Chapter Twenty-Two

1–13. Judas with the chief priests and scribes. Preparation for the Passover meal. – 14–23. The establishment of the Eucharist and Christ’s prediction of Judas’s betrayal. – 24–30. Dispute over greatness. – 31–34. Prediction of Peter’s denial. – 35–38. The word about the sword. – 39–53. Prayer on the Mount of Olives and the arrest of Christ by the soldiers. – 54–71. Peter’s denial and the condemnation of Christ.

Luke 22:1. Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover, Luke 22:2. and the chief priests and scribes were seeking how to put Him to death, for they feared the people. Luke 22:3. And Satan entered into Judas, called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve, Luke 22:4. And he went and spoke with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. Luke 22:5. And they were glad, and agreed to give him money; Luke 22:6. And he promised, and sought an opportunity to betray Him to them without the crowd. Luke 22:7. And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed, Luke 22:8. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, Go, prepare for us the Passover to eat. Luke 22:9. And they said to Him, Where do You want us to prepare? Luke 22:10. He said to them, Behold, when you enter into the city, a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you; follow him into the house where he enters, Luke 22:11. And you shall say to the master of the house, The Teacher says to you, Where is the room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? Luke 22:12. And he shall show you a large, furnished upper room; there prepare. Luke 22:13. And they went and found it just as He had said to them, and prepared the Passover. Concerning Judas’s journey to the chief priests and scribes, the evangelist Luke speaks in agreement with Mark, omitting only the story of the anointing (Mark 14:1-16; cf. Matt 26:1-16). “The festival of unleavened bread, called the Passover” (verse 1). The evangelist Luke identifies both names together, because in fact the unleavened bread was to be eaten already on the day of Passover. “They feared the people” (verse 2; see Luke 19:48). “And Satan entered into Judas” (verse 3). It is difficult to say what the evangelist understands here: whether actual entry of Satan or only his influence upon the soul of Judas. The former supposition is supported by the fact that the word “to enter” (εἰσέρχεσθαι) in Luke denotes the entering of demons into bodies (Luke 8:30 and following; Luke 11:26), while the latter is supported by the consideration that Judas showed in no way that he was possessed by Satan (cf. John 13:27). “With the captains” (verse 4; στρατηγοῖς), that is, with the captain of the Levite temple guard and the guards subordinate to him (the captain, or strategus, was properly called only the head of these guards; see Acts 4:1). “The day of unleavened bread” (verse 7). Here the evangelist calls the day of unleavened bread one day of Passover. Earlier (verse 1), he meant the approach of the entire festive season, and therefore used the expression “festival of unleavened bread,” meaning all eight festive days from the 14th to the 21st of Nisan. “And Jesus sent...” (verse 8 and following). According to the Gospel of Luke, the Lord Himself sends the disciples to prepare the Passover, whereas according to Matthew and Mark, the disciples proposed to Him the question where to prepare the Passover. The difference is inessential.

