From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
Verses 1-38
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
22:1 Translations
Weymouth: Meanwhile the
Festival of the Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching,
WEB: Now the
feast of unleavened bread, which is called the Passover, drew near.
Young’s: And the feast of the unleavened food was
coming nigh, that is called Passover,
Conte (RC): Now the days of the
Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover, were approaching.
22:1 Introductory note:
The unrecorded events of Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem [52]: The work of
our Lord on earth was done. Wednesday
(most of Thursday also) appears to have been spent in a seclusion, the
experiences of which are completely hidden from us. According to the Jewish custom at that time,
of beginning the day at sundown, and reckoning the hours which followed, to the
next day, the discourse in chapter 21, belonged to the
eve of Wednesday. But except one
sentence in Matthew (26:2) we have no further information concerning Him during
all that day.
When we
remember how often, during His previous life, the Master, in great emergencies,
retired for special prayer and communion with His Father, we may well suppose
that He was thus engaged on this critical day.
The tenderness of His address to the disciples (verse 14ff.), breathes
something of the spirit of Gethsemane, and may well imply hours of previous
converse with God, concerning His approaching sufferings, and the peril and
disconsolateness of His brethren.
Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called
the Passover. These words show that many of the readers for
whom this Gospel was intended were foreigners, who were unacquainted with
Jewish terms such as the "Passover."
Passover means, literally, "a passing." The feast so named commemorated the manner in
which the chosen people were spared in Egypt when the destroying angel of the
Lord passed over all Israelitish houses, which had
been sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, without slaying the
firstborn. This greatest and most
important of the Jewish feasts, which ever brought a great host of pilgrims to
Jerusalem, was kept in the first month of the Jewish year (Nisan), from the
15th of the month, the day of full moon, to the 21st. Roughly, this corresponded to the end of our
March. [18]
In depth: More
background detail on the feast(s) [52]: “Feast of unleavened bread”—so called because
all leaven, through the entire week, and part of the preceding day, must be
carefully banished from their houses.
“The Passover” and “the feast of unleavened bread,” were often entirely
synonymous expressions, to name the period of seven (or eight) days set apart
in Exodus (chapters 12, 13), as a perpetual memorial of the deliverance of the
people out of captivity in Egypt. It
properly began on the eve of the 15th of the first month (now called
Nisan), or, as we should say, on the evening of the 14th, and
extended through the 21st.
But the fourteenth, as a preparation day, was often reckoned with
it.
From Matthew and Mark,
we learn more definitely that the Passover was now two days off. The time is accordingly some point in the 13th
of the month. All attempts to identify
the day with the precisely corresponding one in the Roman Calendar, and so with
our own, are frustrated by the uncertainty as to what year it was of the
building of Rome.
However [56]: Strictly speaking the Passover was not
co-extensive with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as is clearly stated in
Numbers 28:16, 17, “In the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover
. . . and in the fifteenth is the feast” (Leviticus 23:5, 6). See on the Passover Exodus 12:11-20. The Jews of later ages had gradually assumed
that a wide difference was intended between the “Egyptian Passover” and the
“permanent Passover.” [56]
22:2 Translations
Weymouth: and the High
Priests and the Scribes were contriving how to destroy Him. But they feared the
people.
WEB: The chief
priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death, for they feared
the people.
Young’s: and the chief priests and the scribes
were seeking how they may take him up, for they were afraid of the people.
Conte (RC): And the leaders of
the priests, and the scribes, were seeking a way to execute Jesus. Yet truly,
they were afraid of the people.
22:2 And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill
Him.
In what possible way they might be able to do that which, in some way,
they had determined should be done. [52]
chief priests and scribes. It is very noticeable that the Pharisees, as
a distinct party, now vanish entirely into the background. They are scarcely mentioned against except in
Matthew 27:62. [56]
sought. Rather,
“were seeking.” The word involves a continuous
effort, and probably includes the memorable meeting in the Palace of Caiaphas, which is traditionally placed on the “Hill of
Evil Counsel,” but was probably close to the Temple precincts. They seem to have come on that occasion, in
consequence of the advice of Caiaphas, to three
conclusions: (1) To put Jesus to death;
(2) to do it as secretly as possible; and (3) not to do it during the Feast, so
as to avoid the chance of tumults on the part of the Galilean pilgrims. If this meeting was on Tuesday evening, at
the very time that they were deciding not to kill Jesus (Psalms 2:2) for
more than eight days—and it was unusual to put to death during the Passover,
Acts 12:4—He, seated on the slopes of Olivet, was telling His disciples that
before the Passover He should be slain, Matthew 26:1-5. [56]
for they
feared the people. The only thing that perplexed them was how
this could safely be accomplished, owing to the favor in which he was held
by the people, especially by the crowds of pilgrims from the provinces then in
Jerusalem. [18]
22:3 Translations
Weymouth: Satan,
however, entered into Judas (the man called Iscariot)
WEB: Satan
entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered with the
twelve.
Young’s: And the Adversary entered into Judas, who
is surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve,
Conte (RC): Then Satan entered
into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve.
22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas Iscariot. This strong expression
means, I presume, no more than that Judas yielded his heart to the temptation
of the wicked one, voluntarily opening it for the reception and entertainment
of the Satanic influence. It is not
necessary to suppose that he became at that time wholly possessed by the
devil. No doubt his mind had been
brooding over the subject before. He was
disappointed in his carnal hopes about the kingdom; he had been rebuked for his
covetousness; he must have known that he was the one who had been pointed out
as “a devil;’ all of which had caused the unhappy man to feel chafed and worn;
and in this state it needed only for Satan to set before his covetous soul the
prospect of gain, and as his heart was already balancing between two courses, that
turned the scale. [3]
When Satan tempts men,
he commonly does it by exciting and raising to the highest pitch their native
passions. He does not make them act
contrary to their nature, but leads them on to act out their [inner preferences
and desires]. [11]
being of the number of the twelve. One of the twelve
apostles. This greatly aggravated
his crime. He should have been bound by
[close emotional] ties to Jesus. He was
one of His family--long with Him, and treated by him
with every mark of kindness and confidence; and nothing could more enhance his
guilt than thus to make use of this confidence for the commission of one of the
basest crimes. [11]
In depth: the stages of
Judas' entanglement in Satan's plans [16]. The stages of it were these:
(1) Covetousness being his master passion, the
Lord let it reveal itself and gather strength by entrusting him with "the
bag" (John 12:6), as treasurer to Himself and the twelve.
(2) In the discharge of that most sacred trust he
became "a thief," appropriating its contents from time to time to his
own use. Satan, seeing this door into
his heart standing wide open, determines to enter by it, but cautiously (2 Corinthians
2:11); first, merely "putting it into his heart to betray Him" (John 13:2),
suggesting the thought to him that by this means he might enrich himself.
(3) This thought was probably converted into a
settled purpose by what took place in Simon's house at Bethany. See Matthew 26:6 and John 12:4-8.
(4) Starting back, perhaps, or mercifully held
back, for some time, the determination to carry it into immediate effect was
not consummated till, sitting at the Paschal supper, "Satan entered into
him ([cf] John 13:27), and conscience effectually
stifled, only rose again to be his tormentor [after Jesus' arrest].
In depth: The
personal weaknesses and attitudes that combined to make Judas vulnerable [52]. Certain facts are obvious, and certain
inferences are natural; but we have still left ample scope for the influence of
Satan in the result.
“He
had the bag, and bare what was put therein” (John
12:6)—is best understood to mean “he took for himself from the bag.” He even stole contributions that were made to
the support of Jesus.
At the same time, he may
have shared the ideas of his generation concerning the temporal advantages that
were to come through the Messiah to those who should join themselves to
Him. As treasurer of the Lord and His company, he would naturally calculate on some corresponding
honor in His manifested kingdom.
