CHAPTER 22.

THE PASSION HISTORY.

The Passion history, as told by Lk., varies considerably from the narratives of Mt. and Mk. by omissions, additions, etc. J. Weiss (Meyer), following Feine, thinks that Lk. used as his main source for this part of his Gospel not Mk. but the precanonical Lk., whose existence Feine has endeavoured to prove. Lk.’s narrative at some points resembles that of the Fourth Gospel.

Luke 22:1-2. Introductory (Matthew 26:1-5, Mark 14:1-2).—ἤγγιζεν, drew near, for the more definite note of time in parallels.—ἡ ἑορτὴ, etc.: the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover are treated as one. Mk. distinguishes them. Lk. writes for Gentiles; hence his “called” the passover (ἡ λεγομένη).

Luke 22:2. τὸ πῶς, the how, that was the puzzle; that Jesus should be put out of the way by death (ἀνέλωσιν α.); some how was a settled matter. Cf. Luke 19:48 (τὸ τί, etc.).—ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ τ. λ.: their fear of the people explains why the how was so perplexing a matter. The popularity of Jesus was very embarrassing.

Luke 22:3-6. Judas (Matthew 26:14-16, Mark 14:10-11). At this point in Mt. (Matthew 26:6-13) and Mk. (Mark 14:3-9) comes in the anointing at Bethany omitted by Lk.—εἰσῆλθεν Σατανᾶς, Satan entered into Judas. Lk. alone of the synoptists thus explains the conduct of Judas. Cf. John 13:2. Lk.’s statement is stronger even than John’s, suggesting a literal possession. Only so could he account for such behaviour on the part of a disciple towards such a Master. It was a natural view for a devout evangelist in the Apostolic Age, but, taken literally, it would be fatal to the moral significance of the act of the traitor, which, while presenting a difficult psychological problem, doubtless proceeded from can scious motives.—ἐκ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, of the number, but how far from the spirit which became that privileged body!

Luke 22:4. στρατηγοῖς: a military term which might suggest the captains of Roman soldiers, but doubtless pointing to the heads of the temple watches (Levites) who kept order during the feast. They would be necessary to the carrying out of Judas’ plan. The Levites had to perform garrison duty for the temple (vide Numbers 8:24-25). In Acts 4:2 we read of one στρατηγὸς τ. ἱ., who was doubtless the head of the whole body of temple police.—τὸ πῶς: a second reference to the perplexing how.

Luke 22:5. ἐχάρησαν, they were glad, emphatically; and how piously they would remark on the providential character of this unexpected means of getting out of the difficulty as to the πῶς!

Luke 22:6. ἐξωμολόγησε, he agreed, spopondit, for which the Greeks used the simple verb. The active of ἐξομ. occurs here only in N.T.—ἄτερ ὄχλου, without a crowd, the thing above all to be avoided. ἄτερ is a poetic word in Greek authors; here and in Luke 22:35 only in N.T.

Luke 22:7-13. Preparation for the paschal feast (Matthew 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16).

Luke 22:7. ἦλθε, arrived. A considerable number of commentators (Euthy. Zig., Godet, Schanz, J. Weiss (Meyer)) render, approached (ἐπλησίασε, Euthy.), holding that Lk. with John makes Jesus anticipate the feast by a day, so finding here one of the points in which the third Gospel is in touch with the fourth.

Luke 22:8. ἀπέστειλε: in Lk. Jesus takes the initiative; in Mt. and Mk. the disciples introduce the subject. Various reasons have been suggested for this change. Lk. simply states the fact as it was (Schanz). He thought it unsuitable that Jesus should seem to need reminding (Meyer, seventh edition). The change of day, from 14th to 13th Nisan, required Jesus to take the initiative (J. Weiss, Meyer, eighth edition).—Πέτρον καὶ Ἰ.: the two disciples sent out not named in parallels.

Luke 22:11. οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς οἰκίας: a pleonasm = the house-master of the house. Bornemann cites from Greek authors similar redundancies, οἰκοφύλαξ δομῶν, αἰπόλια αἰγῶν, αἰπόλος αἰγῶν, συβόσια συῶν, and from Sept[183], τὰ βουκόλια τῶν βοῶν (Deuteronomy 7:13). In the remainder of Luke 22:11 and in Luke 22:12-13 Lk. follows Mk. closely.

