CHAPTER XXII

Outline of Chapter 22

Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do

22:1–6 The Plot of the Chief Priests and Scribes to Kill Jesus

and

The Agreement Between Judas and the Plotters

22:7–13 The Preparation of the Passover

22:14–23 Passover and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper

22:24–30 The Dispute About Greatness

22:31–34 Peter’s Denial Foretold

22:35–38 “You did not lack anything, did you?”

22:39–46 On the Mount of Olives:

The Prayer of Jesus

and

His Exhortation to Pray

22:47–53 The Betrayal of Jesus and His Reaction

22:54–62 Peter’s Threefold Denial

22:63–65 The Mocking and Beating of Jesus⁵⁵³

22:66–71 The Early Morning Trial Before the Sanhedrin

22:1–6 The Plot of the Chief Priests and Scribes to Kill Jesus

and

The Agreement Between Judas and the Plotters

Cf. Matt. 26:1–5, 14–16; Mark 14:1, 2, 10, 11; John 11:45–53

22 1 Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching. 2 So the chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to do away with Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the twelve. 4 He went off and discussed with the chief priests and the captains of the temple guards how he might betray Jesus to them. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He, in turn, consented, and began to look for a good opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd.

1. Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching.

For the manner in which the three final chapters of the Synoptics parallel each other see N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 549–552.

A reasonable assumption is that Jesus was crucified in the year a.d. 30, when the fourteenth day of Nisan fell on Thursday, and the fifteenth on Friday. In Israel the first appearance of the new moon marked the beginning of the new month. It was marked by the blowing of trumpets, sacrifices, celebrations, suspension of ordinary business, and wherever necessary by signal fires (Num. 10:10; 28:11–14; Ps. 81:3–5; Amos 8:5, 6). The important days of the month—for example, the tenth of the month Nisan, when the Passover lamb was selected, the killing of the lamb on the fourteenth, etc.—were figured from the first day, or day of the new moon, as a base. See the detailed regulations in Exod. 12:1–14; Num. 9:2–14; Deut. 16:1; cf. Esther 3:7.

There is no good reason to believe that Jesus and his disciples ate the lamb and celebrated Passover either earlier or later than on the appointed day. The fourteenth of Nisan was the day when the lamb “had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7). It is also clear that immediately after the eating of the lamb and the institution of what has come to be known as “the Lord’s Supper” Jesus and his disciples (with the exception of Judas, who had left earlier for his own destination, John 13:30) went to Gethsemane (Mark 14:32; Luke 22:39; John 18:1). Here, during what we would call the night from Thursday to Friday Jesus was taken into custody. Early Friday morning the Sanhedrin “took counsel against Jesus to put him to death” (Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66–71). He was led to Pilate that same morning and crucified that same day (Mark 15:1, 25; Luke 23:1, 33). It is clear, therefore, that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42, 43; Luke 23:46, 54; John 19:14, 30, 42). It was early in the morning of the day “after the sabbath”—hence on Sunday, the first day of the week— that some women went to the tomb and heard the startling news, “He is risen” (Matt. 28:1, 6; Mark 16:2, 6; Luke 24:1, 6; John 20:1).

Therefore, the theory according to which Jesus was crucified on Thursday is opposed by the evidence of the Gospels.⁵⁵⁴

The day on which the lamb was killed was followed by the seven-day feast of the Unleavened Bread,⁵⁵⁵ celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan. So close was the connection between the Passover meal proper and the festival of the Unleavened Bread which followed immediately that the term Passover is sometimes used to cover both, as clearly here in Luke 22:1.⁵⁵⁶

Since the feast of the Passover, etc., was “approaching” (Luke 22:1), “two days off” (Mark 14:1), it must have been Tuesday when Christ’s enemies held their meeting for the purpose of plotting how to bring about the arrest and death of Jesus.

Such a meeting, for which see Matt. 26:3, is not mentioned in Mark and Luke, only in Matthew, but is probably implied in verse

2. So the chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to do away with Jesus, for they were afraid of the people.

The plotters were “the chief priests and the scribes”; according to Matt. 26:3 also “the elders of the people.” A description of the three groups has been given in the explanation of Luke 20:1, 2.

The plan to kill Jesus was of long standing, as is clear from such passages as Mark 3:6; 11:18; 12:7, 12; John 5:18; 7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40; 11:53. In Luke see especially 19:47; 20:19. In fact the present passage (22:2) is virtually a repetition of 19:47, 48 and 20:19, for in all three passages it is either stated or implied that the plotters “were afraid of the people.” It must be borne in mind that Jesus had many followers, especially among the Galileans who had come to the feast. Add to this the fact that especially during Passover the thought of deliverance from the Roman yoke was uppermost in the minds of many, and it will be evident that there was sound basis for the fear in the hearts of Christ’s opponents. According to Matt. 26:57 the plotters met in the palace of Caiaphas the highpriest. Does this mean, then, that it was Caiaphas who was mainly responsible for the plot against Jesus? Well, John 11:47–53 may seem to point in that direction, and undoubtedly that conclusion may well be correct, at least to some extent. Caiaphas must have played a very important role. On the other hand, is not the theory justified that back of Caiaphas stood Annas? See N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 385–388.

3, 4. Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the twelve. He went off and discussed with the chief priests and the captains of the temple guards how he might betray Jesus to them.

The connection with the immediately preceding context is very close. Christ’s enemies were looking for an opportunity to arrest him without creating a riot. See also John 11:57. Judas makes matters easier for them by volunteering to deliver their enemy to them secretly; that is, without public disturbance.

Why did Judas do this? Answer: because Satan had entered his heart. Full justice must be done to this fact, mentioned also by John (13:27). The active part played by Satan in the events of Passion Week must not be ignored. See also Gen. 3:15; Luke 4:13; 22:31, 32.

All this, however, does not clear Judas from blame. See Luke 22:22. Judas was guilty because he failed to resist the devil (I Peter 5:8, 9). For more on the reasons which may have prompted Judas to yield to the influence of Satan and to betray Jesus, see above, on 6:16, under the heading Judas Iscariot.

For his shockingly loathsome deed there was no excuse whatever. Judas was, after all, a specially privileged person. He was “one of the twelve,” as all four evangelists take the trouble to point out (Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3; John 6:70, 71). For many months Judas had been living in Christ’s immediate presence, had been eating, drinking, and traveling with him. He had noticed the strength in the Master’s voice when he stilled the storm, cursed the barren fig tree, and rebuked those who devoured widows’ houses. But Judas had also become aware of the tenderness of that same voice when it pleaded with sinners, including Judas(!), to come to him and rest. He had listened to the Savior’s marvelous discourses and to the decisive and authoritative answers he had given to the many questions that had been hurled at him, sometimes with the intention of ensnaring him. Judas had watched the Great Physician in the act of tenderly restoring the handicapped, or bending down mercifully over the sick and healing them … and then even adding (at times), “Your faith has made you well.” Yes, Judas had witnessed all this and much more. Cf. Matt. 13:17. And then he decided to deliver this unsurpassably powerful, wise, and compassionate Benefactor into the hands of cruel men … “for thirty pieces of silver.”

