Luke 22

H, Leo Boles Commentary On Luke 22 , ARREST, TRIALS, OF JESUSLuk_22:1-21 and Luke 23:1-56THE OF JUDASLuk_22:1-6 Luke 22:1 —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”; Mat¬thew 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. Luke 22:2 — 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.”Luke 22:3 —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. Luke 22:4 —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 pro¬pose his plan for betraying Jesus secretly into their hands. Luke 22:5 —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. Luke 22:6 —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 be 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. THE LAST SUPPERLuk_22:7-23 Luk 22:7 —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 day “ between the evenings” (Deuteronomy 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. Luke 22:8 —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 Luke 22:9-10 —And they said unto him,—The disciples asked him where they should make the preparation; this was an intelli¬gent 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. Luke 22:11-12 —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 guest-chamber” 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 guest-chamber. It was customary for Jews to be very hos¬pitable, 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 “ guest-chamber,” 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. Luke 22:13 —And they went, and found—Peter and John found every¬thing 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. Luke 22:14 —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 be 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. Luke 22:15-16 —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.) Luke 22:17-18 —And he received a cup,—There has been some contro-versy 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. Luke 22:19 —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 be 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. Luke 22:20 —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 vic¬tims. (Exodus 24:3-12; Deuteronomy 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. Luke 22:21 —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. Luke 22:22-23 —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.) STRIFE ABOUT RANK Luke 22:24-30 Luke 22:24 —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 great-est 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 them-selves 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. Luke 22:25—And he said unto them,—It seems that their contention was in the presence of Jesus; he gives them further instruc¬tions 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. Luke 22:26-27 —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 be ready to do anything that will accommodate 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. Luke 22:28-29 —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 temp¬tation. 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. Luke 22:30 —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 pre-eminent, sitting upon thrones, as it were, and administering judgment. This seems to be the same thought as expressed in Matthew 19 Matthew 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 Nine- vites 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. PETER’ S DENIAL Luke 22:31-34 Luke 22:31 —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 disci-ples. Luke 22:32 —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. Luke 22:33 —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. Luke 22:34 —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 be 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. FURTHER Luke 22:35-38 Luke 22:35 —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 require¬ments are to be met. Luke 22:36 —And he said unto them,—Since conditions and circum-stances 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 be 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.”Luke 22:37 —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. Luke 22:38 —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; al¬though he had made the announcement several times to them. It is difficult to understand just what he meant by “ It is enough.”THE AGONY IN Luke 22:39-46 Luke 22:39 —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. Luke 22:40 —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. Luke 22:41-42 —And he was parted froiii 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 an¬cients, 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 be 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. Luke 22:43 —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.) Luke 22:44 —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. Luke 22:45-46 —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. THE ARREST OF JESUSLuk_22:47-53 Luk 22:47 —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.”Luke 22:48 —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 polluted lips in contact with mine and play the hypocrite? Away with your hypocrisy! Do your fiendish work! (John 18:4-9 .) Luke 22:49-50 —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. Luke 22:51 —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 con¬versation was addressed to them. Luke 22:52 —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. Luke 22:53 —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 disci¬ples. Some think that Jesus had reference to the time of night, but this inference does not justify the statement. PETER’ S DENIAL Luke 22:54-62 Luke 22:54 —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. Luke 22:55 —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. Luke 22:56-57 —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. Luke 22:58 —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 em¬phatic. Luke 22:59-60 —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. Luke 22:61-62 —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. JESUS BEFORE THE Luke 22:63-71 Luke 22:63 —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 court¬yard, 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. Luke 22:64-65 —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 blind¬folded they struck him and asked him to “ prophesy” or tell them who hit him ; this was a mockery on his claim to be 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 26:67; 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. Luke 22:66-71 —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, 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.