Luke 22:14. And when the hour had come, He reclined, and the twelve Apostles with Him, Luke 22:15. And He said to them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before My suffering, Luke 22:16. For I say to you, I shall not eat it again until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Luke 22:17. And having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; Luke 22:18. For I say to you, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God come. Luke 22:19. And having taken bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in My remembrance. Luke 22:20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My Blood, which is shed for you. In the narrative of the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the evangelist Luke differs from the first two evangelists chiefly in the arrangement of the individual moments of this event and in certain details of the narrative. We may therefore say that he in this case followed not the Gospel of Mark, as usual, and not the Gospel of Matthew, but some source unknown to us. “Reclined” (verse 14; see Matt 26:20). “With desire I have desired...” (verse 15). The Lord had such desire to eat this Passover with His disciples because it was the last before the sufferings and death of Christ, and moreover, because the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be accomplished at it. “Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (verse 16). This expression is very difficult to understand and is explained differently by commentators. It is best to see here an indication that in the kingdom of God the closest and most perfect communion with God will begin, which, as it were, was begun beforehand in the eating of the Passover lamb. The idea of redemption contained in the celebration of Passover will find its final fulfillment only in the kingdom of God, where the apostles will also be together with Christ (cf. Matt 13:11; Luke 22:30). “And having taken the cup” (verse 17). More precisely: “having received” (δεξάμενος, and not λαβῶν, as in verse 19). This was a cup of wine, ordinarily drunk by those present at the celebration of the Passover supper. “I shall not drink of the fruit...” (verse 18). This, according to Mark, was said after the Eucharistic cup (Mark 14:25). And the evangelist Matthew asserts the same (Matt 26:29). The Lord in the same manner, according to Luke, refrains from the cup, not drinking from it (“divide it among yourselves”). Since this was a violation of tradition—the head of the family or host of the supper was obligated to drink the wine from the Passover cup—this refusal of Christ must have made a strong impression on the apostles, and they should at once have been stirred in spirit in expectation of what Christ would do next. And next followed the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. “And having taken bread” (verse 19; see Matt 26:26). The evangelist Luke is here closer to the Apostle Paul, who also narrates the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:24 and following). Thus from here comes the expression “having given thanks” (εὐχαριστήσας) and the addition to the expression “My Body,” though with some alteration (“which is given for you,” but in Paul “which is broken for you”), and also the words: “do this in My remembrance.” However, the evangelist Luke for some reason omits these last words when mentioning the “cup after supper,” while in the Apostle Paul they are repeated. “Which is given for you”, that is, which is surrendered in order that your redemption might be accomplished (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον). Cf. Matt 20:28. Since the Lord here uses the present participle (διδόμενον – “is given”; more correctly – “being given”), from this we can conclude that the Eucharist accomplished by Christ has a sacrificial character, that already at the supper, a great and mysterious sacrifice of the surrender of Himself by Christ to death was accomplished. “Do this...” What exactly? Some commentators (for example, B. Weiss) understand this commandment to mean that the Lord establishes here the breaking of bread and the dividing of it among those present at the supper, and perhaps also the pronouncement of the words “this is My Body...,” by which the symbolic character of the action is determined. Thus, so to speak, there is no question of “communion” here, and this must all the more be admitted because the evangelist Luke omits the words found in Mark (“receive”) and in Matthew (“eat...”). But Keil rightly objects against such a narrow understanding that in such a case it remains completely incomprehensible what the apostles were to do with the broken bread? Leave it on the table or carry it home with them? No, clearly, the Lord has in mind here chiefly “communion” of His Body... The evangelist Luke could have omitted the words “receive, eat,” which are cited also in the Apostle Paul, simply because of their general knowledge and for brevity, especially since the thought expressed by them is partly contained already in the words “which is given for you.” “In My remembrance,” that is, in order to remember Me. In these words lies the indication that the Eucharist in each individual case of its celebration is the actual sacrifice of Christ, offered for all people. To see here only a hint of the symbolic character of the Eucharist (as asserts, for example, that same B. Weiss) is completely unfounded and clearly contradicts the understanding of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:27; cf. 1 Cor 10:16). “Likewise also the cup after supper” (verse 20), that is, in the same way as he dealt with the bread: having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them (see verse 19). The evangelist Luke borrows these words literally from the Apostle Paul (up to the words “do this” – 1 Cor 11:25), he even preserved the expression: “after supper,” although, according to his account, the supper was still continuing after this “cup.” However, it can also be understood thus, that the Eucharistic cup according to the Gospel of Luke was already the fourth cup and concluded the Passover supper (cf. commentaries to Matt 26:27-29). What else was, according to the Gospel of Luke, at the supper no longer properly belonged to it. “This cup is the new covenant,” that is, this cup is the new covenant through My Blood, which is contained in the cup and which is shed for your salvation. And here Western commentators see only a symbol of the Blood of Christ, and not actual Blood, but against such understanding speaks the same Epistle to the Corinthians (see above) and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, which has always asserted that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist true Body and true Blood of Christ are imparted. “The new covenant,” that is, opposed to the Old, Mosaic covenant, a covenant of grace and forgiveness (Rom 11:27), which have been acquired for people through the death of Christ. “Which is shed for you.” In Greek this is expressed in the form of a participle (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυόμενον) and should be translated: “for you being shed.” But to what word does this definition refer? To the word “cup” or to the phrase “in My Blood” (“blood” in Greek αἷμα – a noun of neuter gender, just as is the word “cup” – ποτήριον)? Some commentators understand it so, that here a definition is given to the word “cup” (for example, Euthymius Zigabenus). Just as during the offering of a sacrifice in Old Testament worship wine was poured out from the cup onto the sacrifice, so here Christ speaks of His Blood, which He under the form of wine pours out on the altar. But such an interpretation seems too artificial and diminishes the dignity of the “cup”: after all, wine was poured out on the altar as an addition to the sacrifice, whereas the Lord here clearly gives to the wine, or in other words, to His Blood, the same significance as to His Body, which is supposed to be under the form of bread. Therefore it seems more correct to understand this definition as connected with the phrase “in My Blood.” If this definition is grammatically not in agreement with the thing defined (one should say: “in My Blood being shed” – dative, not nominative), but such lack of agreement is sometimes met in New Testament books (cf. Jas 3:8; Rev 3:12; Mark 12:40) and may be allowed by the evangelist Luke not by chance, but in order to emphasize this moment – “the shedding of Blood for you.” Of course, the Blood is shed not for the apostles alone, but for all people.

