The document provides a commentary on Luke 22, focusing on the events leading up to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which coincided with the Passover. It discusses the significance of these events in the context of Jewish law and tradition, detailing the preparations for the Passover and the motivations behind Judas's actions, including the influence of Satan. Additionally, it outlines the timeline of the key events in the final days of Jesus before his crucifixion.

1. LUKE 22 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus
1 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called
the Passover, was approaching,
CLARKE, "The feast of unleavened bread, etc. - See this largely explained,
Exo_23:14 (note); Leviticus 23:2-40 (note), and on Mat_26:2 (note).
GILL, "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,.... Which lasted seven
days; during which the Jews eat their bread without leaven, in commemoration of
the haste in which they went out of Egypt; being such, that they had not time to
leaven their dough, but took it with their kneadingtroughs along with them, as it was;
and as figurative of the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, with which the
Gospel feast is to be kept; see Exo_12:34.
Which is called the passover; because the Lord passed over the houses of the
Israelites, when he slew all the firstborn in Egypt; now the time of this feast drew
near, when the conspiracy was formed against the life of Christ: Matthew and Mark
are more precise, and suggest, that it was two days before the passover; see Mat_
26:2.
HENRY, "The year of the redeemed is now come, which had been from eternity
fixed in the divine counsels, and long looked for by them that waited for the
consolation of Israel. After the revolutions of many ages, it is at length come, Isa_
63:4. And, it is observable, it is in the very first month of that year that the
redemption is wrought out, so much in haste was the Redeemer to perform his
undertaking, so was he straitened till it was accomplished. It was in the same month,
and at the same time of the month (in the beginning of months, Exo_12:2), that God
by Moses brought Israel out of Egypt, that the Antitype might answer the type. Christ
is here delivered up, when the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, Luk_22:1.
About as long before that feast as they began to make preparation for it, here was
preparation making for our Passover's being offered for us.
JAMISON, "
BARCLAY, "AND SATAN ENTERED INTO JUDAS (Luke 22:1-6)
22:1-6 The Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was near,
and the chief priests and the scribes searched to find a way to destroy Jesus, for
they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas, who was called
Iscariot, who belonged to the number of the Twelve. So he went away and
discussed with the chief priests and captains how he might betray Jesus to them.
1

2. They were glad and they undertook to give him money. So he agreed, and he
began to look for a suitable time to betray him, when the mob were not there.
It was at Passover time that Jesus came to Jerusalem to die. The Feast of
Unleavened Bread is not, strictly speaking, the same thing as the Passover. The
Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted for a week, from 15th to 21st Nisan (April),
and the Passover itself was eaten on 15th Nisan. It commemorated the
deliverance of the people of Israel from their slavery in Egypt (Exodus 12:1-51 ).
On that night the angel of death smote the first-born son in every Egyptian
family; but he passed over the homes of the Israelites, because the lintels of their
doors were smeared with the blood of the lamb to distinguish them. On that
night they left so quickly that, at their last meal, there was no time to bake bread
with leaven. It was unleavened cakes they ate.
There were elaborate preparations for the Passover. Roads were repaired;
bridges were made safe; wayside tombs were whitewashed lest the pilgrim
should fail to see them, and so touch them and become unclean. For a month
before, the story and meaning of the Passover was the subject of the teaching of
every synagogue. Two days before the Passover there was in every house a
ceremonial search for leaven. The householder took a candle and solemnly
searched every nook and cranny in silence, and the last particle of leaven was
thrown out.
Every male Jew, who was of age and who lived within 15 miles of the holy city,
was bound by law to attend the Passover. But it was the ambition of every Jew in
every part of the world (as it is still) to come to the Passover in Jerusalem at least
once in his lifetime. To this day, when Jews keep the Passover in every land they
pray that they may keep it next year in Jerusalem. Because of this vast numbers
came to Jerusalem at the Passover time. Cestius was governor of Palestine in the
time of Nero and Nero tended to belittle the importance of the Jewish faith. To
convince Nero of it, Cestius took a census of the lambs slain at one particular
Passover. Josephus tells us that the number was 256,500. The law laid it down
that the minimum number for a Passover celebration was 10. That means that on
this occasion, if these figures are correct, there must have been more that
2,700,000 pilgrims to the Passover. It was in a city crowded like that that the
drama of the last days of Jesus was played out.
The atmosphere of Passover time was always inflammable. The headquarters of
the Roman government was at Caesarea, and normally only a small detachment
of troops was stationed at Jerusalem; but for the Passover season many more
were drafted in. The problem which faced the Jewish authorities was how to
arrest Jesus without provoking a riot. It was solved for them by the treachery of
Judas. Satan entered into Judas. Two things stand out.
(i) Just as God is ever looking for men to be his instruments, so is Satan. A man
can be the instrument of good or of evil, of God or of the devil. The Zoroastrians
see this whole universe as the battle ground between the god of the light and the
god of the dark, and in that battle a man must choose his side. We, too, know
that a man can be the servant of the light or of the dark.
2

3. (ii) But it remains true that Satan could not have entered into Judas unless Judas
had opened the door. There is no handle on the outside of the door of the human
heart. It must be opened from within.
To every man there openeth
A high way and a low;
And every man decideth
The way his soul shall go.
It is our own decision whether we will choose to be the instrument of Satan or a
weapon in the hand of God. We can enlist in either service. God help us choose
aright!
BENSON, "Luke 22:1-6. Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh — Being
to be celebrated within two days after our Lord had delivered the prophecies and
admonitions recorded above. Concerning this feast, see on Matthew 26:2. The
chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him — See on Matthew
26:3-5. But they feared the people — Lest, if they seized him openly, a tumult
should be raised among them, either to rescue him out of their hands, or to
avenge his death. Then entered Satan — For he is never wanting to assist those
whose hearts are bent upon mischief; into Judas — Being one of the twelve. This
was a circumstance of such high aggravation, that it is observable each of the
evangelists has marked it out in this view. See on Matthew 26:14-16, and Mark
14:10. He went — He went from Christ and his company, who were at Bethany,
in the house of Simon, to the house of Caiaphas, the high-priest, whom he knew
to be a most inveterate enemy to his Master, and having found means of
introducing himself, and communicating his general design, communed, or
conversed, with the chief priests and captains — Called captains of the temple,
Luke 22:52. They were Jewish officers, who presided over the guards which kept
watch every night in the temple. The result of their communing is not mentioned,
only by the sequel it appears, that he informed the priests of the place where his
Master used to spend the nights, and undertook to conduct a band of armed men
thither, who, in the absence of the multitude, might easily take him. And, because
none of them were so well acquainted with Jesus as to be able to distinguish him
from his disciples, in the darkness of the night, he agreed to point him out to
them by kissing him. And they were glad — When they heard his proposal, they
thought it very practicable, and rejoiced at so unexpected an offer from one of
his disciples, to facilitate their measures. And covenanted to give him money —
As a reward for that service. See on Matthew 26:4-16. And he promised — To
attend particularly to the affair; and sought opportunity to betray him — To put
him into their hands in as private a manner as possible; in the absence of the
multitude — That, knowing nothing of what was done, they might not raise a
tumult, and rescue him out of the hands of those that seized him.
COFFMAN, "The magnificent drama of our Lord's Passion rapidly unfolds in
3

