God’s command is “Be ready” ( Matt. 24:44 ).

God’s command is “Be ready” (Matt. 24:44).

The believer’s prayer should be “Make me ready.” See Ps. 119:36.

Open my eyes that I may see

Glimpses of truth thou hast for me.

Place in my hands the wonderful key

That shall unclasp and set the free.

Open my ears, that I may hear

Voices of truth thou sendest clear,

And while the wave-notes fall on my ear

Everything false will disappear.

Silently now I wait for thee,

Ready, my God, thy will to see.

Open my eyes, illumine me,

Spirit divine.

Stanzas from

“Open My Eyes”

by C. H. Scott

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 22:24–38

Verse 24

φιλονεικία* (φίλος plus νεῖκος = loving strife), strife, dispute; cf. φιλόνεικος, contentious (I Cor. 11:16).

Here again, as in the preceding verse, the article introduces the indirect question. Mood and tense of the direct question are retained.

Degrees of comparison in verses 24, 26, and 27

In verses 24 and 26 the comparative μείζων is used in the sense of a superlative “greatest.” See the note on 7:28 on page 403, and the note on 7:42 on page 412. In verse 27, however, the comparative “greater” makes good sense. And in verse 26 the comparative νεώτερος should probably also be interpreted as a superlative.

Verse 25

κυριεύουσιν, third per. pl. pres. indicat. of κυριεύω, to be κύριος (lord) over, to lord it over. In Luke’s writings here only, but the word occurs also in Rom. 6:9, 14; 7:1; 14:9; II Cor. 1:24; and I Tim. 6:15.

εὐεργέται, nom. pl. of εὐεργέτης, well-doer, benefactor.

Verse 26

γινέσθω, third per. s. pres. imperat. middle of γίνομαι, hence here: let him become; or, if full force of pres. has been retained: let him continue to be.

ὁ ἡγούμενος, the one leading, the leader.

Verse 28

διαμεμενηκότες, nom. pl. masc. perf. act. participle of διαμένω, with intensive or perfective use of διά, to remain continually (with someone), to stand by (him).

πειρασμοῖς, dat. pl. of πειρασμός, trial, proof, temptation.

Verse 29

διατίθεμαι, to decree, ordain, dispose of property by διαθήκη, will (cf. Heb. 9:16 f.), but here in Luke 22:29 probably: “I confer, bestow.” Note also the third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. middle of the same verb: (the Father) has bestowed.

Verse 30

Note here the second per. pl. pres. subjunct. (after ἵνα, futuristic) act., “that you may eat and drink,” followed by the fut. indicat., “and may sit,” etc. As has been indicated previously, the relation between the subjunct. and the future indicat. is very close.

Verses 31, 32

ἐξῃτήσατο, third per. s. aor. middle indicat. of ἐξαιτέω*, in the middle: to ask something or someone of (ἐκ) someone, for oneself (sense of middle voice). In the New Testament this verb occurs only here, though the base αἰτέω, to ask, is very common, especially in the Gospels and Acts.

σινιάσαι, aor. infinitive of σινιάζω*, to sift; cf. σινίον, a sieve or strainer.

Important: note distinction between you in verse 31, and you in verse 32. See explanation.

ἐδεήθην, first per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of δέομαι, to make request, ask, pray.

ἐκλίπῃ, third per. s. aor. (effective) subjunct. (after ἵνα μὴ) of ἐκλείπω. The prefix probably has perfective force; hence “that your faith may not run out,” “may not utterly fail.” See also on 16:9 and on 23:45.

ἐπιστρέψας, nom. s. masc. aor. act. participle of ἐπιστρέφω, to turn around, return, turn back.

στήρισον, sec. per. s. aor. imperat. act. of στηρίζω, to render stedfast, strengthen.

Verse 34

ἀπαρνήσῃ, sec. per. s. aor. subjunct. middle, or fut. indicat. middle (same form) of ἀπαρνέομαι, to deny, disown. See the note on 12:9 on page 660.

εἰδέναι, 2nd perf. act. infinitive of οἶ̓δα, to know, related to an assumed εἴδω, to see.

Verse 35

ἀπέστειλα, first per. s. aor. indicat. of ἀποστέλλω, to send out. Cf. apostle. This verb occurs very frequently in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels and Acts.

After ἄτερ this verse uses the gen. (or “ablative” if one prefers) of βαλλάντιον, purse; πήρα, traveler’s bag; and ὑποδήματα, sandals. For all three, mentioned in the same order but as accusatives, see the note on 10:4 on page 587.

ὑστερήσατε, sec. per. pl. aor. indicat. of ὑστερέω, to fall short, lack; see the note on 15:14 on page 760.

οὐθενός, gen. s. of οὐδείς, no one; here (neuter) nothing. To account for the genitive one might render the question and answer as follows, “Did you experience lack of anything?” They said, “No, of nothing.”

Verse 36

The three verbs “let him take (it) along, let him sell, let him buy,” are third per. s. aor. imperatives. For a summary of the meanings of αἴρω see the note on 17:13 on page 803.

Verse 37

τελεσθῆναι, aor. pass. infinitive of τελέω, to bring to an end, finish; pass. to be brought to an end, be finished, be fulfilled; see the note on 12:50 on page 689.

22:39–46 On the Mount of Olives

The Prayer of Jesus

and

His Exhortation to Pray

Cf. (Gethsemane) Matt. 26:36–46; Mark 14:32–42;

(a garden) John 18:1

39 Then Jesus came outside and, as usual, went to the Mount of Olives. His disciples followed him. 40 When he arrived at the place, he said to them, “Keep praying that you may not enter at all into temptation.” 41 And he withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down, and continued in prayer, saying, 42 “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.”

43 ⁵⁶⁹ There appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed very fervently;⁵⁷⁰ and his sweat became like thick drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

45 When he rose from prayer and came to the disciples, he found them sleeping from sorrow, 46 and he asked them, “Why are you asleep? Get up and pray, that you may not enter into temptation.”

Gethsemane can I forget?

Or there thy conflict see,

Thine agony and bloody sweat,

And not remember thee?

J. Montgomery, lines from

“According to Thy Gracious Word”

The beloved physician must have been deeply moved when he described what occurred in Gethsemane, or, as he simply calls the place, “the Mount of Olives.” He abbreviates, making no mention of the eight disciples who were left at the garden’s gate, and of the three (Peter, James, and John) who accompanied Jesus into the grove; nor of the three separate prayers and the Savior’s return, each time, to the three disciples, always finding them sleeping. On the other hand it is Luke alone who mentions the angel who came to strengthen Jesus. It is he alone who refers to the sweat that became like thick drops of blood falling down upon the ground. It is Luke who, even more emphatically than Matthew and Mark, rivets our attention on the appalling horror to which the Savior was exposed, the frightful, soul-piercing anguish he experienced.

39. Then Jesus came outside and, as usual, went to the Mount of Olives. His disciples followed him.

The very fact that Jesus did the usual thing (cf. 21:37) makes this action of Jesus most unusual, most unlike what other people generally do when they are confronted with danger. When they know that going to the usual place is dangerous, they go somewhere else or stay where they are. Jesus, however, knowing that if tonight, as on previous nights, he should go to the Mount of Olives, he will be captured, with determination moves right ahead to that very place! He is fully aware of the fact that Judas the traitor knows this place and will have informed his bosses and co-conspirators about it (John 18:2). So that’s where Jesus goes. We can see him wending his way, followed by eleven—and after entering the grove by three—disciples. The Shepherd is in the process of laying down his life for his sheep. He must make, and wants to make, a voluntary sacrifice, the only kind of sacrifice that will suffice as an atonement for the sins of all those who repose their trust in him.

40. When he arrived at the place, he said to them, Keep praying that you may not enter at all into temptation.

How wonderfully considerate is the Master. How big is his heart. So big that even during this night of bitter woe there is room in it for “others.” His heart goes out to them, for he fully realizes that the wrath of the Sanhedrin will not be appeased when he himself, the Leader, is caught. That wrath will be vented next upon those who have been following him. As a result, these disciples will be tempted to disown their Leader. Should that happen, it would be the worst evil that could overtake them.