Verse 1 The magnificent drama of our Lord’s Passion rapidly unfolds in this chapter. The Passover came on (Luke 22:1-2); Judas bargained to betray the Saviour (Luke 22:3-6); the last Supper was eaten (Luke 22:7-23); the apostles disputed about rank (Luke 22:24-30); Peter’s denial was foretold (Luke 22:31-34); the changed condition of the apostles was announced (Luke 22:35-38); an angel strengthened the Lord in Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-46); Jesus was arrested (Luke 22:47-53); Peter denied him at the arraignment (Luke 22:54-62); the Lord was mocked (Luke 22:63-65); he was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71). Now the feast of the unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death; for they feared the people. (Luke 22:1-2) Feast of unleavened bread … the Passover … The terminology used here is strictly in keeping with the common usage of those times; but it is nevertheless rather loosely used. As Boles said: The Passover, as used here, means either the meal, the feast day, or the whole period of time. “Eat the passover” refers to the meal, as here, or to the whole period of celebration in John 18:28.[1]Furthermore, “the feast of unleavened bread” was used in several senses: The feast of unleavened bread was the day the Passover lamb was slain. According to Mosaic law, this was called the Passover and was followed by seven days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:5-6). But at this time the whole period was known by this name. Josephus says: “We keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread."[2]Gilmour, referring to the latter seven days of the feast said: The feast of unleavened bread at sundown on Nisan 14 (which was) the beginning of the fifteenth day by Jewish reckoning, and lasted for a period of seven days (Leviticus 23:5-6). The Passover coincided only with its first day. The Paschal lambs were slaughtered on the afternoon of Nisan 14, and the solemn meal itself was eaten during the evening that constituted the beginning of the fifteenth day.[3]The following chronological arrangement of the events of this exceedingly important week is adapted from J. R. Dummelow, with the changes required by understanding the crucifixion to have been on the 14th of Nisan, the same day the Paschal lambs were slain, and the same day when the Passover meal was eaten after sundown (technically the fifteenth of Nisan), that fourteenth of Nisan having been a Thursday. See my article, “What Day Was Jesus Crucified?” in my Commentary on Mark, underMark 15:42. A.D. 30 Sabbath, Nisan 9th … Jesus arrived at Bethany (John 12:1), supper in the evening (John 12:2-8; Matthew 26:6-13). Sunday, Nisan 10th … triumphal entry (Matthew 21:1), children’s Hosannas, healings in temple (Matthew 21:14-16), return to Bethany (Matthew 21:17). Monday, Nisan 11th … return from Bethany (Matthew 21:18), withering fig tree (Matthew 21:19), cleansing temple (Matthew 21:12), retires to Bethany (Mark 11:19), conspiracy of his enemies (Luke 19:47). Tuesday, Nisan 12th … they find fig tree withered (Mark 11:20), his authority challenged, tribute to Caesar, brother’s wife, first commandment of all, and “What think ye of Christ?” (Matthew 21-22). Woes on Pharisees (Matthew 23), Jesus in treasury, the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41), visit of Greeks (John 12:20), final rejection (John 12:37), triple prophecy of fall of Jerusalem, Second Advent and final judgment (Matthew 24-25), Counsel of Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3). Wednesday, Nisan 13th … in the afternoon preparations for the last supper (Matthew 26:17), that night (technically the 14th of Nisan), the last supper with the Twelve in the upper room (Matthew 26:20), the foot washing (John 13:2), departure of Judas, institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26), farewell discourses, the true vine, Comforter promised, intercessory prayer (John 13:31 through John 17), Gethsemane and the one-hour agony (Matthew 26:27; Mark 14:87). Thursday, Nisan 14th … midnight arrest (Matthew 26:47), before Annas (John 18:18), Peter’s denials about 3:00 A.M. (John 18:27), before Caiphas (John 18:24), before Sanhedrin about 4:00 A.M. (Matthew 27:1), sent to Pilate at 6:00 A.M. (Matthew 27:2), from Pilate to Herod, and back to Pilate (Luke 28:7,11), delivered to be crucified (John 19:16) Jesus crucified at 9:00 A.M. (Mark 15:25), darkness from 12:00 to 3:00 P.M. (Matthew 27:45), death of Jesus at 3:00 P.M. (Matthew 27:50). The paschal lambs were being sacrificed at this hour (John 19:36). Jesus was buried about sundown. That night was the Jewish Passover meal, Jesus having eaten it by anticipation 24 hours earlier. Burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57). Friday, Nisan 15th … Jesus was in the tomb. Saturday, Nisan 16th … Jesus was in the tomb. Sunday, Nisan 17th … Jesus rose from the dead.[4]In the above understanding of the day our Lord was crucified, it is not necessary to suppose Wednesday as having been “a day of retirement,"[5] or that Wednesday, a day of rest, was apparently spent with the disciples at Bethany."[6] The New Testament says nothing of any day of rest or retirement; but, on the contrary, it is repeatedly stated that he was “daily in the temple” (Luke 22:53). “Every day he was teaching in the temple” (Luke 21:87); and there is no way such expressions can mean that Jesus ran off and hid for a whole day. The following diagram will reveal the reason why “the third day” is frequently used by sacred authors to designate the day our Lord rose from the dead. Jesus’ own promise that he would be in the heart of the earth “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40) could not have been fulfilled in its entirety except by his resurrection at sunset on Sunday, which would have given three full days and three full nights in the grave; however, Jesus said that he would rise “the third day,” meaning that he would not be in the grave but two days. Now look at the chart. He was buried at sunset on Thursday and rose very early on Sunday, the first day of the week. Thursday Night Friday Night Saturday Night Sunday period in the tomb -> 1st day 2nd day 3day begins The arguments in favor of viewing Friday as the day our Lord suffered have been thoroughly studied by this writer; and there seems to be no way that they can harmonize with “what is written” in the word of God. We believe that Jesus was in the heart of the earth “three days and three nights,” rising on the third day. Sought how they might put him to death … The death of Jesus had long ago been determined by the hierarchy, and the thing in view here was merely the manner of their bringing it about. From Matthew 26:1-5 it is learned that they actually preferred to kill him secretly, because of their fear of the people, as mentioned here. However, the treachery of Judas induced them to change their plans. [1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 411. [2] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), Matthew, p. 233. [3] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1952), Vol. VIII, Luke, p. 373. [4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 692. [5] Ibid. [6] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 189.

Verse 3 And Satan, entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went away and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might deliver him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. And he consented, and sought opportunity to deliver him unto them in the absence of the multitude.What probably triggered Judas’ treachery was the rebuke administered to him by the Lord during the incident of the anointing in the house of Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6 ff). With Judas on their side, as they supposed, the chief priests then thought that they would procure ample evidence to warrant a public trial and judicial execution. As it turned out, Judas returned the money in bitterness and remorse, refusing to have any further part with the religious leaders; but it was too late for them, as well as for Judas. The whole shameful episode would be spread upon the public record of the ages.

Verse 7 And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed.This “day of unleavened bread” was Nisan 13th; and the preparations here mentioned took place in the afternoon, just prior to the beginning of Nissan 14th, at sunset. The supper was held after sundown and technically on the 14th by Jewish reckoning.

Verse 8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go make ready for us the passover, that we may eat.It is not actually the Passover meal that Jesus ate, but a similar meal in anticipation of it. Jesus was on the cross when the paschal lambs were slain, and in his tomb when Israel ate the Passover the following night (see under John 18:28 in my Commentary on John).

Verse 9 And they say unto him, Where wilt thou that we make ready? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house whereinto he goeth. And ye shall say unto the master of the house, The Teacher saith unto thee, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.Harrison saw in this the likelihood that Jesus had “made previous arrangements for a contact by means of a secret signal,"[7] but such a view is refuted by a circumstance noted by Bliss. He said: There was a custom that the head of each family should bring water from a certain spring, which was to wet up the unleavened bread for the Passover. But this man was not head of the house; nor does it appear how, among the thousands that would be carrying water at the same time, that the incident could have served as a sign. [8]If Bliss’ reckoning of this occasion of the last supper as the Passover should be allowed, then it would nullify, absolutely the kind of sign Jesus mentioned, because tens of thousands would have been doing the same thing. Obviously, this was not the Passover evening. This leaves the alternative that a servant was carrying the pitcher of water in a certain direction at a certain time of day, and that his master was one who honored the Teacher and would provide the guest-chamber. The answer to this is not some “secret-signal,” set up by Jesus in advance, but the omniscience of the Lord. Mark 14:12-17 is parallel to this portion of Luke, and more extended remarks on this passage will be found in my Commentary on Mark under those references. [7] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 263. [8] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press), Vol. II, Luke, p. 312.