From recent discourses
he might have noticed indications that the manifestation was yet remote, and
that an interval of want, and trial, and danger, and shame, was to precede
it. The course of Jesus in the matter of
the three hundred pence worth of spikenard perfume would, of course, reveal to
him the profound want to sympathy [ = shared priorities] between the Master and
himself. The pomp and enthusiasm of Palm
Sunday might well revive his expectation of a speedy assumption by Jesus of
royal dominion; but this was soon blasted by the failure to take advantage of
the popular favor, and by the explicit predictions of Tuesday evening, on Olivet.
Disappointment,
vexation, overmastering covetousness, combined to prepare him to fall under the
influence of Satan. The latter was said
above to have entered into him, possessed him, not so as to relieve him of the guilt
of his conduct, but, rather, so as to make it the heavier, in that he
voluntarily opened the way to such a possession.
22:4 Translations
Weymouth: He went and
conferred with the High Priests and Commanders as to how he should deliver Him
up to them.
WEB: He went
away, and talked with the chief priests and captains about how he might deliver
him to them.
Young’s: and he, having gone away, spake with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he
might deliver him up to them,
Conte (RC): And he went out and
was speaking with the leaders of the priests, and the magistrates, as to how he
might hand him over to them.
22:4 And he went his way, and communed [conferred, NKJV] with the
chief priests and captains. Literally, “generals.” The Levitic
captains of the Temple who kept order during the Feasts. There was strictly only one who bore the
title of “the general of the Temple”—“man of the mountain of the House” (see
Nehemiah 2:8, 7:2; Jeremiah 20:1; 2 Maccabees 3:4);
but he had guards under him (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vi. 5.3), and
the name might be applied to the whole body.
One of the bitter complaints against the High Priests of the day was
that they made their own sons “generals of the Temple.” St. Luke was aware that the special
title applied only to one person, as appears from Acts 4:1. [56]
However much the “captains” might be opposed to Jesus as well, this was
(as we say today) “above their pay grade.”
It was the type of thing that had to be approved and endorsed by those
leading officials even higher in the administrative “totem pole” of the Temple
bureaucracy. The potential repercussions
of this going wrong were simply too great for any rational man to proceed
without clear-cut approval and endorsement from the top echelon. [rw]
how he might betray Him unto them. The wording seems to imply that even Judas
himself had no more than the vaguest idea of “how” to accomplish his goal. By the very nature of the situation, it would
have to be a scheme agreeable to both sides.
[rw]
22:5 Translations
Weymouth: This gave them
great pleasure, and they agreed to pay him.
WEB: They were
glad, and agreed to give him money.
Young’s: and they rejoiced, and covenanted to give
him money,
Conte (RC): And they were glad,
and so they made an agreement to give him money.
22:5 And they were glad. This spontaneous offer—and that too from one
or Christ’s immediate followers—seemed to solve all their difficulties. [56]
and covenanted. Or,
“agreed;” in Mark, “promised.” In
Matthew 26:15 it is said that they “paid” or “weighed” him the money, with a
reference to Zechariah
11:12, 13 (LXX). This was
perhaps done at a second meeting when the actual plan was ripened. [56]
to give him money. The proposal
came from the wretched man himself (Matthew 26:15). The paltry sum given (which is mentioned by
Matthew only)—30 shekels, the price given for the [poorest] slave—shows that
this sum was either regarded as earnest-money, or more probably that the
Priests felt themselves quite able to carry out their plot, though less
conveniently, without any aid from Judas.
On one side of these shekels would be stamped the olive-branch, the
emblem of peace; on the obverse the censer, the type of prayer, with the
inscription, “Jerusalem the Holy”! [56]
22:6 Translations
Weymouth: He accepted
their offer, and then looked out for an opportunity to betray Him when the
people were not there.
WEB: He
consented, and sought an opportunity to deliver him to them in the absence of
the multitude.
Young’s: and he agreed, and was seeking a favourable season to deliver him up to them without tumult.
Conte (RC): And he made a
promise. And he was seeking an opportunity to hand him over, apart from the
crowds.
22:6 And he promised, and sought opportunity. Doubtless he
was baffled at first by the entire and unexpected seclusion which Jesus
observed on the Wednesday and Thursday. [56]
to betray Him
unto them in the absence of the multitude. They had not contemplated the possibility
(Matthew 26:5) of putting Jesus out of the way “during the feast,” simply
because the assembled crowd, largely from Galilee, would endanger
insurrection. But Judas’ plan of seizing
him in the night, when He could guide them, obviated that objection. But he still had to seek opportunity, as not
knowing the place, perhaps not even the time, when Christ would observe the
Passover. [52]
22:7 Translations
Weymouth: When the day
of the Unleavened Bread came--the day for the Passover lamb to be sacrificed--
WEB: The day
of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover must be sacrificed.
Young’s: And the day of the unleavened food came,
in which it was behoving the passover
to be sacrificed,
Conte (RC): Then the day of
Unleavened Bread arrived, on which it was necessary to kill the Pascal lamb.
22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread. On this
afternoon all leaven was carefully and scrupulously put away; hence the
name. [18]
“The
day” was Thursday, beginning at sundown, or, at that season, about 6 P.M. on
Wednesday. [52]
when the passover must be killed. The ordained time for it to occur. [rw]
Because the law so
required. Many changes in the mode of
celebrating the Passover distinguished the now existing practice from that
first prescribed, but only as they had been found necessary, or helpful. [52]
killed. Properly, “sacrificed.” Not mere killed, or slaughtered, but the use
was regarded as a sacrifice, commemorative of the birth of the people into a
nation at their deliverance from Egypt, the house of bondage, and typical of
the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Here, however, we need think only of the day,
after the night was past [that began the new Jewish day]. [52]
For a detailed survey of the question of what day Jesus
celebrated the Passover on, see the end of the chapter.
22:8 Translations
Weymouth: Jesus sent
Peter and John with instructions. "Go," He said, "and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat it."
WEB: He sent
Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may
eat."
Young’s: and he sent Peter and John, saying,
'Having gone on, prepare to us the passover,
that we may eat;'
Conte (RC): And he sent Peter
and John, saying, "Go out, and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may
eat."
22:8 And he sent
Peter and John. Probably from
Bethany. [52]
saying, Go and
prepare us the passover, that we may eat. This
direction may have been issued in the forenoon of the day, or even early in the
afternoon. Luke alone gives the names of
the “two of His disciples” (Mark 14:13 who were to find and suitably furnish
the needed room, to select the lamb, and have it slain and roasted, and to
provide the other viands required for the meal.
[52]
The old law that the Paschal Lamb
must be chosen ten days beforehand had long fallen into desuetude. Its observance would have been impossible for
the myriads of pilgrims who came from all parts of the world. [56]
22:9 Translations
Weymouth: "Where
shall we prepare it?" they asked.
WEB: They said
to him, "Where do you want us to prepare?"
Young’s: and they said to him, 'Where wilt thou
that we might prepare?'
Conte (RC): But they said,
"Where do you want us to prepare it?"
22:9 And they said unto him, Where wilt Thou
that we prepare? They are absolutely willing to do whatever
Jesus commands, but He has clearly not given any hint of what those specific
plans were. [rw]
The Lord’s answer to
their question, where they should eat the supper, may have been given
designedly in such a way as to keep the knowledge of the place from Judas, for
the present. [52]
22:10 Translations
Weymouth: "You will
no sooner have entered the city," He replied, "than you will meet a
man carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him into the house
to which he goes,
WEB: He said
to them, "Behold, when you have entered into the city, a man carrying a
pitcher of water will meet you. Follow him into the house which he enters.
Young’s: And he said to them, 'Lo, in your
entering into the city, there shall meet you a man, bearing a pitcher of water,
follow him to the house where he doth go in,
Conte (RC): And he said to them:
"Behold, as you are entering into the city, a certain man will meet you,
carrying a pitcher of water. Follow him to the house into which he enters.
