A. The betrayal (22:1–6)
A. The betrayal (22:1–6)
1. Strictly the feast of Unleavened Bread was distinct from the Passover (Num. 28:16f.). But the two occurred together and they could be regarded as the same festival. Josephus sometimes speaks of them as distinct but, like Luke, he can give the same name to both (Antiquities xiv. 21). All our Gospels agree that the crucifixion took place on a Friday in the Passover season, but whether the Passover coincided with the Lord’s Supper (as it seems to do in the Synoptics) or with the crucifixion itself (as John seems to say) is one of the most difficult questions in New Testament interpretation. Some see a flat contradiction and choose between them. Others think the Synoptic date correct and see John as really agreeing. Others think the Johannine view the right one and hold that the Synoptists do not differ. Possibly the best explanation is that there were different calendars in use. Jesus died as the Passover victims were being slain according to the official calendar; but he had held the Passover with his followers the previous evening according to an unofficial calendar.1 It agrees with this that, while all three Synoptists speak of the meal as though it were the Passover, none of them mentions the lamb or kid which was the central feature of the Passover observance (and which could not be obtained without the concurrence of the temple authorities). Plummer sees the absence of the sacrificial victim as important, for Jesus was inaugurating something new, not simply carrying on something old (on v. 11).
2. The initiative in opposing Jesus is taken by the chief priests and the scribes. In all the Gospels the Pharisees were Jesus’ chief opponents throughout his ministry, but the high-priestly party took over at the end. It was they who had the political power. But that power was not unlimited and Luke pinpoints one difficulty: they feared the people. An open arrest might well have provoked a riot among the excitable pilgrims, many of whom supported Jesus. The chief priests dared not risk it.
3–4. Luke explains Judas’s treachery by saying that Satan entered him (cf. John 13:27). Neither Luke nor any of the other Evangelists vilifies Judas. They simply state the facts and bring out the enormity of the betrayal only by saying that he was of the number of the twelve. Judas took the initiative and sought out the hostile party. Only Luke tells us that the officers (i.e. commanders of the temple guard) were involved. It is not clear why Judas betrayed Jesus. One motive was disappointed avarice (Matt. 26:14f., which follows directly the story of the anointing with its ‘waste’, John 12:6). Some have tried to put him in a better light by suggesting, for example, that he was trying to get Jesus into a position where he would have to exercise his power and bring in the kingdom. Setting aside the not unimportant consideration that this would align Judas with Satan in the temptation narrative, all such attempts are speculation. There is no foundation for them in the texts.
5–6. Naturally enough the enemy were glad at this defection. It simplified their task. They agreed on the price (given only in Matt. 26:15). Since Jesus had such popular support it was important that he be arrested when there were no crowds present to start a riot.