4. this chapter. The Passover came on (Luke 22:1-2); Judas bargained to betray the
Saviour (Luke 22:3-6); the last Supper was eaten (Luke 22:7-23); the apostles
disputed about rank (Luke 22:24-30); Peter's denial was foretold (Luke
22:31-34); the changed condition of the apostles was announced (Luke 22:35-38);
an angel strengthened the Lord in Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-46); Jesus was
arrested (Luke 22:47-53); Peter denied him at the arraignment (Luke 22:54-62);
the Lord was mocked (Luke 22:63-65); he was condemned to death by the
Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71).
Now the feast of the unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.
And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death; for
they feared the people. (Luke 22:1-2)
Feast of unleavened bread ... the Passover ... The terminology used here is strictly
in keeping with the common usage of those times; but it is nevertheless rather
loosely used. As Boles said:
The Passover, as used here, means either the meal, the feast day, or the whole
period of time. "Eat the passover" refers to the meal, as here, or to the whole
period of celebration in John 18:28.[1]
Furthermore, "the feast of unleavened bread" was used in several senses:
The feast of unleavened bread was the day the Passover lamb was slain.
According to Mosaic law, this was called the Passover and was followed by seven
days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:5,6). But at this time the
whole period was known by this name. Josephus says: "We keep a feast for eight
days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread."[2]
Gilmour, referring to the latter seven days of the feast said:
The feast of unleavened bread at sundown on Nisan 14 (which was) the
beginning of the fifteenth day by Jewish reckoning, and lasted for a period of
seven days (Leviticus 23:5,6). The Passover coincided only with its first day. The
Paschal lambs were slaughtered on the afternoon of Nisan 14, and the solemn
meal itself was eaten during the evening that constituted the beginning of the
fifteenth day.[3]
The following chronological arrangement of the events of this exceedingly
important week is adapted from J. R. Dummelow, with the changes required by
understanding the crucifixion to have been on the 14th of Nisan, the same day
the Paschal lambs were slain, and the same day when the Passover meal was
eaten after sundown (technically the fifteenth of Nisan), that fourteenth of Nisan
having been a Thursday. See my article, "What Day Was Jesus Crucified?" in
my Commentary on Mark, under Mark 15:42.
A.D. 30
Sabbath, Nisan 9th ... Jesus arrived at Bethany (John 12:1), supper in the
evening (John 12:2-8; Matthew 26:6-13).
Sunday, Nisan 10th ... triumphal entry (Matthew 21:1), children's Hosannas,
4

5. healings in temple (Matthew 21:14-16), return to Bethany (Matthew 21:17).
Monday, Nisan 11th ... return from Bethany (Matthew 21:18), withering fig tree
(Matthew 21:19), cleansing temple (Matthew 21:12), retires to Bethany (Mark
11:19), conspiracy of his enemies (Luke 19:47).
Tuesday, Nisan 12th ... they find fig tree withered (Mark 11:20), his authority
challenged, tribute to Caesar, brother's wife, first commandment of all, and
"What think ye of Christ?" (Matthew 21-22). Woes on Pharisees (Matthew 23),
Jesus in treasury, the widow's mite (Mark 12:41), visit of Greeks (John 12:20),
final rejection (John 12:37), triple prophecy of fall of Jerusalem, Second Advent
and final judgment (Matthew 24-25), Counsel of Caiaphas (Matthew 26:3).
Wednesday, Nisan 13th ... in the afternoon preparations for the last supper
(Matthew 26:17), that night (technically the 14th of Nisan), the last supper with
the Twelve in the upper room (Matthew 26:20), the foot washing (John 13:2),
departure of Judas, institution of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:26), farewell
discourses, the true vine, Comforter promised, intercessory prayer (John 13:31
through John 17), Gethsemane and the one-hour agony (Matthew 26:27; Mark
14:87).
Thursday, Nisan 14th ... midnight arrest (Matthew 26:47), before Annas (John
18:18), Peter's denials about 3:00 A.M. (John 18:27), before Caiphas (John
18:24), before Sanhedrin about 4:00 A.M. (Matthew 27:1), sent to Pilate at 6:00
A.M. (Matthew 27:2), from Pilate to Herod, and back to Pilate (Luke 28:7,11),
delivered to be crucified (John 19:16) Jesus crucified at 9:00 A.M. (Mark 15:25),
darkness from 12:00 to 3:00 P.M. (Matthew 27:45), death of Jesus at 3:00 P.M.
(Matthew 27:50).
The paschal lambs were being sacrificed at this hour (John 19:36). Jesus was
buried about sundown. That night was the Jewish Passover meal, Jesus having
eaten it by anticipation 24 hours earlier. Burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57).
Friday, Nisan 15th ... Jesus was in the tomb.
Saturday, Nisan 16th ... Jesus was in the tomb.
Sunday, Nisan 17th ... Jesus rose from the dead.[4]
In the above understanding of the day our Lord was crucified, it is not necessary
to suppose Wednesday as having been "a day of retirement,"[5] or that
Wednesday, a day of rest, was apparently spent with the disciples at
Bethany."[6] The New Testament says nothing of any day of rest or retirement;
but, on the contrary, it is repeatedly stated that he was "daily in the temple"
(Luke 22:53). "Every day he was teaching in the temple" (Luke 21:87); and there
is no way such expressions can mean that Jesus ran off and hid for a whole day.
The following diagram will reveal the reason why "the third day" is frequently
used by sacred authors to designate the day our Lord rose from the dead. Jesus'
5

6. own promise that he would be in the heart of the earth "three days and three
nights" (Matthew 12:40) could not have been fulfilled in its entirety except by his
resurrection at sunset on Sunday, which would have given three full days and
three full nights in the grave; however, Jesus said that he would rise "the third
day," meaning that he would not be in the grave but two days. Now look at the
chart. He was buried at sunset on Thursday and rose very early on Sunday, the
first day of the week.
<MONO><SIZE=2>Thursday Night Friday Night Saturday Night Sunday
period in the tomb -> 1st day 2nd day 3day beginsSIZE>MONO>
The arguments in favor of viewing Friday as the day our Lord suffered have
been thoroughly studied by this writer; and there seems to be no way that they
can harmonize with "what is written" in the word of God. We believe that Jesus
was in the heart of the earth "three days and three nights," rising on the third
day.
Sought how they might put him to death ... The death of Jesus had long ago been
determined by the hierarchy, and the thing in view here was merely the manner
of their bringing it about. From Matthew 26:1-5 it is learned that they actually
preferred to kill him secretly, because of their fear of the people, as mentioned
here. However, the treachery of Judas induced them to change their plans.
[1] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company,
1940), p. 411.
[2] Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri:
Beacon Hill Press, 1964), Matthew, p. 233.
[3] S. MacLean Gilmour, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press,
1952), Vol. VIII, Luke, p. 373.
[4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1937), p. 692.
[5] Ibid.
[6] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1922), p. 189.
BURKITT, "This chapter gives a sad and sorrowful relation of the chief priests'
conspiracy against the life of our blessed Saviour, in which we have three
particulars observable: 1. The person making this conspiracy, the chief priests,
scribes, and elders, that is, the whole Jewish Sanhedrin, or general council; they
all lay their malicious heads together to contrive the destruction of the holy and
innocent Jesus.
Thence learn, that general councils have erred, and may err fundamentally, both
6

7. in matters of doctrine and practice; so did this general council at Jerusalem,
consisting of chief priests, doctors, and elders, with the high priest their
president. They did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, after all the miracles
wrought before their eyes, but ignominiously put him to death.
Observe, 2. The manner of this conspiracy against the life of our blessed Saviour,
it was clandestine, secret, and subtle: They consulted how they might take him
by craft, and put him to death.
Learn thence, that Satan makes use of the subtilty of crafty men, and abuses
their parts as well as their power for his own purposes and designs: the devil
never sends a fool on his errand.
Observe, 3. The circumstances of time, when this conspiracy was managed, At
the feast of the passover. It was a custom among the Jews to execute malefactors
at their solemn feasts, at which time all the Jews came up to Jerusalem to
sacrifice, then put the malefactors to death, that all Israel might see and fear, and
not do so wickedly. Accordingly the feast of the passover was waited for by the
Jews as a fit opportunity to put our Saviour to death.
The only objection was, that it might occasion a tumult and uproar amongst the
people, there being such a mighty concourse at that time in Jerusalem; but Judas
making them a proffer, they readily comply with the motion, and resolve to take
the first opportunity to put our Saviour to death.
PETT, "Verse 1-2
‘Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover, and
the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put him to death, for they
feared the people.’
Day by day the Passover or Feast of Unleavened Bread (the two feasts were seen
as one and could be called by either name, as we also discover from Josephus,
compare also Matthew 26:17) drew nearer, and day by day the Chief Priests and
Scribes sought ways of getting rid of Him. Note how it is emphasised that it was
those who had special religious interests, and who were in direct conflict with
each other, who were seeking to get rid of Him. They were each out to defend
their own interests, but common interest had brought them together. On the
other hand, they were afraid of the people. The situation was very tricky.
Emotions, which were always high in Galilee and Judea, were at this time
especially high, and any suggestion of the possibility of a disturbance had to be
avoided. That would only bring the Roman authorities down on them, and they
would be blamed for it. And then something happened that altered the whole
picture. It must have seemed to them like a gift from Heaven, although as Luke
makes clear, it was in fact a gift from Hell.
‘The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put Him to death.’ We
must assume here that an official decision had been reached. Jesus was now seen
as a false prophet and must die. The only question therefore was how to bring it
about without causing a riot. Yet their dishonesty comes out in that they wanted
7