Verse 14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I shall not eat it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.I shall not eat it …Brook and Burkitt (Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1908, pp. 569ff) have maintained, and others have oft-repeated it since, that these words indicate that the Saviour did not celebrate the Passover and only had a strong desire to do so.[9]Of course, this is not the Passover; and the opinions of Brook and Burkitt were correct. Jesus here spoke of the Passover which would be eaten the following night at a time when he was in the tomb. This is another roadblock to the Friday crucifixion theory. It is most likely, however, in view of what Luke immediately stated, that this meal was very similar to the Passover, in fact following the pattern closely, and yet not actually the Passover because it was a day earlier. For cause, such arrangements were allowed. ENDNOTE: [9] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 557.

Verse 17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.The cup here in view was not the cup of the Lord’s Supper, but the cup of the simulated Jewish Passover, being observed by Jesus’ disciples a day earlier than the stated time, but which Jesus did not observe. This understanding is clear from the following summary of the pattern for the Passover meal, described by Farrar:

1. Each drank a cup of wine, “the cup of consecration,” followed by a blessing.
2. Hands were washed, a table carried in, on which were bitter herbs, unleavened bread, the paschal lamb, dates and vinegar.
3. The father dipped a morsel of unleavened bread and bitter herbs, about the size of an olive (the sop), in the vinegar, giving it to each in turn.
4. A second cup of wine was poured, and the passover story was rehearsed.
5. The first part of a special song, the Hallel, was sung.
6. Grace was said and a benediction pronounced, after which the food, as in (3), was further distributed to all.
7. The paschal lamb was eaten and a third cup of wine was had.
8. After another thanksgiving, a fourth cup, the cup of “joy,” was drunk.
9. The rest of the Hallel was sung.[10]Now it was after this supper that the Lord instituted the Lord’s Supper. “After supper” is specifically designated as the time (1 Corinthians 11:25). No lamb of any kind was in evidence at this supper. The cup in view in this verse was connected with the simulated passover and not the Lord’s Supper. As John Wesley put it: “And he took the cup -” the cup that was used to be brought at the beginning of the paschal solemnity. “And said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I will not drink …” As if he had said, Do not expect me to drink it: I will drink no more before I die.[11][10] George R. Bliss, op. cit., pp. 313-314. [11] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 286.

Verse 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.This was the beginning of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the same being after the last meal they had just shared was concluded, placing it after (8) and before (9) in the above pattern. For full comment on “transubstantiation” and other questions, see parallel with comments in my Commentary on Matthew. Here the eternal commandment of remembering the Saviour was uttered. The vast difference in Judaism and Christianity is in this very thing. Under the Law of Moses, there was a “remembrance” made of sin upon every solemn occasion of worship, even upon the day of Atonement; but in Christianity, there is no more a remembrance of sin, but of the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. See elaboration of this in my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 10:3-4.

Verse 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.In like manner after supper … means that the cup, just like the bread, that is BOTH of the Lord’s Supper, were taken AFTER SUPPER. It is regrettable that some have failed to make the distinction noted here, even going so far as to suppose that the cup may precede in observing the Supper; but a true understanding of what is here stated refutes such error. Which is poured out for you … What a glimpse of the power and Godhead of Jesus is in this. In a few short hours, he would be arrested, and on the morrow he would be crucified; but here, he calmly announced that his blood was to be poured out for the sins of men, setting up a memorial of it unto all generations. Evidently, the reason for Luke’s introduction of that first cup of the simulated passover into the record here was for the purpose of dissociating the two events. Parallel references on Luke 22:18-20 are Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, which see, along with comments, in my Commentary on Matthew and my Commentary on Mark.

Verse 21 But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. For the Son of man indeed goeth, as it hath been determined: but woe unto that man through whom he is betrayed! And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.This passage has parallels in John 13:21-30; Matthew 26:21-25, and Mark 14:18-21, which see, along with comments in my Commentary on Matthew, my Commentary on Mark, and my Commentary on John. The hand of him that betrayeth me … As Dummelow observed, “This verse is a strong support of the view that Judas received the sacrament, but it is not conclusive. See John 13:30."[12]ENDNOTE: [12] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 767.

Verse 24 And there arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be greatest.The measure of agreement between Matthew 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45 and this paragraph in Luke, is no proof that Luke describes the same occurrence as Matthew and Mark. Such disputes frequently occurred, and why could not the Saviour have answered their arguments in words more or less similar?[13]What a shame it was that in the very act of the Lord’s giving the memorial supper, the apostles should still have been concerned over places of rank in the kingdom! ENDNOTE: [13] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 563.

Verse 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors.The kings of the Gentiles … Here, just as in the similar passages from Matthew and Mark, cited above, the Lord was condemning the pyramidal type of government so characteristic of all nations. He forbade such systems in his kingdom. Benefactors … This was “a title carried by the Greek kings of Egypt and Syria,"[14] which was about as incongruous a designation as could be imagined. In all ages, usurpers have loved to call themselves by titles which denied their essential character; nor has the device perished from the earth. Are not such titles as Innocent, Pius, and Boniface exactly of the same quality? ENDNOTE: [14] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 264.

Verse 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.This is the prohibition of such tiers of rank and authority as those in vogue among earthly governments. “Ye shall not be so!”

Verse 27 For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth.As Barnes properly noted, “This was said in connection with his washing their feet (John 13:12-15)”;[15] and again one of the synoptics touches and corroborates the gospel of John. ENDNOTE: [15] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 148.

Verse 28 But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.This promise refers to earth and this life … His kingdom would be administered by them … For centuries, the story of civilization has been the story of this kingdom.[16]At my table in my kingdom … This identifies the church, wherein the Lord’s Table is ever found, to be the kingdom in view here. That man who is not eating and drinking at the Lord’s Table is not in the kingdom of God. Twelve thrones … These are to be understood spiritually, as are the “twelve tribes of Israel.” This refers to the word of the holy apostles as the supreme authority in the Lord’s church. Also, it should be noted that death would not remove them from office, no successors to the Twelve being envisioned by the Lord. See the comments in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:28. Luke did not mention “twelve” thrones, but Matthew did (Matthew 19:28). “These expressions are applicable primarily to the Twelve apostles."[17]My kingdom … As Bliss said, “This is the only instance in which Jesus calls the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven `my kingdom’.” The kingdom of God is the kingdom of Christ. [16] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 200. [17] John Wesley, op. cit., p. 287.