[183] Septuagint.

Luke 22:14-18. Prelude to the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:17).

Luke 22:14. οἱ ἀπόστολοι, the apostles, for disciples in parallels. This designation for the Twelve, the initiative ascribed to Jesus (Luke 22:8), and the desire of Jesus spoken of in next ver. all fit into each other and indicate a wish on the part of the evangelist to invest what he here narrates with great significance. He seems to write with the practice of the Apostolic Church in view in reference to the Holy Communion.

Luke 22:15. πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν: the last passover He will eat with them is looked forward to with solemn, tender feeling.

Luke 22:16. λέγω γὰρ: the words of Jesus here reported answer to words given in Mt. and Mk. at a later stage, i.e., at the close of their narrative of the institution of the Supper. At this point Lk.’s narrative follows a divergent course.

Luke 22:17. δεξάμενος, having received from the hand of another (different from λαβὼν, Luke 22:19), handed to Him that He might drink.—εὐχαριστήσας, this solemn act gives to the handing round of the cup here mentioned the character of a prelude to the Holy Supper: (“quaedam quasi prolusio S. Coenae,” Beng. in reference to Luke 22:15-18). If the reading of [184] and some Old Latin codd. which makes Luke 22:19 stop at σῶμά μου and omits Luke 22:20 be the true text (vide critical notes above), then Lk.’s account of the institution really begins in Luke 22:17, and what happened according to it was this: Jesus first sent round the cup, saying: take this and divide it among yourselves, then took bread, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying: this is my body. In this version two things are to be noted: first, the inversion of the actions; second, the omission of all reference to the blood in connection with the wine. The existence of such a reading as that of D and the Old Latin version raises questions, not only as to Lk.’s text, but as to church practice in the Apostolic age and afterwards; or, assuming as a possibility that Lk. wrote as D represents, have we here another instance of editorial discretion—shrinking from imputing to Jesus the idea of drinking His blood? If with D we omit all that follows σῶμά μου, then it results that Lk. has left out all the words of our Lord setting forth the significance of His death uttered (1) at Caesarea Philippi; (2) on the occasion of the request of Zebedee’s sons; (3) the anointing at Bethany; (4) the institution of the Supper. (2) and (3) are omitted altogether, and (1) is so reported as to make the lesson non-apparent.

[184] Codex Bezae

Luke 22:19-20. The Supper.

Luke 22:19. τὸ σῶμά μου, my body, broken like the bread, implying blood-shedding, though that is passed over in silence if the reading of [185] be accepted. Note that in Acts 2:46 the communion of the faithful is called breaking bread.—τὸ ὑ. ὑ. διδόμενον: what follows from these words to the end of Luke 22:20 resembles closely St. Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. This resemblance is one of the arguments of W. and H[186] against the genuineness of the passage. On the whole subject consult J. Weiss (Meyer, eighth edition) and Wendt, L. J., i., 173, both of whom adopt the reading of [187].

[185] Codex Bezae

[186] Westcott and Hort.

[187] Codex Bezae

Luke 22:21-23. The traitor (Matthew 26:21-25, Mark 14:18-21), placed after the Supper, instead of before, as in parallels.—πλὴν: making a transition to an incident presenting a strong moral contrast to the preceding.—ἡ χεὶρ, the hand, graphic and tragic; the hand which is to perform such opposite acts, now touching the Master’s on the table, ere long to be the instrument of betrayal.

Luke 22:22. πλὴν, adversative, nevertheless; the Son of Man destined to go (to death), but that does not relieve the instrument of his responsibility.

Luke 22:23. πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς, to one another, or among themselves, without speaking to the Master; otherwise in parallels.—τοῦτο: in an emphatic position = this horrible deed.

Luke 22:24-30. Strife among the disciples. Cf. on chap. Luke 9:46.