8. to put all the blame on Pilate, and avoid an execution for blasphemy, the very
charge that they held against Him. For they knew how the people felt about the
death of John the Baptiser, and they did not want any reaction against
themselves. They wanted Pilate to take any backlash.
‘The people.’ This would be mainly the huge numbers of Galileans and Peraeans
who were present at the Feast, among whom He was exceedingly popular and
highly revered. And they would no doubt also include some Judeans and
Jerusalemites who had witnessed His ministry.
‘The Passover.’ Elaborate preparations were always made for this feast so as to
ensure the arrival of travellers in a fit religious state for it. Roads would be
repaired, bridges made safe, and tombs whitewashed (so that they could be
avoided, thus preventing religious defilement). Teaching about the Passover
would be given in the synagogues from up to a month beforehand, and every
male Jew within fifteen miles of Jerusalem who was thirteen years old or
upwards would be required to attend. But many would flock from farther afield,
and it was the ambition, even of those in the Dispersion, scattered around the
world, to attend at least once in their lifetime. And, as a time when all Israel was
gathered, it was a time for exposing false prophets (compare Deuteronomy
17:13). So this was not just any occasion. It was central in the nation’s life. Here
at this time ‘the congregation of Israel’ was gathered together.
Verses 1-53
Jesus Is Crucified And Rises Again (22:1-24:53).
We now come to the final Section of Luke which is also in the form of a chiasmus
(see analysis below). Central in this final chiasmus is the crucifixion of Jesus.
This brings out how central the crucifixion is in the thinking of Luke. As the
Servant of the Lord He is to be numbered among the transgressors for their
sakes (Luke 22:37). This is indeed what the Gospel has been leading up to,
something that is further demonstrated by the space given to Jesus’ final hours.
He has come to give His life in order to redeem men (Luke 21:28; Luke 22:20;
Luke 24:46-47; Acts 20:28; Mark 10:45), after which He will rise again, with the
result that His disciples are to receive power from on high (Luke 24:49) ready for
their future work of spreading the word, so that through His death repentance
and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations beginning
from Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47). Note especially how closely the forgiveness of
sins is connected with His suffering, death and resurrection. This belies the
argument that Luke does not teach atonement, for without atonement there can
be no forgiveness, and why else is it so closely connected with His suffering and
death?
But another emphasis raises its head here. Right from the commencement of
Jesus’ ministry Satan, the hidden but powerful cosmic adversary, had sought to
destroy His ministry (Luke 4:1-13), and having failed in that he will now seek to
destroy both Jesus Himself, and the band of twelve whom He has gathered
around Him. Luke wants us to see that there are more than earthly
considerations in view. To him this is a cosmic battle.
8

9. This final section may be analysed as follows:
a Satan enters into Jesus’ betrayer who plots His betrayal in return for silver
(Luke 22:1-6).
b Jesus feasts with His disciples (Luke 22:7-22).
c They discuss who is the greatest, but learn that they are rather to be servants,
for which reason they will sit at His table with responsibility for His people
(Luke 22:23-28).
d Jesus comes to the Garden of Gethsemane where He shuns what He has to face
but submits to His Father’s will. In contrast Peter is revealed to be empty and as
lacking the power that will later come in fulfilment of Christ’ words (Luke
22:29-62).
e Jesus is exposed to the mockery of the soldiers and the verdicts of the
chief priests and then of Pilate and Herod (Luke 22:63 to Luke 23:25).
f Jesus is crucified (as the King of the Jews, the Messiah) and judgement is
forecast on Jerusalem (Luke 23:26-33).
e Jesus is exposed to the mockery of the chief priests (the rulers) and to the
verdicts of the two thieves and the Roman centurion ( Luke 23:34-49).
d Jesus is brought to the Garden where He is buried, but defeats death, the tomb
when opened proving to be empty in fulfilment of Christ’s words (Luke 23:50 to
Luke 24:10).
c The risen Jesus sits at table with two of His disciples a prelude to their future
(Luke 24:11-35).
b The risen Jesus feasts with His disciples (Luke 24:36-47).
a God’s Power will enter into His faithful disciples and they are to be His
witnesses to His glory and triumph (in contrast with Satan entering His betrayer
who sought His downfall) (Luke 24:48-53).
· ‘And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy and were continually in
the Temple, blessing God’ (Luke 24:53).
Note how in ‘a’ Satan enters into Judas to empower him to betray Jesus, and in
the parallel the Holy Spirit will enter the other Apostles to empower them to be
witnesses to Jesus. Judas is His betrayer, the others are His witness. In ‘b’ Jesus
feasts with His disciples before He dies and shows them the bread and the wine,
in the parallel He feasts with His disciples after the resurrection and shows them
His hands and His feet. In ‘c’ they are to sit at His table, and in the parable two
of His disciples sit with Him at table, symbolic of their future. In ‘d’ Jesus enters
a Garden which will lead to His death, in the parallel He is brought into a
Garden which will lead to His resurrection. In ‘e’ Jesus is exposed to the verdicts
of the chief priests and rulers, and in the parallel He is exposed to the mockery of
the chief priests and the thieves. But central to all in ‘f’ is His crucifixion as King
of the Jews and Messiah.
The drama is in three stages:
· The time of preparation of His disciples for the future before His trial and
crucifixion.
· The trial and crucifixion itself.
· The resurrection and preparation for the sending forth of His disciples to
9

10. all nations.
This will be followed in Acts by a description of this outreach until it reached
Rome itself. We would surely therefore expect that in this first part His words
will include words of preparation for that future. That should be kept in mind in
all our interpretation.
2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the
law were looking for some way to get rid of
Jesus, for they were afraid of the people.
CLARKE, "They feared the people - The great mass of the people seem to
have been convinced that Christ was at least a prophet sent from God; and it is likely
they kept steady in their attachment to him. The multitude, who are represented as
clamouring for his blood at the crucifixion, appear to have been a mere mob, formed
out of the creatures of the chief priests and Pharisees.
GILL, "And the chief priests and Scribes,.... Matthew adds, "and the elders of
the people"; which made up the great sanhedrim and council of the nation; these met
together, not in their usual place the temple, but at the palace of Caiaphas, the high
priest; see Mat_24:3.
And sought how they might kill him; that is, "Jesus", as the Vulgate Latin and
Ethiopic versions read; they had determined before, upon the advice of Caiaphas, to
put him to death, and very likely had fixed what kind of death he should die; see
Joh_11:49 and now they consult together, of the manner of bringing it about, and at
what time; and the majority were not for doing it on a feast day, when there was a
great concourse of people, but with more privacy:
for they feared the people: which were now in great multitudes with him, who
came along with him, from Galilee, and other parts; and had hosanna'd him into the
city, and still abode with him, and their numbers were increasing; and the sanhedrim
were aware, that at the passover there would be still a greater company of people
from all parts of the land; and they might conclude, that he would have a large
number of his friends come out of Galilee, where he had been for the most part
teaching, and working miracles; and they were afraid, should they lay hold on him
publicly, the people would rise and stone them; at least would rescue him out of their
hands, and disappoint them of their designs.
HENRY, "I. His sworn enemies contriving it (Luk_22:2), the chief priests, men of
10