Verse 31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, until thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.The episode of Peter’s denial was fully treated in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:31-35 and Matthew 26:69-75, and likewise in the parallels in Mark 14:30 ff and in John 13:36-38; John 18:15-27. Satan asked to have you … Christ here spoke of the kingdom of evil as a domain ruled over by an intelligent, personal head. Peter’s defection was not due so much to his personal weakness as it was to the weakness of all men without the Saviour. The Great Sacrifice had not yet been offered. For a few hours, the Prince of Life would be under the dominion of the powers of darkness; and it was impossible that under those conditions Peter could make good his boast. Besides, his heart, even then was not completely in tune with the will of God. Geldenhuys observed that “The inclusion of this prediction and its subsequent fulfillment is a testimony to the historical truth”[18] of the gospels. It is impossible to believe that the primitive church would have invented, or circulated, such a story, about such an apostle as Peter, if, in fact, it had been anything other than historical truth. THE CHANGED STATUS OF THE Upon the eve of his death, the Lord called attention to a dramatic change in the status of the apostles. Until that time, there had been no need for them to be concerned in any manner with worldly needs and provisions, the Lord having taken care of everything; but, with his death, resurrection, and ascension to the other world, all that was to be changed. Prudence, foresight, even means for self-defense, would be needed: and so he instructed them. ENDNOTE: [18] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 569.

Verse 35 And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they say, Nothing.This called attention to the fact of their earthly needs having been so long provided for them without care or exertion on their part.

Verse 36 And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.The absolute pacifist tradition among Christians of all ages and the acceptance of it by many commentators make this verse “a real problem” for many. Most commentators view the passage as figurative, as did Geldenhuys, who said, “The Lord intended (these words) in a figurative sense."[19] But if the sword is figurative, what about the purse, the wallet, and the cloak? As Hobbs said, “It is impossible to tone down this statement; neither can we dismiss it as not being a genuine saying of Jesus."[20] The clear meaning of the passage is that “a sword” is the one thing needful, even surpassing in priority such an important item as a cloak. The two errors to be avoided here are (1) the supposition that the gospel should be spread by the sword, and (2) the notion that a sword should ever be employed against lawful authority. Before the evening was over, the Lord would have further occasion to demonstrate the proper and improper uses of the sword. Barnes was certainly correct in his view that “These directions (concerning the sword) were not made with reference to his being taken in the garden but to their future lives."[21]J. S. Lamar, an eminent Restoration scholar, expressed surprise “to find several of the ablest Protestant expositors interpreting (this passage) as a warrant for self-defense."[22] Nevertheless, the view maintained here is that self-defense is exactly what Jesus taught.

Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it. Just why should it be supposed that Jesus denied to Christians such a basic right has never been explained. “Resist not evil … go the second mile … turn the other cheek… give thy cloak also, etc.” are not applicable to situations in which one’s life is threatened, or endangered. [19] Ibid., p. 672. [20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 307. [21] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150. [22] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 260.

Verse 37 For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfillment. And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.That which is written must be fulfilled … The avowed intention of the Pharisees was to kill Jesus by assassination (Matthew 26:1-5); and despite their change of strategy due to the treachery of Judas, many of them doubtless preferred the method of killing Jesus they had already agreed upon; and the view here is that Christ would have ordered the apostles to resist any effort to assassinate him. The sword in view here, therefore, was an assurance that his purpose of witnessing his godhead before the Sanhedrin would not be thwarted by an untimely assassination. When the time came, of course, Jesus would submit to arrest by lawful authority; and the possession by his apostles of swords, coupled with his prohibition of their use against such lawful authority, emphatically dramatized the willingness of his submission. Barnes’ note that “the apostles followed the customs of the country, and had with them some means of defense”[23] is doubtless true. It is enough … It is customary to interpret this expression as an assertion that the disciples were missing his point altogether, as if he had said, “Enough of this!” But there is no valid reason for supposing that these words mean anything other than “two swords are enough.” As a matter of fact, the swords were a necessary part of the drama of the Lords arrest. Jesus used the excision of Malchus’ ear as an occasion to command Peter to put up his sword into “its place,” a powerful endorsement of the premise that such a sword of self-defense HAS its place (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:52). Significantly, even then, Jesus neither commanded Peter to throw his sword away or surrender it. ENDNOTE: [23] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150.

Verse 39 And he came out, and went, as his custom was, unto the mount of Olives; and the disciples also followed him. And when he was at the place, he said unto them. Pray that ye enter not into temptation.THE AGONY IN THE GARDENUnto the mount of Olives … This was to a place called Gethsemane in the valley of the Kidron. For a discussion of this location, see in my Commentary on John, underJohn 18:1. The material in Luke here and through Luke 22:62 is paralleled in John 18:1-27; Matthew 26:36-75, and Mark 14:32-42. Even on that tragic night, the Saviour was more concerned for the spiritual welfare of his apostles than for himself.

Verse 41 And he was parted from them about a stone’s cast; and he kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.The taking of Peter, James and John to a position nearer to himself, the triple repetition of the prayer, and other important details were omitted in Luke’s account; and for a discussion of those things, reference is made to the comments under the parallels in this series. Remove this cup … The ascendancy of our Lord’s human nature is evident in this scene. The utter repugnance of so horrible a death as Jesus confronted sent the Saviour to his knees; and there, wrestling with God in prayer, he brought his human nature into submissive compliance with the Father’s will. The implications here are profound. There was no way God could remove the cup of suffering from Jesus without abandoning the purpose of human redemption. Some have interpreted the “cup” as agony itself, so great that Jesus was in imminent danger of dying before he ever came to the cross. Whether this was truly the “cup” or not is uncertain, but the appearance of an angel to strengthen the Lord in that agony surely suggests that it was at least an element in it.

