:5; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:2);they were to go not in the way of the Gentiles nor among the Samaritans, but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The instructions there given are compared with those he now mentions; the circumstances have changed. At that time they were to go “without purse, and wallet, and shoes.” They were to be wholly dependent on those with whom they labored; they were to make no provision whatever for their wants, but throw themselves for support upon such friends in every place where they went. Jesus asked them if they lacked anything. They answered, “Nothing.” Their wants were fully supplied. Their answer to his question was frank and sincere; they had no complaint to make; they had gone forth with no means of support, and yet there was not a single need which was not fully supplied. Conditions have changed and new requirements are to be met.
36 And he said unto them,—Since conditions and circumstances have changed, Jesus now tells them that they are to take their purse and wallet, and if they have not these things they should sell their cloak “and buy a sword.” This verse has given much difficulty to commentators. Does Jesus command his disciples to arm themselves? Is he speaking only with reference to danger that night? It seems that Jesus here is impressing upon them the impending crisis that there will he need of. every resource because of the peculiar dangers. We are not to infer that Jesus commanded his disciples to arm themselves against the perils just of that night; it is better to consider this as a proverbial expression conveying the idea of imminent danger from enemies; they must be prepared for the worst. The time was swiftly approaching when his disciples would have to defend themselves without the visible presence and leadership of Jesus.
We cannot allow that Jesus meant for each of his disciples to sell his garment and buy a sword. This idea is utterly precluded by the universal doctrine which Jesus taught—“resist not evil.”
37 For I say unto you, that this which is written—Luke quotes Isaiah 53:12. The predictions of his sufferings and death are now to be fulfilled; he was ready to be brought to the cross, and his disciples would be involved in trouble; so they should be prepared for it. Jesus was crucified between two malefactors, which was a fulfillment of the prophecy concerning him. The things which were predicted of Jesus had an end; this is true about the predictions of his kingdom; all prophecies must be fulfilled. Jesus died the death of one who had been convicted of crime, and was crucified between two malefactors to heap ignominy upon him all this was in fulfillment of the prophecies.
38 And they said, Lord,—The disciples understood Jesus to mean that they should be prepared to fight in his kingdom with carnal weapons. We do not know when his disciples obtained these swords. If they had been obliged to depend on swords for their defense, not a hundred would have been sufficient; but for the lesson of that awful night two swords were enough. It may be observed that the impetuous Peter had one of these. It seems that his disciples failed to understand his prediction of his death in the fulfillment of prophecy; although he had made the announcement several times to them. It is difficult to understand just what he meant by “It is enough.”
Luke 22:39-46
- THE AGONY IN
39 And he came out, and went, as his custom—Parallel records of this event are found in Matthew 26:30-46; Mark 14:26-42; John 18:1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not give the record of the discourse and prayer of Jesus found in John 14-17; the Synoptics record only the fact of Jesus’ leaving the upper room and going to Gethsemane after the institution of the supper. We know not how long they tarried in the upper room before they sang the hymn. Jesus was now entering into the greatest conflict that has ever been known to man; it was the awful contest of the powers of hell with the powers of heaven; by prayer Jesus would put himself into direct communion with the Father as the best preparation for the conflict; hence, he sought his accustomed place of retirement in the field or Garden of Gethsemane. “Mount of Olives” literally means “the mount of the olives,” being descriptive of the olive trees which grew there. Olive trees still grow there, but not so many as did anciently. This mount is frequently mentioned in the Bible. (2 Samuel 15:30; Nehemiah 8:15; Ezekiel 11:23; Zechariah 14:4.) This mount is also called “Olivet” (Acts 1:12), a place set with olives, an olive yard.
40 And when he was at the place,—“The place” means the Garden of Gethsemane “Gethsemane” means “olive press,” a name prophetic of the agony of Jesus, where he trod the wine press alone (Isaiah 63:3), without the city (Revelation 14:20). The eleven disciples were present; Judas had gone to betray him. Eight of the apostles were left near the entrance of the garden, and three of them, Peter, James, and John, were taken further into the garden with him. The eight were directed to remain where they were and pray for deliverance from temptation. Jesus left Peter, James, and John and went still further into the garden; they were also instructed to watch and pray. A great test was just before them and they needed prayer.