22:10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the
city. Thereby
ruling out the possibility that it would be observed in some isolated, separate
house that might exist on the way into the city. Such a place might be considered “of” the
city (Jerusalem) but not “in” it. [rw]
there shall a
man meet you. The name of the man who should meet them was
omitted—purposely, think Theophylact
and others, lest the place of meeting should be prematurely known to
Judas. [18]
bearing pitcher of water. A common task in the East. [Examples]:
The women at Samaria (John 4:7). A person bearing a pitcher 1900 years before, a sign to Eleazar for Isaac (Genesis 24:14), and now to the apostles. [7]
The significance of the gender: This
would be an unusual sight in an Oriental city, where the water is drawn by
women. It is probable that the
"man" whom the Master foretold John and Peter would meet, was the
master of the house, who, according to the Jewish custom on the 13th of Nisan, before
the stars appeared in the heavens, had himself to go to the public fountain
to draw the water with which the unleavened bread for the Passover Feast was
kneaded. [18]
The
“man bearing a pitcher of water” may have even been the Evangelist St. Mark, in
the house of whose mother, and probably in the very upper room where the Last
Supper was held, the disciples used at first to meet (Acts 12:12). The mysteriousness of the sign was perhaps
intended to baffle, as long as was needful, the machinations of Judas. [56]
follow him into
the house where he entereth in. This could mean that they were to follow
without introducing themselves or that they were left to themselves to say
whatever seemed appropriate as to their need for a place to observe the
Passover. [rw]
22:11 Translations
Weymouth: and say to the
master of the house, "'The Rabbi asks you, Where
is the room where I can eat the Passover with my disciples?'
WEB: Tell the
master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room,
where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?"'
Young’s: and ye shall say to the master of the
house, The Teacher saith to thee,
Where is the guest-chamber where the passover with my
disciples I may eat?
Conte (RC): And you shall say to
the father of the household: 'The Teacher says to you: Where is the guestroom,
where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'
22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman [master,
NKJV] of the house. The language suggests the idea that the “goodman,” i.e., the proprietor of the house, was a friend,
and that Jesus had possibly spoken to him previously respecting the occupancy
of the guest-chamber. [3]
The Master saith unto thee, Where
is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with My disciples? It was regarded as a duty that the householders
in Jerusalem, and the suburbs, within which the sacrificial Passover might be
eaten, should grant any spare room for the use of visiting worshippers at the
feast. [52]
22:12 Translations
Weymouth: "And he
will show you a large furnished room upstairs. There make your
preparations."
WEB: He will
show you a large, furnished upper room. Make preparations there."
Young’s: and he shall show you a large upper room
furnished, there make ready;'
Conte (RC): And he will show you
a large cenacle, fully furnished. And so, prepare it there."
22:12 And he shall shew you a large
upper room. It would need to
be of a good size to accommodate thirteen men at table. [52]
The house
evidently belonged to a man of some wealth and position, possibly to Nicodemus
or Joseph of Arimathaea. That it perhaps belonged to St. Mark's family
has also been suggested. [18]
The “evidence” for a Mark connection: Some have ingeniously fixed on that of John
Mark, author of the Second Gospel, in which the disciples were gathered at Acts
12:12, if it were a usual thing. In Acts
1:13, the disciples had also met in a large “upper-chamber,” and this, it is
said, may have been understood as connecting the other two instances. The argument is not so
strong as a spider’s thread. [52]
furnished. "Furnished" ( ̓στρωμώνον ) applies specially to carpets spread over the couches
for the reception of guests. [18]
Properly,
“spread”—having reference, primarily, to rugs and cushions, but including,
doubtless, the table, dishes, and other necessary articles. The simple earthen dishes were usually
supplied by the company; and these, with the skin of the sacrificial victim,
were left as remuneration to the proprietor of the house. [52]
there make
ready. The
householder provided the physical location, but it was up to the observers to
provide for their own lamb and related essentials. [rw]
22:13 Translations
Weymouth: So they went
and found all as He had told them; and they got the Passover ready.
WEB: They
went, found things as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover.
Young’s: and they, having gone away, found as he
hath said to them, and they made ready the passover.
Conte (RC): And going out, they
found it to be just as he had told them. And they prepared the Passover.
22:13 And they went, and found as He had said unto them. As had happened so often before, even Jesus’
“odder” requests worked out as He had said.
[rw]
and they made ready the Passover. The lamb, the bitter herbs,
the bread and wine. [7]
In depth: The fully developed
Passover ritual [22]. The Passover supper was a full meal, not
simply a ceremonial eating as in our Lord's Supper. Yet it was a strictly religious sacramental
meal, interspersed with prayer and various ceremonies, and was eaten according
to a strict ritual, in the following order:
(1) benediction;
(2) cup of wine;
(3) hands of company washed by master of the feast, who recites
a prayer;
(4) bitter herbs dipped in sauce and eaten;
(5) lamb brought in with other portions of the meal;
(6) benediction
and second eating of bitter herbs; (7) second cup of wine with question and
answer as to origin of the feast (Ex. 12:26);
(8) first part of the Hallel (Pss. 113-114) sung with the benediction;
(9) leader
washed his hands, makes a
"sop" by wrapping a bit
of the lamb with the unleavened bread in bitter herbs, dipping it in the sauce,
eating it and making similar sops for the others present;
(10) each eats what he likes, finishing with a piece of the lamb;
(11) hands are washed, and a third cup of wine taken;
(12) second part of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118)
is sung, which concludes the supper;
(13) fourth cup of wine.
22:14 Translations
Weymouth: When the time
was come, and He had taken His place at table, and the Apostles with Him,
WEB: When the
hour had come, he sat down with the twelve apostles.
Young’s: And when the hour come, he reclined (at
meat), and the twelve apostles with him,
Conte (RC): And when the hour
had arrived, he sat down at table, and the twelve Apostles with him.
22:14 And when the hour was come. The hour of eating the paschal lamb, which was in the evening.
[11]
If
the meal was intended to be directly Paschal, this would be “between the two
evenings” (Exodus 12:6); a phrase interpreted by the Jews to mean between three
and six, and by the Samaritans to mean between twilight and sunset. Probably Jesus and His disciples, anxious to
avoid dangerous notice, would set forth towards dusk. [56]
He sat down.
Reclined at table. The posture at the table was the usual one,
at that time, of reclining on couches, extended nearly at full length. [52]
The original posture was standing (Exodus 12:11). [7]
and the twelve
apostles with him. I.e.,
the entire inner, core, group was there with Him. All could see and speak of and write of what
had happened at the meal. [rw]
The apostles were all
with Him, certainly at the paschal meal, at least, yet the word “twelve” was
probably added to the text much later.
Why no other disciples—men or women—were joined with the twelve, we may
conjecture. Evidently, not many could be
drawn into one Passover company (“not less than ten, nor more than
twenty”—Josephus); and, besides the need of a strictly private opportunity with
the apostles, He could not prudently make selections out of the general body of
His followers. [52]
22:15 Translations
Weymouth: He said to
them, "Earnestly have I longed to eat this Passover with you before I
suffer;
WEB: He said
to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I
suffer,
Young’s: and he said unto them, 'With desire I did
desire to eat this passover with you before my
suffering,
Conte (RC): And he said to them:
"With longing have I desired to eat this Passover with you, before I
suffer.
22:15 And he said unto them, with desire I have desired. Expressing intense desire.
Compare John 3:29, “rejoiceth with you;” Acts 4:17,
“threaten with threatening.” [2]
to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer. Before I die. [11]
22:16 Translations
Weymouth: for I tell you
that I certainly shall not eat one again till its full meaning has been brought
out in the Kingdom of God."
WEB: for I
tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in the
Kingdom of God."
Young’s: for I say to you, that no more may I eat
of it till it may be fulfilled in the reign of God.'
Conte (RC): For I say to you,
that from this time, I will not eat it, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of
God."