Luke 22:21. And behold, the hand of him that betrays Me is with Me at the table; Luke 22:22. And the Son of Man goes his way as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed! Luke 22:23. And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. The evangelist Luke, in agreement with the evangelist John (John 13), clearly states that the revealing of the traitor and consequently his departure from the Last Supper took place after the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Lord thus employed the last means to turn the unfaithful disciple back to Himself, namely, allowed him to taste of His Body and Blood. Some commentators note this as a contradiction between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, according to which the revelation of the traitor took place before the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Matt 26:21-25; Mark 14:21). But if there is here a contradiction, then, in the first place, it could have come about because the evangelist Luke found it necessary to first tell of the most important thing that happened at the supper—the institution of the Eucharist—and then to relate the revealing of the traitor and the dispute of the disciples among themselves, and furthermore—and this seems to us especially important—none of all three Synoptics says anything about the departure of the traitor from the supper, and on this point there is no contradiction between them; one can even say that the first two evangelists speak only of the revealing of the traitor to John and perhaps to Peter, and this certainly did not prevent Judas from continuing to sit at the table and further, which is what the evangelist Luke depicts... “And behold” (πλὴν ἰδοῦ) – this is a usual transition in the Gospel of Luke to a new thought (cf. Luke 6:35): from the significance of His death Christ transitions in thought to how this death will come upon Him, through whom He will receive it. “Hand...at the table” – more precisely: “on the table” (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης). Judas, therefore, stretched out his hand across the table to receive the cup. “The one betraying.” Here there is a certain correspondence with the expression of the 19th verse. “Being given” (Body). The Body “is given,” and behold here is “the one betraying” it. “Moreover.” In the earliest manuscripts here instead of the conjunction “and” (καὶ) stands the conjunction “because” (ὅτι). If one accept such a reading, then in the opening words of verse 22 one must see an indication that the betrayal of the Lord by Judas is not something unexpected, but is in agreement with the determination of God. “But woe...” Nevertheless it remains a free act of the traitor, for which he will be punished. “To inquire” – more precisely: to discuss, to dispute (συζητεῖν). They wanted to prove to one another that not one of them would go into such a vile deed.

Luke 22:24. And there arose also a contention among them, as to which of them was to be accounted the greatest. Only the evangelist Luke testifies to the dispute of the disciples about primacy. According to the explanation of the blessed Theophylact, the apostles naturally moved to the dispute about primacy, having begun with a discussion of the question who might prove to be the traitor of the Lord. Of course, the apostles disputed about primacy in the kingdom of heaven (see Matt 18:1). However, some commentators assert that this was a dispute about who should sit closest to Christ at the supper, and that the dispute itself took place before they sat down at the table. More about this, see commentaries to John 13).