If someone should raise the objection, “But this cannot happen, for once a believer, always a believer,” the answer would be that Jesus knew very well that this favorable result is brought about through the use of means, one of them being prayer: his own prayer for them (“Holy Father, keep them in thy name,” John 17:11), and their prayers for themselves. So he urges them to pray and to keep on praying that they may not enter at all into this insidious temptation.

41, 42. And he withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down, and continued in prayer, saying, Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.

Note the following:

a. “A stone’s throw” probably from the eight disciples near the garden’s entrance. The three disciples would still be close enough to Jesus to see what he did and to hear what he said. To be sure, as the Savior kept on praying and agonizing these men fell asleep. But nothing prevents us from believing that they had kept awake long enough to preserve for that and later generations of believers a record of what happened here.

b. As to Christ’s prayer as here recorded, careful study of the three separate petitions as reported by Matthew (26:39, 42, 44), the second and third being identical, shows that the one prayer of Luke 22:42 faithfully reproduces the essence of the three petitions of which Matthew makes mention.

Though it will never be possible for our minds to penetrate into the mystery of the horror Jesus experienced in Gethsemane, we cannot be far amiss if we state that it probably included at least this, that he was given a preview of the agonies of the fast approaching crucifixion. He had a foretaste of what it meant to be “forsaken” by his heavenly Father. And is it not reasonable to assume that during these dreadful periods of anguish Satan and his demons assaulted him, with the intention of causing him to turn aside from the path of obedience to God? Cf. Ps. 22:12, 13.

The best commentary on what Jesus experienced in Gethsemane is surely the inspired statement of Heb. 5:7, “He offered up prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears.…”

c. He prayed that “this cup,” this terrible impending experience climaxed by the cross and the sense of complete abandonment, might be spared him. As with his entire human nature he recoiled before this terror, he “knelt down” (so Luke), “fell on his face” (so Matthew). He was, as it were, being torn apart by agony.

d. To be noted especially, and this in all the reports, hence also here in Luke, is the Sufferer’s complete and unqualified submission to the will of his heavenly Father: “nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.”

In a passage that must be regarded as authentic—see the note on pp. 990, 991—Luke adds: 43, 44. There appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in anguish, he prayed very fervently [or: more intensely] and his sweat became like thick drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

There are those who say that for Jesus to realize that an angel had to descend from heaven to strengthen him must have added to his feeling of deep humiliation. Granted, but should we not immediately add that in this dark hour the ministry of an angel must also have reconfirmed him in the belief that at this moment the Father had not completely forsaken him? Was it not, after all, the Father who sent the angel?

The opinion has been expressed by several that this strengthening affected only Christ’s body, not his soul. Now it must be granted immediately that throughout this fiery ordeal Jesus never, even for a moment, crossed the boundary line between fear and sin. Nevertheless, to say that the strengthening he received was entirely limited to his body and in no sense whatever affected his soul is more than is probably warranted by such a passage as “He learned obedience from the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8).

In connection with Christ’s sweat becoming like thick drops of blood, it is natural that Luke as a physician would inquire into and record this occurrence of hematidrosis. It took place while Jesus, suffering intensely, was engaged in fervent prayer. It must be borne in mind that the human nature of Jesus was sinless, and therefore very sensitive. When these factors—extreme anguish, earnest supplication, unparalleled sensitivity—are combined, the resulting strain can easily cause subcutaneous capillaries to dilate to such an extent that they will burst. And when this happens, as it is almost bound to do, in the vicinity of sweat glands, blood and sweat will be exuded together. This can happen over a large part of the body. The thick drops or clots of blood, imparting a reddish color to the beads of perspiration, will then trickle down to the ground.

The main point to bear in mind is certainly this, that the anguish which brought about this phenomenon was “for us.” It was an indication of the Savior’s undying love for the poor, lost sinners he had come to save.

45, 46. When he rose from prayer and came to the disciples, he found them sleeping from sorrow, and he asked them, Why are you asleep? Get up and pray, that you may not enter into temptation.

When Jesus returned to the three disciples he asked them, “Why are you asleep?” It was late, very late, midnight or perhaps even a little later. Peter, James, and John were filled with sorrow, as Luke does not forget to mention. To be sure, they should have kept awake, and they could have done so had they only continued in earnest prayer. Jesus was willing to forgive. As he stood watching over his own he said very tenderly, “Sleep on now and take your rest” (Mark 14:41).

Then, perhaps after but a short period of time, he addressed the sleepers again, saying, “Get up and pray, that you may not enter into temptation.” See above, on verse 40.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 989–992.

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

Cf. Matt. 26:47–56; Mark 14:43–50; John 18:3–11

47 While he was still speaking, look a crowd! The one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them, and he approached Jesus to kiss him.

48 But Jesus said to him, “Judas, (is it) with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of man?”

49 Now when those around Jesus saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?” 50 And one of them slashed at the servant of the highpriest and severed his right ear.

51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52 Then to the chief priests, captains of the temple guard, and elders, who had come out against him, Jesus said, “As against a robber [or rebel] did you come out with swords and clubs? 53 When day by day I was with you in the temple you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour and the rule of darkness.”

47. While he was still speaking, look, a crowd! The one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them, and he approached Jesus to kiss him.

“So, having taken the morsel, Judas went out immediately, and it was night.” So reads John 13:30. Where did he go? He must have hurried off to the chief priests, etc., the men who had hired him. Was he afraid that once his treachery became known the alarm would spread and from everywhere friends of Jesus—think especially of the many from Galilee now in the city—would gather in his defense? “Act quickly,” he must have told the Jewish authorities, “preferably by night, when no crowds are around. Act tonight.” The authorities had been waiting for him. So busy were they with this plot to destroy Jesus that, as explained in N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 401–404 (on John 18:28), they had not yet partaken of the Passover meal. The probable whereabouts of Jesus had to be ascertained; a posse had to be organized; the temple police must be notified; permission must be obtained, whether from Pilate (which in view of Matt. 27:62–65 seems probable) or from the Roman “chiliarch,” so that a group of soldiers could accompany the temple police; all the members of the Sanhedrin must be alerted; Annas must not be left in the dark; lanterns, swords, and clubs must be collected; the need of secrecy must be emphasized to all those who are “in” on this; etc., etc.

Finally, then, all is in readiness. Now to find Jesus. Judas did not know for certain where the group might have gone after leaving the upper room, but since he knew that Gethsemane was a place often visited by the Master and his disciples (John 18:2), the traitor was able to make a good guess, one that proved to be correct. So, while Jesus was still talking to the three disciples, Judas was seen entering the grove. “Judas, one of the twelve,” says the text, to emphasize the terrible character of the crime this man was committing. Since he was “one of the twelve,” it would be impossible to mention all the privileges that had been bestowed upon him during the many days, weeks, and months he had spent in Christ’s immediate company. Such confidence had the other eleven reposed in this same Judas that they had even made him their treasurer. And now he was proving himself totally unworthy of all these honors and advantages, of all this trust. A shameless, disgusting quisling he had become, a wretched turncoat, one who for the paltry sum of thirty pieces of silver was delivering over to the enemy the greatest Benefactor whose feet ever trod this earth, even the Mediator, both God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ.

No one knows exactly how the crowd that accompanied Judas was arranged, if it even be correct to speak about any order of arrangement. If a guess be permissible it would be as follows:

In front Judas. Luke calls him the leader. He is the one who is going to approach Jesus, to kiss him, and thereby to point him out to the others. The highpriest’s personal servant, Malchus, must also have been near to the front (verse 50; John 18:10) and so were also probably the temple police, Levites (verse 52; John 18:3). The detachment of soldiers, together with their commander, cannot have been far behind (John 18:3, 12). John 18:3 mentions a “cohort,” probably obtained from the tower of Antonia, situated at the northwest corner of the temple area. Though a cohort at full strength consisted of six hundred men (one-tenth of a legion), the Roman authorities would probably not have depleted their garrison to that extent. At any rate, the band must have been rather large.