22:16 For
I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof. This will be the last time it will occur
during Jesus’ ministry. For a Jew who
was still alive to refuse or decline to participate would be unthinkable. Hence for Jesus to not do
so argued for the certainty of His death. [rw]
until it be
fulfilled in the kingdom of God. In the resurrection state. [14]
But, surely,
the full sense of it cannot exclude the heavenly banquet, at which they shall
come from the east and west, from the north and south, and shall sit down with
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (13:29; 14:13-23; Matthew
8:11; Revelation 19:9). That ceremony would “be fulfilled” in that which is signified, the
blessedness of complete salvation.
This blessedness is compared to the joys of a banquet.
Or in the Lord’s Supper [52]: This meant
“never again in our earthly relation to each other”; but that He would join
them in celebrating a feast of analogous significance in that glorious relation
which He should afterward sustain to them, and to which this was leading. It is not so certain that He did not here
look forward to the communion of His saints with Himself and with each other in
“the breaking of bread,” under the Dispensation of the Spirit, as Godet, on the passage, assumes. Compare 14:30, 35; Acts 10:41.
22:17 Translations
Weymouth: Then, having
received the cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among
yourselves;
WEB: He
received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, "Take this, and
share it among yourselves,
Young’s: And having taken a cup, having given
thanks, he said, 'Take this and divide to yourselves,
Conte (RC): And having taken the
chalice, he gave thanks, and he said: "Take this and share it among
yourselves.
22:17 And He took the cup. This was not the sacramental cup, for that
was taken after supper
(verse 20). This was one
of the cups which were usually taken during the celebration of the Passover and
pertained to that observance. After He had
kept this in the usual manner, He instituted the supper which bears His name--using
the bread and wine which had been prepared for the Passover. [11]
and gave thanks. The person presiding at the Passover feast
gave thanks. [26]
This
is perhaps a reference to the Jewish benediction pronounced over the first cup,
“Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, who hast created
the fruit of the vine.” [56]
and said, Take this. It does not appear that our Lord handed
either the bread or the cup to each person; He gave it to him who was next to Him, and, by handing it from one to another, they shared it
among themselves. [1]
and divide it
among yourselves. Implying that the Lord did
not Himself partake. The drinking
the Paschal cup was not binding as the eating the lamb. [7]
Or:
Share ye the contents of the one cup, either by
drinking out of it in turn, or by pouring out a portion into each one’s
cup. This does not preclude the idea of
Christ drinking a portion of the wine also.
But this occasion is to be the last [if that is so]. [52]
22:18 Translations
Weymouth: for I tell you
that from this time I will never drink the produce of the vine till the Kingdom
of God has come."
WEB: for I
tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until the
Kingdom of God comes."
Young’s: for I say to you that I may not drink of
the produce of the vine till the reign of God may come.'
Conte (RC): For I say to you,
that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God
arrives."
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the
vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Not just the Passover meal, but any meal: This is the last time He will partake of such
until after the resurrection. [rw]
22:19 Translations
Weymouth: Then, taking a
Passover biscuit, He gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
"This is my body which is being given on your behalf: this do in
remembrance of me."
WEB: He took
bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying,
"This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me."
Young’s: And having taken bread,
having given thanks, he brake and gave to them, saying, 'This is my body, that
for you is being given, this do ye -- to remembrance of me.'
Conte (RC): And taking bread, he
gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them, saying: "This is my body,
which is given for you. Do this as a commemoration of me.
22:19 And
He took bread. A load, or flat cake
(like our sea-biscuit) of the unleavened bread.
[52]
and gave thanks,
and brake it, and gave unto them. As to the manner of doing it, we are left in
the dark; whether He Himself distributed a portion to all, or simply broke the
loaf in two, and left each one to break off a piece for himself, or effected
the object in some other way. Each
Christian will be likely to think the mode to which he is used the original
one; and happily, it is quite immaterial whether it be
so or not. [52]
Another way of approaching this is that each of us plays the role of
Christ and the apostles (so to speak) in the Communion: each of us gives thanks for the loaf we are
going to partake of, each of us breaks the loaf and partakes of it, and each of
us passes it on to the next person to do so as well. The validity of our observance rests on that
very fact that both I do all three and you perform all three
elements as well—not on what the person(s) do that may be leading the
presentation of the bread and fruit of the vine to the audience. The validity of their observance rests
on the same factors as do those in our own. [rw]
saying, This is My body. “This
is My body” could not have meant to the hearers, who
saw Him sitting there in bodily form, anything but "this is a symbol of My
body." It is but the common use of
the word in explaining a figurative speech or act. "The field is the world; the tares are
the children of the wicked one; the reapers are the angels,"--and so in a
hundred cases. [47]
Recall also
how often, in the Old Testament, God is said to be a shepherd, fortress,
high tower, rock, shield, etc. [52]
Probably, “body” is used
by synecdoche for the person, as in Romans 2:1, because it is in
relation to the body that His person, slain in founding the new economy
of salvation, is viewed. [52]
which is given for you. The deeply personal relevance of this to each and everyone present. [rw]
“Given for you” should be taken in connection with—as represented by the bread. Not his body absolutely, but His body so situated and regarded. Thus the metaphor may be roughly paraphrased: “In this broken loaf you may see Me, giving Myself to death, through the rending of My body, as your Redeemer from sin and all misery.” However little the disciples may have then apprehended the full significance of His words, we may be sure that they swelled in the soul of Jesus into a fullness of meaning which it is our wisdom to ponder rather than discuss, or try in other words to explain. [52]
this do in
remembrance of me. Here we have, as in 1 Corinthians 11:24, in
the same words, the direction to the disciples to repeat the act which He was
performing, after He was gone. From
Paul’s account (which he had “received of the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 11:23), we
learn also (verse 26) that the usage was to be kept up till the return of the Saviour. [52]
“In remembrance” does not
conceptually fit the idea of a short period of time going by in which they will
not see Him—a week, month, year, or even longer. It implies a sustained, lengthy period
so prolonged that a concrete “ritual” to systematically put Him front and
center in their minds would be called for.
This surely fits a period of at least decades, if not far, far
longer. Interpreting New Testament
language referring to Jesus as coming “soon” as meaning “in a very short
period of time” would, therefore, seem to betray a fundamental element that
Jesus stressed in the institution of the Communion. [rw]
In depth: The
probability that much more was said than the few words narrated in the gospel
accounts [52]. This may
have come in where, according to the usual practice, the lamb had been eaten,
and the requirements of the original Law fulfilled. We may suppose the Savior to have explained
to His disciples the abrogation of the ceremony which they had just concluded;
how the typical significance of that lamb was to be fulfilled in Him; and that
the breaking of this loaf, often repeated, would keep them in remembrance of
Him as the source of their spiritual life, and of the formal establishment of a
new spiritual society, founded on faith and love to Him. What was essential to be recorded is reported
to us; but we cannot suppose that so important an event would take place
without much explanation.
Although this is a powerful argument, the apostles already had a feast
of conflicting thoughts in their minds already—the coming Temple destruction,
Jesus coming in judgement, His coming death. Did they need something this profound in
detail when they are already pushed to their intellectual and emotional
limits? Hence it would seem at least
marginally more likely that any explaining came after the resurrection, when it
would be easier for them to fit this in with what was already accomplished
fact. [rw]
22:20 Translations
Weymouth: He gave them
the cup in like manner, when the meal was over. "This cup," He said,
"is the new Covenant ratified by my blood which is to be poured out on
your behalf.
WEB: Likewise,
he took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my
blood, which is poured out for you.
Young’s: In like manner, also,
the cup after the supping, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
that for you is being poured forth.
Conte (RC): Similarly also, he
took the chalice, after he had eaten the meal, saying: "This chalice is
the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
22:20 Likewise
also the cup. That
is, He took, giving thanks, and gave to them. [52]
after supper. Showing that the Communion
was initiated after the Passover was finished. This
fact would delink the memorial from the Passover and
permit the believers to partake on whatever schedule of frequency and day that
revelation would provide (Acts 20:7).