41, 42 And he was parted from them about a stone’s cast;— He retired of his own will from Peter, James, and John “about a stone’s cast.” “Stone’s cast,” “arrow’s flight,” with the ancients, were in common usage, as we now have “within gunshot” and “within a stone’s throw.” “He kneeled down and prayed.” Matthew says: “He went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed” (Matthew 26:39) and Mark says: “He went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed” (Mark 14:35). It is very likely that he first knelt, and as his agony increased he fell forward as Matthew says “on his face.” This posture was indicative of his extreme humiliation and anguish. The different postures that he assumed can be true at different stages of his experience; one writer recording one posture and another recording another posture.
His prayer was: “Father, if thou he willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” “This cup” means the bitter cup of anguish. “Cup” is a common figure of scripture, sometimes representing joy (Psalms 16:5; Psalms 23:5; Psalms 116:13), and sometimes sorrow (Psalms 11:6; Psalms 75:8; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15; Revelation 16:19.) This cup with Jesus signified his great sorrow and anguish and death. Some think that it did not include his death, but just his great anguish of soul. This prayer uttered in deep humility and reverence shows that the will of Jesus was in harmony with the will of God; his human nature naturally shrank from the terrible pain and death; Jesus willingly submitted to God’s will in this awful hour. “Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” The resignation of Jesus to the will of God both as priest and victim is swallowed up in the divine will.
43 And there appeared unto him an angel—This was in keeping with the prediction: “For he will give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.” (Psalms 91:11.) The anguish was not removed, but Jesus was strengthened to bear it; he was made “lower than the angels.” (Hebrews 2:7.) We do not know how angels ministered to him, whether by sympathy, words of cheer, wiping away the sweat, or by worshiping him to signify recognition of his lordship. His human nature must be upheld so that a full atonement may be made; this angel assisted in doing this. “Mine arm also shall strengthen him” (Psalms 89:21); the Father sent this angel to sustain him. Angels visited Jesus at the close of the three temptations at the beginning of his ministry. (Matthew 4:11.)
44 And being in an agony he prayed—Luke is the only writer that records this fact; only Luke records the visit of the angel. The original here denotes progressive agony; he progressed from the first prayer into an intense struggle of prayer and sorrow. “Agony” is only found here; it is used by medical writers, and the fact of a “sweat” accompanying an agony is also mentioned by medical writers; this is another evidence peculiar to Luke, the physician. Cases of great mental anguish, causing drops of blood to ooze from the body like sweat, are known to medical authorities.
45, 46 And when he rose up from his prayer,—Luke does not record, as do Matthew and Mark, that he prayed three times, “saying the same words,” and that he returned to his disciples three times for sympathy, but found them asleep. Luke tells why they were asleep; they were found “sleeping for sorrow.” This seems to be common among those who have sustained great and prolonged grief; no excuse is given for the apostles’ being asleep on this eventful occasion;but an explanation is given for their being found asleep. The strongest will be overcome, and fall asleep, under the strain of great grief. Jesus was in sympathy with them and said: “Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.” Jesus, who was alert, may have heard the approach of Judas and his company. He enjoins prayer with special reference to themselves that they might not fall under the power of “temptation.” The hour of trial was at hand, and they needed both to watch and to pray. Jesus commands that his disciples arouse from their sleepy posture and pray, as their only safeguard at this crisis was in prayer; and if they neglected this means of defense against the adversary, they were lost.
Luke 22:47-53
- THE ARREST OF JESUS
47 While he yet spake,—A “multitude” led by Judas at this hour of the night came into the garden. This “multitude” consisted, first, of “the band” (John 18:3; John 18:12), or Roman cohort, which consisted of from three to six hundred armed men; they were kept in the tower of Antonia, overlooking the temple, and were kept ready to put down any tumult or arrest any disturber. It is not known whether the entire band was present. Then there were the “captains of the temple” (verse 52) with their men who guarded the temple and kept order; it is not known how many of these were present. Also there were some of the chief priests and elders (verse 52), and finally some servants, such as Malchus and others (John 18:10), who had been commissioned by the Jewish authorities. “Judas, one of the twelve,” led the company; he had agreed to betray Jesus into their hands; it is an ugly picture to see this apostolic criminal leading this mob at night into the garden of sorrow to arrest Jesus. Judas “went before them” as their guide and leader. (John 18:3.) When they arrived, Judas “drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.”
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas,—This verse is found only in Luke; the kiss of Judas is here placed in strong contrast with the betrayal which it subserved, in order to show how devoid of all noble and generous feeling was the traitor, who could prostitute to so vile a purpose, that which among all nations was regarded as the pledge and token of intimate friendship. There seems to be sympathy with the rebuke which Jesus used when he said: “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” Do you dare to bring those pulluted lips in contact with mine and play the hypocrite? Away with your hypocrisy! Do your fiendish work! (John 18:4-9.)