We are not at all surprised to read:

5, 6. They were delighted and agreed to give him money. He, in turn, consented, and began to look for a good opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd.

The chief priests and captains of the temple guard were delighted. Their problem was solved. So the price was agreed on and paid. It is Matthew alone who mentions the amount of money the traitor received (26:15). This too was fulfilment of prophecy. See N.T.C. on that passage in Matthew’s Gospel.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 965–969.

Thursday and Friday

22:7–13 The Preparation of the Passover

Cf. Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16; or,

including the Passover itself,

Cf. Matt. 26:17–25; Mark 14:12–21; John 13:1–30

7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying (to them), “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”

9 They asked him, “Where do you want us to prepare it?” 10 He replied, “Just after you enter the city a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house to which he is going, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room, furnished. There make ready.”

13 So they went away and found (everything) just as Jesus had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

7, 8. Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying (to them), Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.

Finally the first day of the festival arrived, Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan. It was the day when the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Cf. Exod. 12:6; Lev. 23:5, 6.

Luke does not say anything about the purchase of the lamb. We may assume that this had been attended to a few days earlier. See Exod. 12:3. Further preparations had to be made, however. During the afternoon the lamb must be killed in the forecourt of the temple (Exod. 12:6). A room of sufficient size must be obtained, and everything in connection with this room and its furniture must be arranged. Besides, purchases must be made: unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, etc. The lamb must be made ready for use, the sauce must be prepared. Since by now it was probably Thursday morning, there could be no delay.

The words “the day … on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” are probably added by Luke for the sake of his Gentile readers.

So, in answer to the question of his disciples, “Where do you want us to go and prepare the Passover Supper?” (Mark 14:12), Jesus gives instructions to two disciples, namely, to Peter and John, as Luke alone informs us. He orders them to go and make preparations for the feast.

9–12. They asked him, Where do you want us to prepare it? He replied, Just after you enter the city a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house to which he is going, and say to the owner of the house, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room, furnished. There make ready.

It is clear that the directions given are in a sense very definite; in another sense very indefinite. They are definite enough so that the two men will experience no difficulty in finding the place where the supper is to be held. Yet, they are indefinite enough for the present to conceal the name of the owner of the house and the location of his home. The indefiniteness may very well have been due to the fact that not until evening must Judas know where the Passover is kept. Jesus must be able before his arrest to observe the feast with his disciples, must have time to institute what has come to be known as “the Lord’s Supper,” to deliver his touchingly beautiful “Supper Room Discourses” (John 14–16), and to pray his Highpriestly Prayer (John 17). If early in the day Judas had known where Jesus would be in the evening, he could have informed the chief priests, etc., who could then have arrested Jesus without any crowd being present, since the people in general would be eating the supper at that time, group by group in ever so many separate homes. Cf. Exod. 12:3, 4.

The two disciples will have no difficulty in locating the place. What they will see upon entering the city will be something rather strange: a man carrying a jar or jug of water. Men usually carried water in a skin; women in a jar. Peter and John are directed to enter the house where this man is going.

The man who carries this jar must not be confused with the owner of the house which he enters. The exact relation of the water carrier and the owner is not known. He may have been the owner’s servant, relative, or friend.

It is reasonable to assume that at least the owner—the other man also?—was a disciple of Jesus, ready to serve the Master in every possible way. In answer to their question this owner will show Peter and John a large upper room, “furnished.” The original uses a word that has the basic sense “spread.” When this is taken literally, it is sometimes interpreted to indicate such things as couches “with coverings spread over them.” Thus Moffatt offers the translation “a large room upstairs with couches spread.” Others accept the rendering “paved with tile.” But an unfurnished, merely paved, room would not serve the purpose for which Jesus wanted to use it. And since, in the process of time, words often acquire meanings other than (but often related to) their original sense, it is entirely possible that the interpretation given to this word by most English translators, namely, “furnished (perhaps with carpets, couches, and table)” is correct.

It was in that room that Peter and John must prepare the Passover.

13. So they went away and found (everything) just as Jesus had told them; and they prepared the Passover.

In this connection the question has been asked, “How did Jesus know that the two disciples would, upon entering the city, have exactly these experiences?” A previous detailed agreement between Jesus and the owner of the house has been suggested.⁵⁵⁷ Others, however, mention “supernatural knowledge” on the part of Jesus.⁵⁵⁸ And does not the very fact that Luke includes verse 13, as if he is recording something wonderful, something that must not escape the attention of the reader, confirm the second theory? What we have here should probably be regarded as in a class with such other passages as Matt. 17:27; John 1:47–50; 2:24, 25; 21:17; and perhaps also Luke 19:29 f., all of them either stating or at least implying that Jesus would at times draw upon the omniscience which he, as the Son of God, shared with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In connection with “and they prepared the Passover” it is probably necessary to assert once again that Jesus partook of the Passover and instituted the Lord’s Supper at the regular time, namely, on what we would call Thursday. It was on that day, the fourteenth of Nisan, that the lamb had to be slaughtered and the preparations for the feast had to be made. It is true that by Jewish time reckoning the new day began at sunset, so that when the feast was proceeding it was already the fifteenth of Nisan.

All four Gospels support the theory: Passover and institution of the Lord’s Supper, Thursday; crucifixion, Friday (still the fifteenth of Nisan).

The question may be asked, however, “Is not this theory in conflict with John 18:28, according to which early Friday morning Christ’s bitter enemies—they hated Jesus—‘in order that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover, did not enter the governor’s residence’?” Answer: there is no conflict. For what may well be the solution of this problem see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 401–404.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 965–969.

22:14–23 Passover and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper

For 22:14–20 cf. Matt. 26:26–30; Mark 14:22–26; John 13:31–18:1; I Cor. 11:23–25

For 22:21–23 cf. Matt. 26:21–25; Mark 14:18–21; John 13:21–30

14 Now when the hour had come Jesus reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you that I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

17 Then he received a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I assure you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 Then he took (some) bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you. This do in remembrance of me.”

20 And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.⁵⁵⁹

21 “But look! The hand of the man who is betraying⁵⁶⁰ me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of man is going as it has been decreed, but woe to that man by whom he is being⁵⁶¹ betrayed!”

23 Then they began to discuss among themselves which of them it might be who was going to do this.

A few preliminary matters require our attention first of all:

a. Much has been written about the question whether verses 19b through 20 (beginning with “given for you,” verse 19, and ending with “poured out for you,” verse 20) are genuine. Did Luke write them or did he not? This question is discussed in the note on verses 19–21 on pp. 968, 969. My answer is that the verses are indeed authentic, part of God’s inspired Word. The reasons for taking this position are given in that note.

b. It is well-nigh impossible to enter into the meaning of the present section without some knowledge of the nature of the Jewish Passover Feast, especially the manner in which the various elements of the Passover meal followed each other. So here is a brief description, based on the best available sources:

The Order of The Passover Feast⁵⁶²

The main elements were as follows:

1. A prayer of thanksgiving by the head of the house; drinking the first cup of (diluted) wine.

2. The eating of bitter herbs, as a reminder of the bitter slavery in Egypt.

3. The son’s inquiry, “Why is this night distinguished from all other nights?” and the father’s appropriate reply, either narrated or read.