[52]
saying, This cup is
the new testament. Hence the name of the New
Testament. The word Diatheke (Hebrew, Berith)
means both a will, and an agreement or covenant, see Jeremiah 31:31. “It contains all the absolute elements
of the one, with the conditional elements of the other. Hence the New Testament (kaine
Diatheke) is the revelation of a new relation on
God’s part with the conditions necessary to its realization on man’s
part.” Fairbairn. [56]
in My blood. i.e.,
ratified by My blood shed for you. The best comment is Hebrews 9:15, 18-22; 1
Corinthians 11:25. The other Synoptists have “my blood of the New Testament.” [56]
Here there
would be the same room, as above, with the “bread and body,” to assert that the
cup was, actually and materially, the new covenant. The word “is,” though in the Greek not
expressed, is there in effect. There is
really a double figure: the cup for its
contents, the red wine; and the wine for the blood by which the covenant was
ratified and sealed. [52]
which is shed. The blood
has not been shed yet; but, as is said in Matthew and Mark, also, is in the act
of being poured out. The atoning work is
conceived of as already begun. [52]
for you. As
individuals who need and are benefited by it, and as representing the whole
needy race of men. [52]
22:21 Translations
Weymouth: Yet the hand
of him who is betraying me is at the table with me.
WEB: But
behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.
Young’s: But, lo, the hand of him delivering me up
is with me on the table,
Conte (RC): But in truth,
behold, the hand of my betrayer is with me at table.
22:21 But,
behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me
on the table. This is the second mention of the traitor in
St. Luke's account of the Last Supper.
From St. John's recital, we gather that Jesus returned several times in
the course of that solemn evening to this sad topic. That one of his own little
inner circle, so closely associated with him, should so basely betray him, was
evidently a very bitter drop in the Lord's cup
of suffering. What suffering can be
inflicted on a generous heart comparable to it?
Chrysostom thinks that the Master, in some of
these repeated allusions during the "Supper," tried to win Judas over
to a better mind. [18]
on the table. The hand
being on the table is simply an incident of the close relation of friendship which
it implied. The thought was much in the
mind of Jesus through the evening, as we may judge from John’s narrative. [52]
In depth: When did
Judas leave the Passover/Communion gathering?
Was he present for the institution of the Lord’s Supper [52]? Matthew and Mark mention this incident
prior to their account of the Last Supper, but without saying when Judas went
out. In John, it is less easy to make
out its relation to the other events.
The question is interesting simply from its bearing on another,
namely: Was Judas present at the Lord’s
Supper?
The narrative
before us proceeds as if he was. John,
who does not mention the institution of the Lord’s Supper, places the departure
of Judas at some point of the preliminary meal—“after the sop,” or morsel,
dipped in that sauce called charoseth. See verse 17.
The other Synoptics easily admit the
supposition that he left the table before the institution of the Supper.
22:22 Translations
Weymouth: For indeed the
Son of Man goes on His way--His pre-destined way; yet alas for that man who is
betraying Him!"
WEB: The Son
of Man indeed goes, as it has been determined, but woe to that man through whom
he is betrayed!"
Young’s: and indeed the Son of Man doth go
according to what hath been determined; but woe to that man through whom he is
being delivered up.'
Conte (RC): And indeed, the Son
of man goes according to what has been determined. And yet,
woe to that man by whom he will be betrayed."
22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as
it was determined. Viz., by the eternal
counsel of God. The crime of
Judas would not of itself necessitate the death of his Master—that was already
bound to be. [52]
but woe unto that
man by whom He is betrayed!
“Betrayed,” or, “delivered up.”
The fact that conduct is overruled by God for the furtherance of His
plans, does not clear the agent of any particle of his responsibility for the
iniquity of his acts. Compare Acts 2:23;
4:27, 28. [52]
woe. Wrath and pity are here combined. It is not the feeling of anger, but
compassionate sorrow. [7]
22:23 Translations
Weymouth: Thereupon they
began to discuss with one another which of them it could possibly be who was
about to do this.
WEB: They
began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this
thing.
Young’s: And they began to
reason among themselves, who then of them it may be, who is about to do this
thing.
Conte (RC): And they began to
inquire among themselves, as to which of them might do this.
22:23 And they began to inquire among themselves. The details
are given by St. John. It is
characteristic of their noble, simple, loving natures that they seem to have
had no suspicions of Judas. [56]
It
may also argue that Judas had gone out of his way to hide anything that might
have given his “game” away. Discretion,
caution, awareness of who is around—such things can permit a person to carry
out chicanery that would otherwise be quickly noticed and protested. [rw]
which of them it was that should do this thing. That all the
disciples, on hearing this statement of their Master, should at once question
their own hearts with the "Is it I?" (of St.
Matthew's Gospel), shows with what cunning skill the arch-traitor must have
concealed not merely his plans but his very sentiments. No suspicion on their parts ever seems to
have fallen on Judas, their companion for so long a time. The direct colloquy of the Lord with the
traitor, reported at length in the other Gospels on the occasion of dipping the
sop into one of the Paschal dishes, was most probably carried on in a whisper
(see John 13:26-29, where mention is specially made of the disciples' ignorance
of the meaning of their Master's words to Judas). [18]
22:24 Translations
Weymouth: There arose
also a dispute among them which of them should be regarded as greatest.
WEB: There
arose also a contention among them, which of them was considered to be
greatest.
Young’s: And there happened also a strife among
them -- who of them is accounted to be greater.
Conte (RC): Now there was also a
contention among them, as to which of them seemed to be the greater.
22:24 And there was also a strife among them. [Strife:] Philoneikia,
“an ambitious contention,” occurs here only.
[56]
which of them should
be accounted the greatest. Assuming this
conflict actually occurred earlier in
the evening as the Passover ritual was prepared: “Accounted”—in whose judgment? Perhaps in that of the
body; perhaps in the Master’s; or, more generally, in everybody’s. If we may suppose the difference to have
arisen at their coming together, it might relate to position at the table, to
be determined by their Lord’s estimation. [52]
If it took place during their gathering that evening: It is probable that this dispute arose while
they were taking their places at the couches (triclinia),
and may possibly have been occasioned by some claim made by Judas for official
precedence. He seems to have reclined on
the left of our Lord, and John on the right, while Peter seems to have been at
the top of the next mat or couch, at the left of Judas, across and behind whom
he stretched forward to whisper his question to John (John 13:23, 24). For previous instances of this worldly
ambition see 9:46-48; Matthew 20:20-24. [56]
Against Judas making a play for power would be his agreement with the
Temple officials. At this sensitive
moment would he want to be any more conspicuous than possible? On the other hand, if his special position were
admitted, might he not be more benefited financially if he continued in his
position as treasurer? “Promises are
made to be broken” and the ones made to the officials were hardly ones they
were going to “go public” and brag about!
[rw]
In depth: The conflict over leadership that occurred—Why?
[17] How could a
conflict over leadership status have erupted at all in the context of the Last
Supper? Some expositors--among the Maldonatus--conceiving that it was utterly improbable that
the Apostles, after having received the Eucharist, and witnessed our Lord's
humility in washing His disciples' feet, etc., would, under such solemn
circumstances, indulge so [inappropriately] in an unseemly strife for
pre-eminence--are of opinion that there is a question here of the same
contention that took place on their journey to Jerusalem (Matthew 20:20), and
that it is inserted here, out of the order of events, by St. Luke. The lesson of humility given here is the same
as that given in the passage of Matthew referred to. Against this opinion it is held that Luke had
already (9:46 etc.), referred to the former contention.
Others, with Venerable Bede, hold that the contention here mentioned had for
object to yield the more honourable places to one
another--each trying to occupy the lower place, so that it is rather a contention
of humility than of pride. The following
words of our Lord do not well accord with this view.