49, 50 And when they that were about him saw—Those who were “about him” were his disciples; they now seem to sense the danger , they thought that Jesus would enable them to defeat the mob and vindicate him by means of the “two swords” which they had. How little did they understand the situation! They asked: “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” They had not learned the lesson at this time. After the agony had passed, Jesus with Peter, James, and John whom he had chosen to accompany him (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33), returned to the eight disciples, whom he had left at the entrance of the garden. It seems that immediately after he had joined them the band sent to take him with Judas as their guide, and probably a little in advance of the main body, was discovered approaching. It was at this time that the disciples asked if they should use the sword; and “a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.” It seems that Judas was stung by the words of Jesus, and understood that his treachery was known; he seems to have fallen back again to his band (John 18:5) so that when they came to Jesus they were somewhat at a loss to identify him (John 18:4-9).
This shows that Judas so cowered beneath the searching glance and calm, severe language of Jesus that he retreated from his side, where he had probably intended to remain until the band came fully up, in order that there might be no possible mistake in regard to the apprehension of the right person. In the midst of this confusion, the disciples may have asked whether they should smite with the sword; they stood ready against such fearful odds to defend their Lord. Peter, still impetuous, rushed forward and smote off the right ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Peter struck at his head, and miss his aim, and cut off his ear. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the incident without naming Peter; John alone says that the disciple that cut off Malchus’ ear was Peter. Some think that when the first three wrote, perhaps it would have unduly exposed Peter to have named him, but when John wrote, Peter had probably already suffered death, so that no harm would follow from giving the name.
51 But Jesus answered and said,—There has been some controversy as to whom Jesus addressed this language; some think that it was addressed to the captors, and meant that they should allow his disciples to go away, and he would heal the man. Others think that it was addressed to his disciples to restrain them, and meant that his disciples should permit, without defense, the band to take him. It seems from the full account as given by Matthew and John that Jesus addressed this to his disciples. Jesus “touched his ear, and healed him.” Of course, Jesus could have healed the ear without the touch, and the decided reproof of the disciples for the rashness of this act closely follows the act, and indicates that all his conversation was addressed to them.
52 And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains— “The chief priests” were so eager to take Jesus that they had accompanied Judas and the band of Roman soldiers. Jesus now rebuked them and the Jewish officers for their cowardice and wickedness; they had come secretly and were basely hounding his footsteps to arrest him by night as though he were a common robber or desperate character. If they really believed that he was a bad man, why did they not take him in the daylight while he was in the temple? They had come out against him “as against a robber, with swords and staves.” It was an indignation that Jesus with such peaceful habits should be surrounded with a band of soldiers and others with an array of weapons of all sorts, as though he were a robber to be hunted down and captured like a wild beast. They were armed with “swords and staves”; that is, they were armed with all sorts of sticks and cudgels.
53 When I was daily with you in the temple,—The last week had been spent by Jesus in the temple teaching; at night he would retire to Bethany or to the Mount of Olives. This was a rebuke to them for coming secretly by night, when they could have come to him while he was in the temple teaching daily; this was an indictment against them for their cowardice. They made no attempt to arrest him while he was in the temple; they feared the multitude. “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” The time predicted had arrived; it was now permitted of God that the powers of evil should vent their rage against Jesus, and for a time triumph in the apparent success of their plans to crush Jesus and his disciples. Some think that Jesus had reference to the time of night, hut this inference does not justify the statement.
Luke 22:54-62
- PETER’S DENIAL
54 And they seized him, and led him away,—Parallel accounts of Peter’s denial are found in Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72 John 18:15-17. Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane and they “led him away.” He was “seized” and bound and brought “into the high priest’s house.” Literally it means that after seizing Jesus in the garden by ruthless force, they took him to the house of the high priest; we have no way to determine the hour of night that he arrived at the “house of the high priest.” It has been a matter of discussion as to who the high priest was. Some think that he was Caiaphas; others think that he was Annas. John relates that they led him first to Annas, and then “Annas therefore sent him bound unto .Caiaphas the high priest.” (John 18 24.) Annas had been high priest for several years and had been deposed by Roman authorities; he was still the legitimate high priest according to the law of Moses since the high priest was to serve during life. (Numbers 20:28; Numbers 35:25.) Jesus was examined in an informal way before Annas (John 18:12-14), and then, in order to have him officially tried and condemned in the eye of the Roman law, he sent him to Caiaphas. Peter is the only one mentioned here as following Jesus, and he followed him “afar off”; he was near enough to see what became of Jesus, but far enough away from him to be out of danger; he seemed to show more courage than any of the eleven except John.