4. The singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 113, 114), and the washing of hands. The second cup.

5. The carving and eating of the lamb, together with unleavened bread. The lamb was eaten in commemoration of what the ancestors had been commanded to do in the night when the Lord smote all the first-born of Egypt and delivered his people (Exod. 12 and 13). The unleavened bread was in commemoration of “the bread of haste” eaten by the ancestors.

6. Continuation of the meal, each eating as much as he liked, but always last of the lamb. The third cup.

7. Singing of the last part of the Hallel (Psalms 115–118). Fourth cup.

c. Luke’s account, though not strictly chronological, is certainly orderly. Verses 14–38 can be divided as follows:

(1) Jesus addresses The Twelve, informing them that this is his final Passover “until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (verses 14–16).

(2) He partakes of the Passover with his disciples (verses 17, 18).

(3) In connection with the conclusion of the Passover meal he institutes the Lord’s Supper (verses 19, 20).

(4) Having briefly indicated what Jesus, during this evening and night, did for his disciples and (by means of the institution of the Lord’s Supper) for the Church at large, Luke now shows how they, in turn, are reacting to Jesus and his teaching. He shows this in connection with Judas (verses 21–23), The Twelve (verses 24–30), Simon (verses 31–34), and again, the little group as a whole (verses 35–38). And in each case they—Judas, etc.—are not in control of the situation. He, the Lord, is. His word is final!

14–16. Now when the hour had come Jesus reclined at table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you that I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Reclining at table with The Twelve the soul of Jesus is surcharged with deep emotion, to which he gives utterance in words preserved by Luke alone. Note the following:

a. “I have eagerly desired.” Cf. “I am overwhelmed” (12:50).

b. Not only “to eat this Passover,” but to do so “with you.” Does not this remind us of John 13:1, “having loved his own, he loved them to the uttermost”? Jesus knew what his death, within a matter of hours, would do for them (taken as a group), and of course for millions of others also. He loved them with a love inexpressible in words.

c. “… before I suffer.” But the Lord realized that this suffering would not be the end. It would be the means of achieving glory for his disciples and for himself. It is for this reason that he immediately adds:

d. “… I shall never eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God,” that is, “I shall never eat it again until its typical and symbolical meaning has become fully realized in the new heaven and earth.” It is there that the deliverance of his people, not from Egypt, but from all sin and evil, will have been fully accomplished. It is there that they will at last have been fully redeemed. It is there also that the fellowship between himself and all the redeemed will have been perfected (cf. Rev. 3:21).

17, 18. Then he received a cup, gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I assure you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.

It is natural to assume that the cup here mentioned was the very first one, the one that followed the opening prayer. See No. 1 under The Order of The Passover Feast. The drinking of this cup was definitely a part of the Passover meal. Note the giving of thanks that preceded the drinking of the wine. By ordering the contents of the cup to be divided among all those present, Jesus, acting as the Host, emphasizes the unity which, when conditions are as they should be, exists among and is experienced by all the partakers. Cf. Ps. 133. As the cup is being passed around Jesus repeats the prediction of verse 16b.

We should be sure, however, to interpret these words correctly, that is, optimistically. Jesus is not really saying, “This is the end. After tonight we’ll never see each other again.” What he is saying is rather this, “Though our continued fellowship here is about to end, it will be renewed gloriously in the kingdom to come, a kingdom of light and love, of triumph and praise, and this throughout all eternity.” What a fulfilment, what a reunion that will be, when the meaning of this Passover will be experienced in all its fulness, when the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest, and when the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea (Job 3:17; Isa. 11:9)!

It was probably in connection with point 6 of The Order of The Passover Feast (see pp. 959, 960) that the Lord’s Supper was instituted. Here Passover passes over into the Lord’s Supper. It was while, toward the close of the Passover meal, the men were all eating freely that Jesus instituted the new sacrament that was to replace the old. This also explains why both Luke (verse 20) and Paul (I Cor. 11:25) speak of “the cup after supper.”

19, 20. Then he took (some) bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body given for you. This do in remembrance of me. And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup, saying, This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you. For the authenticity of 19b, 20 see the note on this passage on pp. 968, 969.

A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody—for it required the slaying of the lamb—will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and the Lord’s Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord’s Supper points back to it.

Having taken from the table a thin slice or sheet of unleavened bread, Jesus “gave thanks” and then started to break up the slice. The words which the Lord used in this thanksgiving have not been revealed. To try to reconstruct them from Jewish formula prayers would serve no useful purpose. How do we even know that our Lord availed himself of these prayers?

The breaking of the bread, to which reference is made in all four accounts, must be considered as belonging to the very essence of the sacrament. This becomes clear in the light of that which immediately follows, namely, “This is my body given for you.”

To interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually saying that these portions of bread which he handed to the disciples were identical with his physical body, or were at that moment being changed into his body, is to ignore (a) the fact that in his body Jesus was standing there in front of his disciples, for all to see. He was holding in his hand the bread, and giving them the portions as he broke them off. Body and bread were clearly distinct and remained so. Neither changed into the other, or took on the physical properties or characteristics of the other. Besides, such an interpretation also ignores (b) the fact that during his earthly ministry the Master very frequently used symbolical language (Mark 8:15; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53–56; 11:11). It is striking that in all of the instances indicated by these references the symbolical or figurative character of our Lord’s language was disregarded by those who first heard it! In each case also, the context makes clear that those who interpreted Christ’s words literally were mistaken! Is it not high time that the implied lesson be taken to heart? Finally, there is (c): when Jesus spoke of himself as being “the vine” (John 15:1, 5), is it not clear that he meant that what a natural vine is in relation to its branches, which find their unity, life, and fruit-bearing capacity in this plant, that, in a far more exalted sense, Christ is to his people? Is it not clear, therefore, that the vine represents or symbolizes Jesus, the genuine Vine? Thus also he calls himself—or is called—the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, etc. He also refers to himself as “the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48), “the bread that came down out of heaven” (John 6:58). So, why should he not be, and be represented and symbolized by, “the broken bread”? Accordingly, the meaning of “the broken bread” and the poured-out wine is correctly indicated in a Communion Form which represents Christ as saying: “Whereas otherwise you should have suffered eternal death, I give my body in death on the tree of the cross and shed my blood for you, and nourish and refresh your hungry and thirsty souls with my crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life, as certainly as this bread is broken before your eyes and this cup is given to you, and you eat and drink with your mouth in remembrance of Me.”⁵⁶³

Jesus adds, “This do in remembrance of me.” It was the desire of our Lord that by means of the supper, here instituted, the church should remember his sacrifice and love him, should reflect on that sacrifice and embrace him by faith, and should look forward in living hope to his glorious return. Surely, the proper celebration of communion is a loving remembrance. It is, however, more than that. Jesus Christ is most certainly, and through his Spirit most actively, present at this genuine feast! Cf. Matt. 18:20. His followers “take” and “eat.” They appropriate Christ by means of living faith, and are strengthened in this faith.