By others it is
maintained, that on hearing our Lord say He was to leave them (verse 22), they
began, in suppressed accents, to inquire, who was to exercise His authority and
superiority after He had gone. Hence our
Lord addressed to them the admonition contained in verses 25-28, which is in
sense very like that delivered on the occasion of the similar contention which
formerly took place, if the present be not the same.
Some maintain that this
strife and the subsequent words occurred before the institution of the
Eucharist, and in connection with the washing of the disciples' feet (John
13:4-12). The exhortation which He gives
them there (John 13:14-16) to practice humility, of which He Himself gave an
example is, in substance, very like the exhortation delivered here.
That the conflict over relative “greatness” should occur at this
particular time makes full sense if one assumes that the apostles found it
impossible to take seriously the threat of betrayal. And, even if it did occur, did it really
have to result in more than temporary inconvenience? If betrayed, why did Jesus have to
die? Had He not miraculously escaped
foes before? Indeed, would it not be a
brilliant time for Jesus to use His power to the fullest and openly claim
Kingship over the land?
In other words, it may be that it wasn’t so
much that they disbelieved Jesus as they had no room in their minds for even
the possibility that something as serious as death would occur. In other words, that their root problem was
not so much “disbelief” as “too much (= blind, irrational, unthinking) faith”--even
when Jesus had exposed the futility of their attitude. [rw]
22:25 Translations
Weymouth: But He said to
them, "The kings of the Gentiles are their masters, and those who exercise
authority over them are called Benefactors.
WEB: He said
to them, "The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who have
authority over them are called 'benefactors.'
Young’s: And he said to them, 'The kings of the
nations do exercise lordship over them, and those exercising authority upon
them are called benefactors;
Conte (RC): And he said to them:
"The kings of the Gentiles dominate them; and those who hold authority
over them are called beneficent.
22:25 And He said unto them. Such
peculiarly untimely ambition must have grieved the heart of Jesus, but did not
affect His temper. Calmly and patiently
He set Himself to quell strife, by recalling to them the true idea of
discipleship to Him. [52]
The kings of the Gentiles. The kings of the nations or
of the earth. They do this and it
is to be expected of them, and it is right.
Our Lord does not mean to say that it was wrong that there should be
such authority among them, but that His kingdom was to be of a different
character, and they were not to expect it there. [11]
exercise lordship. Both the original words here used
imply arbitrary, domineering authority; authority for authority's sake. They exercise dominion to gratify their love
of rule. Jesus here does not condemn the
exercise of a just governmental authority, in which the ruler, acting for the
public good, is, in fact, the public servant.
[9]
over them. That is, over the nations. [11]
and they that
exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. There is an inherent logic here: in accepting their legitimacy and their rulership, the people expect to be benefited. It might not be the individual citizen but at
least they should be able to look around them and see that collectively
the nation is better off than it otherwise would be. Of course, in real life rulers were more
likely to be so self-centered on their own power and wealth that they forgot
that if the nation withered on the vine, ultimately so would their own power. Hence the title “benefactor” easily became an
empty title.
On the other hand, conspicuous acts to
benefit particular cities and regions were common as a means of
increasing one’s own prestige. Perhaps
the most common would be building a public facility that the town had not been
able to afford to construct but which was regarded as a praiseworthy addition
to their community. At the official rulership level, temporary tax removal or reductions could
be vitally important in seeing a province through a particularly difficult
economic time. The cynic might well
regard these actions as merely carrying out the obligations of a patron /
client relationship, but however predominant that rationale was, the wider
benefits of such actions should not be ignored either. [rw]
22:26 Translations
Weymouth: With you it is
not so; but let the greatest among you be as the younger, and the leader be like him who serves.
WEB: But not
so with you. But one who is the greater among you, let
him become as the younger, and one who is governing, as one who serves.
Young’s: but ye are not so, but he who is greater
among you -- let him be as the younger; and he who is leading, as he who is
ministering;
Conte (RC): But it must not be
so with you. Instead, whoever is greater among you, let him become the lesser.
And whoever is the leader, let him become the server.
22:26 But
ye shall not be so. Power
preservation, building up one’s personal prestige, rewarding those with loyalty
to you (“clients” with an established obligation to their “patron”)—these and
other self-centered motives would typically dominate the rulers of the
age. That mind frame was not to
be the one controlling the apostles.,
but he that is
greatest among you, let him be as the younger. The most important, the decision maker--with
the younger (prototypically the less important), as in most societies, actually
doing the work. Taken this way “he that is chief, as he that
doth serve” drives home the same core point.
[rw]
Or: “Greatest”
may here, perhaps, mean "greatest in age," the oldest. It is opposed to younger. The sentiment is, that the eldest, to whom
the pre-eminence and respect due to age would naturally and properly belong,
should be as condescending and humble as the youngest of the number. [9]
[The younger] in Eastern
families often fulfill menial duties. Acts 5:6. [56]
and he that is
chief, as he that doth serve. Essentially
parallel to the “greatest / younger” parallelism but broader since there are
situations when—even among those of the same or approximately same age—someone
will be designated to lead whatever task is being performed (assuming age is
under discussion at all). Designated
leadership easily goes to the head—who hasn’t seen it happen!—and one needs to
remember that one is there to “get the job done” rather than feed one’s
ego. Hence one is there to “serve” and
do the work rather than bask in the “glory” earned from other’s sweat. [rw]
22:27 Translations
Weymouth: For which is
the greater--he who sits at table, or he who waits on him? Is it not he who
sits at table? But my position among you is that of one who waits on others.
WEB: For who
is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Isn't it he who sits
at the table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves.
Young’s: for who is greater? he
who is reclining (at meat), or he who is ministering? is
it not he who is reclining (at meat)? and I -- I am in
your midst as he who is ministering.
Conte (RC): For who is greater:
he who sits at table, or he who serves? Is not he who sits at table? Yet I am
in your midst as one who serves.
22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth
at meat, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth
at meat? A question that carries its own inherent
answer. Anyone above the age of a small child would
have known the answer. [rw]
but I am among you as he that serveth. Evident allusion to washing
His disciples' feet (John 13:5). [7]
“It is enough for the
disciple that he be as his master,” or teacher—Matthew 10:25, Revision. [52]
The allusion, of course, is not just to the more immediate act, but to
the entire course of Jesus’ ministry:
He was there to benefit others through His teaching and His healing
rather than to bask in public attention and admiration. [rw]
22:28 Translations
Weymouth: You however
have remained with me amid my trials;
WEB: But you
are those who have continued with me in my trials.
Young’s: 'And ye -- ye are those who have remained
with me in my temptations,
Conte (RC): But you are those
who have remained with me during my trials.
22:28 Ye are they which have continued with Me. The passage
of the Saviour’s thought to a more favorable view of
their case. Your present low ambition
surprises and grieves Me; but I remember that, while thousands have come
and gone, attracted for the moment by certain aspects of My work, and repelled
by the first glimpse of its unworldly spirituality, “ye have continued with
me”—remained faithful through all. [52]
in My temptations. These were
the persecutions, trials, and dangers, which, with still increasing force,
appealed to Him to turn aside from the arduous and fatal course to which He had
been appointed. They were at once
afflictions and temptations, trying also to His disciples; but they no more
than He had swerved. [52]
22:29 Translations
Weymouth: and I covenant
to give you, as my Father has covenanted to give me, a Kingdom--
WEB: I confer
on you a kingdom, even as my Father conferred on me,
Young’s: and I appoint to you, as my Father did
appoint to me, a kingdom,
Conte (RC): And I dispose to
you, just as my Father has disposed to me, a kingdom,
22:29 I appoint unto you a kingdom. They had been sharers in His trials and they
are to partake in His triumph: (1) as
the apostles in the Church which the Holy Spirit was to create after the Ascension, and (2) as sharers with Him in the heavenly
kingdom. The appointed path for both Him
and them was through suffering to kingship, through loving service to
lordship. [6]
as My Father
has appointed unto Me. Your relation is not to be always one of
inferiority, service merely, carrying with it privation and reproach. There is rule, dominion, kingship, for you;
but, like mine, a share of mine, not of this world, not in its fruition
here. [52]
22:30 Translations
Weymouth: so that you
shall eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones as judges
over the twelve tribes of Israel.