11. sanctity, and the scribes, men of learning, seeking how they might kill him, either by
force of fraud. Could they have had their will, it had been soon done, but they feared
the people, and the more for what they now saw of their diligent attendance upon his
preaching.
JAMISON, " His sworn enemies contriving it (Luk_22:2), the chief priests, men
of sanctity, and the scribes, men of learning, seeking how they might kill him, either
by force of fraud. Could they have had their will, it had been soon done, but they
feared the people, and the more for what they now saw of their diligent attendance
upon his preaching.
3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one
of the Twelve.
BARNES, "Then entered Satan into Judas - It is not necessary to suppose
that Satan entered personally into the body of Judas, but only that he brought him
under his influence; he filled his mind with an evil passion, and led him on to betray
his Master. The particular passion of which Satan made use was “avarice” - probably
the besetting sin of Judas. To show its exceeding evil and baseness, it is only
necessary to say that when it produced its “appropriate” effect in this case, it led to
the betraying and crucifixion of the Son of God. We may learn, also, that when Satan
“tempts” people, 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 proper disposition.
Satan - This word properly means an adversary or an accuser. It is the name
which in the Scriptures is commonly given to the prince or leader of evil spirits, and
is given to him because he is the “accuser or calumniator” of the righteous (see Rev_
12:10; compare Job_1:6-9), as well as because he is the “adversary” of God.
Being of the number of the twelve - One of the twelve apostles. This greatly
aggravated his crime. He should have been bound by most tender 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.
CLARKE, "Then entered Satan into Judas - The devil filled the heart of
Judas with avarice; and that infamous passion led him to commit the crime here
specified. This at once accounts for the whole of this most unprincipled and
unnatural transaction. None but a devil, or he who is possessed by one, could have
been guilty of it: - let the living lay this to heart. A minister of the Gospel, who is a
lover of money, is constantly betraying the interests of Christ. He cannot serve two
masters; and while his heart is possessed with the love of self, the love of God and
zeal for perishing souls cannot dwell in him. What Satan could not do by the envy
and malice of the high priests and Pharisees, he effects by Judas, a false and fallen
minister of the Gospel of God. None are so dangerous to the interests of Christianity
as persons of this stamp.
11

12. GILL, "Then entered Satan into Judas,.... At the same time that the sanhedrim
were sitting, and consulting about the death of Christ, Satan, or the adversary, as the
word signifies, the devil, who is the enemy of the Messiah, the woman's seed, entered
into Judas; not corporeally, as he did into those that were possessed by him; but he
entered "into his heart", as the Ethiopic version renders it; he put it into his heart to
betray him, as it is said in Joh_13:2 he stirred up, and worked upon the corruptions
of his heart; suggested evil things to his mind, and baited his temptations agreeable
to his malice and covetousness: and this man was
surnamed Iscariot; to distinguish him from another apostle of the same name;
concerning this his surname; see Gill on Mat_10:4, See Gill on Joh_13:2.
Being of the number of the twelve; apostles, or disciples of Jesus, as the Persic
version reads, and which is an aggravation of his sin: now this being two days before
the passover, shows, that the sop which Judas took, after which the devil entered into
him, Joh_13:27 could not be the passover sop, but was the sop he ate at the supper in
Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, so long before it.
HENRY, "II. A treacherous disciple joining in with them, and coming to their
assistance, Judas surnamed Iscariot. He is here said to be of the number of the
twelve, that dignified distinguished number. One would wonder that Christ, who
knew all men, should take a traitor into that number, and that one of that number,
who could not but know Christ, should be so base as to betray him; but Christ had
wise and holy ends in taking Judas to be a disciple, and how he who knew Christ so
well yet came to betray him we are here told: Satan entered into Judas, Luk_22:3. It
was the devil's work, who thought hereby to ruin Christ's undertaking, to have
broken his head; but it proved only the bruising of his heel. Whoever betrays Christ,
or his truths or ways, it is Satan that puts them upon it. Judas knew how desirous the
chief priests were to get Christ into their hands, and that they could not do it safely
without the assistance of some that knew his retirements, as he did. He
JAMISON, "Then entered Satan, etc. — but not yet in the full sense. The
awful 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” (Joh_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 (2Co_2:11); first merely “putting it into his heart to betray Him” (Joh_
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 Mat_26:6, and see on Joh_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” (see on Joh_13:27), and conscience, effectually stifled, only rose
again to be his tormentor. What lessons in all this for every one (Eph_4:27; Jam_4:7;
1Pe_5:8, 1Pe_5:9)!
BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. The person betraying our blessed Saviour, Judeas.
Judas a professor, Judas a preacher, Judas an apostle, and one of the twelve,
12

13. who Christ had chosen out of the world to be his dearest friend, one of his family
and household: shall we wonder to find friends unfriendly or unfaithful to us,
when our Saviour had a traitor in his own family?
Observe, 2. The heinous nature of Judas' sin: he betrayed Jesus; Jesus his
Maker, Jesus his Master. It is no strange or uncommon thing for the vilest of
sins, and the most horrid impieties, to be acted by such persons as make the most
eminent profession of holiness and religion.
Observe, 3. What was the occasion that led Judas to the commission of this sin; it
was his inordinate love of money. I do not find that Judas had any particular
malice, spite, or ill-will against our Saviour; but a base and unworthy spirit of
covetousness possessed him, and this made him sell his master.
Covetousness is the root of sin; an eager and insatiable thirst after the world is
the parent of the most monstrous and unnatural sins, for which reason our
Saviour doubles his caution, Take heed and beware of covetousness; Luke 12:15
It shows us both the great danger of the sin, and the great care that we ought to
take to preserve ourselves from it.
PETT, "But in the camp of Jesus there was treachery afoot. It was actively
caused by Satan (compare John 13:2; John 13:27). For Satan entered one of His
disciples, who was called Judas Iscariot, one of the favoured Twelve (compare
Luke 6:16). Outwardly his thoughts of treachery were possibly stirred because
he was approached by adherents of the authorities, who probably similarly
sounded out all the Apostles with a view to offering bribery. But Luke lets us
know that the real reason for his treachery was that Satan had been allowed to
enter his heart. In the section chiasmus outlined above this is placed in
contrasting parallel with the Holy Spirit Who will later come in power on the
other Apostles. Judas had to choose between two ‘spirits’ and he opted foolishly
because his eyes were blinded by the thought of wealth, by ‘the deceitfulness of
riches’ (Mark 4:19). While the others were learning about the coming of the Holy
Spirit, He was opening himself to the spirit of Satan, and the key that was being
used was Mammon. How powerful a grip Mammon has on the hearts of men.
For ‘Satan’ see Luke 10:18; Luke 11:18; Luke 13:16; Luke 22:31. He was a
powerful evil spirit, a spiritual outcast, who had fallen from Heaven (Luke
10:18). He was in direct opposition to Jesus (Luke 11:18; Luke 11:22). He bound
unfortunate men and women by possessing and enslaving them (Luke 13:16). He
sought to put men and women to the test so as to prove their fallibility (Luke
22:31). In Acts he would fill the heart of Ananias with greed as he had Judas
(Acts 5:3), and he was the one who held the world in his power (Acts 26:18),
mainly by the same means. Luke also speaks of him as ‘the Devil’ (Luke 4:2-13;
Luke 8:12), in which guise he put Jesus to the test (Luke 4:2-13) and seeks to
remove the word that is sown in men’s hearts (Luke 8:12). In Acts the Devil
oppresses men by possession (Acts 10:38) and is the source of magic and sorcery,
the father of all who do evil and try to turn men from the truth (Acts 13:10).
What he is, is indicated by his name. Satan means ‘adversary’, and reminds us
that he is both God’s adversary and ours. His main purpose under this title is to
13