With respect to “And in the same way after supper (he took) the cup,” etc., note the following:

Jesus says, “This cup (is) the new covenant in my blood.”

But why does he speak of a new covenant? Do not such passages as Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:8, 9, 29 clearly teach that the old covenant, the one made with Abraham, “the father of us all,” is still in force? They certainly do. Nevertheless, there has been a tremendous change, a change so significant that even Jeremiah (31:31), looking into the future, could speak of a new covenant. That newness consists in this, (a) that for believers in the new dispensation the law is no longer written on tables of stone but on their hearts, the Holy Spirit having been poured out into these hearts; and (b) that the covenant is no longer almost exclusively between God and Israel but between God and all believers, regardless of race or nationality (Rom. 10:12, 13).

Note also “the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.”

In all four accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, I Cor. 11) a relation is established between Christ’s blood and his covenant. As reported by Matthew and Mark, Jesus said, “my blood of the covenant”; here in Luke—with little if any difference in meaning—“the new covenant in my blood.” The expression goes back to such passages as Exod. 24:8; Jer. 31:31–34. See also the significant passage Lev. 17:11. And note: “Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22; cf. Eph. 1:7); therefore also no covenant, no special relation of friendship between God and his people. Reconciliation with God always requires blood, an atoning sacrifice. And since man himself is unable to render such a sacrifice, a substitutionary offering, accepted by faith, is required (Isa. 53:6, 8, 10, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 6:51; Rom. 5:19; 8:32; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 2:20; 3:13; I Peter 2:24).

As Luke reports it, Jesus said, “… my blood, poured out for you.” Both Matthew (26:28) and Mark (14:24) read “poured out for many.” There is no conflict. Christ’s true disciples (The Eleven) were included in the “many.”

As was shown in our little summary on p. 960, having briefly indicated what Jesus, during this evening and this night, did for his disciples (while still in the upper room), Luke now describes how they, in turn, reacted to Jesus and his teaching. In this connection the evangelist returns to what happened before the institution of the Lord’s Supper; in other words, to what took place while the Passover meal was still in progress:

21. But look! The hand of the man who is betraying me is with me on the table.

That in all probability what is here recorded took place before the institution of the Lord’s Supper is confirmed by the following facts:

a. In the somewhat more chronologically arranged Synoptics, Matthew and Mark, the institution of the Lord’s Supper follows the announcement concerning the betrayer. Cf. Matt. 26:26–29 with 26:20–25; and Mark 14:22–25 with 14:17–21.

b. In John’s parallel report concerning the exposure of the traitor, Judas leaves the upper room immediately after Jesus told him, “What you are doing, do it faster” (John 13:21–30).

Think of it: “The hand of the man who is betraying me is with me on the table,” or as Mark has it, “I solemnly declare to you, one of you will betray me: one who eats with me” (14:18), and, even more sharply and dramatically, “one of the twelve, one who is dipping (his hand) into the bowl with me” (verse 20).

Jesus continues: 22. For the Son of man is going as it has been decreed, but woe to that man by whom he is being betrayed.

For “the Son of man” see on 5:24 and on Matt. 8:20. Jesus, the One who via the path of humiliation attains to glorification, and in fact was glorious from the very beginning, goes, that is, lives on earth, suffers, dies, all this not as a victim of circumstances, but “as it has been decreed,” hence as predicted by the prophets (Isa. 53, etc.) and established in God’s eternal decree. It was necessary for the Master to emphasize this truth once again, for it was so very difficult for the disciples to reconcile themselves with the idea of a Messiah who would die. Besides, when, on the day of tomorrow—by Jewish reckoning “today”—he dies on the cross, let the disciples reflect on this solemn statement, that they may know that this death does not mean the triumph of his enemies but rather the realization of God’s gracious, sovereign, and ever victorious plan.

However, nowhere in Scripture do predestination and prophecy cancel human responsibility. So also here: the cry of sorrow and pity, “Woe to that man by whom he is being betrayed,” fully maintains the guilt and establishes the doom of the traitor. We know that he did not truly repent. Hence he faces everlasting damnation (see Matt. 25:46). What makes his guilt all the heavier is the fact that he not only planned the treachery and took the next step—volunteering to deliver Jesus to the enemy—and the next—accepting the thirty pieces of silver—but even now, in spite of Christ’s impressive warnings, goes right ahead.

Continued: 23. Then they began to discuss among themselves which of them it might be who was going to do this.

It is clear that here, as so often, Luke summarizes. For a more detailed account one should consult the parallels in the other Gospels. Very briefly: Christ’s shocking announcement evoked three responses, in the form of questions, as follows: (a) a question of wholesome self-distrust, “Surely not I?” That was the reaction on the part of all the disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot. In Mark’s Gospel the question in this form is found in 14:19; Christ’s answer in verses 20, 21. There was also (b) a question of loathsome hypocrisy, “Surely, not I, Rabbi?” That, probably after considerable hesitation, was Judas’ reaction. For both his question and Christ’s answer see Matt. 26:25. Finally, there was (c) a question of childlike confidence, “Lord, who is it?” That was the way in which John, prompted by Peter, expressed himself. The question in this form, the events relating to it, Christ’s response, and the disciples’ reaction to that response are recorded only in John 13:23–30, which also (in verse 30) mentions the traitor’s departure.

One more fact should be stressed. As has been indicated, Jesus was himself the Host. All the others were eating his food. That very fact, especially in the Near East, a region where accepting someone’s hospitality and then injuring him was considered most reprehensible, should have tied the hands of all. It should have made it impossible for any of The Twelve to take any action against their Host. Think of Ps. 41:9. And in addition to what Jesus did for The Twelve this night, how many (in fact very many) other favors had not the Lord bestowed upon them, including Judas, during all these months of their association with him?

Nevertheless, we should not rivet our attention solely on Judas. We should fix it on Jesus! In a treacherous and humiliating manner he, the Lord of glory, is being handed over to his enemies. It is very important that we see this. Our reflection on the story of Christ’s Passion should not become lost in all kinds of details regarding Judas and Peter and Annas and Pilate. It is, after all, the story of his suffering. It centers in him, and we should never forget to see him at the very center of the developing events.