WEB: that you
may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom. You will sit on thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel."
Young’s: that ye may eat and may drink at my
table, in my kingdom, and may sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.'
Conte (RC): so
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and so that you may sit
upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
22:30 That ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom. They want “authority”? They want “position”? They want “recognition”? What greater can there be than to eat at the
Ruler’s personal table while He reigns?
[rw]
In this verse is the
only instance in which Jesus calls the “kingdom of God” and “of heaven” “My
kingdom.” He is thinking of that state
when He shall appear as the King indeed.
(Compare Matthew 25:34, 40.) [52]
and sit on thrones, judging. Matthew (19:28) has this same promise for
them, "when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of His glory"--
and "twelve thrones" are there mentioned, as for the twelve
apostles. See Revelation 20:4. Doddridge
understands this as referring to the courts of judicature among the Jews, where
the inferior judges sat in a semicircle round the chief judge who had his seat
in the middle point of it. See
Revelation 4:4; 21:14. [8]
In ancient times kings
performed all the functions of judges.
(See 2 Sam. xv. 4; 1 Kings iii. 9; 2 Chron. i. 11; Ps. lxxii. 2.) [9]
judging. Implying authority, always delegated by the
Supreme Power. A judge of Caesar, represented the throne of Rome. A judge under Christ in His Church represents
the throne of Heaven! [7]
the twelve
tribes of Israel. There
message and ministry had been to Jews so Jews will be judged by their teaching
of Jesus’ word. They are no more exempt
from that than--as the apostles will learn later—will be the Gentiles. [rw]
22:31 Translations
Weymouth: "Simon,
Simon, I tell you that Satan has obtained permission to have all of you to sift
as wheat is sifted.
WEB: The Lord
said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift
you as wheat,
Young’s: And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, lo, the
Adversary did ask you for himself to sift as the wheat,
Conte (RC): And the Lord said:
"Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan has asked for you, so that he may sift you
like wheat.
22:31 And
the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired. The Saviour is aware of a specially
vehement temptation to them which the adversary had planned, probably in
connection with His own capture and death, which He represents in terms drawn
from Satan’s appeal against Job (Job 1:9-11; 2:3-6). His eagerness is spoken of as [if] a request
to God that the disciples might be given into his power. [52]
to have you. Not only Simon, but
all the disciples. [7]
The word is plural. The caution is addressed to the disciples in
common. Satan hated the little flock,
and desired to ruin them. [4]
that he may sift you as wheat. The force of
the comparison is that he may toss and shake you up and down; i.e., alarm and
harass you, by threats and afflictions, until you lose your presence of mind,
and your hold of the promises, and so fall from the faith, as the chaff and
dust fall from the sieve and are blown away.
To what danger from Satan may one be exposed unawares! [52]
22:32 Translations
Weymouth: But *I* have
prayed for *you* that your faith may not fail, and you, when at last you have
come back to your true self, must strengthen your brethren."
WEB: but I
prayed for you, that your faith wouldn't fail. You, when once you have turned
again, establish your brothers."
Young’s: and I besought for thee, that thy faith
may not fail; and thou, when thou didst turn, strengthen
thy brethren.'
Conte (RC): But I have prayed for
you, so that your faith may not fail, and so that you, once converted, may
confirm your brothers."
22:32 But
I have prayed for thee. Offered earnest,
longing prayer. [52]
Showing that Peter, the
most confident, was at that moment the most imperiled, though Jesus had prayed
for them all (John 17:9, 11). [56]
that thy. Why for him
in particular of all the disciples?
Because he was a leader in influence, whose standing or falling would
largely determine that of the rest. [52]
faith fail not.
Greek, "eclipsed."
Utter extinction of faith. Faith
[is] the root of the entire Christian character. He did not pray that he might not fall--he
needed sifting. But that his faith might
not fail him [permanently]. He did not pray that we should be spared the
sifting, but that he might not through unbelief, become chaff. [7]
"It
is said by Roman divines (e.g. Maldonatus, a Lapide, and Mai, here) that this prayer and precept of our
Lord extends to all bishops of Rome as St. Peter's successors, and that
in speaking to Peter our Lord spoke to them.
Would they be willing to complete the parallel, and say that the bishops
of Rome specially need prayer, because they deny Christ? Let them not take a part of it and leave the
rest" (Bishop Wordsworth). [18]
and when thou art converted.
“Turned;” that is, from that
denial of his Lord which Peter was soon to make. This is the general sense of the verb
translated “to be converted,” “to turn again.”
[52]
strengthen. A word thrice used by Peter, in his two
epistles (2 Peter 1:12 and 3:17). He
obeyed: Acts 2:3-4. [Cf.] "Feed my
sheep, tend my lambs" (John 21:15).
[7]
thy brethren. Make use of
thy bitter experience for the fortifying of thy tempted brethren. [16]
22:33 Translations
Weymouth: "Master,"
replied Peter, "with you I am ready to go both to prison and to
death."
WEB: He said
to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to
death!"
Young’s: And he said to him,
'Sir, with thee I am ready both to prison and to death to go;'
Conte (RC): And he said to him,
"Lord, I am prepared to go with you, even to prison and to death."
22:33 And he said unto Him,
Lord, I am ready to go with Thee. Whatever
happens to you, I am willing to undergo it with you. As if to say:
“Lord I am strong! I am!” And one night (assuming he died by martyrdom
himself) he was. But not that day.
[rw]
both into prison,
and to death. He can probably
imagine Jesus being locked away as an effort to separate Him from His
movement. He can even imagine Jesus
dying—though one has to suspect that being able to drag the Roman government
into it as well might have startled Peter.
An elite manufactured mob that stones Jesus to death might well have
been more within his framework of thinking.
Or perhaps he has nothing specific in his mind—just a grim determination
to not be separated from the Lord no matter what should happen. [rw]
Peter felt that the
Master’s language implied a special peril to his fidelity; and, with
characteristic promptness, protests a courage and constancy, which it must have
pained the heart that knew him better than he knew himself to hear. [52]
22:34 Translations
Weymouth: "I tell
you, Peter," said Jesus, "that the cock will not crow to-day till you
have three times denied that you know me."
WEB: He said,
"I tell you, Peter, the rooster will by no means crow today until you deny
that you know me three times."
Young’s: and he said, 'I say to thee, Peter, a
cock shall not crow to-day, before thrice thou mayest
disown knowing me.'
Conte (RC): And he said, "I
say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you have three
times denied that you know me." And he said to them,
22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter. The only
occasion on which Jesus is recorded to have used to him the name He gave. It is used to remind him of his strength
as well as his weakness. [56]
the cock shall not
crow this day. [The] Jewish day of twenty-four hours began
and ended at sunset. [7]
before that
thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest
me. Cock-crowing, here, as elsewhere, is a synonym
for earliest morning. “Before the
morning light fairly dawns thou wilt deny, not once, but three times; not that
thou art a disciple of mine, one of My company, a sharer of My aims, but that
thou even knowest who I am.” This to him who had once said, “Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God!” [52]
It was, perhaps, already
past midnight. [56]
22:35 Translations
Weymouth: Then He asked
them, "When I sent you out without purse or bag or shoes, was there
anything you needed?" "No, nothing," they replied.
WEB: He said
to them, "When I sent you out without purse, and wallet, and shoes, did
you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
Young’s: And he said to them, 'When I sent you
without bag, and scrip, and sandals, did ye lack anything?' and they said,
'Nothing.'
Conte (RC): "When I sent
you without money or provisions or shoes, did you lack anything?"