14. thwart God and act against men and women. ‘Devil’ (diabolos) means
‘slanderer’, which connects him with the temptation of men with the aim of
being able to slander them before God, and he attempts to remove God’s
influence from men’s hearts. But the two ideas overlap. Satan is the great
adversary and slanderer. For the further idea of Satanic influence in men’s
hearts see John 14:30; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 John 5:19.
There is an interesting indication here that Satan thought that by this man’s
action he could somehow thwart God’s plans through Jesus, plans which he
clearly did not understand (see 1 Corinthians 2:8). The thought of such love as
God was revealing would have been beyond him. He was as frightened as the
chief priests and scribes at the success of Jesus. And it is ironic that, like them
(Acts 3:17; Acts 4:28), unknown to himself, he was thus actually spurring on
God’s plan. He was simply speeding Jesus on to the very place where he himself
would be defeated. But he was clearly unaware of that fact. He foolishly thought
that he could thwart God’s plans.
Some ask why God allows Satan such sway? As well ask why He allows us such
sway. For in our own way, once we are in rebellion against God we are ourselves
little satans (adversaries). What right then has one to survive above another? But
He allows it all in His own purposes that He might triumph in the hearts of those
who respond to Him and are saved, who would otherwise have had to be
destroyed along with the rest, and so that He can lead them to triumph through
afflictions. It is of His goodness that He has allowed the world and the Devil to
continue, so that by all means He may save some from among them.
BI 3-6, “Then entered Satan into Judas
Progressive wickedness
Men do not become great villains at once.
Souls are not like meteoric bodies, that are blazing amongst the stars at one moment,
and the next in some dark pit on earth, wrapped in a noxious and sulphurous smoke.
They are rather like trees, they fall by degrees. See that great monarch of the forest!
For years disease has been in its roots, and a long succession of foul insects have been
gnawing at its vitals. Slowly and silently the decline goes on. At first the outward
symptoms are scarcely visible. A few withered leaves on one of its branches on a
certain spring are first noticed by the old woodman. The next spring, and not only
withered leaves are seen, but perhaps a leafless branch or: two. Thus through many a
long year the deterioration proceeds, until at last it is rotten to the core, and only
awaits some slight breeze blowing in the right direction to strike it down. One
morning a gentle gust of air sweeps through the wood, the tree falls with a crash that
shakes its neighbours, vibrates through the forest, and appals the district with its
boom.
4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the
officers of the temple guard and discussed with
14

15. them how he might betray Jesus.
BARNES 4-6, "Chief priests and captains - See the notes at Mat_26:14. See
the account of the bargain which Judas made with them explained in the Mat_
26:14-16 notes, and Mar_14:10-11 notes.
Absence of the multitude - The multitude, “the people,” were then favorable to
Jesus. He had preached in the temple, and many of them believed that he was the
Messiah. It was a hazardous thing, therefore, to take him by force, and in their
presence, as they might rise and rescue him. Hence, they sought to take him when
“he” was away from the multitude; and as Judas knew of a place where he could be
found “alone,” they were glad of the opportunity of so easily securing him.
CLARKE, "And captains - Among the priests who were in waiting at the
temple, some were appointed φυλακες, for a guard to the temple; and over these were
̣ρατηγοι commanding officers: both sorts are mentioned by Josephus, War, b. vi. c.
5. s. 3. Bp. Pearce, See another sense of captains, in the note on Mat_27:65 (note).
Dr. Lightfoot supposes these to have been the captains over the watches; for in three
places the priests kept watch and ward in the temple, viz. in Beth Abtenes, in Beth
Nitsots, and in Beth Mokad. The Levites also in twenty-one places more, Middoth,
chap. i. Though these watches consisted of several persons in each, there was one set
over them, as the captain or head of that watch. He thinks that Matthew, Mat_27:65,
refers to one of these: Ye have a watch of your own; let some of them be sent to guard
the sepulchre. The captain of the temple, he supposes to have been the chief or head
of all these watches; and thus he was captain of the captains. In the same Talmudical
tract it is said, The ruler of the mountain of the temple (i.e. captain of the temple)
takes his walks through every watch with torches lighted before him: if he found any
upon the watch, that was not standing on his feet, he said, Peace be with thee: but if
he found him sleeping, he struck him with a stick, and he might also burn his clothes.
And when it was said by others, What noise is that in the court? the answer was, It is
the noise of a Levite under correction, whose garments they are burning, because he
slept upon his watch. This custom casts light on Rev_16:15 : Behold, I come as a
thief: blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and
they see his shame. It is easy to distinguish this captain of the mountain of the
temple from the ruler of the temple, or sagan: the former presided over the guards;
the latter over the whole service of the temple. We have them both distinguished,
Act_4:1 : there is the captain of the temple; and Annas, who was the sagan. See
Lightfoot.
GILL, "And he went his way,.... From Christ, and the rest of the apostles, out of
Bethany; and when it was night, about two miles from Jerusalem, whither he went
directly:
and communed with the chief priests and captains; that is, of the temple, as
in Luk_22:52 and so the Persic version reads, "the militia of the temple"; and the
15

16. Syriac version renders it, "the captains of the militia of the temple"; instead of
captains, the Ethiopic version, reads "Scribes", and so does the Arabic, and which,
adds, "and the soldiers"; but these captains were not Roman officers, or soldiers, but
ecclesiastical persons, who presided in the temple, and were heads and governors,
over bodies of men employed there, of which sort were the following (i):
"there were fifteen, ‫,ממונין‬ presidents, or governors in the sanctuary, and so they were
appointed for ever over each of these fifteen things, one governor; and they are these:
one was over the times, or solemn seasons; the second, over the shutting of the gates:
the third, over those that kept watch; the fourth, over the singers; the fifth, over the
cymbal, with the rest of the singing instruments; the sixth, over the lots; the seventh
over the nests (of doves); the eighth, over the seals, or tickets; the ninth, over the
drink offerings; the tenth, over the sick (priests); the eleventh, over the waters; the
twelfth, over the business of the shewbread; the thirteenth, over the business of the
incense; the fourteenth, over the business of the vail; and the fifteenth, over the
business of the priests' garments; and every one of these governors had under him
"abundance of men", that so they might prepare the business they presided over.''
These seem rather to be meant, than the watch in the temple; which, though kept in
several places, there was but one single person that presided over it; as appears from
the above account, and from what follows; and who was called the man of the
mountain of the house, or the governor of the temple (k):
"in three places the priests kept watch in the sanctuary, in the house of Abtines, and
in the house of Nitzotz, and in the house of Moked, and the Levites in twenty and one
places--the man of the mountain of the house, went round every ward with torches
burning before him, and every one that was not standing, he said unto him, peace be
on thee; and if he found he was asleep, he struck him with his staff, and had power to
burn his garments.''
Whence it does not appear to me, that there were heads or captains over every ward,
as Dr. Lightfoot suggests, but one over them all; perhaps these captains may be the
same with the governors of the temple, as in 1 Esdras:
And Helkias, Zacharias, and Syelus, the governors of the temple, gave to the priests
for the passover two thousand and six hundred sheep, and three hundred calves. (1
Esdras 1:8)
Did very carefully oversee the holy works, assisting the ancients of the Jews and
governors of the temple. (1 Esdras 7:2)
But be these who they will, Judas it seems was informed where, and upon what they
were met together, and he went to them, and conversed with them:
how he might betray him unto them; in the most secret manner, and with, the
least noise and disturbance.
HENRY, " He therefore went himself, and made the motion to them, Luk_22:4.
Note, It is hard to say whether more mischief is done to Christ's kingdom by the
power and policy of its open enemies, or by the treachery and self-seeking of its
pretended friends: nay, without the latter its enemies could not gain their point as
they do. When you see Judas communing with the chief priests, be sure some
16