But why Roman legionaries at all? Would not the temple police have sufficed? The answer is that the Sanhedrin had learned that these officers could not always be relied on. Who knows, they might even side with Jesus, as had happened once before. See John 7:32, 45. Hence, it was felt that a detachment of soldiers was also needed. And because the Roman authorities themselves were very desirous of preventing trouble in Jerusalem, especially during Passover, when there was always danger of Jewish rebellion, the requested legionaries were quickly obtained.

Perhaps somewhat farther toward the back were members of the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:52). Whether any others were present we cannot be certain.

The force that had been commissioned to capture Jesus was well-equipped. The men carried swords and clubs (verse 52). As to the first, these were probably the short swords carried by the heavily-armed Roman soldier. See N.T.C. on Ephesians, p. 279, including footnote 177. The clubs or cudgels, we may assume, were in the hands of the temple police. Absolute certainty in such matters is not possible. Words have histories—in the present case this means that the term used in the original for “swords” may at times have had a more general meaning. It was not always used to distinguish these weapons from the broadswords. Also, we cannot be entirely certain that none but soldiers carried swords. Did not even Peter have a sword (John 18:10)? All we really know is that those who came to arrest Jesus carried swords and clubs. Their distribution is not definitely indicated, though it is natural to think of soldiers equipped with swords. The Gospel of John also mentions “torches and lanterns.” Torches and lanterns—to search for the Light of the world. And it was full moon! Swords and cudgels—to subdue the Prince of Peace. For the Man of Sorrows the very sight of this band of ruffians, who considered him their quarry, meant indescribable suffering. —And to think that the men who were supposed to be leaders in Israel, highly religious and devout, chief priests and scribes and elders, together composing the Sanhedrin, had sent this force. Instead of welcoming Jesus as the long-expected Messiah, they were sending a posse to capture him, with the ultimate purpose of having him brought before the authorities that he might be sentenced to death.

48. But Jesus said to him, Judas, (is it) with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of man?

There are those who say that a kiss was the customary way of greeting a rabbi. However that may be, we may be sure that then as well as today—though more so in certain regions of the globe than in others—a kiss was the symbol of friendship and affection. As used by Judas, however, it is the prearranged signal for the arresting band to grab Jesus and, as Mark 14:44 adds, to lead him away “safely” or “under guard” (cf. Acts 16:23). To be sure, Judas already has his money (Matt. 26:15), but he also knows that he will not be able to keep it until he has made sure that the one he is betraying is actually in the hands of the Sanhedrin.

So, having arrived in Gethsemane, in front of the posse that had been dispatched to arrest Jesus, Judas, on seeing Jesus, steps forward. He then greets Jesus by saying “Rabbi” (Mark 14:45) or, as Matthew has it, “Hello, Rabbi.” And what he does next has caused all later generations to recoil with horror at the mere mention of his name. Embracing Jesus he kisses him—probably fervently or repeatedly. See on Mark 14:45.

From the response of Jesus—“Judas, (is it) with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of man?”—it is clear that even at this very late moment Jesus is earnestly warning Judas. For his everlasting perdition he has only himself to blame. On the term Son of man see 5:24.

49. Now when those around Jesus saw what was going to happen, they said, Lord, shall we strike with a sword?

By this time the other eight disciples had probably also joined Jesus. See Matt. 26:56, “Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.” If a little later they all fled, they must all have been with Jesus at this time. So when The Eleven saw what was about to happen, namely, that their Master was about to be captured, they asked him whether they should use force (“the sword”). Note that again, as so often previously, they had failed to grasp the meaning of the words of Jesus (verses 36, 38).

One of the men did not even wait for an answer but went into action at once: 50. And one of them slashed at the servant of the highpriest and severed his right ear.

Although the incident is related in all four Gospels, only John (18:10) mentions the names of the two persons who (in addition to Jesus himself) figured most prominently in it. These two were Peter and Malchus, the highpriest’s servant. The reason why John alone mentions these two names may well have been that when he published his Gospel it was no longer possible to punish the assailant.

That assailant was Simon Peter. Emboldened perhaps by the marvelous triumph of Jesus over the men who had come to capture him—at first the would-be captors, at the word of Jesus, had lurched backward and fallen to the ground (John 18:6)—and impelled by his own previous boasts (Matt. 26:33, 35; Mark 14:29, 31; Luke 22:33; John 13:37), Simon drew his short sword from its scabbard. Then he sprang at Malchus and, probably because the servant saw what was coming and quickly jumped aside, cut off his ear. Among the synoptists it is Luke alone who makes mention of the fact that it was the right ear. As a doctor his interest in the anatomy of the human body was keener than that of the other synoptists. But see also John 18:10.

51. But Jesus said, No more of this! —And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

Although the rendering “No more of this” is not certain, it is possible and would bring the words in line with those used by the Lord in verse 38. It is clear at any rate that Jesus was forbidding the use of force. An expanded version of what he said is found in John 18:11, and an even more detailed account in Matt. 26:52–54.

But not only what Jesus said is significant, also what he did. Had the ear been slashed off and was it hanging by a shred of skin (Lenski)? However one conceives of this, Luke, himself a healer, reports that Jesus touched the man’s ear and healed him. It must not be possible for anyone to report truthfully that Jesus has either himself done anything wrong or has permitted it to remain uncorrected when done by someone else. Besides we once more see Jesus as the Great Sympathizer and Healer, the Savior, and this not only for the soul (in the case of all who place their trust in him) but even for the body. See Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:40; 7:21; Acts 2:22; 10:38.

52, 53. Then to the chief priests, captains of the temple guard, and elders, who had come out against him, Jesus said, As against a robber [or rebel] did you come out with swords and clubs? When day by day I was with you in the temple you did not lay hands on me.

Right then and there Jesus addressed the crowd; particularly, as Luke points out, “the chief priests, captains of the temple guard, and elders.” Probably some scribes were also being addressed. See Mark 14:43. All three groups that composed the Sanhedrin were represented here. For more on them see above, on 20:1, 2.

Of course, these people had no business being here during this sacred night, but they were so anxious to see whether their sinister plot against the enemy would succeed that they were actually to be seen among this crowd, probably in the rear. See N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 403, 404. Jesus then pointed out to the crowd—to all those who had come to arrest him and all those who gloated over his capture—how cowardly and perfidiously they were behaving. They had come out against him with an army, equipped with swords and clubs, as if he were a highwayman or, as the text can also be rendered, an insurrectionist, rebel, or revolutionary. In reality he was and had been a quiet, peaceful Prophet, sitting day by day in the temple, teaching the people. His life had been an open book. Had he been guilty of any crimes, those in charge of law and order would have had every chance to seize him.

If anyone wishes to know what kind of person this Jesus had proved himself to be during the slightly more than three years of his public ministry, let him read such passages as Mark 1:39; 10:13–16; and see also Matt. 4:23–25; 11:25–30; 12:18–21; Luke 22:49–51; 24:19; John 6:15; 18:11, 36, 37; Acts 2:22. To say, as some have done, that Jesus was “harmless” is putting it too mildly. He was and is “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42; I John 4:14), the world’s greatest Benefactor. How absurd and hypocritical it was for the foe in the hour of darkness to pounce upon this Good Shepherd, from whom no one who heeded his message had anything to fear, and who even taught people to love their enemies! See Matt. 5:44.

By addressing the crowds in this manner Jesus was in reality doing them a favor. He was exposing their guilt. Is it not true that it takes confession of guilt to bring about salvation? Though it is a fact that the great majority of those who heard Jesus speak these words hardened themselves in sin, we have no right to conclude that the message, together with other messages that followed (for example, the seven words from the cross, Peter’s Pentecost address, etc.), was completely ineffective. See, for example, Acts 6:7. The impression left upon us by these words of our Lord is that they were spoken in a calm and earnest manner. To be sure, Jesus rebukes, but at the same time he is even now seeking the lost, that he may save them.

Luke reports that Jesus added: But this is your hour and the rule of darkness.

This was the hour—that is, the predestined hour (see above on verse 22)—in which the powers of darkness had their own way with Jesus, always, however, subject to God’s overruling providence!⁵⁷¹

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 22:39–53

Verse 42

“Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done.”

This prayer should serve as a model for our prayers, in the sense that we, too, should always submit our will to his.