Luke 22:24. φιλονεικία, a contention, here only in N.T. The juxtaposition of this strife among the eleven with the announcement of the traitor gives to it by comparison the aspect of a pardonable infirmity in otherwise loyal men, and it is so treated by Jesus.—τὸ τίς α., etc., as to the who of them, etc. The topic of the earlier dispute (Luke 9:46) might be: who outside their circle was greater than they all, but here it certainly is: which of them is greater than his fellow. It is usual to connect this incident with the feet-washing in John 13—δοκεῖ, seems, looks like, makes the impression of being (Bleek and Hahn).

Luke 22:25-26 : borrowed from the incident of the two sons of Zebedee (Matthew 20:25-26, Mark 10:42-43), which Lk. omits and somewhat alters in expression.

Luke 22:25. εὐεργέται: here only in N.T., either titular, like our “your highness,” e.g., Ptolemy Euergetes (so, many), or = benefactors.

Luke 22:26. ὑμεῖς δὲ, etc., but ye not so, elliptical, ἔσεσθε or ποιήσετε understood.—ὁ νεώτερος, the younger, “who in Eastern families fulfils menial duties, Acts 5:6” (Farrar).—ὁ ἡγούμενος, the leader or chief, the name of those in office in the Church in Hebrews 13:7, also in the epistle of Clement; therefore viewed by some as a note of a late date, but without sufficient reason.

Luke 22:27 adduces the example of Jesus to enforce the principle stated in Luke 22:26. He, the admittedly greater, had assumed the position of the less by becoming the serving man, ὁ διακονῶν, instead of the guest at table (ὁ ἀνακείμενος). In what way Jesus had played the part of serving man Lk. does not indicate. The handing round of the cup might be viewed as service. By omitting the incident of the sons of Zebedee Lk. missed the supreme illustration of service through death (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45).

Luke 22:28. ὑμεῖς δέ, but ye, the δέ making transition from words of correction to a more congenial style of address.—οἱ διαμεμενηκότες, who have continued all through; the perfect participle, pointing them out as in possession of a permanent character, a body of thoroughly tried, faithful men.—πειρασμοῖς, in my temptations, pointing to all past experiences fitted to try faith and patience, which were of daily occurrence: temptations even to the Master, but still more to the disciples (in view of their spiritual weakness) to lose confidence in, and attachment to, One so peculiar, so isolated, and so much disliked and opposed by the people of repute and influence.

Luke 22:29. διατίθεμαι (διατίθημι, middle only in N.T.), “appoint,” make a disposition of. The corresponding noun is διαθήκη. In Hebrews 9:17 we find ὁ διαθέμενος, a testator, and the verb may be used here in the sense of bequeathing, though that sense is inapplicable to God’s gift of a kingdom to Jesus referred to in next clause.

Luke 22:30. καθήσεσθε, ye shall sit, the judicial function the main thing, the feasting a subordinate feature; hence stated in an independent proposition (καθήσεσθε not dependent on ἵνα).—δώδεκα, twelve tribes, and twelve to rule over them, the defection of Judas not taken into account. The promise is given in that respect as if spoken on another occasion (Matthew 19:28). This generous eulogy of the disciples for their fidelity has the effect of minimising the fault mentioned just before. Lk. was aware of the fact. It is another instance of his “sparing of the Twelve”.

Luke 22:31-34. Peter’s weakness foretold. With John (John 13:36-38) Lk. places this incident in the supper chamber. In Mt. and Mk. it occurs on the way to Gethsemane (Matthew 26:31-35, Mark 14:37-41). It is introduced more abruptly here than in any of the other accounts. The εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος of the T.R. is a natural attempt to mitigate the abruptness, but the passage is more effective without it. From generous praise and bright promises Jesus passes suddenly, with perhaps a slight pause and marked change of tone, to the moral weakness of His much-loved companions and of Peter in particular.