55 And when they had kindled a fire—Luke does not mention an earlier examination or trial, but at once describes the conditions upon which Peter denied his Lord. The high priest’s palace was between the upper city and the temple; it was to this place that Peter followed “afar off,” while John went into the palace with Jesus and the guards, as he knew the high priest Peter lingered without, but John spoke to the maid at the door and Peter was admitted. (John 18:15-16.) The usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin was the “court,” or an apartment in one of the courts of the temple; some have described it as being at the southeast corner of the court of Israel. In cases of emergency, or in this case, where great secrecy was desired, it was at the house of the high priest, who generally presided over the court. The nights at Jerusalem at this season were frequently cold; John states that the fire was made because “it was cold.” (John 18:18.) John also states that Peter stood with them around the fire, but Luke says, they “sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them.” There is no contradiction, since John could describe their standing around the fire at one time and Luke having in mind another time would describe them as sitting.
56, 57 And a certain maid seeing him—This maid appears to have been the one who let him in. (John 18:17.) Mark tells us that this maid was a servant of the high priest. (Mark 14:66.) John speaks of her as the one who kept the door of the porch; she seems to have observed Peter as he came in, and afterward, when he was seated with the servants of the high priest she recognized him; something about his appearance or manner excited her suspicion; again she thinks that she remembered seeing him with Jesus. She approached him and looked intently upon him and said: “This man was also with him.” Matthew and Mark both record that she told Peter that she recognized him as one of the disciples of Jesus, while John records that she asked Peter if he were not one of the disciples of Jesus. (John 18:17.) Peter very bluntly denied and said: “Woman, I know him not.” This was Peter’s first denial.
58 And after a little while another saw him,—This is Peter’s second denial. At this time a man identifies Peter. Matthew and Mark mention a maid who charged Peter with being one of the disciples of Jesus, while John says: “They said.” At this time Peter had gone from the light to the gate or entrance. (Matthew 26:71.) It is easy to understand the harmony of all of the writers; that a maid, a man, and others of the crowd in the palace court joined in the charge almost simultaneously this would be a natural thing at such a time. Peter’s denial is emphatic: “Man, I am not.” Peter denies as though he was just one of the company who had come through curiosity to learn the cause of the excitement. This denial is stronger than the first, and is a step in advance of the first denial. At the first Peter was probably surprised and possibly somewhat confused; but now he had reflected somewhat and his denial is more emphatic. Possibly the number of those who accused him prompted him to make this denial more emphatic.
59, 60 And after the space of about one hour—Matthew says, “After a little while” (Matthew 26:73), so also Mark (Mark 14:70); Matthew and Mark both state that “they that stood by” accused Peter of being one of the disciples of Jesus; but Luke says “another confidently affirmed” that Peter was with Jesus, “for he is a Galilaean.” John states that a servant who was a kinsman “of him whose ear Peter cut off” made the charge. (John 18:26.) This is the third charge made against Peter, and it was “about an hour” after the other charge; someone recognized that Peter was a Galilean; they said that his speech betrayed him. The peculiarities of the Galilean dialect are shown and example given by Peter; these help to identify Peter as one of the disciples. He could not hide his speech if he talked. This time Peter’s denial was still the more emphatic. He said: “Man, I know not what thou sayest.” He meant: “What are you talking about?” He claimed to be totally ignorant of the man and the matter. Peter not only denied and thus lied, but began to curse and to swear, saying: “I know not this man of whom ye speak.” (Mark 14:71.) Peter solemnly invoked curses on himself, taking solemn oaths in confirmation of his previous assertions that he did not know who the prisoner was.
61, 62 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.—What a look of sorrow and pain it must have been! Who can reproduce or describe that look? Was it an angry, disdainful, indignant look? Was it a look of pity and regret? Jesus could not stretch forth his manacled hands to Peter and save him as he did when Peter was sinking while walking on the water, but he did give him a look of tender sympathy for his weakness and a look of love that saved Peter. Peter never forgot that look; it has its desired effect at this time on him, for it called to his mind what Jesus had said to him.
