From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of Luke Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
Books Utilized Code Numbers at End of Chapter
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 : 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. 
In depth: More background detail on the feast(s) : “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 : 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.” 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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]. 
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. 
In depth: the stages of Judas' entanglement in Satan's plans . 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 . 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.
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. 
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]
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
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. 
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. 
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”! 
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. 
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. 
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. 
day” was Thursday, beginning at sundown, or, at that season, about 6 P.M. on
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. 
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]. 
For a detailed survey of the question of what day Jesus celebrated the Passover on, see the end of the chapter.
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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]
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
furnished. "Furnished" ( ̓στρωμώνον ) applies specially to carpets spread over the couches for the reception of guests. 
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. 
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]
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. 
In depth: The fully developed Passover ritual . 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:
(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.
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. 
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. 
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. 
The original posture was standing (Exodus 12:11). 
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. 
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
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.” 
to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. Before I die. 
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. 
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 : 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.
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. 
and gave thanks. The person presiding at the Passover feast gave thanks. 
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.” 
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. 
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. 
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]. 
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]
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. 
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. 
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. 
Recall also how often, in the Old Testament, God is said to be a shepherd, fortress, high tower, rock, shield, etc. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
“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 . 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]
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. 
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). 
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. 
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.” 
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. 
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. 
for you. As individuals who need and are benefited by it, and as representing the whole needy race of men. 
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. 
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. 
In depth: When did Judas leave the Passover/Communion gathering? Was he present for the institution of the Lord’s Supper ? 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.
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. 
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. 
woe. Wrath and pity are here combined. It is not the feeling of anger, but compassionate sorrow. 
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
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. 
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). 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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?  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]
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. 
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. 
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. 
over them. That is, over the nations. 
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]
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
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. 
[The younger] in Eastern families often fulfill menial duties. Acts 5:6. 
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]
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). 
“It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master,” or teacher—Matthew 10:25, Revision. 
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]
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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
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.) 
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. 
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.) 
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! 
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]
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. 
to have you. Not only Simon, but all the disciples. 
The word is plural. The caution is addressed to the disciples in common. Satan hated the little flock, and desired to ruin them. 
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! 
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
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. 
Showing that Peter, the most confident, was at that moment the most imperiled, though Jesus had prayed for them all (John 17:9, 11). 
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. 
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. 
"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). 
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.” 
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). 
thy brethren. Make use of thy bitter experience for the fortifying of thy tempted brethren. 
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. 
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. 
the cock shall not crow this day. [The] Jewish day of twenty-four hours began and ended at sunset. 
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!” 
It was, perhaps, already past midnight. 
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,
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. 
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]. 
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. 
he that hath a purse, let him take it. He may often have to pay his way 
and likewise his scrip. A store of provision and clothing will stand him in hand, when other resources are not available. 
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. 
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. 
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]
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
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). 
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. 
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. 
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.” 
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.” 
(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,
5 = John Kitto. Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II: Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord. New York: Robert Carter and
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,
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,
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,
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.
52 = George R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,
53 = J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. 1654.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
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.