The present little paragraph (verses 21–23) shows again that Jesus was in full control of the situation. He was not taken by surprise. He knew exactly what was happening and what was going to happen, the very details. And the fact that he reveals this to his disciples will prove to be a support to them when they subsequently discover that everything actually develops exactly as he had foreseen! What a wonderful Savior!⁵⁶⁴

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 22:1–23

Verse 3

“Then Satan entered Judas.” Scripture emphasizes the role of Satan in the affairs of men. See, for example, Gen. 3:15; Job 1:6; 2:1; Zech. 3:1 f.; Matt. 16:23; Luke 4:1 f.; 10:18; 13:16; 22:31, 32; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom. 16:20; I Cor. 5:5; 7:5; Eph. 6:12, 13; I Peter 5:8, 9; Rev. 20:2, 7. To make our children more keenly aware of the activity of Satan, and of their duty to resist him and his temptations, would it not be advisable to teach them, when they pray the Lord’s Prayer, to say, “And deliver us from the evil one” (instead of “from evil”)? Especially since that is probably what Jesus meant when he taught his disciples this prayer. See N.T.C. on Matt. 6:13.

Verse 5

“They were delighted.” This was not the only time in the history of the world when religious leaders, such as priests and scribes, have with relish endorsed wicked plans. The fact that a meeting is opened and closed with prayer, that Scripture is read, and hymns are sung, does not necessarily mean that God places the stamp of his approval on such a meeting. It is the heart that counts.

Verse 13

“So they … found everything just as Jesus had told them.” Divine omniscience, how comprehensive (Ps. 139), and how comforting (John 21:17).

Verses 19, 20

“My body given for you … my blood, poured out for you.” “This do in remembrance of me.” Therefore:

According to thy gracious word,

In meek humility

This will I do, my dying Lord:

I will remember thee.

When to the cross I turn mine eyes,

And rest on Calvary,

O Lamb of God, my sacrifice,

I must remember thee.

Stanzas from

“According to Thy Gracious Word”

by J. Montgomery

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 22:1–23

Verse 1

(see also verses 7, 8)

ἀζύμων, gen. pl. of ἄζυμος (= ἀ plus ζύμη), without leaven, unleavened. Hence, here the entire expression is “the feast of Unleavened Bread.” τὰ ἄζυμα means “unleavened bread.” The reference is to the unleavened, flat bread-cakes; see verse 7.

πάσχα, from Aramaic פַסְכְָא, is related to a verb meaning to pass over. See Exod. 12:13, 27. The word πάσχα occurs in the following senses:

a. the Passover festival on the fourteenth of Nisan, but in popular usage covering also the festival of Unleavened Bread from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of that month. That is the meaning here in 22:1.

b. the paschal lamb (22:7; Mark 14:12a).

c. Christ, the Lamb (I Cor. 5:7).

d. the Passover meal (22:8, 13; cf. Matt. 26:19; Mark 14:12b; 14:16).

Verse 2

ἐζήτουν, third per. pl. imperf. (either descriptive or iterative) of ζητέω, to seek, look for.

τὸ πῶς introduces indirect question; cf. verse 4.

ἀνέλωσιν, third per. pl. 2nd aor. (effective) subjunct. (deliberat.) of ἀναιρέω, to take up, destroy. See also 23:32.

Verse 4

συνελάλησεν, third per. s. aor. indicat. of συλλαλέω, to talk or discuss with. See 9:30; Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4.

στρατηγοῖς, dat. pl. of στρατηγός**; also in 22:52; Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26, captain of the temple guard.

παραδῷ, third per. s. aor. subjunct. (deliberat.) act. of παραδίδωμι, to give or hand over, deliver up, betray. So also in verses 6, 21, 22, 48. Other meanings: to commit, yield (up), hazard, etc. See also the note on 1:2 on page 61: to hand down.

Verse 5

ἐχάρησαν, third per. pl. 2nd aor. (ingressive) indicat. pass. of χαίρω, to be glad, delighted. This verb is related to χάρις, on which see the note on 2:40 on pp. 181, 182.

συνέθεντο, third per. pl. 2nd aor. (ingress.) middle of συντίθημι, to place together, agree. Cf. John 9:22; Acts 23:20.

Verse 6

ἐξωμολόγησεν, third per. s. aor. indicat. of ἐξομολογέω, to say the same thing, agree, consent. See the note on 10:21 on page 589; also N.T.C. on Matthew, footnote 477 on pp. 497, 498.

ἄτερ*, from, without, in the absence of; in the New Testament only here and in verse 35.

Verse 7

(see also verse 1)

θύεσθαι, pres. pass. infinitive of θύω, to sacrifice. See the note on 15:23 on page 762.

Verse 8

See verse 1.

Verse 9

ἑτοιμάσωμεν, first per. pl. aor. subjunct. (deliberat.) act. of ἑτοιμάζω, to prepare. Note absence of ἵνα before the subjunct.

Verse 10

Note gen. absolute “you having entered” = “after you enter.”

κεράμιον, diminutive of κέραμος, pitcher, jar. Cf. ceramics.

Verse 11

οἰκοδεσπότῃ, dat. s. of οἰκοδεσπότης, owner of the house. The modifier τῆς οἰκίας has been called “pleonastic” since this idea is already implied in the noun it modifies. Is it possible that it was added because the sense “of the house” as part of the compound noun had faded?

κατάλυμα, here guest room, but see also the note on 2:7 on page 148.

φάγω, first per. s. 2nd aor. subjunct. (futuristic after ὅπου). See also verse 16. The present uses ἐσθίω, to eat.

Verse 12

ἀνάγαιον, upper room; so also in Mark 14:15, the only New Testament instances of its use.

ἐστρωμένον, acc. s. neut. perf. pass. participle of στρώννυμι, to spread; here probably: to furnish.

Verse 15

Note Hebraism “With desire I have desired” (A.V.), meaning “I have eagerly desired.”

Also note “before the suffering with respect to me,” meaning “before my suffering” or “before I suffer.” In this one verse Hebrew and Greek style are combined, Luke being well-versed in both.

παθεῖν, 2nd aor. infinitive of πάσχω, to suffer. Cf. passion.

Verse 16

οὐ μή, strong negative: certainly not; never.

As in verse 11 φάγω is futuristic.

Note ἕως followed by the gen. of a neut. relat. pronoun = until. Therefore: Futuristic aor. subjunctive is also this φάγω. And so is third per. s. pass. πληρωθῇ, from πληρόω, to make full, fulfil.

Verse 17

διαμερίσατε, sec. per. pl. aor. imperat. act. of διαμερίζω, to divide into parts (διά plus μερίζω; cf. μέρος, part), to distribute. See also the note on 11:17 on page 633.

Verse 18

With οὐ μὴ πίω cf. οὐ μὴ φάγω in verse 16; and with ἔλθῃ cf. πληρωθῇ in that same verse.