How that look must have pierced the heart of Peter, when he remembered the terrible warning which Jesus had given him; he also remembered that he had stoutly affirmed that others might forsake him, but that he was willing to die for him. Peter rushed from the place “and wept bitterly.” He could stand no longer the look of Jesus, and he needed to get out and give expression to his sorrow. The bitterness of his penitence knew no relief until the assurance of forgiveness came.
Luke 22:63-71
- JESUS BEFORE THE
63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him,—The officers and soldiers treated Jesus as they would treat a common slave who had committed some heinous crime and was worthy of death with all the cruelties that they could impose upon him. They “mocked him” with insulting language and accusations. While Peter was shamefully denying his Lord in the courtyard, the night examination and trial of Jesus before the high priest went on, and the guards were permitted to heap all sorts of cruelties upon the prisoner. Judas had “received the band of soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” (John 18:3), when he betrayed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane; hence, these officers were the ones who helped to mock Jesus. They “beat him” with their fists and with other things they smote him severely. The guards permitted others to mock, beat, blindfold, smite, and revile the Son of God.
Matthew and Mark record these insults before the account of Peter’s denial Luke records the three denials of Peter together, while the other writers record what occurred between the denials. While Peter was denying his Lord, the enemies reviled him and smote him. Possibly no common slave received worse treatment than did our Lord.
64, 65 And they blindfolded him,—Matthew records that some smote him with their fists, and Mark records that the servants struck him. They made sport of him by imitating the children’s play of “blindman’s bluff.” After he was blindfolded they struck him and asked him to “prophesy” or tell them who hit him; this was a mockery on his claim to he a prophet. Little did they know how much he knew, but he chose not to gratify their curiosity; he permitted them to do what they would with him. They smote him on the face; they spit in his face and buffeted him. (Matthew 2(i:67; Mark 14:65.) “And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.” Luke is the only writer that records this verse; it shows that their hatred found outlet not only in acts of violence and insult, but in the most abusive language. They had pronounced condemnation on him for blasphemy, yet they were the only ones who spoke blasphemous words, and that too of the most appalling nature. Strange that they were guilty of the very things with which they charged Jesus.
66 And as soon as it was day,—Matthew and Mark say “Now when morning was come” (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1) they led Jesus away to the Sanhedrin. The trials before Annas and Caiaphas that night were not legal; the Jewish Sanhedrin did not meet at night for legal procedures; so after daylight the Sanhedrin assembled in formal meeting to confirm what had already been determined. There had been a smaller meeting in the night; the Sanhedrin formerly met in the hall Gazith, the hall of square stone, in the temple area, but its meeting had been removed to another, the hall of Purchase, on the east side of the temple court. However, some think that this meeting was held in the palace of the high priest. This meeting was to pass in a formal way the sentence on Jesus. Luke gives very brief details of this meeting. At this meeting they conferred together as to the best means of putting Jesus to death, and formulating the twofold charge of blasphemy and treason; the Sanhedrin could condemn to death, but could not put the sentence into execution without the sanction of the Roman governor. (John 18:31.) The Jews lost the power to execute the penalty of death when Archelaus was deposed, about A.D. 6.
67, 68 If thou art the Christ, tell us.—They were fully prepared to condemn him; this question was asked in a very malicious and cunning way; whatever answer he might give would be used against him. The question was designed to force him to incriminate himself in their judgment. They would not believe any answer that he would give, as they were ready to condemn him for blasphemy. Hence, Jesus said: “If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer.” Jesus says that if he should tell them plainly and emphatically that he was the Christ, they would not believe his statement; neither if he would ask them a question, or propose a question in support of his claims that they would not answer him; if he convinced them that he was the Christ, they would not release him. They had already seen convincing proof of his Messiahship and had rejected it; if he should present convincing proof now, they would not release him, for they were bent on his death.
69-71 But from henceforth shall the Son of man—This is a Messianic prediction from Psalms 110:1 and Daniel 7:9-14. The Jewish rulers should have understood this reference, but it is very likely that they did not. It was a claim to be the Messiah, as he was fulfilling these claims. Jesus meant that soon after his resurrection he would ascend to the Father and accusation for blasphemy was based on 2 Kings 18:37. The unexpected answer of Jesus, declaring his divine glory and judgeship, aroused the hatred, rage, and horror of the high priest to the utmost bounds, and he rends his garments as if too narrow to contain his exasperated emotion; he does this as if in holy indignation and horror; terribly excited feelings and hypocrisy were mingled. He accused Jesus of blasphemy.