Verse 43

“There appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him.” Is not this in line with Lam. 3:33, “He does not afflict from the heart [thus the original] nor grieve the children of men”? What a comfort to know this!

Verse 49

“Lord, shall we strike with a sword?” Simon’s rashness, reminding us of Jehu (II Kings 10:18–28), is here contrasted with Christ’s calmness (see verses 48, 51–53), a lesson for us all.

Verse 51

“He touched the man’s ear and healed him.” Cf. verse 54, “Then, seizing him, they led him away.” Cf. Mark 14:46, “They laid their hands on Jesus and arrested him.” John 18:12, “Then the cohort and its commander and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him.”

From these passages it becomes clear that when Jesus extended his hand to touch and heal the ear of Malchus, this was the last service he rendered with his hand before he was bound. Therefore, the last action of that hand, while it was still free, was one of love, one of rendering service to men. How it reminds us of his other similar deeds! Again and again he had placed his hand on people to heal and to bless them. He had even taken the little ones into his arm to bless them. Here, again, what a lesson for us all!

And lo, thy touch brought life and health,

Gave speech and strength and sight;

Lo, youth renewed and frenzy calmed,

Owned thee, the Lord of light.

And now, O Lord, be near to bless,

Almighty as of yore,

In crowded streets, by restless couch,

As by Gennesareth’s shore.

From “Thine Arm, O Lord”

by E. H. Plumptre

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 22:39–53

Verse 40

προσεύχεσθε, sec. per. pl. pres. (durative) imperat. of προσεύχομαι, to pray. See the note on 9:18 on page 509.

εἰσελθεῖν, aor. (ingressive) infinitive of εἰσέρχομαι, to enter.

Verse 41

ἀπεσπάσθη, third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of ἀποσπάω, to draw away from; in pass. (here probably with middle meaning), to separate oneself from, draw away from, withdraw. In Luke’s writings this verb occurs only here and in Acts 20:30; 21:1. It is also found in Matt. 26:51, there in the sense of to draw (a sword).

θεὶς (nom. s. masc. 2nd aor. act. participle of τίθημι) τὰ γόνατα, knelt down.

προσηύχετο, third per. s. imperf. middle indicat. of προσεύχομαι, to pray. What kind of imperfect? Some say ingressive: began to pray; some, descriptive: was praying; some, progressive: continued to pray. Which of these is correct is hard to say.

Verse 42

βούλει, Attic form of Koine βούλῃ, sec. per. s. of βούλομαι. In Attic Greek the ending of the sec. per. middle or pass. is generally ει instead of ῃ; thus always in the verbs βούλομαι, I will; οἴομαι, I think; and ὄψομαι, I shall see.

γινέσθω, third per. s. pres. imperat. middle of γίνομαι, here with the sense of: to be done; hence “(Thy will) be (constantly) done.”

Verses 43, 44

Those who reject verses 43, 44 present the following reasons for this rejection: (a) this passage is missing from Codex Vaticanus and from other important manuscripts; (b) it looks like a scribal embellishment of Luke’s text; (c) it may be considered a Western interpolation; and (d) it is out of harmony with the contents of the immediately preceding verse.

On the other hand, those who take the opposite view answer: (a) the passage is present in Codex Sinaiticus and is supported by several other witnesses, some of them early; (b) it is especially Luke who throughout his Gospel and book of Acts mentions angels again and again (see any good concordance and note the frequency of the word angel in Luke’s writings as compared with its frequency in the other Gospels); (c) Luke also shows that Jesus himself was very conscious of the presence and work of angels; (d) the question is legitimate whether the omission of verses 43, 44 from several important manuscripts, etc., may not be ascribed to a theological bias, namely, the mistaken belief that what is reported here, being supposedly out of harmony with the doctrine of Christ’s deity, was a legitimate basis of appeal for the Arians; and (e) the passage is entirely in line with Heb. 5:7, 8. In both passages the fact that, in a sense, Christ’s human nature, though entirely without sin, needed strengthening is held before us. Besides, as to the reasoning of those who reject the passage, are not some of their arguments of a purely subjective character? I believe the passage should be retained.

All this can be found in my N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 583, 584, footnote 722. After that commentary had been published, an article appeared by G. Schneider, “Engel und Blutschweiss (Lk 22, 43–44). ‘Redaktionsgeschichte’ im Dienste der Textkritik,” BibZ 20 (1976), pp. 112–116. In defense of the authenticity of Luke 22:43, 44 that author presents some of the same arguments I had advanced. He adds that the pattern in Luke 22:39–46 corresponds to the scheme in the Lucan transfiguration narrative (9:28–32), and that the deletion of these verses may be traced, among other things, to an aversion to the miraculous. Schneider credits Redaction Criticism with the result he has reached.

Undoubtedly Redaction Criticism should be given all the credit to which it can properly lay claim, but is it not true that, without any recourse to that discipline, I, for one—and probably many others along with me—had already reached the same conclusion with respect to the genuine character of Luke 22:43, 44? To reach the right conclusion Redaction Criticism was not needed.

ὤφθη, third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of ὁράω, to see; in pass., as here, to be seen, to appear. The first time Luke, in his Gospel, uses this form (ὤφθη in 1:11) he similarly ascribes this appearance to an angel.

ἐνισχύων, nom. s. masc. pres. participle of ἐνισχύω**, to strengthen (ἰσχύς = strength); in the New Testament only here and in Acts 9:19.

ἐκτενέστερον (ἐκ plus τείνω; hence, to stretch out), adv. (comparative degree), more intensely; or (if elative) very intensely, very fervently. For the adverb ἐκτενῶς see also Acts 12:5; I Peter 1:22. For the related verb ἐκτείνω see on verse 53.

ἱδρώς*, sweat, perspiration; in the New Testament found only here. Cf. sudatorium.

Another hapax legomenon is θρόμβοι, nom. pl. of θρόμβος*, clot, thick drop. Cf. thrombosis.

Verse 45

λύπης, gen. s. of λύπη, pain, grief, sorrow; in Luke only here; but four times in John 16, three times in II Cor. 2, twice in II Cor. 7, and once each in II Cor. 9, Phil. 2, Heb. 12, and I Peter 2.

Verse 46

εἰσέλθητε, sec. per. pl. aor. (ingress.) subjunct. (after ἵνα μὴ), to enter. This verb is very common in all four Gospels, also in Acts and Hebrews. It occurs five times in Rev.; elsewhere in the New Testament its use is scattered.

Verse 47

φιλῆσαι, aor. infinitive of φιλέω, to kiss. In the New Testament this verb is used in a threefold sense: (a) as a synonym of ἀγαπάω, to have affection for; see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 494–500; (b) to like something or to like to do something, as in Luke 20:46; and (c), as here in 22:47, to kiss.

Verse 48

φιλήματι, dat. s. of φίλημα, kiss. Note the following:

a. the unholiest kiss of all, that of Judas, as here.

b. the holy kiss (Rom. 16:16; I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26).

c. the kiss of love (I Peter 5:14).

d. the welcoming kiss, the one Simon the Pharisee neglected to give Jesus (Luke 7:45).

Verse 49

τὸ ἐσόμενον, acc. s. neut. fut. participle of εἰμί; therefore: what was going to be; i.e., what was going to happen.

εἰ, in a direct question, reminding one of Hebrew style, not to be translated.

ἐν, instrumental.

μαχαίρῃ, dat. s. of μάχαιρα, sword; to be distinguished from ῥομφαία, broadsword, or simply sword, when this distinction is not clear.

Verse 50

ἀφεῖλεν, third per. s. 2nd aor. act. indicat. of ἀφαιρέω, to take away, remove, cut off, sever.

Verse 51

ἐᾶτε, sec. per. pl. pres. imperat. act. of ἐάω, to allow, let be; hence here, “let be until this,” probably meaning, “No more of this,” or simply “Stop.”

Verse 52

παραγενομένους, acc. pl. masc. 2nd aor. participle of παραγίνομαι, here: to come out (against). See the note on 7:4 on page 380.

For στρατηγός (captain of the temple guard) see the note on 22:4 on page 967.