Luke 22:25. And He said to them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors; Luke 22:26. But you are not so; but let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. The Lord speaks that even the dispute itself about primacy among the apostles ought not to arise. To seek to be raised above others is proper to heathen kings, but the apostles ought to strive only to serve one another (cf. Matt 20:25 and following). “Those who have authority over them” (οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες) – these are not kings, but special rulers appointed by kings. “Benefactors” (εύεργέται). Euergetae, as is known, was what the Egyptian kings of the period nearest to the time of Christ were called. This title marked the special merits of these rulers before the state. “Who of you is the greatest” – not “who wants to be greatest,” but “who is truly the greater one.” “As the youngest” – not in the sense of “worthless,” but as “more youthful in age” (ὁ νεώτερος), a young person has always been obligated to serve their elders (cf. Acts 5:6).

Luke 22:27. For who is greater, the one who reclines at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves. The Lord in example of self-humiliation points to Himself, having in mind, probably, the washing of the feet of the disciples that He had done before (John 13). “I am in the midst of you,” that is, I do not separate Myself from you, I do not place Myself on a pedestal (cf. Mark 10:45). “As one who serves,” that is, as an ordinary slave, serving at table. Of course, this expression is only a symbol of the self-humiliation of Christ in relation to people.

Luke 22:28. But you are they that have continued with Me in My temptations; However, the Lord does not deny that the apostles have real merits by which they stand above other people. But these merits of theirs consist only in the fact that they have borne together with Christ various trials to which He was subjected during His humble service to humanity (cf. Heb 2:18).

Luke 22:29. And I covenant to you, even as My Father covenanted to Me, a kingdom; “And I covenant to you...” That is, and I, for My part, in reward for your faithfulness do covenant to you or appoint to you (cf. 2 Chr 7:18; Gen 15:18) a kingdom or dominion, sovereignty (βασιλείαν without any qualification), even as My Father appointed to Me dominion. Of course, both that and this—both the sovereignty of Christ and the sovereignty of the apostles—will have their place in the Messianic Kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 4:8; 2 Tim 2:12).

Luke 22:30. That you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “That you may eat and drink...” This is the purpose for which Christ gives the apostles their sovereign rights. They are to eat at the table of Christ, as they eat with Him here. This points to the closest communion of them with Christ in the Messianic Kingdom (cf. Luke 13:29; Matt 8:11). “You shall sit...” (see Matt 19:28). The word “twelve” is omitted here in comparison with the saying recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, because here Christ already thinks not of 12, but of 11 apostles (without Judas).

Luke 22:31. And the Lord said, Simon! Simon! Behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: The prediction concerning the denial of the Apostle Peter is set forth by the evangelist Luke in an original form, not following either the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew, and he places it not at the point where it is given in the first two Gospels, that is, not at the time after leaving the supper, but still at the time of being in the upper room where the supper was taking place. To think (as Bishop Michael does) that the Lord repeated the saying about Peter’s denial more than once, there is no basis, and therefore one can say that the evangelist Luke simply found it necessary according to the plan he had in mind to place this prediction earlier than the first two evangelists. “Satan asked...” Just as the devil once tempted Job (Job 1-2), he asked permission of God to persecute the apostles with various trials in order to shake their faithfulness to Christ. The action of Satan in this case Christ compares to the action of a farmer who sifts wheat by means of a sieve in order to separate it from the chaff.

Luke 22:32. But I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. The Lord especially and before all prayed for Peter, that his faith might not fail, of course He prayed because Peter, with his ardent, active character, was threatened with the danger of falling more than the other apostles. In this, the Lord announces to Peter also a consolation: he, although for a time will fall away from Christ, will then turn back to Him and will even become one who strengthens others in faith, that is, probably, Jews, and not apostles, as chiefly understood by Catholic exegetes, who see here the foundation for the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

Luke 22:33. And he said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death. (See Matt 26:33).

Luke 22:34. And He said, I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you have thrice denied that you know Me. (See Matt 26:34).