Luke 22:31. Σίμων, Σίμων: one can imagine, though not easily describe, how this was said—with much affection and just enough of distress in the tone to make it solemn.—ὁ Σατανᾶς. The reference to Satan naturally reminds us of the trial of Job, and most commentators assume that the case of Job is in the view of Jesus or the evangelist. The coming fall of Peter could not be set in a more advantageous light than by being paralleled with the experience of the famous man of Uz, with a good record behind him and fame before him, the two connected by a dark but profitable time of trial.—ἐξῃτήσατο, not merely “desired to have” (A.V[188]) but, obtained by asking (R.V[189], margin). Careful Greek writers used ἐξαιτεῖν = to demand for punishment, and ἐξαιτεῖσθαι = to beg off, deprecari. Later writers somewhat disregarded this distinction. The aorist implies success in the demand. It is an instance of the “Resultative Aorist” (vide on this and other senses of the aorist, Burton, M. and T., § 35). Field (Ot. Nor.) cites from Wetstein instances of such use and renders ἐξητ. ὑ. periphrastically “Satan hath procured you to be given up to him”.—ὑμᾶς, you, the whole of you (though not emphatic); therefore, Simon, look to yourself, and to the whole brotherhood of which you are the leading man. Bengel remarks: “Totus sane hie sermo Domini praesup ponit P. esse primum apostolorum, quo stante aut cadente ceteri aut minus aut magis periclitaientur”.—σινιάσαι: a ἅπ. λεγ., but of certain meaning. Hesychius gives as equivalent κοσκινεῦσαι, from κόσκινον, a sieve. Euthy. Zig. is copious in synonyms = θορυβῆσαι, κυκῆσαι, ταράξαι. He adds, “what we call κόσκινον is by some called σινίον,” and he thus describes the function of the sieve: ἐν ᾦ ὁ σῖτος τῇδε κᾀκεῖσε μεταφερόμενος ταράσσεται. Sifting points to the result of the process anticipated by Jesus. Satan aimed at ruin.

[188] Authorised Version.

[189] Revised Version.

Luke 22:32. ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην, but I have prayed: I working against Satan, and successfully.—ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ π. σ., that thy faith may not (utterly) fail or die (Luke 16:9), though it prove weak or inadequate for the moment. Job’s faith underwent eclipse. He did not curse God, but for the time he lost faith in the reality of a Divine government in human affairs. So Peter never ceased to love Jesus, but he was overpowered by fear and the instinct of self-preservation.—ἐπιστρέψας, having returned (to thy true self). Cf. στραφῆτε in Matthew 18:3. The word “converted,” as bearing a technical sense, should be allowed to fall into desuetude in this connection. Many regard ἐπιστρέψας as a Hebraism = vicissim: do thou in turn strengthen by prayer and otherwise thy brethren as I have strengthened thee. So, e.g., Grotius: “Da operam ne in fide deficiant, nempe Proverbs ipsis orans, sicut ego pro te oro”. Ingenious but doubtful.—στήρισον: later form for στήριξον; for the sense vide Acts 14:22 and 1 Peter 5:10.

Luke 22:33. εἰς φυλακὴν καὶ εἰς θάνατον: more definite reference to the dangers ahead than in any of the parallels.

Luke 22:34. σήμερον, to-day, as in Mk., but without the more definite ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ.—μὴ εἰδέναι: μὴ after a verb of denial as often in Greek authors, e.g., τὸν τἀμʼ ἀπαρνηθέντα μὴ χρᾶναι λέχη, Eurip., Hippol., l. 1256.

Luke 22:35-38. Coming danger, peculiar to Lk. There is danger ahead physically as well as morally. Jesus turns now to the physical side. What He says about a sword is not to be taken literally. It is a vivid way of intimating that the supreme crisis is at hand = the enemy approaches, prepare!

Luke 22:35. ὅτε ἀπέστειλα: the reference if to Luke 9:3, or rather, so far as language is concerned, to Luke 10:4, which relates to the mission of the seventy.—ἄτερ as in Luke 22:6.

Luke 22:36. ἀλλὰ νῦν, but now, suggesting an emphatic contrast between past and present, or near future.—ἀράτω, lift it: if he has a purse let him carry it, it will be needed, either to buy a sword or, more generally, to provide for himself; he is going now not on a peaceful mission in connection with which he may expect friendly reception and hospitality, but on a campaign in an enemy’s country.—ὁ μὴ ἔχων, he who has not; either purse and scrip, or, with reference to what follows, he who hath not already such a thing as a sword let him by all means get one.—πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον, let him sell his upper garment, however indispensable for clothing by day and by night. A sword the one thing needful. This is a realistic speech true to the manner of Jesus and, what is rare in Lk., given without toning down, a genuine logion without doubt.