Verse 43 And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.This marvelous detail which explains so much which would be otherwise unknown was supplied only by Luke. Commentators have attempted to make a great point out of the contrast in Jesus’ demeanor in the Johannine account and that of the synoptics. In John, the Lord’s majestic appearance prostrated a whole company of soldiers on their faces; in the synoptics, he appears in utter weakness, agony, and even fear. This verse harmonizes both pictures of our Lord, the synoptics giving his stateBEFORE the strengthening of the angel, and John giving it AFTER the angel’s mission was completed. Strengthening him … Hobbs noted that “this has primary reference to physical strength."[24] Just as angels came and strengthened Jesus following his temptation in the wilderness, an angel was ready here to provide that physical strength without which Jesus might have died before the time. “A divine refreshing pervaded him, body and soul; and thus he received strength to continue to the last in the struggle.” [25][24] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 312. [25] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 203.

Verse 44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.The Greek word for “drops of blood” is [@thromboi], used only here in the New Testament. “It means clots of blood”[26] and was used by the physician Luke in the same manner as was common in ancient medical works. The spiritual overtones of this were noted by Henry, thus: Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse (Genesis 3:19). When Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat the bread of life.[27]Regarding this blood-sweat, it is a mistake to suppose any exaggeration here. Aristotle (Hist. Anita. said that in certain extraordinary states the blood becomes very liquefied and flows in such a manner that some have perspired blood.[28]Moreover, the phenomena is not unknown to modern physicians. Dummelow said that “Great mental agony has been known to produce this phenomenon."[29] The fact that death usually followed very quickly after such a blood-sweat suggests the necessity of the angel’s mission to strengthen Jesus, who himself described his condition as being “exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death” (Matthew 26:38). [26] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 312. [27] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 309. [28] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 323. [29] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 767.

Verse 45 And when he rose up from his prayer, he came unto his disciples, and found them sleeping for sorrow, and said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.Mortal men are incapable of knowing fully the nature and extent of the saviour’s awful agony; but it was there in Gethsemane that our Lord made the final, irrevocable decision to bear our sins on the tree. Morgan said: All I can say is that as I ponder it, through the darkened window there is a mystic light shining, showing me the terrors of the cross more clearly than I see them even when I come to Calvary.[30]Sleeping for sorrow … Only Luke the physician connected the sorrows of the apostles with their sleeping contrary to Jesus instructions; but surely that was a very important element in it. Regarding this event in the garden, Geldenhuys quoted the Jewish scholar, Montifiore, as saying: One cannot help but marvel at the wonderful grace and beauty, the exquisite tact and discretion, which the narrative displays. There is not a word too little; there is not a word too much.[31][30] G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel of Luke (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1931), en loco. [31] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 578.

Verse 47 While he yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.THE Tinsley’s seeing this verse as “a suggestion that Judas did not actually kiss Jesus (Mark and Matthew both say that he did)"[32] is a perfect example of the type of irresponsible criticism so often indulged in by radical critics. There is no suggestion at all in this place that Judas did not kiss Jesus; but rather a statement that just before he did so, the Lord addressed him as in the next verse. ENDNOTE: [32] E. J. Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969), p. 195.

Verse 48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?There is no vocabulary sufficiently extensive to describe the dastardly act of Judas Iscariot. The rationalistic devices of some who would extenuate his treachery, the “explanations” of those who exhibit some diabolical affinity with the traitor himself, together with all the brilliant and clever imaginations set to work out some justification of the traitor’s deed - all of these have utterly failed to redeem Judas in the thinking of upright men from the shame of this betrayal. Son of man … By such a word, Jesus reminded Judas that it was no mere human teacher that he was betraying. The divine Messiah was the one whom he betrayed with a kiss; and such an act was so unbelievable that it called forth the Saviour’s exclamation here. There is a further glimpse of the Lord’s omniscience here. Before Judas profaned the Lord’s cheek with his kiss, Jesus exposed his intention.

Verse 49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.The apostles had misunderstood the Lord’s mention of the sword, and that misunderstanding led to the incident here. The sword was a proper weapon of self-defense against brigands, but not against the lawful authority. Such was the Saviour’s respect for the legal government that he willingly submitted to it, even when it was controlled by evil men engaged in an illegal and shameful project. And a certain one of them smote … Peter was not named here as the one who used the sword; and from this it must be assumed that when Luke wrote this gospel, Peter was still alive, discretion demanding that his name be withheld. Tertullian stated that Peter was crucified by Nero (37-68 A.D.); and here is a telling argument for the early date of the gospel of Luke. Whether or not Tertullian’s statement is received as true, there is no reasonable way to date Peter’s death after the reign of Nero. John, writing long afterward, did not hesitate to name Peter, and from this is it certain that considerations of Peter’s safety required the omission of his name here.

Verse 51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.The servant who lost his ear was Malchus (John 18:10); and Luke, with a physician’s characteristic observance, noted that it was his right ear. Suffer ye them thus far … The word THEM is not in the Greek, and some question exists as to the exact meaning. Geldenhuys understood it as “Let events take their course, even to my arrest,"[33] thus seeing the remark as addressed to the Lord’s disciples with the meaning that they should not interfere any further with the arrest. And healed him … Like all of the miracles of Jesus, this one had definite and necessary utility. One great purpose of the Lord in the arrest was to procure the exemption of the apostles from custody, as particularly evident in John; but, with Peter’s rash act, such would have been far more difficult except for the timely healing of the excised ear. ENDNOTE: [33] Norvel Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 582.

Verse 52 And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, that were come out against him, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched not forth your hand against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.As Hobbs said, “swords and staves” indicate that “both Roman soldiers and temple police”[34] were used in the arrest. Only Luke, however, spelled out the presence of the chief priests who had come along to make sure the mission succeeded. Daily in the temple … This is a reference to the extensive ministry of Christ in Jerusalem in the final weeks following the long “journey” to the Holy City emphasized throughout by Luke. Also, this is another bit of evidence that Wednesday of this final week was not a day of retirement. The power of darkness … This is another echo of the great truth so strongly stressed in John, further evidence that the Christ of the synoptics is one with the Christ of John. It has been frequently observed that if this night arrest of Jesus had truly been the Passover, none of the chief priests, nor the temple guards, would have been permitted to bear arms after sundown of Nisan 14. It was therefore the night before, on Nisan 13 (technically the 14th) that this arrest occurred. Had it been Nisan 14th after sundown, it would have been technically Nisan 15th, the night of the Passover meal. See chronology under Luke 22:2. ENDNOTE: [34] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 315.