Verses 19–21

The words beginning with τὸ ὑπέρ and ending with ἐκχυννόμενον are rejected by many. Reasons for rejection:

a. They are lacking in Codex Bezae and certain Latin and Syriac witnesses.

b. If the longer text was the original, how can the shorter text be explained? Is it not easier to explain how a short text would be unjustifiably expanded than how a long text would be shortened?

c. The shorter text, which fails to ascribe any redemptive significance to the outpouring of Christ’s blood, makes it easier to understand why Luke did not include in his Gospel the ransom passage found in Mark 10:45 (cf. Matt. 20:28).

The answer might be as follows:

a. The type of text which includes the disputed words (verse 19b and all of verse 20) is more often than not regarded as being superior to the other or Western text, with its many additions and (sometimes) subtractions.

b. Explaining the rise of the shorter text may not be so difficult after all. It may have arisen because a second-century copyist failed to understand why, after the mention of a “cup” in verse 17, there would be mention of still another cup in verse 20. Neither Matt. 26:27 nor Mark 14:23 makes mention of more than one cup. So it is possible that this scribe was not well acquainted with the complicated ritual of the Jewish Passover, with its many—at least four—cups. See S.BK., Vol. IV, p. 75.

c. Referring to Luke’s omission of Mark 10:45 and its parallel, without also taking note of Acts 20:28 (“the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood”) and of Acts 8:32 (with its emphasis on the slaughtered lamb of Isa. 53), is hardly fair.

d. Adopting the shorter text leads us into the following dilemma: (a) if the cup (verse 17) is regarded as part of the Lord’s Supper, we must accept a sequence (cup-bread) that is in conflict with Matt. 26:26, 27; Mark 14:22, 23; (b) if the cup is regarded as part of the Passover (probably correct), we must conclude that in the Lord’s Supper only bread was used. Neither position is tenable. See also B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 50.

I have found no sound reason, therefore, to reject the longer text.

ἐκχυννόμενον, nom. s. neut. pres. (futuristic) pass. participle of ἐκχύννομαι; cf. the basic form ἐκχέω, to shed, pour out. See also the note on 5:37 on page 313, and the note on 11:50 on page 647. The pres. act. participle παραδιδόντος in verse 21 is also futuristic.

Verse 22

ὡρισμένον, acc. s. neut. perf. pass. participle of ὁρίζω, to set limits to, determine, decree, appoint. This verb is found also in Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 4:7. For the related προορίζω see N.T.C. on Eph. 1:5. Cf. horizon.

παραδίδοται, third per. s. pres. (futuristic) indicat. of παραδίδωμι, for which see on verse 4 above.

Verse 23

συζητεῖν, pres. infinitive of συζητέω, to seek, discuss, talk with someone else; to discuss (together); sometimes, as in Mark 8:11; 9:14, 16, to argue, dispute.

Here in Luke 22:23 the subordinate clause, including an indirect question, is introduced by τό.

εἴη, third per. s. pres. optat. of εἰμί.

22:24–30 The Dispute About Greatness

24 There also arose a dispute among them as to which one of them was considered to be the greatest. 25 So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are styled ‘Benefactors.’ 26 But you (are) not (to do)⁵⁶⁵ so. On the contrary, let the greatest among you become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. 27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? However, I am among you as one who serves. 28 But you are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 Moreover, I on my part am assigning to you, even as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Though this section, considered as a unit, has no parallel, its individual passages or combinations of certain passages do have parallels; some close, some not so close:

With verse 24 cf. Matt. 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46.

With the combined verses 25–27 cf. Matt. 20:25–28; Mark 10:42–45.

With verse 26 (considered by itself) cf. Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35.

With verse 27, similarly, cf. John 13:1–17.

With verse 28 cf. John 6:66–69; 17:6c, 8, 12, 14.

With verse 29 cf. Luke 12:32; Rev. 3:21; 5:10; 17:14; 20:4.

With verse 30 cf. Matt. 19:28.

24. There also arose a dispute among them as to which one of them was considered to be the greatest.

The little summary on p. 960 shows that from Judas Luke now turns to The Twelve (verses 24–30). The evangelist does not indicate just when, during that memorable night, the dispute about greatness occurred. Nevertheless, the other Gospels strongly suggest a background for it. It probably took place at the very beginning of the feast. The occasion may well have been the question, “Just how will the thirteen be arranged around the table? Who will occupy the positions of honor, and in what order of rank?” See what has been said about this in connection with 14:7 f. Or again, “Which disciple should wash the feet of the other disciples and of the Master?” See John 13:1 f. We observe therefore that even though the other Gospels do not parallel this Lucan account, they certainly suggest a background for it.

Picture the scene. Here was Jesus, about to lay down his life for these men, centering his attention on their needs, loving them very tenderly and intensely. For proof that this was indeed the situation that very night read such passages as John 13:1; 17:6–19. And do not the following passages imply as much: Rom. 5:6–11; 8:31–39; Gal. 2:20? Yet, while his heart goes out to them, they are quarreling about the question, “Who of us is the greatest?” What made their attitude even more reprehensible was that they had been reprimanded before with respect to this selfish attitude. See Matt. 18:1–5; Mark 9:34–37; Luke 9:46–48. Had they forgotten so quickly?

25. So Jesus said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are styled Benefactors.

Jesus again showed these men that their egotism was a worldly, pagan trait. It reminded one of the self-centeredness of “the kings of the Gentiles.” These men, while exercising their authority ruthlessly, nevertheless took delight in being called Benefactors!

How very true! On a denarius was not Augustus called “god”? On a copper coin was not Tiberius described as “one who deserved to be adored”? But, more to the point, had not the very title Benefactor (or Welldoer), Euergetes, been ascribed to both Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II?

Continued: 26, 27. But you (are) not (to do) so. On the contrary, let the greatest among you become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? However, I am among you as one who serves.

Jesus wants his disciples to be of an opposite mind, and therefore also to show the opposite disposition. Therefore he tells them that the greatest among them—the one who so regards himself or is so regarded by others—should become like the … youngest; that is, like the one least in honor.

This mention of “the youngest,” where we might have expected “the least,” is in line with the fact that under normal conditions the Bible, as these men knew it (our Old Testament), regarded old age as honorable and to be held in respect. See Lev. 19:32; Job 32:6, 7; Prov. 16:31; 20:29. What happened to Rehoboam when he rejected the counsel of the aged and followed that of the young (I Kings 12) had not been effaced from their memory.

Jesus, then, wants the greatest to become like the youngest, the one least in honor. He wants the leader to serve.

Appealing to something these men know very well, so that from the known he may proceed to the unknown or less well known and appreciated, he asks his disciples, “Who is greater, the one who is dining or the one who is waiting on him?” Of course, the former is generally regarded as the greater. Yet, does true greatness really consist in having someone wait on you? Jesus answers this question by stating, “But I am among you as one who serves.”

Was he not literally serving them, perhaps even at this very moment, or at least close to this moment, in a manner never to be forgotten? Read the story in John 13:1–11 (Jesus washing the feet of his disciples). In fact was not his entire earthly sojourn a life of rendering service to others in ever so many ways? Was not this the essence of his purpose in coming to earth? Who, in this connection, can forget Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45?