17. mischief is hatching; it is for no good that they are laying their heads together.
COKE, "Luke 22:4. And captains— The captains with whom Judas communed,
are here and elsewhere called captains of the temple, (see Luke 22:52.) and are
joined with the priests as their companions; a circumstance, which proves that
they were Jews, and not heathens. See Acts 4:1. From David's time the priests
and Levites kept watch, first in the tabernacle, and then in the temple, night and
day, as appears from 2 Chronicles 8:14. The guards of priests were stationed at
three places; but those of the Levites at one-and-twenty. The Levites, while they
performed this office according to their courses, under the first temple, were
called porters, 2 Chronicles 8:14 and each of the watches had a chief or
captain,— στρατηγος ; and over then all was one called, by way of eminence,
αρχηγος, the chief leader or captain. That these names of military men should
have been given to the priests and Levites, who were no soldiers, neither had
soldiers under them, will not seem strange, when it is remembered, that the
attendance of the Levites is called the warfare of the service; (see Numbers
8:24-25 in the original;) and that they performed all the offices of soldiers in
garrisons. They kept guard at the gates of the temple, preserved the peace within
its precincts, and brought such as were disorderly before the high-priests and
council. But besides the Levite porters, there was another guard belonging to the
temple, namely, the Roman garrison, in the tower or castle of Antonia, which
was built very near the temple. Of this castle or garrison there is mention made,
Acts 21:31-34. St. Matthew calls a detachment from it, appointed to guard our
Lord's sepulchre, by the word κουστωδια, which was the proper name of such a
body of Roman soldiers. But was not with the captains of the garrison of Antonia
that Judas bargained to deliver up his Master; neither were they the persons to
whom Jesus spake, when he addressed them who came to apprehend him, Luke
22:52. In both passages these captains are called by the name στρατηγοι ;
whereas the captains of garrisons are termed by Josephus φρουραρχοι, and by
St. Luke, Acts 21, 22. χιλιαρχοι. Besides, no heathens were ever admitted into the
supreme ecclesiastical court of the Jews; not to mention that the latter shunned
the company of the former as much as possible. It is plain therefore that the
persons with whom Judas communed, and who are called the captains, and
captains of the temple, were the priests who commanded the temple guard, and
who were at the devotion of the high-priest and council, to execute whatever
orders they thought fit to give them.
ELLICOTT, "(4) Chief priests and captains.—The latter term is used by St.
Luke, and by him only in the New Testament, of the officers who presided over
the Levite guardians of the Temple. Here and in Luke 22:52 it is used in the
plural. In Acts 4:1; Acts 5:24, we read of “the captain of the Temple,”
presumably the chief officer in command. Such was in earlier times Pashur, the
“governor of the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 20:1). As watchmen the Levite
sentinels carried clubs, and would use them freely against any sacrilegious
intruder. The attempt to seize our Lord, recorded in John 7:32, shows why Judas
applied to these officers as well as to the priests.
PETT, "No doubt responding to promises and assurances from those who had
contacted him, Judas sought out the chief priests and captains of the Temple
17

18. guard. And there, in return for the offer of money, he discussed with them how
he might assist them in handing Jesus over to them at a time when He was not
surrounded by crowds. His own familiar friend in whom He trusted, the same
was lifting up his heel against Him (Psalms 41:9). They were, of course,
delighted. It presented them with an undreamed of opportunity. And they
promised to pay him blood money once the matter was resolved.
‘Captains (strategois).’ In this case the leaders of the Temple guard. They would
mainly be Levites. Compare Acts 4:1; Acts 5:24 for their leader (strategos).
5 They were delighted and agreed to give him
money.
CLARKE, "They - covenanted to give him money - Matthew says thirty
pieces, or staters, of silver, about 4£. 10s. English, the common price of the meanest
slave. See the note on Mat_26:15.
GILL, "And they were glad,.... For nothing could be more opportune and
agreeable to them, than that one of his disciples should meet them at this juncture,
and offer to put him into their hands in the most private manner;
and covenanted to give him money. The Ethiopic version read, "thirty pieces of
silver"; which was the sum they agreed to give him, and he accepted of; see Mat_
26:15.
HENRY, "III. The issue of the treaty between them. 1. Judas must betray Christ
to them, must bring them to a place where they might seize him without danger of
tumult, and this they would be glad of. 2. They must give him a sum of money for
doing it, and this he would be glad of (Luk_22:5): They covenanted to give him
money. When the bargain was made, Judas sought opportunity to betray him.
Probably, he slyly enquired of Peter and John, who were more intimate with their
Master than he was, where he would be at such a time, and whither he would retire
after the passover, and they were not sharp enough to suspect him. Somehow or
other, in a little time he gained the advantage he sought, and fixed the time and place
where it might be done, in the absence of the multitude, and without tumult.
JAMISON, "money — “thirty pieces of silver” (Mat_26:15); thirty shekels, the
fine payable for man- or maid-servant accidentally killed (Exo_21:32), and equal to
between four and five pounds of our money - “a goodly price that I was priced at of
them” (Zec_11:13). (See on Joh_19:16.)
18

19. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity
to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was
present.
CLARKE, "And he promised - That is, to do it - εξωµολογησε: or, He accepted
the proposal. See Wakefield.
GILL, "And he promised,.... He undertook to deliver him into their hands; he laid
himself under obligation to do it; he faithfully promised he would. The Arabic version
renders it, he gave thanks; for the money he received, being well pleased he had
made such a bargain; and so the word here used sometimes signifies; and indeed
commonly either to confess; or to give thanks, in which latter sense it is used, in
Mat_11:25 but here rather it is to be understood in the sense of promising:
and sought opportunity; the two days following before the passover:
to betray him unto them in the absence of the people: when they were gone
from him, and he was alone; but found no opportunity of doing it this way, which
they had agreed upon with him, and he had promised, until the night of the passover,
when he was alone in the garden with his disciples.
HENRY, "Probably, he slyly enquired of Peter and John, who were more intimate
with their Master than he was, where he would be at such a time, and whither he
would retire after the passover, and they were not sharp enough to suspect him.
Somehow or other, in a little time he gained the advantage he sought, and fixed the
time and place where it might be done, in the absence of the multitude, and without
tumult.
PETT, "Judas accepted their terms, and from that moment on looked for an
opportunity to deliver Jesus to the authorities when the crowds were absent. It
was clear that it would have to be at night, for during the daytime Jesus was
constantly surrounded by people who had come to hear Him and who revered
Him. Judas is a pathetic figure, but before we sympathise with him too much we
have to consider how hardened his heart must have become, in order for him to
be able to go through all the experiences of the Upper Room, including Jesus’
gentle words to him, and still carry through his plan. For while Satan could
prompt him and urge him, he could not force him to do what he did. Judas was
still finally free to do his own thing. And he hardened his heart and did it of his
own free choice.
19

20. There can be no doubt that the choice of Judas as one of the twelve and his
subsequent betrayal of Jesus presents a problem to our human understanding.
But it is really no greater problem that that of the idea of God’s sovereignty and
free will. No man who wants to respond to Christ will ever be rejected, and yet,
in spite of His attractiveness, the Bible tells us that only those who are chosen
come to Him. No one will ever be able to say, ‘I wanted to come to Christ but He
would not accept Me’, for ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’.
And yet those who will be saved have been chosen in Him before the foundation
of the world (Ephesians 1:4) and have their names permanently recorded in the
Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world. Their names are written in
Heaven (Revelation 13:8; Revelation 21:27). By this we recognise that God’s
sovereignty and man’s freewill move in parallel. God does not make history
happen, but He makes it go according to His will. The cruelties of man are not
God’s doing. But He utilises them in His purposes, as He did with both
Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, and as He does with all evil men.
Jesus did not choose the eager young Judas in order that he might be there as the
betrayer. He chose one who was insistent on being a disciple, and who revealed
his good qualities. One who showed especial determination. He chose him that he
might serve like the others, and enjoy the same privileges. But gradually He
began to realise that there was a lack in Judas’ character, so that He was forced
to declare, ‘Have I not chosen you, twelve, and one of you is a devil?’ (John
6:70). Yet He would not cast him off. He would give him the full opportunity to
prove Him wrong. Judas would never be able to say, ‘You did not give me my
chance.’
What was it that Jesus saw in Judas that made Him in the end realise what
Judas was? Perhaps it was his love for money. He gave Judas plenty of warning
about that. Possibly it was because, unlike the others, he did not respond to
Jesus’ moulding. Perhaps he continued in what would one day be called the way
of Zealotry, and insisted in his own heart on a military solution to the problems
of Jewry and somehow hoped that, once His enemies faced up to Him, Jesus
could be stirred up to go along with it, and use His powers to that end. But Jesus
gave much teaching concerning this as well. Judas thus really had no excuse for
being in doubt on how things were, and it should be remembered that it was
always open to him to withdraw, as other had done (John 6:66). Indeed the
moment that he realised that he was out of step with Jesus, that is what he should
have done, and no one would have blamed him. His crime was that he continued
pretending to be a disciple when at length he knew that Jesus and he could never
see eye to eye, to such an extent that he was willing to be a betrayer. He made all
his choices himself, and broke every rule of honour of his background, for he ate
at table with Jesus and pretended to be His friend, while plotting against Him.
This would be a heinous crime in the eyes of every Easterner. Jesus was not to
blame for this. He merely graciously put up with him even when He knew that
his character was doubtful and was aware of what he might do. Indeed He
appealed to him to the last. And yet in it all it was God’s will that was done and
His purposes that were accomplished. And it must be remembered in it all that
Judas did not have the last word. For Jesus did not go helplessly to the cross. At
20