Verse 54 And they seized him, and led him away, and brought him into the high priest’s house. But Peter followed afar off.The legal high priest was Caiaphas, but Annas his father-in-law was held to be the rightful high priest deposed by Rome; both of them occupied the same palace; and Peter’s denial occurred in the courtyard where both Annas and Caiaphas lived. Luke very briefly mentioned the two arraignments, or trials, before Annas and Caiaphas. For article on the “Six Trials of Jesus,” see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57 ff. Peter followed afar off … Peter’s failure was partially due to some things he did, such as following “afar off,” warming himself at the fire kindled by Jesus’ enemies, his rash resort to carnal weapons, his boastful promise to go to prison and death with Jesus, etc. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58; Matthew 26:70-75.

Verse 55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them.Psychologically, Peter placed himself at a disadvantage by “warming himself by the devil’s fire.” Accepting favors of enemies of the truth is just as dangerous now as it was when Peter sat in the firelight so long ago. It is refreshing indeed to recall that, a few days later, there was another fire by the seaside, kindled by the Lord himself, and like this one blazing forth at a very early hour in the morning: and by that other fire Peter confessed three times that he loved the Lord! (John 21:9).

Verse 56 And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking stedfastly upon him, said, This man also was with him. But he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not, And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean. But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said unto him, Before the cock crow this day thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly. PETER’S DENIALOne of those who accosted Peter was a kinsman of Malchus whose ear Peter had cut off; and, if Peter recognized the connection, this would have increased his apprehension (John 18:26). This incident has been thoroughly commented upon in all of the parallels. See under Luke 22:40 for a list of these. Luke omitted any reference to Peter’s cursing and swearing, but like all the gospel writers, did not fail to spell out completely the act of denial itself. Is this not another example of the prophetic power of Jesus, or his omniscience? Of course it is. No one but God could spell out exactly what will happen by three o’clock tomorrow morning, as Jesus did here. There is a weariness in the continual carping of critics that the omniscience of Jesus is found principally in John. Cock crow … “The cock crow was a Roman division of time, marking the close of the third watch, about three o’clock in the morning."[35]Wept bitterly … One’s heart cannot fail to be touched by the grief of this robust outdoorsman sobbing out his remorse for his impulsive denial of the Lord whom he loved. Sin had taken him unawares, when his defenses were down, when the powers of darkness were ascendant; but none of the extenuating circumstances removed the sting from his heart, nor could a flood of tears wash it away. And Peter remembered … The only trouble with this was that it came a bit late to prevent Peter’s denial. If only he could have remembered what Jesus had prophesied somewhat earlier, he might have found in that remembrance some means of averting failure. ENDNOTE: [35] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 266.

Verse 63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying Prophesy; who is he that struck thee? And many other things spake they against him, reviling him.There were six mockeries of Jesus in all. See under Mark 15:16 in my Commentary on Mark for a list of these. All of the mockeries were due to the instinctive hatred of carnal and unregenerated men for holiness and truth. Especially reprehensible in this glimpse of the mockeries provided by Luke, since it took place in the court of the high priests of Israel, was the fact of its being promulgated, or at least allowed, by the religious leaders of the Jews. It might have been expected at the hands of the Roman soldiery, long accustomed to deeds of blood and violence; but it was especially shameful that the priests would have condoned such a thing.

Verse 66 And as soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and led him away into their council, saying.THE GIVES THE DEATH VERDICTThe night trials of Jesus were illegal; but so also was this gathering of the Sanhedrin on Nisan 14th, a high festival upon which no trial of any kind whatever was legal. Of course, the purpose of this assembly, the third in the six trials of Jesus, was to lend some semblance of legality to the preliminary trials held the night before.

Verse 67 If thou art the Christ, tell us, But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God.This ten-second summary of the three trials of Jesus which occupied the whole of a long night and a full-dress rehearsal after daylight does not give a hundredth of all that was said and done. There were many, many questions, and answers, and adjurations, and restatements, and recapitulations throughout the long trials Jesus endured at the hands of the chosen people. One of the gospel’s giving a question or an answer in slightly different form from that in another gospel may not be intelligently advocated as a contradiction or discrepancy. All that is written in all of the gospels is totally and unequivocally true, there being no honest way to deny a word of it. If thou art the Christ, tell us … At one point during the trials the high priest phrased the question thus: “Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed?” And to this, Jesus replied, “I am, and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62). Christ preferred to answer the question which permitted the imperial “I AM” reply, rather than the type mentioned here, to which he replied differently. If I tell you, ye will not believe … Jesus had indeed told them hundreds of times, but they would not believe. If I ask you, ye will not answer … There are a number of examples of this in the gospels. See Luke 14:6; Luke 20:5; Matthew 22:46, etc. Those evil rulers were not able to answer Jesus’ questions; they could not stand against him in open discussion; and, even in this trial, they refused to answer his arguments. Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the power of God … This is an emphatic declaration from the lips of Jesus that he was indeed the divine Messiah, a supernatural person, in possession (ultimately) of the very power of God; and it must be pointed out that the Sanhedrin fully understood it as such, thus making them much more perceptive than those who blindly ignore the impact of this declaration.

Verse 70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.The phrasing of the question, “Art thou then the Son of God?” is proof that the Sanhedrin understood the meaning of Jesus’ reply. Ye say that I am … has the weight of “Yes, at last you have seen the point of what I am saying!” It is a gross error to hail these words as anything except the most positive affirmation of Jesus that he was, is and ever will be, the Son of God, “The expression is equivalent to “YES."[36]ENDNOTE: [36] Ibid., p. 267.