Luke 22:35. And He said to them, When I sent you without purse and bag and sandals, did you lack anything? And they said, Nothing. The word about “the sword” (verse 36) is found only in one evangelist Luke. The Lord asks about their first journey, in which He sent them (Luke 9:1-6). His question by itself presupposes a negative answer from the apostles.

Luke 22:36. But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise also a bag; and he that has none, let him sell his garment and buy a sword; Now a different time comes. They must have everything themselves; they cannot count on help from the world. “But he that has none.” None of what? Most naturally to add: a purse with money, or simply: money. To such a person in new circumstances there is an absolute need to acquire a sword, and for this, having no money, he must sell his upper garment. By the word “sword” the Lord does not want to say that the disciples during their missionary journeys will resort to armed self-defense, since the Lord repeatedly impressed upon them that God Himself would protect them when necessary (cf. Luke 21:18 and others). No, the Lord means to say by this that from now on for His disciples come extremely heavy times, against them the whole world will arm itself, and they must be prepared for anything.

Luke 22:37. For I say to you, that this which is written must yet be accomplished in Me: “And he was numbered with the transgressors.” For indeed that which concerns Me is coming to completion. Why must the disciples prepare for persecutions from the world? Because their Lord and Teacher now must be “numbered with the transgressors” (Isa 53:12), that is, endure the fate of criminals. The followers of Him, naturally, cannot expect anything good for themselves (cf. Matt 10:24 and following). “Must” – indication of God’s predetermination (cf. Matt 26:54). “For indeed that which concerns Me is coming to completion,” that is, My work is finished, My fate will soon be accomplished, although the disciples still do not believe this.

Luke 22:38. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them, It is enough. The disciples did not understand the word about the “sword” and think that Christ actually counsels them to arm themselves with swords in view of threatening danger. They already had two swords, which they had probably obtained during the journey to Jerusalem, since they had to travel through unsafe places. The Lord, seeing that they completely misunderstand Him, sorrowfully says “It is enough,” that is, let us end this conversation!

Luke 22:39. And He went out, and went, as He was accustomed, to the mount called Olivet; and His disciples also followed Him. In the account of Christ’s stay in Gethsemane the evangelist Luke differs considerably from Mark (Mark 14:32-42) and Matthew (Matt 26:36-46), we must think that he here followed an unknown source to us. “He went out, as He was accustomed” (see Matt 26:32). Concerning the custom of the Lord to spend nights on the Mount of Olives, see Luke 21:37.

Luke 22:40. And when He came to the place, He said to them, Pray that you enter not into temptation. The evangelist Luke omits here the account of the selection of three most trusted disciples whom He, according to the first two Gospels, took with Him, and the remark of Christ given to these disciples (Mark 14:38), he refers to all the disciples.

Luke 22:41. And He withdrew from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, According to the evangelist Luke, the Lord withdrew from the disciples at a short distance (standing there, where they remained, one could throw a stone at Him). Therefore the disciples could see how Christ prayed and even heard the words of His prayer. “Withdrew” – more correctly: was drawn away from them by force of his own particular mood, which moved Him to be in isolation at this time (the verb ἀπεσπάσθη means “was forcibly separated”).

Luke 22:42. Saying, Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done. According to the first two evangelists, the Lord prayed three times. The evangelist Luke combines these three prayers into one. “Father, if You are willing...” In the Greek text we have an incomplete thought – only the condition: “if You are willing to remove this cup from Me” (εἰ βούλει). There is no conclusion or main clause. Some commentators add here: “then remove it!” But it is better to add nothing, it is clear that a desire for salvation that suddenly flared up in the soul of Christ, not having time to take form, immediately receded before a new deeper feeling of devotion to the Father (cf. Luke 19:42): “nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”

Luke 22:43. And there appeared to Him an angel from heaven, strengthening Him. Concerning the appearance of an angel, who strengthened Christ during prayer, speaks only one evangelist Luke. This was, undoubtedly, an external appearance, as shown by the addition: “from heaven.” The angel strengthened the spiritual powers of Christ, about which, of course, Christ also prayed to His Father, because in fact the soul’s torments of Christ in these hours were extraordinary.