21. every step that He took, twelve legions of angels waited in order to snatch Him to
safety (Matthew 26:53). They waited eagerly and only needed His signal. But it
never came. And so it was Jesus Who made the final choice to die alone, as He
cried, ‘Your will, not Mine be done’.
The Last Supper
7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on
which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.
CLARKE, “The passover - Πασχα, Luk_22:1, is the name of the festival; το
πασχα here is supposed to be the name of that on which they feasted, viz. the
sacrificed paschal lamb. But see the notes on Matthew 26 (note), and especially the
observations at the end of that chapter, (Mat_26:75 (note)).
GILL, "Then came the day of unleavened bread,.... The first of them, the
fourteenth day of the month Nisan:
when the passover must be killed; that is, the passover lamb, as the Persic
version renders it; and which, according to the law in Exo_12:6 was to be done
between the two evenings; See Gill on Mat_26:17.
HENRY, "What a hopeful prospect had we of Christ's doing a great deal of good
by his preaching in the temple during the feast of unleavened bread, which continued
seven days, when the people were every morning, and early in the morning, so
attentive to hear him! But here is a stop put to it. He must enter upon work of
another kind; in this, however, he shall do more good than in the other, for neither
Christ's nor his church's suffering days are their idle empty days. Now here we have,
I. The preparation that was made for Christ's eating the passover with his disciples,
upon the very day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed according
to the law, Luk_22:7. Christ was made under the law, and observed the ordinances of
it, particularly that of the passover, to teach us in like manner to observe his gospel
institutions, particularly that of the Lord's supper, and not to neglect them.
JAMISON, “Luk_22:7-38. Last Passover - Institution of the Supper - Discourse
at the table.
the day of unleavened bread — strictly the fifteenth Nisan (part of our March
21

22. and April) after the paschal lamb was killed; but here, the fourteenth (Thursday).
Into the difficult questions raised on this we cannot here enter.
BARCLAY, "THE LAST MEAL TOGETHER (Luke 22:7-23)
22:7-23 There came the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on which the
Passover had to be sacrificed. Jesus despatched Peter and John. "Go," he said,
"and make ready the Passover for us that we may eat it." They said to him,
"Where do you want us to make it ready?" "Look you," he said to them, "when
you have gone into the city, a man will meet you, carrying a jar of water. Follow
him to the house into which he enters; and you will say to the master of the
house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room that I may eat the
Passover with my disciples?"' And he will show you a big upper room, ready
furnished. There, get things ready." So they went away and found everything
just as he had told them; and they made ready the Passover.
When the hour came he took his place at table, and so did his disciples. "I have
desired with all my heart," he said to them, "to eat this Passover with you before
I suffer, for I tell you that I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of
God." He received the cup, and gave thinks, and said, "Take this and divide it
among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of
the vine until the kingdom of God has come." And he took the bread, and gave
thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is
being given for you. Do this so that you will remember me." In the same way,
after the meal, he took the cup saying, "This cup is the new covenant made at the
price of my blood, which is shed for you. But--look you--the hand of him who
betrays me is on the table with me, for the Son of Man goes as it has been
determined. But woe to that man by whom he has been betrayed"; and they
began to question one another which of them it could be who was going to do
this.
Once again Jesus did not leave things until the last moment; his plans were
already made. The better class houses had two rooms. The one room was on the
top of the other; and the house looked exactly like a small box placed on top of a
large one. The upper room was reached by an outside stair. During the Passover
time all lodging in Jerusalem was free. The only pay a host might receive for
letting lodgings to the pilgrims was the skin of the lamb which was eaten at the
feast. A very usual use of an upper room was that it was the place where a Rabbi
met with his favourite disciples to talk things over with them and to open his
heart to them. Jesus had taken steps to procure such a room. He sent Peter and
John into the city to look for a man bearing a jar of water. To carry water was a
woman's task. A man carrying a jar of water would be as easy to pick out as, say,
a man using a lady's umbrella on a wet day. This was a prearranged signal
between Jesus and a friend.
So the feast went on; and Jesus used the ancient symbols and gave them a new
meaning.
22

23. (i) He said of the bread, "This is my body." Herein is exactly what we mean by a
sacrament. A sacrament is something, usually a very ordinary thing, which has
acquired a meaning far beyond itself for him who has eyes to see and a heart to
understand. There is nothing specially theological or mysterious about this.
In the house of everyone of us there is a drawer full of things which can only be
called junk, and yet we will not throw them out, because when we touch and
handle and look at them, they bring back this or that person, or this or that
occasion. They are common things but they have a meaning far beyond
themselves. That is a sacrament.
When Sir James Barries mother died and they were clearing up her belongings,
they found that she had kept all the envelopes in which her famous son had
posted her the cheques he so faithfully and lovingly sent. They were only old
envelopes but they meant much to her. That is a sacrament.
When Nelson was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral a party of his sailors bore his
coffin to the tomb. One who saw the scene writes, "With reverence and with
efficiency they lowered the body of the world's greatest admiral into its tomb.
Then, as though answering to a sharp order from the quarter deck, they all
seized the Union Jack with which the coffin had been covered and tore it to
fragments, and each took his souvenir of the illustrious dead." All their lives that
little bit of coloured cloth would speak to them of the admiral they had loved.
That is a sacrament.
The bread which we eat at the sacrament is common bread, but, for him who has
a heart to feel and understand, it is the very body of Christ.
(ii) He said of the cup, "This cup is the new covenant made at the price of my
blood." In the biblical sense, a covenant is a relationship between man and God.
God graciously approached man; and man promised to obey and to keep his law.
The whole matter is set out in Exodus 24:1-8. The continuance of that covenant
depends on man's keeping his pledge and obeying this law; Man could not and
cannot do that; man's sin interrupts the relationship between man and God. All
the Jewish sacrificial system was designed to restore that relationship by the
offering of sacrifice to God to atone for sin. What Jesus said was this--"By my
life and by my death I have made possible a new relationship between you and
God. You are sinners. That is true. But because I died for you, God is no longer
your enemy but your friend." It cost the life of Christ to restore the lost
relationship of friendship between God and man.
(iii) Jesus said, "Do this and it will make you remember me." Jesus knew how
easily the human mind forgets. The Greeks had an adjective which they used to
describe time--"time," they said, "which wipes all things out," as if the mind of
man were a slate and time a sponge which wiped it clean. Jesus was saying, "In
the rush and press of things you will forget me. Man forgets because he must,
and not because he will. Come in sometimes to the peace and stillness of my
house and do this again with my people--and you will remember."
23