Luke 22:37. τὸ γεγραμμένον: the words quoted are from Isaiah 53:12, and mean that Jesus was about to die the death of a criminal.—δεῖ, it is necessary, in order that Scripture might be fulfilled. No other or higher view than this of the rationale of Christ’s sufferings is found in Luke’s Gospel. Cf. Luke 24:26. A Paulinist in his universalism, he shows no acquaintance with St. Paul’s theology of the atonement unless it be in Luke 22:20.—τὸ (τὰ T.R.) περὶ ἐμοῦ, that which concerns me, my life course.—τέλος ἔχει is coming to an end. Some think the reference is still to the prophecies concerning Messiah and take τέλος ἔχει in the sense of “is being fulfilled,” a sense it sometimes bears: τελειοῦται ἤδη, Euthy. Kypke renders: rata sunt, the phrase being sometimes used in reference to things whose certainty and authority cannot be questioned = “my doom is fixed beyond recall”

Luke 22:38. μάχαιραι δύο: how did such a peaceable company come to have even so much as one sword? Were the two weapons really swords, fighting instruments, or large knives? The latter suggestion, made by Chrysostom and adopted by Euthym., is called “curious” by Alford, but regarded by Field (Ot. Nor.) as “probable”.—ἱκανόν, enough! i.e., for one who did not mean to fight. It is a pregnant word = “for the end I have in view more than enough; but also enough of misunderstanding, disenchantment, speech, teaching, and life generally,” Holtzmann, H. C.

Luke 22:39-46. Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-42). Lk.’s narrative here falls far short of the vivid realism of the parallels. Mt. and Mk. allow the infirmity of the great High Priest of humanity so graphically described in the Epistle to the Hebrews to appear in its appalling naked truth. Lk. throws a veil over it, so giving an account well adapted doubtless to the spiritual condition of first readers, but not so well serving the deepest permanent needs of the Church. This statement goes on the assumption that Luke 22:43-44 are no part of the genuine text, for in these, especially in Luke 22:44, the language is even more realistic than that of Mk., and is thus out of harmony with the subdued nature of Lk.’s narrative in general. This want of keeping with the otherwise colourless picture of the scene, which is in accord with Lk.’s uniform mode of handling the emphatic words, acts and experiences of Jesus, is, in my view, one of the strongest arguments against the genuineness of Luke 22:43-44.

Luke 22:39. ἐξελθὼν: no mention of the hymn sung before going out (Mt. Luke 22:30, Mk. Luke 22:26). Lk. makes prominent the outgoing of Jesus. The parallels speak in the plural of the whole company.—κατὰ τὸ ἔθος: for the form vide Luke 2:42, and for the fact Luke 21:37 and John 18:2. This is another point of contact between these two Gospels. The reference to the habit of Jesus deprives this visit of special significance.—ἠκολούθησαν: the disciples followed, no talk by the way of their coming breakdown, as in Mt. Luke 22:31, and Mk. ver, 27.

Luke 22:40-46. ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου, at the place, of usual resort, not the place of this memorable scene, for it is not Lk.’s purpose to make it specially prominent. Cf. John 18:2, τὸν τόπον previously described as a κῆπος across the brook Kedron.—προσεύχεσθε: Jesus bids the disciples pray against temptation. In Mt. and Mk. He bids them sit down while He prays. Their concern is to be wholly for themselves.

Luke 22:41. ἀπεσπάσθη, He withdrew, secessit. Some insist on the literal sense, and render, “tore Himself away” = “avulsus est,” Vulg[190], implying that Jesus was acting under strong feeling. But did Lk. wish to make that prominent? The verb does not necessarily mean more than “withdrew,” and many of the philological commentators (Wolf, Raphel, Pricaeus, Palairet, etc.) take it in that sense, citing late Greek authors in support.—ἀπʼ αὐτῶν, from them (all); no mention of three taken along with Him, a very important feature as an index of the state of mind of Jesus. The Master in His hour of weakness looked to the three for sympathy and moral support; vide Matthew 26:40. But it did not enter into Lk.’s plan to make that apparent.—λίθου βολήν, a stone’s cast, not too distant to be over heard. βολήν is the accusative of measure.—θεὶς τὰ γόνατα: the usual attitude in prayer was standing; the kneeling posture implied special urgency (“in genibus orabant quoties res major urgebat,” Grot.), but not so decidedly as falling at full length on the ground, the attitude pointed at in the parallels.