λῃστήν, acc. s. of λῃστής, here perhaps robber, but rebel is also definitely possible. More about this word in the note on 10:30 on page 602.

Verse 53

ἐξετείνατε, sec. per. pl. aor. indicat. act. of ἐκτείνω, to stretch out; here: to lay (hands) on. See verse 44 for related adverb.

ἐξουσία, here perhaps domain, reign, rule. See W. Foerster, the article on this word in Th.D.N.T., Vol. II, p. 568, where that author points out that such power or rule is subject to God’s overruling providence.

22:54–62 Peter’s Threefold Denial

Cf. Matt. 26:57, 58, 69–75; Mark 14:53, 54, 66–72; John 18:15–18, 25–27

54 Then, seizing him, they led him away and took him to the house of the highpriest. And Peter was following at a distance. 55 Now when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting in the midst of them. 56 Then a servant girl saw him as he sat in the light (of the fire), and looking intently at him said, “This fellow was also with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “I don’t know him, woman.”

58 A little later someone else saw him and said, “You’re one of them too.” But Peter replied, “Man, I’m not!”

59 About an hour later another man began to insist emphatically, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he’s indeed a Galilean.” 60 Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about.” All at once, while he [Peter] was still speaking, a rooster crowed.

61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter.

And Peter was reminded of the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” 62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

54–57. Then, seizing him, they led him away and took him to the house of the highpriest. And Peter was following at a distance. Now when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter was sitting in the midst of them. Then a servant girl saw him as he sat in the light (of the fire), and looking intently at him said, This fellow was also with him. But he denied it, saying, I don’t know him, woman.

Having seized Jesus, his captors brought him to the highpriest’s house or palace. Such a house looks into its own interior: that is, its rooms are built around an open courtyard. An arched passage leads from the heavy outside door or (better) gate into this inner court. In this passage there is a place (in some houses a little room) for the gate-keeper. Sometimes, as also in the present instance, the court was lower than the rooms which ranged around it. It is not entirely impossible that the room to which Jesus had been led was a kind of gallery, from which what happened in the court could be seen and heard.

That the house here mentioned was the residence of Caiaphas is clearly implied in Matt. 26:57, 58. That it was, nevertheless, also occupied by Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, becomes clear by comparing the passage from Matthew with John 18:13, 15, 24. Besides, is it not very natural to assume that these two close relatives, in mind and heart two of a kind, would be living in the same spacious mansion? Probably one wing was occupied by Annas, another by Caiaphas.⁵⁷²

Though all the disciples had fled, two—Peter and “another disciple”—soon rallied and began to follow the band that was leading Jesus to the highpriest’s palace. In the case of Peter, “following Jesus” was probably prompted, in part, by the loud boasts he had uttered, as recorded in verse 33; cf. Mark 14:29, 31; in part also, by sheer curiosity, as Matt. 26:58 states, and perhaps we should add, in part by love for his Master. Note, however, that he was following “at a distance,” probably through fear. How this disciple secured admission to the palace is described in John 18:15, 16. Peter, then, having been allowed to enter the palace by its outer gate, walked through the archway that led to the unroofed courtyard, where he sat down with the palace servants and the temple guards (policemen), warming himself near the fire. By this time most of the soldiers, having delivered their prisoner, had probably returned to the fortress of Antonia.

At this point Luke tells the story of Peter’s three denials. These denials are reported in all four Gospels. For the manner in which the accounts are related to each other and for the interesting variations see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 388–390; and on Mark, pp. 615, 616.

It would seem that the very moment when Peter had entered the palace, the portress, viewing him from her nook in the vestibule, had her suspicions. The fact that she had admitted him at the request of John seemed to indicate that Peter too was a disciple of Jesus. The uneasiness that could be read on his face confirmed her suspicions. So, about to be relieved by another gate-keeper, she walks toward Peter, who has already entered the open courtyard, and who in the light of the fire by which he is warming himself is clearly visible. She fixes her eyes on him. Then, stepping even closer, she exclaims, “This fellow was also with him.” That the words she uses are reported somewhat differently in the other Gospels presents no difficulty. It must not be taken for granted that any Gospel, all by itself, reports all the words spoken by this girl.

Peter evidently has been floored. The suddenness and boldness of the servant girl’s incriminating remark catch him off guard. In spite of all his loud and repeated promises of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, promises made only a few hours earlier, he is now thoroughly frightened. One might say: he panics. Evidently he has failed to take to heart Christ’s admonition recorded in 22:40. So he tells the girl, “I don’t know him, woman.”

58. A little later someone else saw him and said, You’re one of them too. —But Peter replied, Man, I’m not!

The second denial follows closely upon the first. In his frustration resulting from the first embarrassment Peter tries to get out of the building. However, the portresses are unwilling to let him out. So he gets no farther than the entrance way or vestibule which via the gate leads to the outside. Several people are standing around. It seems that the portress who is about to go off duty has already told the news about Peter to the girl who has come to relieve her. So this second girl (cf. Matt. 26:71 and Mark 14:69) now says to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them” (as Mark has it); “This fellow was with Jesus the Nazarene” (Matthew’s way of stating the same thing).

The fact that, according to our present passage (Luke 22:58), at least one male bystander now chimes in with what the two girls are saying does not make matters any easier for Peter. Again Peter denies his Lord. He says, “I’m not.” According to Matthew this time his denial is accompanied by an oath.

59, 60a. About an hour later another man began to insist emphatically, Certainly this fellow was with him, for he’s indeed a Galilean. —Peter replied, Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

We have noticed that even during the second denial interest in Peter’s case was no longer confined to the portresses. And now the bystanders again express themselves. The reason for this is as follows: Having been refused exit, Peter returns to the open courtyard. An hour elapses. It would seem, therefore, that the first two denials took place during Christ’s appearance before Annas. Now the situation changes somewhat: Jesus has been brought before Caiaphas and the entire Sanhedrin. Christ’s first trial before this body is almost over.

During the interval of an hour the news about Peter has been spreading. Now the palace servants and the officers, the men who are standing around the fire with Peter, begin to tell him that he is one of Christ’s disciples, and that his very accent or brogue identifies him as a Galilean. Cf. Matt. 26:73. One man, as Luke shows, asserts emphatically, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is indeed a Galilean.” A comparison of the Gospel accounts shows that some people are talking to Peter, others about him. Accusations are flying in from every direction. This was enough to get anyone excited, especially excitable Simon! He answers, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

But as if all this were not enough, a relative of Malchus bursts out, “Did I not see you in the garden with Jesus?” For this story see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 399, 400.

Angry and excited Peter now begins to call down curses on himself and to swear that he doesn’t even know Jesus. He must have said something like, “May God do this or that to me if it be true that I am or ever was a disciple of Jesus.” He stands there invoking on himself one curse after another. And the louder this Galilean talks, the more, without realizing it, he is saying to all those standing around, “I’m a liar.”

What happened next was probably this: Jesus, his night trial ended, was being led across the court to his prison cell, from which within a few hours he would be led once more before the Sanhedrin.

60b, 61. All at once while he [Peter] was still speaking, a rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. And Peter was reminded of the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.

When Peter heard the crowing of the rooster, and saw Jesus looking at him, with eyes full of pain, yet also of pardon, his memory of Christ’s warning prediction was suddenly awakened. —In this connection we must not forget that “the look of Jesus would have been wasted on Peter if it had not been that Peter was looking at Jesus.”⁵⁷³

62. And he went outside and wept bitterly.

How it came about that Peter is at last permitted to leave the palace is not stated. Can it have been because now everybody’s attention is fixed on Jesus? However that may be, Peter goes out and weeps as only he can weep: bitterly, profusely, sorrowfully, his heart being filled with genuine regret for what he has done.

How deceitful is man’s heart. It is “exceedingly corrupt. Who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9). See also II Kings 8:13; cf. verse 15. Think of it: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

How Jesus must have suffered! No doubt much more because of these base denials by a highly favored disciple and friend than because of the blows and the mockery inflicted on him by his avowed enemies. See Ps. 55:12–14.