Luke 22:44. And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly; and His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. By means of this strengthening Christ in the ensuing severe soul struggle (ἀγωνία), prayed yet more fervently (cf. Heb 5:7 and following). “And His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Some commentators (from the ancients – blessed Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and most modern ones) refer this comparison only to the size and thickness of the drops of sweat. But such a phenomenon would hardly have caused the evangelist Luke to mention it particularly: there is nothing extraordinary in this. It is better to understand as those do who see here an indication of actual blood drops exuded from the face of Christ. The correctness of such understanding is supported by the Greek word translated in Russian as “drops” – θρόμβοι. It means not simply “drops” (in Greek – σταγών, στάλαγμα), but a clot of coagulated liquid, milk or something else, and especially of coagulated blood. Therefore one can say that the soul’s strain of Christ, His soul’s sufferings were so strong that from His face fell drops of bloody sweat, such dark and thick that they could be seen from afar by the bright shining of the moon that was lighting His face.

Luke 22:45. And when He rose from His prayer, He came to the disciples, and found them sleeping from sorrow Luke 22:46. And He said to them, Why do you sleep? Rise up and pray, that you enter not into temptation. Just as the evangelist Luke shortened the account of the first two evangelists concerning the prayer of Christ, so naturally He now mentions the coming of Christ to the sleeping disciples as single, and the rebuke addressed to them by Christ presents a repetition of that contained in verse 40. “Sleeping from sorrow.” It happens that deep grief plunges a person into sleep; this is noted even by ancient classical writers. And yet, despite the fact that, so to speak, sorrow somewhat excuses the disciples, yet in him is preserved the words of Christ: “Why do you sleep?” These are words in which one cannot help but see a certain reproach to the disciples for that they have succumbed to sleep at such a heavy time for their Teacher. Cf. Mark 14:37, where for this there is already directly expressed reproach to Simon.

Luke 22:47. And while He yet spoke, behold a multitude; and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near to Jesus to kiss Him. For he had given them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is He. Luke 22:48. But Jesus said to him, Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? Luke 22:49. And when those about Him saw what would come to pass, they said to Him, Lord, shall we strike with the sword? Luke 22:50. And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. Luke 22:51. But Jesus answered and said, Permit thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Luke 22:52. Then Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and the elders, which were come to Him, As against a robber have you come out, with swords and staves, to take Me? Luke 22:53. When I was daily with you in the temple, you stretched not forth hands against Me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. The history of the taking of Christ by soldiers as a whole is joined to the account of this by the evangelist Mark (Mark 14:43-52; cf. Matt 26:47-56). “Judas! do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” (verse 48) This question in substance is similar to the question preserved in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 26:50); the evangelist Mark altogether omits the address of Christ to Judas). The Lord points out to Judas the terrible contradiction that lies between his external action – the kiss, which should testify, it seems, to the love of Judas for Christ, and the inner purpose of Judas’s coming – the intention to betray his Lord. In this, the Lord calls Himself “the Son of Man,” that is, the Messiah, showing Judas thereby the extreme wickedness of his deed, for in betraying the Messiah, he goes against the cherished hopes of his people. “Shall we strike with the sword?” (verse 49). This question is preserved only in the Gospel of Luke. Exactly so only one evangelist Luke speaks also of the healing of the ear of the servant of the high priest (verse 51). This account some critics consider a later insertion on the ground that, properly speaking, there was no time for the conversation of Christ with the disciples about whether self-defense is necessary, and for the healing of the servant. They also point out that in some ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke this place is omitted (for example, in Marcion). But against such an objection one can point to the fact that, according to the testimony of the evangelist John, the taking of Christ by soldiers was not accomplished immediately: the soldiers were greatly frightened by the statement of Christ: “I am” (John 18:6), and consequently there could be sufficient time for the circumstances mentioned in the Gospel of Luke to occur, which happened at this time. And as for the absence of this place in some ancient manuscripts, this fact has no significance in view of the fact that a huge number of ancient manuscripts contain this place (see Tischendorf, 8th edition). “Permit thus far” (verse 51). By these words the Lord answers the question of those “about Him,” that is, the disciples (verse 49), and expresses His unwillingness to be defended by weapon. That this is indeed a response of the Lord to the question of the disciples is evident from the Greek text, where instead of “said” (verse 51) stands “answering, said” (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν). “Healed him,” that is, the ear, perhaps already completely severed, having been reattached to its place, immediately grew back together. “To the chief priests and captains of the temple and the elders” (verse 52). The presence of these persons is spoken of only by the evangelist Luke. Criticism again considers these words spurious, as if it would be unnatural for the representatives of the Jewish hierarchy themselves to go with soldiers to apprehend a criminal, and as the Gospel of John directly states that Judas took only servants and soldiers from the chief priests (John 18:3), consequently the chief priests themselves did not go to Gethsemane. But all these considerations have no weight. The chief priests could have stood behind, concealing themselves behind the soldiers, in order if necessary to encourage them to act. In any case, from the following words of Christ (verse 53) it is clearly seen that there were not only blind executors of the will of the chief priests, but these enemies of Christ themselves. “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (verse 53). By these words in the evangelist Luke are replaced the words of Christ cited by the evangelist Mark: “but that the Scriptures might be fulfilled” (Mark 14:49). Here the Lord explains why they did not seize before, while He was daily in the temple. This night hour is yours, Christ seems to say, this hour as it could not be better suited to your intention, which fears daylight, and the power, which you exercise at the present hour, is the power of darkness, that is, only because of the darkness have you dared upon such a decisive step regarding Me. To see here an indication of spiritual darkness or of the power of the devil – there is no ground...