[190] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version).

Luke 22:42. πάτερ, Father! the keynote, a prayer of faith however dire the distress.—εἰ βούλει, etc.: with the reading παρένεγκε the sense is simple: if Thou wilt, take away. With παρενεγκεῖν or παρενέγκαι we have a sentence unfinished: “apodosis suppressed by sorrow” (Winer, p. 750), or an infinitive for an imperative (Bengel, etc.). The use of παρ. in the sense of “remove” is somewhat unusual. Hesychius gives as synonyms verbs of the opposite meaning παραθεῖναι, παραβαλεῖν. The ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ leaves no doubt what is meant. In Lk.’s narrative there is only a single act of prayer. The whole account is mitigated as compared with that in Mt. and Mk. Jesus goes to the accustomed place, craves no sympathy from the three, kneels, utters a single prayer, then returns to the Twelve. With this picture the statement in Luke 22:43-44 is entirely out of harmony.

Luke 22:44. ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ, in an agony (of fear), or simply in “a great fear”. So Field (Ot. Nor.), who has an important note on the word ἀγωνία, with examples to show that fear is the radical meaning of the word. Loesner supports the same view with examples from Philo. Here only in N.T. From this word comes the name “The Agony in the Garden”.—θρόμβοι, clots (of blood), here only in N.T.

Luke 22:45-46. Return of Jesus to His disciples.—ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς: rising up from the prayer, seems to continue the narrative from Luke 22:42.—ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης, asleep from grief, apologetic; Hebraistic construction, therefore not added by Lk., but got from a Jewish-Christian document, says J. Weiss (in Meyer). Doubtless Lk.’s, added out of delicate feeling for the disciples, and with truth to nature, for grief does induce sleep (“moestitia somnum affert,” Wolf).

Luke 22:46. ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε: Jesus rose up from prayer. He bids His disciples rise up to prayer, as if suggesting an attitude that would help them against sleep.—ἵνα, etc.: again a warning against temptation, but no word of reproach to Peter or the rest, as in parallels.

Luke 22:47-53. The apprehension (Matthew 26:47-56, Mark 14:43-52).

Luke 22:47. φιλῆσαι α., to kiss Him; that the traitor’s purpose, its execution left to be inferred, also that it was the preconcerted signal pointing out who was to be apprehended.

Luke 22:48. φιλήματι, etc., the question of Jesus takes the place of, and explains, the enigmatical ἐφʼ ὃ πάρει of Mt. The simple φίλημα, unlike καταφιλέω, implies no fervour.

Luke 22:49. οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν, those about Him, i.e., the disciples, though the word is avoided.—τὸ ἐσόμενον, what was about to happen, i.e., the apprehension. The disciples, anticipating the action of the representatives of authority, ask directions, and one of them (Luke 22:50) not waiting for an answer, strikes out. In the parallels the apprehension takes place first.

Luke 22:50. εἷς τις, etc., a certain one of them, thus vaguely referred to in all the synoptists. John names Peter.—τὸ δεξιόν, the right ear; so in Fourth Gospel. Cf. the right hand in Luke 6:6.

Luke 22:51. ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου: an elliptical colloquial phrase, whose meaning might be made clear by intonation or gesture. It might be spoken either to the captors = leave me free until I have healed the wounded man, or to the disciples = let them apprehend me, or: no more use of weapons. For the various interpretations put upon the words, vide Hahn. Perhaps the most likely rendering is: “cease, it is enough,” desinite, satis est, as if it had stood, ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου ἱκανόν ἐστι, the disciples being addressed.