28–30. But you are those who have stood by me in my trials. Moreover, I on my part am assigning to you, even as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And now, ignoring the many character defects these men have exhibited, in fact even this very night, the Merciful Highpriest praises them for the faithfulness they have shown throughout his many trials. It was true that while others, by the score and perhaps even at times by the hundreds, had left the Savior (John 6:66), these men—Judas excepted—had remained loyal to him. Had not this loyalty been expressed beautifully by Peter as their spokesman (John 6:67–69), and by Thomas (John 11:16)?

So Jesus assigns to them a kingdom. The word kingdom should probably be interpreted here in the sense of “royal rule,” though the idea of “domain” cannot be entirely excluded, as the phrase in my kingdom indicates.

Jesus reminds his disciples that to him, too, a kingdom had been assigned, namely, by his Father. For proof see Luke 1:32, 33. Therefore, when he now assigns a kingdom to them, he means that they will share in his royal rule. Cf. Rev. 3:21; 20:4. He is referring to the kingdom in its final manifestation.

As has been pointed out several times, such expressions as eating and drinking in my kingdom (see N.T.C. on Matt. 8:11 and on 22:2) are part of the symbolism of the joys which God’s children will experience in the new heaven and earth.

As to “judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” a repetition of the promise Jesus had made earlier (see Matt. 19:28), in all probability he was thinking of the restored new Israel. Whether, as such, the term Israel indicates the total number of the elect gathered out of the twelve tribes of the Jews from the beginning to the end of the world’s history (cf. Rom. 11:26), or even all the chosen ones of both the Jews and the Gentiles (cf. Gal. 6:16), in either case it must refer to those who have been regenerated, for into the reborn universe to which Matt. 19:28 refers nothing unclean will ever enter (Rev. 21:27). The Twelve, who have followed Jesus here, having remained loyal to him in his trials (Luke 22:28), are going to receive the special reward that among all the members belonging to the new Israel they will be pre-eminent in reflecting the glory of their Lord and Savior. Those who have been closest to Jesus here will also be closest to him there. See also II Tim. 2:11, 12; Rev. 3:21; 20:4.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 977–980.

22:31–34 Peter’s Denial Foretold

Cf. Matt. 26:31–35; Mark 14:27–31; John 13:36–38

31 “Simon, Simon, watch out! Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not utterly fail; and you, once you have returned (to me), strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, with you I am ready to go even to prison and to death.”

34 But Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, a rooster will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me.”

31, 32. Simon, Simon, watch out! Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not utterly fail; and you, once you have returned (to me), strengthen your brothers.

As shown in the summary on p. 960, from The Twelve Luke now turns to Simon Peter. There are commentators who believe that this discussion between Jesus and Simon must have taken place after the group had left the upper room. They base this conclusion on Matt. 26:30–33 and on John 13:31–38. Others, however, hold that it is entirely possible that the Master started to warn Peter even while the group was still in the upper room, and that the discussion between that disciple and Jesus was continued afterward.

Note the following:

a. Jesus calls this disciple Simon, not (that is, not until verse 34) Peter, the Rock. If any significance can be attached to this fact, it may well be that the Master wishes to fix the attention of this leader upon the fact that in himself he is a weak creature, not at all a man of stability, no rock.

b. The repetition (“Simon, Simon”) indicates emphasis and deep concern. For other instances of this stylistic form see on 10:41.

c. Jesus says, “Behold” or “Take note,” “Pay attention,” “Watch out,” whichever rendering one may prefer. Simon will never be able to say that he was not warned.

d. Satan.

We seldom realize that beyond the struggle that goes on within the heart, and the conflict between opposing forces on earth, there is the probably even more intense encounter in the spiritual world. In the present case the ardent desire of Satan, his insistent demand, had been counteracted by the Savior’s prayer for Simon’s salvation. For other instances of this superterrestrial warfare see Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6; Zech. 3:1–5.

e. “Satan has desired to sift … as wheat.”

This sifting of wheat basically refers to the repeated, swift, and violent shaking of the wheat in a sieve. Someone—often a woman—grasps a sieve in both hands, and begins to shake it vigorously from side to side so that the chaff will rise to the surface. This is then thrown away. Next, she puts that sieve through a teeter-totter motion, raising now this and then that side, and blowing over it, so that what still remains of the chaff gathers in an easily removable pile. The purpose is, of course, to save the wheat, now separated from chaff and other unwanted materials.

What Jesus is saying, then, is this: the disciples too will be subjected to a severe trial. That trial is going to happen this very night, and probably often afterward in their lives. But the emphasis is upon the events of this night.

f. Although Jesus is here addressing one individual, namely, Simon, he is predicting what is going to happen to the entire group: note “Satan has desired to sift you” (not “you”).

g. Satan has desired … that is, has asked to have for himself. We are again reminded of the story of Job, how Satan demanded that he be given a free hand with respect to that eminent child of God.

h. But I have prayed for you. Note here the singular you, namely Simon. Not as if Jesus did not also pray for the other disciples. He prayed for them this very night (John 17:6–19), and must have prayed for them many times previously. But in the present passage the reference is to the intercession of Jesus for Simon, for him alone. Why this was we do not know. Was it perhaps because Simon was the recognized leader, a man who could be expected to exert influence on the others? Other suggestions that have been made are: because Simon was very headstrong, impetuous, a hard case therefore.

i. The substance of Christ’s prayer was “that your faith may not utterly fail,” in other words, that in the end your faith may prevail.

j. This interpretation also harmonizes with the words “and you, once you have returned [or: have retraced your steps], strengthen your brothers.” To be sure, considered in and by itself, Simon’s fall was bad, very bad, tragic. Yet, once it had occurred, Simon must make good use of this bad fall. He must use it to strengthen his fellow disciples.

33. But he replied, Lord, with you I am ready to go even to prison and to death.

It is clear from this that Simon did not know himself. “The heart is deceitful above all things; it is exceedingly corrupt; who can know it?” Simon should have prayed the prayer of Ps. 139:23, 24.

34. But Jesus answered, I tell you, Peter, a rooster will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me.

Cf. Matt. 26:34; Mark 14:30; John 13:38.

The threefold denial will accordingly take place before the early morning hours.

The reference to the crowing of the rooster does double duty: (a) It indicates the shallow character of Simon’s boast. Within just a few hours, yes, even before dawn, Peter will publicly disown his Master! Yet, (b) this very rooster-crowing will also serve as a means of bringing Peter back to repentance, for Christ’s reference to it becomes firmly embedded in that disciple’s mind, so that at the appropriate moment this hidden memory will suddenly pull the rope that will ring the bell of Peter’s conscience. See 22:60–62.

Note that here, in verse 34, Jesus, by exception—it never happened before or afterward—calls this disciple Peter, as if to remind him of his duty, namely, to be a rock, a duty which he was about to neglect so shamefully.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 977–980.