Finally, how God’s pardoning grace and the Savior’s forgiving love are here revealed! See Isa. 1:18; 53:6; 55:6, 7; I John 1:7b.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 999–1002.

22:63–65 The Mocking and Beating of Jesus

Cf. Matt. 26:67, 68; Mark 14:65

63 Meanwhile the then who were holding Jesus in custody began to mock and to beat him. 64 And having blindfolded him, they were demanding, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” 65 And they were saying many other insulting things to him.

The story now turns from Peter to Jesus. Having been captured and led to the highpriest’s palace, he was informally condemned to death by the Sanhedrin in a night session. Luke does not report that incident. See, however, Matt. 26:57–66; Mark 14:53–64.

Luke relates what immediately followed (cf. Matt. 26:67, 68; Mark 14:65). He writes:

63, 64. Meanwhile the men who were holding Jesus in custody began to mock and to beat him. And having blindfolded him, they were demanding, Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?

The venerable (?) members of the Sanhedrin now show their cruel, vengeful, sadistic character. Utterly mean are they, inhuman, base, contemptible! Even if we allow that the cruelty to which Jesus was now subjected was the action of the “underlings,” and not directly of the priests, etc., it remains true that it was carried out with the wholehearted permission and co-operation of the members of the Sanhedrin. Think of it, he who throughout his earthly sojourn went about doing good was now made the object of cruelty inflicted upon body and soul. They struck him heavy blows. And cruelty plus mockery reached its climax when with their fists these wicked men struck the blindfolded prisoner in the face, and then shouted, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?”

Filled with such horror is the evangelist when he reflects on this that he refuses to go into more detail but simply states:

65. And they were saying many other insulting things to him.

For Practical Lessons and Greek Words, etc., see pp. 999–1002.

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

Cf. Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1a

66 As soon as it was day the council of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, assembled, and they brought him back to⁵⁷⁴ their Sanhedrin. 67 They said to him, “If you are the Christ, tell us.”

He answered, “If I tell you, you will certainly not believe; 68 and if I question you, you will certainly not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

70 Then they all asked, “So you are the Son of God?”

He replied, “You are right; I am.”

71 They said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from his own mouth.”

As to substance also cf. Luke 22:66–71 with Matt. 26:63–66 and with Mark 14:61–64. And for the preliminary hearing before Annas see John 18:12–14, 19–23 (note N.T.C. on the Gospel of John, Vol. II, pp. 385–388).

66. As soon as it was day the council of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, assembled, and they brought him back to their Sanhedrin.

The reason this meeting was called was in all probability to give a semblance of legality to the proceedings against Jesus. With respect to the question “Were the trials of Jesus (before the Sanhedrin and before Pilate) legal or illegal?” a vast literature has sprung up.⁵⁷⁵

From the Jewish side an attempt has been made to prove that the Sanhedrin tried its level best to rescue Jesus, not being at all anxious to condemn him to death. Needless to say there is nothing in Scripture that supports this theory in any way. When an official body like the Jewish Sanhedrin, by the unofficial and illegal action of its members, goes in search of witnesses against Jesus, when it brings Jesus before Annas, a man who no longer had any judicial authority (though he probably still exercised a tremendous amount of influence), when the highpriest attempts to force the prisoner to testify against himself, etc., etc., the only fair conclusion is that we are dealing here with a case not of justice but of the perversion or miscarriage of justice.

Note in this passage the mention of all three groups that entered into the composition of the Sanhedrin.⁵⁷⁶

67a. They said to him, If you are the Christ, tell us.

As Mark 14:55–59 makes clear, the witnesses that had been “sought” could not agree and consequently were of no help. So in sheer desperation the judges begin to assume the role of prosecuting attorneys or of accusers. This is not an exaggeration. That the leaders hated Jesus and were determined to destroy him must be accepted by anyone who claims to believe the testimony of Scripture. And this sinister desire had not taken possession of them just “yesterday.” See above, on verse 2.

So now this august body, with Caiaphas in charge, is asking Jesus to make a statement which can be used by them for the formulation of a charge sufficient to have him put to death! If he will now only co-operate and tell them that he is the Christ—with all the political overtones they could read into this confession—he could be accused before the Roman authorities and destroyed.

67b–69. He answered, If I tell you, you will certainly not believe; and if I question you, you will certainly not answer. But from now on the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.

What Jesus is saying, therefore, amounts to this, “No matter what I say, you will certainly not believe me, for you are prejudiced. And if I put a question to you regarding this matter, in order that by this method you might be led to the right answer, you will certainly not answer.” As to the latter, was not that exactly what had already occurred? See Luke 20:3–7.

The great saying “But from now on,” etc. (cf. Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62), is a commentary on Ps. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13, 14. The idea that the Messiah would be seated at the right hand of God, etc., was accepted even in Jewish circles.⁵⁷⁷ For the term Son of man see above, on 5:24. As to the expression the power of God here the reference is to God in all his majesty and greatness.⁵⁷⁸

Jesus is looking down history’s lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father’s right hand (“the right hand of the Power,” that is, “of the Almighty”). He sees Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory. On the final day of judgment he, even Jesus, will be the Judge, and these very men—Caiaphas and his partners—will have to answer for the crime they are now committing. Christ’s prophecy is also a warning!

The members of the Sanhedrin did not doubt at all that Jesus by saying “the Son of man” was referring to himself. They also knew that the One so indicated in Dan. 7:13 was indeed divine. This explains their question: 70. Then they all asked, So you are the Son of God? Now note the unqualified, solemn answer: He replied, You are right; I am. The fact that the original, which, literally rendered, is “You say that I am,” can have no other meaning than “You are right; I am” is clear from what immediately follows, namely: 71. They said, What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from his own mouth.

The highpriest and the others present regarded this claim as usurpation of divine honor by a mere man; in other words, as blasphemy. So the highpriest tore his garment (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63), and all agreed that further testimony was unnecessary.⁵⁷⁹

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 22:54–71

Note the following items in the story of Peter’s fall and restoration:

a. “Simon, Simon, watch out! Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you … and you, once you have returned to me, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31, 32).

b. “Lord, with you I am ready to go even to prison and to death” (22:33).

c. “A rooster will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me” (22:34).

d. The three denials, ending with “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about” (22:57–60a).

e. “All at once … a rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter” (22:60b, 61a).

f. “Peter remembered.… He went outside and wept bitterly” (22:61b, 62).

g. Peter’s rehabilitation (John 21:15 f.).

h. Now note how Peter, having by God’s grace retraced his steps and having been restored, strengthened, and is still strengthening, his “brothers”:

(1) his Pentecost address (Acts 2:14–42).

(2) “Silver and gold have I none,” etc. (Acts 3:1–26).

(3) “And in no one else is there salvation,” etc. (4:5–12).

(4) Other testimonies by Peter, or, as in point (2), by Peter and one or more others: Acts 5:1–11; 5:17–32; 8:14–24; 9:36–43; ch. 10; 11:1–18; 12:1–19.

i. The testimony found in Peter’s epistles, an example being:

“Be clothed with humility.… Be sober, be watchful, your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, is prowling around, seeking someone to devour. But resist him by standing firm in (your) faith” (I Peter 5:5, 8, 9). When Peter wrote these words he was speaking “from experience.”

See also on Luke 22:65, “And they were saying many other insulting things to him.” Peter reflects on this in I Peter 2:23, 24, “While he was reviled, he did not revile in return; while suffering, he made no threats, but constantly entrusted himself to him who judges righteously.… He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross.… By his wounds we are healed.”

All this does not mean that while still on earth Peter became “perfect,” that is, “sinless.” On the contrary, read the story of his temporary lapse (Gal. 2:11–21). But, by and large, the grace of God was certainly magnified in his labors, so that, by means of it, he became a Rock of strength.

Verse 70

“So you are the Son of God?” Jesus replied, “You are right. I am.” This, too, as well as the one before Pilate (I Tim. 6:13), can justly be termed “a good confession.” Its significance stands out all the more sharply because of Christ’s many silences (Matt. 26:63; 27:12, 14; Mark 15:5; Luke 23:9; John 19:9). Jesus knew when to speak, and when not, a lesson for us to take to heart.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 22:54–71

Verse 54

συλλαβόντες, nom. pl. masc. 2nd aor. act. participle of συλλαμβάνω, to seize, arrest. For a summary of the various meanings of this verb see the note on 1:24 on pp. 81, 82.