Luke 22:52. ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ, etc.: Lk. alone represents the authorities as present with the ὄχλος—priests, captains of the temple and elders—some of them might be. though it is not likely. Farrar remarks: “these venerable persons had kept safely in the background till all possible danger was over”.—ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν. Lk. gives the reproachful words of Jesus nearly as in the parallels.

Luke 22:53. ἀλλʼ αὕτη ἐστὶν, etc.: the leading words in this elliptical sentence are τοῦ σκότους, which qualify both ὥρα and ἐξουσία. Two things are said: your hour is an hour of darkness, and your power is a power of darkness. There is an allusion to the time they had chosen for the apprehension, night, not day, but the physical darkness is for Jesus only an emblem of moral darkness. He says in effect: why should I complain of being captured as a robber in the dark by men whose whole nature and ways are dark and false?

Luke 22:54-62. Peter’s fall (Matthew 26:57-58; Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:53-54; Mark 14:66-72).—Lk. tells the sad story of Peter’s fall without interruption, and in as gentle a manner as possible, the cursing omitted, and the three acts of denial forming an anticlimax instead of a climax, as in parallels.

Luke 22:54. ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἠκολούθει, Peter followed. What the rest did is passed over in silence; flight left to be inferred.

Luke 22:55. περιαψάντων, more strongly than ἁψάντων (T.R.) suggests the idea of a well-kindled fire giving a good blaze, supplying light as well as heat. Who kindled it did not need to be said. It was kindled in the open court of the high priest’s house, and was large enough for the attendants to sit around it in the chilly spring night (συγκαθισάντων).—μέσος αὐτῶν. Peter sat among them. Was that an acted denial, or was he simply seeking warmth, and taking his risk?

Luke 22:56. ἀτενίσασα (α intensive, and τείνω), fixing the eyes on, with dative here, sometimes with εἰς and accusative, frequently used by Lk., especially in Acts.—οὗτος, the maid makes the remark not to but about Peter in Lk. = this one also was with Him, of whom they were all talking.

Luke 22:57. οὐκ οἷδα α. γ.: a direct denial = I do not know Him, woman, not to speak of being a follower.

Luke 22:58. μετὰ βραχὺ, shortly after (here only in N.T.), while the mood of fear is still on him, no time to recover himself.—ἕτερος, another of the attendants, a man.—ἐξ αὐτῶν, of the notorious band, conceived possibly as a set of desperadoes.—ἄνθρωπε, οὐκ εἰμί, man, I am not, with more emphasis and some irritation = denial of discipleship. In one sense a stronger form of denial, but in another a weaker. Peter might have known Jesus without being a disciple. To deny all knowledge was the strongest form of denial. Besides it was less cowardly to deny to a man than to a woman.

Luke 22:59. διαστάσης ὥρας, at the distance of an hour; the verb here used of time, in Luke 24:51 and Acts 27:28 of place. This interval of an hour is peculiar to Lk. Peter in the course of that time would begin to think that no further annoyance was to be looked for.—διϊσχυρίζετο, ἐπʼ ἀληθείας: these expressions imply that the previous denials had partly served their purpose for a time, and put the attendants off the idea that Peter was of the company of Jesus. After watching Peter, and listening to his speech, a third gains courage to reaffirm the position = I am sure he is after all one of them, for, etc.

Luke 22:60. ἄνθρωπε, etc., man, I don’t know what you are saying—under shelter of the epithet Γαλιλαῖος, pretending ignorance of what the man said—an evasion rather than a denial, with no cursing and protesting accompanying. A monstrous minimising of the offence, if Lk. had Mk.’s account before him, thinks J. Weiss; therefore he infers he had not, but drew from a Jewish-Christian source with a milder account. What if he had both before him, and preferred the milder?—ἐφώνησεν ἀλεκ., immediately after the cock crew; but in Lk.’s account the reaction is not brought about thereby. In the parallels, in which Peter appears worked up to a paroxysm, a reaction might be looked for at any moment on the slightest occasion, the crowing of the cock recalling Christ’s words abundantly sufficient. But in Lk. there is no paroxysm, therefore more is needed to bring about reaction, and more accordingly is mentioned.