Luke 22:54. And they seized Him, and led Him away, and brought Him into the house of the high priest. And Peter followed afar off. Luke 22:55. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and were sitting together, Peter sat down among them. Luke 22:56. But a certain maid seeing him as he sat by the fire, and looking steadfastly upon him, said, This man also was with Him. Luke 22:57. But he denied, saying, Woman, I know not Him. Luke 22:58. And after a little while another saw him, and said, You also are of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. Luke 22:59. And about an hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with Him; for he is a Galilean. Luke 22:60. And Peter said, Man, I know not what you say. And immediately, while he yet spoke, the rooster crowed. Luke 22:61. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him, Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me thrice. Luke 22:62. And he went out, and wept bitterly. Concerning the denial of the Apostle Peter, the evangelist Luke relates in agreement with Mark (Mark 14:54; cf. Matt 26:58). Only the evangelist Luke relates this as occurring before the condemnation of Christ by the council of the high priest, whereas according to the evangelist Mark this occurred after the condemnation. Here the account of Luke seems more probable. Probably first the denial of Peter occurred, and then the condemnation of Christ, since it is hardly likely that such a condemnation could be pronounced before morning: the members of the Sanhedrin needed some time to assemble in sufficient numbers and to properly discuss such an important matter. “Then the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter” (verse 61). According to the Gospel of Luke, the Lord was in the court of the high priest together with Peter; He was waiting when they would lead Him to the Sanhedrin. He, apparently, was sitting with His back to the place where Peter was, but of course, He heard the conversation of Peter with the servants, and, after the rooster crowed, He turned His sorrowful gaze upon Peter. “And this man was also with Him” (verse 56). According to the evangelist Mark it is said: “and you also were with Jesus of Nazareth” (Mark 14:67). The difference is only in the use of person: here in Luke – third person, but in Mark – second. On the other hand, the second address (verse 58) the evangelist Luke relates as direct, whereas Mark (Mark 14:69) – as indirect, and the inquirers are differently designated in both evangelists: in Luke – a man, in Mark – a woman.