22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip,
and shoes, lacked ye any thing?
Compare 9:1ff.; Matthew 10:9, 10. He turns their thoughts back to that
comparatively peaceful time, that they might the better realize the great
change which they are to meet, now that the power of His enemies is about to
remove Him, and to operate uncontrolled.
[52]
And they said, Nothing. The favor in which Jesus and His work were
held in Galilee, secured to them a welcome reception, and hospitable, or, at
least sufficient, entertainment [= accommodations and food]. [52]
22:36 Translations
Weymouth: "But
now," said He, "let the one who has a purse take it, and he who has a
bag must do the same. And let him who has no sword sell his outer garment and
buy one.
WEB: Then he
said to them, "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise
a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
Young’s: Then said he to them, 'But, now, he who
is having a bag, let him take it up, and in like manner also a scrip; and he
who is not having, let him sell his garment, and buy a sword,
Conte (RC): And they said,
"Nothing." Then he said to them: "But now, let whoever has money
take it, and likewise with provisions. And whoever does not have these, let him
sell his coat and buy a sword.
22:36 Then said He unto them, But now. A wording, even standing alone, that implies
that something is now going to be different—significantly different. [rw]
This was an intimation
of their totally changed relation to the world.
There was no spontaneous hospitality, no peaceful acceptance, no honored
security, to be looked for now. [56]
he that hath a
purse, let him take it. He may often have to pay his way [52]
and likewise his
scrip. A store of provision and clothing will stand
him in hand, when other resources are not available. [52]
and he that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. The
rendering of the Revision, which puts the word “sword,” as in the Greek, at the
end [cf. American Standard Version: “and
he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword”] may not
necessitate a different meaning. “He
that has none”—meaning a “sword”—“let him by all means buy a sword.” But more probably, considering the marked
correlation of “he that hath” (a purse and wallet”) and “he that hath not,” we
are to supply to the latter also “a purse and wallet.” Then the meaning is: if one hath these, let him out of them—with
money or extra clothing—buy a sword; but if not, let him sell even the
indispensable outer garment for that purpose.
[52]
Verse 38 shows
that this was not to be taken literally, and the whole course of the apostles,
subsequently, proves that they did not on reflection, so understand Him. It was an impressive way of saying that they
must be careful for their defense and preservation by natural means against
opposition and dangers hitherto strange.
[52]
Previously, the apostles had traveled in relatively well known
territory—there were likely to know the most probable animal and human dangers
and the type of customs they would run into.
As their gospel journeys took them to a far wider range of places, that
knowledge would not exist. Any dangers
they might run into—so far—they might well be able to escape or talk themselves
out of. Expanding their mission to territoria incognita, it was a dramatically different
situation that they faced, one with unknown and uncharted dangers. Hence at the present, a sword for protection
would not be a perceived need for most—they only had two among them at the
moment (verse 38)—but when travels were further, what had been an exception
would need to be the norm. [rw]
22:37 Translations
Weymouth: For I tell you
that those words of Scripture must yet find their fulfilment
in me: 'And He was reckoned among the lawless'; for indeed that saying about me
has its accomplishment."
WEB: For I
tell you that this which is written must still be fulfilled in me: 'He was
counted with transgressors.' For that which concerns me has an end."
Young’s: for I say to you, that yet this that hath
been written it behoveth to be fulfilled in me: And
with lawless ones he was reckoned, for also the things concerning me have an
end.'
Conte (RC): For I say to you,
that what has been written must still be fulfilled in me: 'And he was esteemed
with the wicked.' Yet even these things about me have an end."
22:37 For
I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors. The
quotation is substantially from Isaiah 53:12.
What was there said of the faithful and suffering servant of Jehovah,
Jesus declares must, according to the Divine intention, be fulfilled in His
experience. He should be treated as a
transgressor; as such should suffer death.
Similar treatment they must expect to receive (21:12, 16). [52]
for the things
concerning me have an end. = has reached its end. The time for the fulfillment of the prophecy
has come. All this goes to emphasize the
truth that each one should, metaphorically, have a sword. [52]
22:38 Translations
Weymouth: "Master,
here are two swords," they exclaimed. "That is enough," He
replied.
WEB: They
said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords." He said to them,
"That is enough."
Young’s: And they said, 'Sir, lo, here are two
swords;' and he said to them, 'It is sufficient.'
Conte (RC): So they said,
"Lord, behold, there are two swords here." But he said to them,
"It is sufficient."
22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. The
disciples had taken Him literally. They
had found, on examination, that there were among them two such weapons—Peter
had one of them (verse 50)—how obtained, or for what use, we can only guess—and
probably desired to know whether these would suffice. [52]
And He said unto them, It is enough. They must have
felt how stupid they had been in supposing that Jesus really advised them to
use such carnal weapons against a hostile world, when they perceived the tone
of compassionate irony in which He said, “It is enough.” [52]
Not of course meaning
that two swords were enough, but sadly declining to enter into the
matter any further, and leaving them to meditate on His words. The formula was sometimes used to waive a
subject; compare 1 Maccabees 2:33. “It is a sigh of the God-man over all violent
measures meant to further His cause.” [56]
Books Utilized
(with
number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New
Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes.
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint, Nashville,
Tennessee: Abingdon Press.
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles
of Peter, James,
and Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887;
1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke.
[Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes,
Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John. New York:
Hurd and Houghton, 1856,
1871.
5 = John Kitto.
Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II:
Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord. New
York: Robert Carter and
Brothers, 1881.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes. New York: Scribner & Welford,
1887.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New
Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes. New
York: D. Appleton and Company,
1868.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus.
Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John. New York:
Robert Carter &
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin.
Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Ziegler & McCurdy, 1872.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes.
"Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications,
1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels.
In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
13 = F. Godet.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders
and M. D. Cusin.
New York: I. K. Funk &
Company, 1881.
14 = D.D. Whedon.
Commentary on the Gospels:
Luke-John. New
York: Carlton & Lanahan, 1866; 1870 reprint.
15 = Henry Alford. The
Greek Testament. Volume
I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition. London: Rivingtons, 1863.
16 = David Brown. "Luke"
in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament. Hartford:
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke. New York: Benziger Brothers,
1886.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.”
In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1950.
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible
...with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies
in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive. New
York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1902.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N.
Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon
of the New Testament. A New
Translation
by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One. Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins,
1860.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath
Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment:
St. Luke. London:Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co,1854.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke. New
York: H. Frowdey,
1901. Title page
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel.
The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both). New York: Anson
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel
of Luke: An Exposition.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1921; 1936 reprint.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of Galilee. New York:
National
Board of the Young Womens
Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel. Milwaukee:
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls Company,1906.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint, New
York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth.
The Bible Manual: An
Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
London: James Nisbet and Company, 1865.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four
Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Boston: Cupples,
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel
according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series. New
York: A. C. Armstrong and Son,
1895.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on
the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
London: Macmillan & Company, 1869.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord. New York:
Fleming H.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred
Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition. New
York: Anson D. F. Randolph and Company,
1884.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian
Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments. Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Associat-
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ. New York:
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus. New York:
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George
H. Hubbard. The
Teaching of Jesus in Parables.
New
York: Pilgrim Press, 1907.
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
New York:American
Tract Society, 1890.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord. New York:
Funk &
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
New York:
A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1890; 1903 reprint.
47 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran
Company, [no date].
48 = George
MacDonald. The
Miracles of Our Lord. New
York:
George Routledge
& Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke. New
York: Funk & Wagnalls
Company, 18--.
50 = Daniel
Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament:
The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Carey & Hart, 1846.
51 = Matthew
Poole. Annotations
on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
Computerized.
52 = George
R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,
1884.
53 = J.
W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
1914. Computerized.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1654.
Computerized.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
1904.
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to
St. Luke. In “The
Cambridge
Bible for Schools and Colleges” series. Cambridge:
At
the
University Press, 1882.