Luke 22:61. στραφεὶς, etc., the Lord, turning, looked at Peter; that look, not the cock crowing, recalled the prophetic word of Jesus, and brought about the penitent reaction.—ὑπεμνήσθη, remembered, was reminded, passive here only in N.T.

Luke 22:62 exactly as in Mt.

Luke 22:63-65. Indignities (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65). In Mt. and Mk. these come after the trial during the night which Lk. omits. In his narrative the hours of early morning spent by Jesus in the palace of the high priest are filled up by the denial of Peter and the outrages of the men who had taken Jesus into custody (οἱ συνέχοντες αὐτὸν).

Luke 22:63. ἐνέπαιζον, mocked, in place of the more brutal spitting in parallels.—δέροντες, smiting (the whole body), instead of the more special and insulting slapping in the face (κολαφίζειν).

Luke 22:64. περικαλύψαντες, covering (the face understood, τὸ πρόσωπον in Mk.)—προφήτευσον, τίς, etc.: Lk. here follows Mt., not Mk., who has simply the verb προφ. without the question following.

Luke 22:65. ἕτερα πολλὰ, many other shameful words, filling up the time, which Lk. would rather not report particularly, even if he knew them.

Luke 22:66-71. Morning trial, the proceedings of which, as reported by Lk., correspond to those of the night meeting reported by Mt. and Mk. (Matthew 26:59-66, Mark 14:55-64), only much abridged. No mention of the attempt to get, through witnesses, matter for an accusation, or of the testimony concerning the word about destroying the temple. The Messiah question is alone noticed. Perhaps Lk. omitted the former because of their futility, though they were important as revealing the animus of the judges.

Luke 22:66. εἰς τὸ συνέδριον, to the council chamber, in which the Sanhedrim met.—λέγοντες, introducing the proceedings, in a very generalising way. Cf. the graphic account of the high priest rising up to interrogate Jesus, after the first attempt to incriminate Him had failed, in parallels (Matthew 26:62 f., Mark 14:60 f.).

Luke 22:67. εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χ. εἰπὸν ἡμῖν either, art Thou the Christ? tell us, or tell us whether Thou be the Christ. Christ simpliciter without any epithet as in parallels (Son of God, Son of the Blessed).—εἶπε δὲ α.: Jesus first answers evasively, saying in effect: it is vain to give an answer to such people. In parallels He replies with a direct “yes” (“thou sayst,” Mt.; “I am,” Mk.).

Luke 22:69. What Jesus now says amounts to an affirmative answer.—ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἔσται, etc.: Jesus points to a speedy change of position from humiliation to exaltation, without reference to what they will see, or to a second coming.

Luke 22:70. πάντες, all, eagerly grasping at the handle offered by Christ’s words.—ὁ υἱὸς τ. Θ. This is supposed to be involved in the exalted place at the right hand.—ἐγώ εἰμι, the direct answer at last.

Luke 22:71. μαρτυρίας: instead of μαρτύρων, no mention having been previously made of witnesses.

J. Weiss (in Meyer, eighth edition) finds in this section clear evidence of the use of a Jewish-Christian source from the correspondence between the account it gives of the questions put to Jesus and His replies and the Jewish-Christian ideas regarding the Messiahship. These he conceives to have been as follows: In His earthly state Jesus was not Messiah or Son of Man; only a claimant to these honours. He became both in the state of exaltation (cf. Acts 2:36 : “God hath made Him both Lord and Christ”). He was God’s Son in the earthly state because He was conscious of God’s peculiar love and of a Messianic commission. So here: Jesus is to become (ἔσται) Messianic Son of Man with glory and power (δόξα and δύναμις); He is Son of God (ἐγώ εἰμι). On this view Sonship is lower than Christhood. Was that Lk.’s idea? On the contrary, he evidently treats the Christ question as one of subordinate importance on which it was hardly worth debating. The wider, larger question was that as to Sonship, which, once settled, settled also the narrower question. If Son, then Christ and more: not only the Jewish Messiah, but Saviour of the world. The account of the trial runs on the same lines as the genealogy, in which Davidic descent is dwarfed into insignificance by Divine descent (υἱὸς … τοῦ θεοῦ).