22:35–38 “You did not lack anything, did you?”

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They replied, “No, nothing.”

36 He said to them, “But now let him who has a purse take it along, and also a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his coat⁵⁶⁶ and buy one. 37 For I tell you, what has been written must be fulfilled in me:

‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’

Yes, that (passage) about me is reaching its fulfilment.”

38 They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords!”

He said to them, “Enough of that!”⁵⁶⁷

The discussion between Jesus and his disciples is resumed at this point. See the summary on p. 960. In all probability by now Judas has already left. See on verse 39 and cf. John 13:30. It is Jesus himself who starts the conversation with the remaining Eleven (verse 35a). It is he also who brings it to a conclusion (verse 38b). And throughout it is he who is in control.

Yet, they are not merely listeners. Twice their reactions are recorded (verses 35b and 38a).

Jesus opens the discussion by informing The Eleven that they are about to be confronted with a situation totally different than heretofore. Up to now he had fully assumed the responsibility of caring for them. And the enemies had aimed their poisoned arrows mainly at him. From now on things would be different. For this change they must prepare themselves.

The contrast between the two situations is brought out sharply in verses 35, 36. Note the wide gap between these two verses. Jesus had been providing for them (verse 35). From now on they must provide for themselves (verse 36). Of course, that is not true in an absolute sense. The disciples had not been entirely passive until now, and from now on Jesus, from his position on the Father’s right hand in heaven, would certainly still bless and keep them. But in a relative sense it is definitely true, for in just a little while Jesus will be taken away from these men and they will no longer be able to walk by his side, asking him questions and listening to his answers. Also, once Jesus has been crucified, the wrath of the opponents will be directed against Christ’s disciples. It is they who will then be persecuted.

35. Then Jesus asked them, When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, you did not lack anything, did you? They replied, No, nothing.

Though it is true that the terminology—purse, bag, sandals—corresponds more precisely with the charge to the seventy (or seventy-two) than with that to The Twelve (cf. 10:4 with 9:3), yet, as Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8, 9 make clear, there is no essential difference. In both cases precautionary measures with a view to what might happen on the journey had been ruled out. So now the Lord asks the disciples whether under these circumstances they had suffered lack of anything. When they answer that they had not,

36. He said to them, But now let him who has a purse take it along, and also a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his coat [or robe] and buy one.

That the situation in which Christ’s apostles would find themselves after his departure would indeed be different from what it was before follows also from the words found in the highpriestly prayer (John 17:11–13). From now on these men will have to take the initiative. They will need to cultivate courage to a degree not expected of them before. Making provision for missionary travels, such as taking along a purse and a traveling bag, will now be necessary.

Up to this point the reader experiences no great difficulty. But the puzzling statement “Let him who has no sword sell his coat and buy one” has led to all kinds of interpretations. Chief among them are the following:

a. Jesus was speaking of a literal sword, for protection against robbers, brigands, etc.

Objection: In that case why would he have rebuked Peter when he wielded his sword? See verses 49–51; cf. Matt. 26:51, 52; John 18:10, 11.

b. The reference is to a knife (butcher knife, carving knife). Before this time the needs of the disciples had been supplied by others. Their hosts would do the cutting and carving of the meat. Now they will have to do this themselves.

Objection: We can hardly imagine that in this very connection Jesus, using the same word for the instrument in question, would have said, “All who take the knife shall perish with the knife.” See Matt. 26:52.

c. The term sword must be interpreted figuratively. The meaning is that in the circumstances that are about to arise The Eleven will need all the courage they can muster.

In view of the context (see especially verse 38) and of the fact that again and again Jesus used figurative language (Matt. 16:6; Luke 8:52; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:13, 14, 32; 6:51; 11:11; etc.), this is probably the correct explanation.

It is not difficult to understand that the constant reference Jesus made to his imminent suffering and death, even his reference to it this very night (see verses 15, 20, and what is implied in verses 35, 36), filled the hearts of the disciples with dismay and their minds with bewilderment. Cf. 18:34. Was he, their Master, about to die? But in view of what they had confessed him to be (9:20), a confession with which he had apparently agreed, how was this even possible? So again, as on more than one previous occasion (see especially 9:21, 22; 18:31–33), Jesus emphasizes this very fact (his imminent death), a fact apart from which verses 35, 36 cannot be explained.

37. For I tell you, what has been written must be fulfilled in me:

And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Yes, that (passage) about me is reaching its fulfilment.

A few thoughts stand out here:

a. This is one of the New Testament passages in which Isaiah 53 is definitely applied to Jesus. For the prominence of Isa. 53 in the New Testament see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 82, 83.

b. Not only that, but it is Jesus himself who informs us that Isa. 53 refers to him!

c. The statement is by no means pessimistic. It is the very opposite. The words must be fulfilled indicate that the Savior regarded not only his life but also his death as the fulfilment of God’s plan.

d. Moreover, by mentioning the fact that he, though conscious of his innocence, in fact of his holiness, will, in fulfilment of prophecy, be numbered with the transgressors, does he not clearly imply that his death is substitutionary in character? Would Jesus have quoted these words from Isa. 53:12 if he had not also believed the words which immediately follow: “yet he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors”?

How tragic that, once again, the disciples do not understand the meaning of Christ’s words. Besides, they are still thinking of the immediately preceding passage (verse 36b), “And let him who has no sword sell his coat and buy one.” So 38. They said, Lord, look, here are two swords! As if Jesus had been talking about the necessity of having and using literal swords!

No wonder that his answer is curt and decisive: He said to them, Enough of that! This reply prevents any further conversation about that subject.

One important element in Christ’s suffering was certainly this, that even his most intimate disciples failed to understand him.⁵⁶⁸

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 22:24–38

Verses 24, 27, 28

“There … arose a dispute among them as to which one of them was considered to be the greatest.” … “I am among you as one who serves.… But you are those who have stood by me in my trials.” What a sharp contrast between self-centered disciples and the self-sacrificing Savior! Nevertheless, even now he praises these men for having stood by him in his trials. What a lesson he gives us in “humans relations”!

Verses 31, 32

“Satan has asked … I have prayed.” Christ’s prayers are effective because they are based on his merits, his self-sacrifice.

Verse 32

“Strengthen your brothers.” Bringing the gospel of salvation full and free to those who have never heard it is surely to be encouraged in every way. See Prov. 11:30; Matt. 28:19, 20; I Cor. 9:22. But are we probably forgetting that the strengthening of the “brothers” is also necessary?

Paul addressed his letters to “the saints,” “the faithful in Christ Jesus,” “the church,” etc. He realized that edification of those already in the fold was just as necessary as evangelization of those still outside. We sometimes forget this! The church should pray not only for its missionaries; it should also pray for and cooperate with its ministers. In certain situations the task assigned to the latter is as difficult as is that placed upon the shoulders of the former.

Verse 33

“Peter replied, … ‘I am ready.’ ” Well, he was not.

↑ Back to top