Verse 71 And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.By the sheer power of morality and intellect, Jesus at last forced the officialdom of the Hebrews into using the only charge that he would permit them to use, namely, his claim to be the divine Messiah. All of the other charges which they had so maliciously advocated against him for so long, such as sabbath breaking, casting out demons by the power of the devil, etc., all dropped out of sight here, even that garbled quote about destroying the temple; and the only reason the leaders had for demanding Jesus’ death came into view, not merely here, but in every one of the four gospels, that being that “he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). That was the issue that Jesus chose to seal with the blood of the cross; and the fury of the Sanhedrin at being forced to face the issue became apparent in their deceitful conduct before Pilate. This, of course, was the death penalty, pronounced by the sacred court of the Jews; but the fact of the death penalty having been removed from their jurisdiction sent the next phase of the trials into the courts of the Gentiles. Wonderful, wonderful was the appearance of Jesus in these fantastic trials, wherein he so gloriously attested his eternal power and Godhead.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Luke 221. What feast was drawing nigh? 2. Tell what the priests and scribes sought to do. 3. By what were they kept back from their plans ? 4. Who conspired with Satan at this time? 5. On what consideration did he promise to act? 6. Under what circumstances did he wish to act? 7. What was to be killed about this time ? 8. On what errand did Peter and John go? 9. What directions did Jesus give them? 10. For what room were they to inquire? 11. Did they make all preparations? 12. How many were present at this feast? 13. What desire did Jesus express to them? 14. Did Jesus eat of this passover? 15. What form of drink was used with this feast? 16. Did Jesus partake of this drink? 17. It was his last to eat and drink till when? 18. After saying this what did he take again ? 19. Tell what he called it. 20. Who ate of it ? 21. For what purpose was it to be eaten? 22. What was taken next? 23. Tell what he called it. 24. What evil hand did he then announce ? 25. What had been determined? 26. But upon whom would woe descend ? 27. What inquiry did they make? 28. About what did the disciples strive? 29. What people were they thus imitating? 30. Tell how they should be different. 31. How was the humility of Jesus here shown? 32. In what had the disciples continued? 33. For this what was to be appointed for them? 34. Where were they to eat? 35. What authority was to be given them? 36. Tell the announcement Jesus made to Peter. 37. What had Jesus done on behalf of Peter’ s faith? 38. What was he exhorted to do afterward? 39. Tell the rash declaration Peter made. 40. And the prediction Jesus made to this. 41. What acknowledgment of providence did they make? 42. Tell what change is now necessary. 43. Why was this so? 44. What things must have their end or purpose ? 45. Why were two swords enough ? 46. From here where did they go? 47. Was this his first to come here ? 48. When here what did he exhort them to do? 49. Withdrawing a short distance what did he do? 50. State the subject of his prayer. 51. On what condition did he place it? 52. Who administered to him now ? 53. What caused the increase of earnestness? 54. Had his body been attacked yet ? 55. Where could the agony be located, in body or mind ? 56. Did Jesus sweat blood? 57. What fell to the ground? 58. Tell what it was compared to. 59. Coming back what did he find them doing? 60. What caused them to do this? 61. Repeat his exhortation. 62. At this moment who came? 63. By whom were they led? 64. For what purpose did he come near Jesus ? 65. What remark did Jesus then make? 66. Tell what defense was offered to him. 67. What did he do and say about this? 68. What did he say to the priests and elders? 69. With what was the multitude armed? 70. Had necessity for such been indicated? 71. Tell what previous opportunities they had. 72. What makes the difference ? 73. Where did they then take Jesus? 74. Tell what Peter did. 75. Describe the weather condition at this time. 76. Where did Peter take his seat? 77. What was said to him? 78. How did he answer? 79. What prediction did Peter then fulfill ? 80. And what fowl fulfilled a prediction? 81. How was Peter reminded of this ? 82. What did he then do? 83. Tell what they next did to Jesus. 84. How did they test his knowledge ? 85. In what manner did they speak many things 86. Where did they take him in the morning? 87. What question did they here ask him? 88. Did he answer direct? 89. Of what did he accuse them ? 90. What announcement did he then make? 91. To their next question how did he answer? 92. At this, what did they accuse him ?

Luke 22:1

1 In Mark 14:1 the passover and unleavened bread are spoken of as separate feasts. That is because there was no leaven allowed in their houses on the 14th day of the first month, nor on the seven days immediately following. Because of this, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. (See Leviticus 23:4-6.)

Luke 22:2

2 Sought how means they wanted to plan the death of Jesus in some way that would avoid a riot among the people. (See Matthew 26:4-5; Mark 14:1-2.)

Luke 22:3

3 Then entered Satan. This does not mean that Satan here for the first time began to influence Judas, for he was called a devil by Jesus before this (John 6:70-71). But Judas had been rebuffed in his covetous attitude toward the woman with the ointment (John 12:3-6), and began at once to plan a wicked scheme against Jesus, which was under the impulse of Satan. (See notes on Matthew 26:14-16.)

Luke 22:4

4 Judas began his wicked plan by contacting the chief priests and captain, making a proposition to betray Jesus into their hands.

Luke 22:5

5 They were glad because they hated Him for his exposure of their hypocrisy.

Luke 22:6

6 In the absence of the multitude. This was because they did not want to get the multitude stirred up in protest against the persecution of Jesus (Mark 14:2).

Luke 22:7

7 Day of unleavened bread means the first day of the entire eight, during which no leaven was to be used. This 8-day period began with the day on which the passover was killed. (See the notes at verse 1.)

Luke 22:8

8 Go and prepare. Special arrangements had to be made because Jesus and his apostles were to eat their Passover two days before the regular time (Matthew 26:2; Matthew 26:17).

Luke 22:9-10

0 Jesus gave the two disciples instructions about preparing for their Passover, which they did according to Matthew 26:18-19.

Luke 22:11-13

3 Jesus was divine and knew just what conditions the disciples would find in the house, and also what the disposition of the men would be who were concerned in the appointment. Guestchamber is from the same word as “inn” in chapter 2:7.

Luke 22:14

4 The events of this night are not all recorded in any one of the Gospel records, nor in strict chronological order. Before going any further at this place, I urgently insist that the reader see the comments at Matthew 26:20, and keep his book open for frequent reference as he follows the comments at this verse and on through verse 23. I shall now comment on these verses as they come, making my remarks in view of the paragraph in Matthew cited above. He sat down. This phrase is from ANA-PIPTO, which Thayer defines, “To lie back, lie down; to recline at table.” (See the comments at chapter 16:22.)

Luke 22:15

5 This was the fourth Passover Jesus ate after his baptism, according to John 2:13; John 5:1; John 6:4; John 13:1.

Luke 22:16

6 Jesus predicted that when he ate the Passover again, it would be of a spiritual nature, for it would be in the kingdom of God (the church).

Luke 22:17

7 Took the cup. According to Smith’s Bible Dictionary, and Funk and Wagnalls’ Standard Bible Dictionary, the Jews added the drinking of wine to the celebration of the Passover. It was this cup that Jesus took in this verse.