Luke 22:63. And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and beat Him; Luke 22:64. And blindfolded Him, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy! who is it that struck you? Luke 22:65. And many other things blasphemously spoke they against Him. The mockery of Christ, according to Mark, was accomplished at the council of the high priest after the pronouncement of the sentence, but here it is depicted as the deed of the guards, who mocked Christ in order to somehow occupy their time (cf. Mark 14:65), and took place still in the court. In all probability, the evangelists Mark and Matthew (Matt 26:67) speak of the mockery of Christ that truly took place after the pronouncement of the sentence, while the evangelist Luke – of the preliminary, that occurred in the court.

Luke 22:66. And as soon as it was day, the council of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, were gathered together, and led Him into their council, According to the Gospel of Luke, only after daybreak does the Sanhedrin assemble, and Christ is brought there. Where the Sanhedrin assembled – the evangelist Luke does not say. “Elders of the people” (τὸ πρεσβυτέριον), “chief priests and scribes” – these are the three constituent parts of the Sanhedrin, presented, however, as one whole (the article placed before the word πρεσβυτέριον refers to both the following nouns, uniting them into one whole). The fact that these are nouns of different genders and placed in different numbers does not prevent such a union in view of the parallels found in classical writers. “Led” – more correctly: “led up” (ἀνήγαγον). The Sanhedrin apparently assembled in a room which was on the second floor.

Luke 22:67. Saying, If you are the Christ, tell us. But He said, If I tell you, you will not believe; Luke 22:68. And if I also ask you, you will not answer Me, nor let Me go; Luke 22:69. From now on the Son of Man shall be seated on the right hand of the power of God. Luke 22:70. Then said they all, Are you then the Son of God? And He said to them, You say that I am. Luke 22:71. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth. “Are you the Christ...” More correctly: “if you are the Messiah, then tell us this” (so the Church Slavic and Latin translations render the meaning of the text). The high priest apparently supposes that Christ claims to be the Messiah and desires Him to openly declare His rank. “If I tell you...” Christ answers that there is no occasion for Him to make any declarations or questions. If He declares Himself the Messiah, they will not believe, and if He asks them why they have arrested Him or why they do not recognize Him as the Messiah, then they undoubtedly will not want to give Him account of the reasons for their hostility toward Him. Still more, there could not arise in them a desire to release Christ – they have already decided His fate... “From now on the Son of Man...” Nevertheless Christ does not leave without answer. In these words He clearly declares His high dignity of the Son of God (cf. Matt 26:64). “And said they all, Are you then the Son of God?” The answer of Christ was understood in this very sense by both judges, and therefore they directly asked Him: do You confess Yourself to be the Son of God? “You say that I am.” Some commentators (for example, Merks) believe that by this answer Christ expressed nothing, but only showed that He was not obligated to give an account to the judges about the mystery of His life. But such an opinion cannot be accepted. This answer undoubtedly has the character of a confirmation. See commentaries to Matt 26:64; Mark 14:72. “What further need have we of witness?” Cf. Matt 26:65. Concerning the condemnation of Christ for blasphemy after the adjuration to Him by the high priest, the evangelist Luke does not report: it was important for him to show that Christ was condemned only for confessing Himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God. * * * Notes Some critics of the Gospel text consider verses 43–44 an insertion, as they are not found in many ancient manuscripts and, in particular, in one of the most ancient manuscripts – the Syriac-Sinaitic translation of the Gospel. But the existence of this passage was known already to Justin Martyr and other ancient Church Fathers. In 1901, the famous Harnack, analyzing this passage, spoke in favor of the authenticity of these verses. For details on the authenticity of this passage, see in Tischendorf’s 8th edition of the New Testament, pp. 694–696. To the question: what did the angel strengthen Christ with, Quandt answers: “First of all, by his very appearance. For the Savior it was exceedingly comforting to see beside Him a messenger from heaven in those minutes when the powers of hell were threatening Him. Just as a king, driven from his kingdom, looks with joy at the coming to him of his subject, so did the angel perhaps remind Christ of all the prophecies of the Old Testament in which it was pointed out that the Messiah was to suffer, in order that the will of God might be fulfilled concerning the salvation of mankind... And finally, the angel could point out to Christ His future ascension, which was to take place on that same mountain, where Christ at the present moment was in a state of extreme soul’s distress...”