Note: they led him away and brought him to, etc., two third per. pl. 2nd aor. (effective) indicat. act. verbs, the first simple, the second compound, both based on ἄγω, to lead, bring.

ἠκολούθει, third per. s. imperfect of ἀκολουθέω, to follow. This imperfect has been called graphic, vivid, progressive, descriptive, and even picturesque! The author is picturing, very vividly describing, what was happening. Luke has already used this verb many times, beginning at 5:11, and is going to use it once more in his Gospel (23:27), and a few times in Acts. It abounds also in the other three Gospels and occurs six times in the book of Revelation. For the rest, in the entire New Testament it is found only once (I Cor. 10:4, “… the Rock that followed [or: accompanied] them”). The meaning is to follow, accompany. Cf. acolyte.

Verse 55

Note the two gen. absolutes: they having kindled and they having sat down together. The περί in περιαψάντων may basically indicate that they had kindled the fire “all around,” hence thoroughly. How much of the perfective sense still remained is hard to say.

αὐλῆς, gen. s. of αὐλή, courtyard. This is a word about which there has been much dispute. Because of the context in each individual case, the following meanings are probably correct:

a. sheepfold: John 10:1, 16. The context has reference to shepherds and their sheep. The meaning sheepfold is therefore natural.

b. court, courtyard: Matt. 26:58, 69; Mark 14:54, 66; Luke 22:55; John 18:15. In all these cases Peter is represented as being with the temple police and the palace servants, warming himself near the fire in an “open” or “roofless” place, one that is represented as being “lower” than the rest of the house or palace. Hence, the natural meaning is “court” or “courtyard.” Rev. 11:1, 2 makes a distinction between the inner temple and naturally the “outer court.”

c. house, palace: Matt 26:3; Mark 15:16; Luke 11:21. Respectively, the argument for “house” or “palace” is as follows: A courtyard, with servants passing in and out, would not have suited the context of Matt. 26:3. The expressed synonym praetorium indicates that more than a courtyard is meant in Mark 15:16. And the owner of a house or palace (Luke 11:21) would guard more than his courtyard; besides, his “possessions” would not be confined to that area.

Verse 56

πρὸς τὸ φῶς, in front of (or facing) the light; or, as we would say, “in the light.”

ἀτενίσασα, nom. s. fem. aor. participle of ἀτενίζω, to look intently, gaze.

Verse 59

Note gen. absolute: about an hour having intervened.

διαστάσης, gen. s. fem. 2nd aor. participle of διΐστημι, to intervene. A time interval is indicated. In 24:51 the interval is one of space; some interpret the interval in Acts 27:28 as one of space, others as one of time.

καὶ γάρ; cf. Latin etenim, in fact, indeed!

Verse 60

Again a gen. absolute: he still speaking.

Verse 61

ἐνέβλεψεν, third per. s. aor. indicat. of ἐμβλέπω; cf. 20:17; Acts 22:11; also in Matt. 6:26; 19:26; Mark 8:25; 10:21, 27; 14:67; John 1:36, 42; to look straight at, fix one’s gaze upon. See the note on 20:17 on page 898.

ὑπεμνήσθη, third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of ὑπομιμνήσκω, to remind, bring up; in pass., as here: to be reminded, to remember. The verb occurs also in John 14:26; II Tim. 2:14; Titus 3:1; II Peter 1:12; III John 10; Jude 5. The related form μνήσθητί μου (from μιμνήσκω) is found in 23:42.

Verse 62

ἔκλαυσεν, third per. s. aor. indicat. of κλαίω, to weep; same form as in 19:41, he burst into tears.

Verse 63

ἐνέπαιζον, third per. pl. imperf. act. of ἐμπαίζω, to mock, scoff, make sport of. See the note on 14:29 on page 739.

δέροντες, nom. pl. masc. pres. act. participle of δέρω, to beat, strike, flay. See the note on 12:47, 48 on page 688.

Verse 64

περικαλύψαντες, nom. pl. masc. aor. participle of περικαλύπτω, lit. to put a veil around; hence, to cover, and (since the veil is put around the face) to blindfold.

ἐπηρώτων, third per. pl. imperf. act. of ἐπερωτάω, to question, demand.

παίσας, nom. s. masc. aor. participle of παίω, to strike.

Verse 65

βλασφημοῦντες, masc. pl. pres. act. participle of βλασφημέω, to insult, blaspheme. See the note on 12:10 on page 660. The word also occurs in 23:39.

ἔλεγον, third per. pl. imperf. (iterative) of λέγω.

Verse 66

συνήχθη, third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of συνάγω, to bring together, gather; pass. (here), “was gathered” or simply “assembled,” “met.” See the note on 12:17, 18 on page 672.

πρεσβυτέριον, the council of elders. See also Acts 22:5; I Tim. 4:14. Cf. presbytery.

συνέδριον, the Sanhedrin.

Verses 67, 68

εἰπὸν ἡμῖν

, tell us; sec. per. s. imperat., a late substitute for

εἰπέ. Note how in these two verses a first class condition is followed by two third class (future more vivid) conditions.

εἴπω, first. per. s. subjunct. of εἶπον, which is used as a sec. aor. of λέγω.

πιστεύσητε, sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct. of πιστεύω; note strong negation (οὐ μή) you will certainly not believe.

ἐρωτήσω, first per. sing. fut. indicat. or aor. subjunct. (same form) of ἐρωτάω, to question.

ἀποκριθῆτε, sec. per. pl. aor. subjunct. pass. of ἀποκρίνομαι, to answer.

Verse 69

ἔσται … καθήμενος, third per. s. periphrastic fut. of κάθημαι, to sit, be seated.

Verse 70

Lit. “You say that I am,” meaning “You are right. I am.”

Summary of Chapter 22

It is understandable that the popularity of Jesus, so that “all the people would rise early to go to him in the temple and hear him” (21:38), angered the leaders. So they were looking for a way to do away with him without creating a riot.

In this difficult situation they received unexpected help from a man who belonged to the inner circle of Christ’s disciples. His name was Judas Iscariot, one of The Twelve. He agreed to deliver Jesus into their hands. The price? Thirty pieces of silver (Matt. 26:15). This was paid (verses 1–6).

Since Passover was at hand, Jesus sent Peter and John to Jerusalem to secure a room and to make the necessary preparations. His predictions with respect to the experiences of the two in the city were fulfilled in every detail (verses 7–13).

At the Passover Jesus told his disciples, “From now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine with you until the kingdom of God has arrived.” Cf. Matt. 26:29. He shocked them by declaring, “The hand of the traitor is with me on the table.”

Judas having left (cf. John 13:21–30), Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, to be observed ever after, “in remembrance of” him, that is, of his body, given for those who place their trust in him, and of his blood, poured out for them (verses 14–23).

Perhaps almost immediately after entering the upper room (cf. John 13:1 f.) the disciples had been arguing with each other about the question, “Who is the greatest?” In substance Jesus answered that the greatest is the one who is willing to be the servant of all. In this connection he declared, “I am among you as one who serves.” He promised that because of their loyalty to him his disciples would be richly rewarded in his Father’s kingdom, where they would feast and reign in close association with their Lord (verses 24–30).

He told Simon that he and his fellow disciples would be “sifted as wheat”; that is, they would be terribly shaken up and tempted by Satan. All would be, but especially Simon. He, however, received the comforting assurance, “I have prayed for you.” And he was told, “Once you have returned (to me), strengthen your brothers.” When that disciple boasted, “Lord, with you I am ready to go even to prison and to death,” Jesus predicted, “A rooster will not crow today before you deny three times that you know me” (verses 31–34).

In answer to a question asked by Jesus, The Eleven assure him that when they had been sent out on their mission tour they had lacked nothing. Jesus told them that from now on they would be “on their own,” in the sense that he would no longer be physically with them, providing for them. “Let him who has no sword sell his coat and buy one,” he said. The fact that one would not readily sell his all-purpose coat, cloak, or robe should have prevented them from interpreting this saying literally. When they nevertheless do so—note “Lord, look, here are two swords”—Jesus ends the discussion by saying, “Enough of that!” (verses 35–38).