Luke 22:18

8 Not drink takes the same comments as not eat in verse 16.

Luke 22:19

9 Jesus is now instituting his supper that is to become the weekly “breaking of bread” in the church (Acts 20:7). This is my body was not said while they were in the Passover activities (see the notes in Matthew cited above). This do in remembrance of me could not apply to the Jewish feast.

Luke 22:20

0 After supper means after the Passover supper. “A testament is of force after men are dead” Hebrews 9:16-18. As the animal sacrifices constituted the testament under the Mosaic system, so the blood of Christ (which will have been shed in his death), was to constitute the new tesa-ment in my blood.

Luke 22:21

1 The writer now goes back to the activities of the Passover. (See the notes and comments cited in Matthew 26, from verse 14 here.)

Luke 22:22

2 The betrayal and slaying of Jesus had been determined upon by the counsel of God (Acts 2:23), to which the reference is made here.

Luke 22:23

3 Began to enquire. See the comments at Matthew 26:22.

Luke 22:24-27

7 See the notes on Matthew 20:25-28.

Luke 22:28

8 Throughout the public ministry of Jesus, he was subject to the trials of his life which he overcame completely. (See Hebrews 4:15.)

Luke 22:29

9. See Luke 12:32.

Luke 22:30

0 The privilege of eating at the table of another was regarded as a great favor. Jesus used the circumstance figuratively to designate the close relationship the apostles were to sustain with Christ in his kingdom. See Matthew 19:28 for comments on judging the twelve tribes.

Luke 22:31-34

4 While the wording is a little different, the thoughts and subject matter of this paragraph are the same as Matthew 26:31-35.

Luke 22:35-36

6 See the comments on Matthew 10:10. Sell his garment and buy one [a sword]. Jesus never did forbid the use of force in defence where life or home was threatened, but rather spoke favorably for it (chapter 12:39); hence He advised his apostles to provide themselves with the necessary weapon. It might be objected that Jesus rebuked Peter when he used his sword (John 18:10-11). That is true, but that was not an act of defence, for no one’s life was being even threatened by the use of weapons, hence Peter’s act was an aggressive one. Besides, he proposed to use his sword in defence of the plan of salvation, while in our verse it was only for the purpose of defence against bodily harm. (See again the passage in chapter 12:39.)

Luke 22:37

7 This verse was to show why the apostles would have to go on without the personal presence of Jesus; he was going to be taken from them. Things concerning me hath an end, means the things predicted of Him (including his death) were to be fulfilled to the end, or to be fully accomplished.

Luke 22:38

8 This is an incidental item. Jesus had instructed them to procure a sword, and they told him they already had two, which was found to be sufficient.

Luke 22:39

9 As he was want denotes it was a regular practice for Jesus to go out to this mount, which was the location of Gethsemane (John 18:1-2).

Luke 22:40

0 On this particular occasion there was a special event about to take place, the betrayal of Jesus into the hands of the chief priests and elders.

Luke 22:41-42

2 See the comments at Matthew 26:41-42.

Luke 22:43

3 After Jesus had resisted Satan in the wilderness (Matthew 4:11), God sent an angel to minister to him. Now an angel comes to his assistance in the garden.

Luke 22:44

4 Agony is defined, “Severe mental struggles and emotions.” It was a part of the “cup” of which Jesus prayed to be relieved in verse 42. As it were is from HOSEI, which Thayer defines, “As if, i. e., as it were, as though, as, like as, like.” Jesus did not “sweat blood” as it is so often said. His sweat was gathered upon the surface of the body in great drops that were compared to clotted blood. The condition was caused by the intense nervous agitation over the experiences He knew were soon to be thrust upon him by the powers of darkness.

Luke 22:45

5 Sleeping for sorrow. It was wrong for the apostles to be sleeping even for this cause, but it was not as bad as if it was from pure indifference. A like situation exisited once with the Israelites in Egypt (Exodus 6:9).

Luke 22:46

6 This verse gives an admonition that would be good for general guidance. In other places it is worded “watch and pray” (Matthew 26:41).

Luke 22:47

7 Judas had left the company of Jesus and the other apostles just after eating of the Passover. See the comments at Matthew 26:47.

Luke 22:48

8 The salutation of a kiss was a common practice in old times, hence there should not have been any surprise at the mere fact that Judas kissed Jesus, under ordinary circumstances. But it had been but a short time since he left the upper room where Jesus was with the other apostles, so the usual occasion for salutations was wanting. Besides, a salutation as an act of social courtesy would have been appropriate for the apostles also, for Judas had been absent from all of them the same length of time. But Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of the traitor by this statement, in question form, but really in order to show him that his Lord knew what he was doing.

Luke 22:49

9 Neither of the other records says anything about this conversation.

Luke 22:50

0 John 18:10 tells us it was Peter who did this.

Luke 22:51

1 In this account Jesus said to Peter, “Suffer ye thus far,” mean ing that he should not resist the crowd that was coming to take his Master. The event is the same as recorded in Matthew 26:52.

Luke 22:52-53

3 This paragraph is the same in meaning as Matthew 26:55-56.

Luke 22:54-55

5 See the comments at Matthew 26:57-58.

Luke 22:56-62

2 This paragraph has to do with Peter’s threefold denial of Christ according to predictions made by Him. The sad affair is explained at Matthew 26:69-75.

Luke 22:63

3 These actions against Jesus were to show their disrespect of Him.

Luke 22:64

4 Prophesy is used in the sense of a test for the superior wisdom of Jesus. If He was divine, he should be able to know who did the striking.

Luke 22:65

5 Blasphemously spake means they said many things in a way that would injure the good name of Jesus, were they to be heard and believed by others.

Luke 22:66

6 The council was the Sanhedrin, which was the highest court the Romans permitted the Jews to have in the time of Christ and the apostles.

Luke 22:67-68

8 Jesus let the men in the council know that He regarded their question as being insincere, and not from a desire for information.

Luke 22:69

9 Jesus made a prediction they were not expecting.

Luke 22:70

0 Taking the remark of Jesus in the preceding verse as an indirect answer to their question, they repeated it in a slightly different form. Ye say that I am is a Biblical form of an affirmative answer.

Luke 22:71

1. This verse is explained at Matthew 26:65-66.