On the Mount of Olives Jesus instructs his disciples to pray that they may not enter into temptation. At the distance of a stone’s throw away from them he himself, being in agony, offered this prayer: “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup [probably the descent into the hell of Calvary] from me.” However, in complete submission to the Father he added, “Not my will but thine be done.”

While his sweat became like thick drops of blood trickling down upon the ground, an angel, sent from heaven, strengthened him. Returning to the disciples he found them asleep. At the proper moment he told them, “Get up and pray, that you may not enter into temptation” (verses 39–46).

The band, with Judas in the lead, now arrived. By means of a kiss Judas identified Jesus and thus delivered him into the hands of those who had come to capture him. The disciples asked Jesus, “Shall we strike with a sword?” Without even waiting for an answer one of the disciples—it was Peter (John 18:10)—with his sword slashed at the servant of the highpriest, severing his right ear. Jesus said, “No more of this!” and healed the man. Then the Lord exposed the hypocrisy of his captors, who had never dared to lay hands on him when he had been daily with them in the temple (verses 47–53).

Jesus was now led to the house or palace of the highpriest. While the authorities were busy with their captive, Peter, in three separate situations, denied that he even knew Jesus at all. All at once a rooster crowed, and at the same moment Jesus, who after his midnight trial was probably being led across the court to his cell, turned and looked at Peter. “And Peter was reminded of the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, ‘Before a rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.’ And he went outside and wept bitterly” (verses 54–62).

Returning now to what happened to Jesus after he had been led into the highpriest’s palace, Luke relates how the Savior had been mocked and physically abused by his captors (verses 63–65).

At a hastily gathered meeting, held very early in the day, Jesus was asked, “So you are the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right; I am.” They said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from his own mouth” (verses 66–71).

⁵⁵³ 22:63–71 can also be considered one section, indicating what happened in connection with The Trial Before the Sanhedrin. In reality that section is already introduced in verse 54. Though Luke describes a mockery of Jesus in verses 63–65, he omits a later mockery (Matt. 27:27–31; Mark 15:16–20; John 19:2, 3).

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁵⁵⁴ On this question see also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 534. The “crucifixion on Thursday” theory was revived by Roger Rusk, in the March 29, 1974 issue of Christianity Today, pp. 720–722. It was refuted by Harold W. Hoehner in the April 26, 1974 issue, pp. 878, 881. As Hoehner points out, if Jesus had died on Thursday instead of on Friday, Pilate would have secured the sepulcher until the fourth day, not the third (Matt. 27:62–66). As to the computer which established the exact times of all the new and full moons from 1001 b.c. to a.d. 1651, and confirmed the fact that in the year a.d. 30 the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on Thursday, the fifteenth on Friday, though this information is interesting and helpful, yet as far as the date a.d. 30 is concerned it is not exactly new. See, for example, P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, New York, 1916, Vol. I, p. 135.

⁵⁵⁵ Note the plural τὰ ἄζυμα, probably referring to the unleavened cakes of bread, and based on the Hebrew plural matzoth. Besides, it must be borne in mind that this was a feast lasting several days and including many festive activities. That fact too may account for the plural. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 792, 793.

⁵⁵⁶ See also S.BK., Vol. IV, pp. 41–76.

⁵⁵⁷ So, for example, Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 552.

⁵⁵⁸ Lenski, op. cit., p. 652; cf. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, p. 213.

⁵⁵⁹ For the textual question with respect to verses 19b, 20 (“given for you … poured out for you”) see the note on this passage on pp. 968, 969.

⁵⁶⁰ Or: is going to betray.

⁵⁶¹ Or: is to be.

⁵⁶²

See the following sources:

Mishnah Pesahim X. 2–10.

S.BK. on Matt. 26.

A. Edersheim, The Temple, pp. 208–248 (especially pp. 238–246).

S. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, Vol. II, p. 218.

J. B. Segal, The Jewish Passover from the Earliest Times to a.d. 70, London, 1963.

⁵⁶³ Form for The Lord’s Supper, from the Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church. See Psalter Hymnal (Centennial Edition), “Doctrinal Standards and Liturgy of the Christian Reformed Church,” Grand Rapids, 1959, p. 94 of the Liturgical Forms.

⁵⁶⁴ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 22:1–23 begin on page 966.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

S.BK. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch

⁵⁶⁵ Or: (to be).

⁵⁶⁶ Or: outer garment, or robe.

⁵⁶⁷ Or: It is enough.

⁵⁶⁸ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 22:24–38 begin on page 978.

⁵⁶⁹ Are verses 43 and 44 authentic? See the note on these verses on pages 990–991.

⁵⁷⁰ Or: more intensely.

⁵⁷¹ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 22:39–53 begin on page 990.

BibZ Biblische Zeitschrift

Th.D.N.T. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, and translated from the German by G. W. Bromiley

⁵⁷² For this conclusion see also A. Sizoo, Uit De Wereld van het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1946, pp. 81, 82.

⁵⁷³ G. Campbell Morgan, op. cit., p. 312.

⁵⁷⁴ Or: and they led him away to, etc.

⁵⁷⁵

To mention but a few of the many books and articles that can be consulted:

Amram, D. W., Leading Cases in the Bible, Philadelphia, 1905.

Baldensperger, G., “Il a rendu témoignage devant Ponce Pilate,” RHPR, 2 (1922), pp. 1–25, 95–117.

Barton, G. A., “On the Trial of Jesus Before the Sanhedrin,” JBL, 41 (1922), pp. 205–211.

Bentfort, J. A. D., “Enige beknopte beschouwingen met betrekking tot de processen van de Here Jezus Christus en van de Apostel Paulus,” GTT, 55 (1955), pp. 33–68.

Blinzler, J., “Der Entschied des Pilatus—Exekutionsbefehl oder Todesurteil?” MTZ, 5 (1954), pp. 171–184.

……, Der Prozess Jesu, Ratisbonne, 1960.

Cheever, H. M., “The Legal Aspects of the Trial of Christ,” BS, 60 (1903), pp. 495–509.

Cohen, B., “Evidence in Jewish Law,” Recueils de la Société J. Bodin 16 (1965).

Dalmann, G., Jesus-Jeshua, New York, 1929, especially p. 98.

Danby, H., “The Bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the Jewish Trial Narratives in the Gospels,” JTS, 21 (1920), pp. 51–76.

Derret, J. D. M., An Oriental Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus and the Doctrine of Redemption, London, 1966.

Easton, B. S., “The Trial of Jesus,” AJT, 19 (1915), pp. 430–452.

Goguel, M., “A propos du procès de Jésus,” ZNW, 31 (1929–30), pp. 289–301.

Hendriksen, W., Israel in Prophecy, Grand Rapids, 1972, especially pp. 10–15.

Jeremias, J., “Zur Geschichtlichkeit des Verhörs Jesu vor dem Hohen Rat,” ZNW, 43 (1950–51), pp. 145–150.

Price, O. J., “Jesus’ Arrest and Trial,” BW, 36 (1919), pp. 345–353.

Tubbs, R. S., “Local Attorney Eyes Legal Maneuvering Which Led to Death of Jesus,” article in The Grand Rapids Press, April 6, 1963.

Winter, P., “Marginal Notes on the Trial of Jesus,” ZNW, 50 (1959), pp. 14–33, 221–251.

⁵⁷⁶ See M. Wolff, “De samenstelling en het karaktervan het grote synedrion te Jeruzalem voor het jaar 70 na Christus,” TT 51 (1917), pp. 299–320.

⁵⁷⁷ See the Midrash on Psalms (on Ps. 2:7 and Ps. 18).

⁵⁷⁸ See A. M. Goldberg, “Sitzend zur Rechten der Kraft. Zur Gottesbezechnung Gebura in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur,” BibZ 8 (1964), pp. 284–293.

⁵⁷⁹ Notes on Greek words, phrases, and constructions in 22:54–71 begin on page 1000.

↑ Back to top