24. It made the tragedy all the more tragic that at that very table there was one who
was a traitor. Jesus Christ has at every communion table those who betray him,
for if in his house we pledge ourselves to him and then by our lives go out to deny
him, we too are traitors to him.
BENSON, "Luke 22:7-13. Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the
passover must be killed — They called the day on which the passover was killed,
one of the days of unleavened bread, and the first day thereof, because it was
preparatory to that feast; though, properly speaking, the first day began with the
passover-supper. This appears likewise from Josephus, who, making use of the
vulgar computation, tells us, that the feast of unleavened bread lasted eight days;
whereas, in the law, it was ordered to be kept only seven days. Thus Exodus
12:19 : Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses. He sent Peter
and John — From the place where he had spent the night before in retirement
with them; saying, Go and prepare us the passover — Go, buy a lamb for us, and
get it killed and roasted, and make the other preparations, that we may, once
more, eat it together. They said, Where wilt thou that we prepare? — See on
Matthew 26:17, and Mark 14:10-16 : where this paragraph is considered at
large.
BURKITT, "The time for the celebration of the passover being now at hand,
Christ sends two of his disciples, Peter and John, to Jerusalem, to prepare what
was needful in order thereto.
And here we have we have observable, 1. An eminent proof and evidence of
Christ's divinity, in foretelling his disciples all the particular occurences and
circumstances which they should meet with in the city; as, a man bearing a
pitcher of water, etc.
Observe, 2. How readily the heart of the householder was disposed to receive our
Saviour and his disciples, and to accommodate them with all things needful upon
this occasion. Our blessed Saviour had not a lamb of his own, and peradventure
no money wherewith to purchase one; yet he finds a more agreeable
accommodation in this poor man's house, than if he had dwelt in Ahab's ivory
palace, and had the provisions of Solomon's table. When Christ has a passover to
celebrate, he will dispose the hearts of his children and servants to a free
reception of himself.
The room that Christ will enter into must be a large room, an upper room, a
room furnished and prepared: a large room, is the emblem of an enlarged heart,
enlarged with love, with joy and thankfulness; an upper room, is an heart
exalted, not puffed up with pride, but lifted up by heavenly meditations; and a
room furnished, is a soul adorned with all the graces of the Holy Spirit: into such
an heart does Christ enter, and there delights to dwell: Here is my rest for ever,
says Christ; here will I dwell, for I have a delight therein.
PETT, "Verse 7
‘And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be
24

25. sacrificed.’
Note here how Passover can be called ‘the day of unleavened bread’ even though
it is the day before ‘the Feast of Unleavened Bread’ began. This was because it
was the day for removing unleavened bread from their houses. On this day they
would ensure that any remaining leavened bread had been removed, so that the
period of being free from leaven could begin. Luke is thus stressing the
connection of the Feast with what is about to happen. The sinless Lamb of God
Who had come to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7)
had come to be offered up. His hour had come.
Verses 7-38
Jesus Advances To The Guest-chamber (22:7-38).
It is no coincidence that near the beginning of Luke’s Gospel there was no room
for Jesus in the ‘kataluma’ (Luke 2:7 - place to stay, guestchamber), but now
that He is to be offered up, such a room (kataluma) is to be made available for
Him (Luke 22:11-12 below). He is advancing, from the manger to the cross. He is
coming towards the fulfilment of His lifework, and in this guestchamber He will
participate in His last Passover which will be for ever the symbol of His death,
and will prepare His disciples for what lay ahead.
It was now 14th of Nisan, the day of the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, and Peter
and John were to prepare for the Passover, which would require the provision of
bread and bitter herbs, of suitable wine and the necessary slaughter of the lamb
in the Temple, which would then be brought to the kataluma to be roasted and
eaten. Most of these provisions would possibly in this case be provided by the
room owner who would receive the fleece and vessels used at the Feast as
‘payment’ for his kindness for allowing the use of the room for the feast. It
would not be seen as appropriate for the room to be paid for when it was being
used for such a sacred purpose. Rent could not be charged for such usage in
Jerusalem during the Passover. But whatever service he performed the slaying of
the Passover lamb had to be carried out ‘personally’ on behalf of the group on
whose behalf it was offered, which was why the two leading Apostles were called
on to do it.
Some see here a conflict with John’s Gospel, which they claim teaches that this
meal did not occur on Passover eve, but on the previous evening. But that is due
to their misinterpretation of certain language of John which is ambiguous. Once
his language is understood John in fact also teaches that the last supper was the
Passover meal. We shall now consider this in an Excursus for those who are
concerned about it.
EXCURSUS.
The Passover - Was the Last Supper the Passover Meal?
The Passover was the great Jewish festival which commemorated the slaying of
the firstborn in Egypt, and the following exodus from Egypt of the Israelites
25

26. (Exodus 12:24-27), together with those who joined themselves with them (the
‘mixed multitude’) and became Israelite by adoption (Exodus 12:38). The
passover lambs/kids were slain on the afternoon of the 14th Nisan (roughly
March/April), after the daily sacrifice, which was normally offered in mid-
afternoon. But by the time of Jesus this offering was put back towards noon on
the day of the Passover in order to leave time for the slaying of the passover
lambs, which had to be slain in the Temple area in great numbers. The Passover
meal was eaten in the evening (the commencement of 15th Nisan, for the Jewish
day began at sunset). There was a specific pattern followed at the meal, although
variations within that pattern were allowed. The celebration of the Passover was
connected with the seven day feast of Unleavened Bread which by this time was
so closely linked with the Passover that the whole eight days of the feast could be
called either The Passover (Luke 22:1) or Unleavened Bread (Mark 14:12). This
specific link with the Passover, which was there from earliest times, is confirmed
by Josephus, the Jewish first century AD historian.
It was celebrated in Jerusalem in smallish groups (ten males or more) in
individual houses within the city bounds, each group having a lamb. (Bethphage
was one of the places that marked the outer limit). The lambs were slain within
the Temple area, which confirms that they were sacrificial offerings. Movement
during the evening was restricted to a limited area, although Gethsemane came
within that area. Jews living within a reasonable distance were expected to
gather in Jerusalem for the feast, and even those who lived far afield among the
Gentiles (the Dispersion) made great efforts to attend. Thus Jerusalem might
contain around 200,000 or more people at Passover time (Josephus’ estimate of
3,000,000 is almost certainly exaggerated. It would not have been possible to
sacrifice sufficient lambs to meet his figures within the restricted Temple area in
such a short time).
The Passover meal would begin with the ritual search by lamplight for any
leavened bread which may have been overlooked (leaven was forbidden at the
feast) and the Passover meal would then be eaten reclining. It included the
symbolic elements of roasted lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, some other
condiments and four cups of red wine mixed with water, each coming at specific
points. The first cup was drunk with a blessing (Luke 22:17 probably refers to
this cup, although some refer Luke’s reference to the second cup), followed by
the washing of hands by dipping in water. Some of the herbs would then be
dipped in salt water and given out After this the eating surface would be cleared,
and the second cup would be filled. This too would be blessed.
Before the drinking of the second cup the story of the original Passover was
recounted in a dialogue between father and eldest son (or if necessary suitable
substitutes). At this stage the Passover meal would be brought back to the table
and each of its constituents explained. It is quite possible that one question would
be (as it was later) ‘what means this bread?’ The reply was ‘this is the bread of
affliction which our fathers ate when they were delivered from the land of
Egypt’.
After these explanations the second cup would be drunk, accompanied by the
26

27. singing of part of the Hallel (special Psalms), and then there would be a further
dipping of the hands in water. After this came the breaking of one or two of the
unleavened cakes, which wasfollowedby the giving of thanks. Pieces of the
broken bread with bitter herbs between them were dipped in a mixture and
handed to each of the company (see John 13:26), and it would appear that then
the company would themselves dip bread and herbs into the mixture (Matthew
26:23; Mark 14:20). This was the real beginning of the actual Passover meal. The
Passover lamb would now be eaten. Nothing was to be eaten thereafter, although
in later times the eating of a final piece of unleavened bread followed. After a
third dipping of hands in water the third cup was drunk, again accompanied by
a blessing. This cup was considered of special importance. The singing of the
Hallel was completed with the fourth cup (see Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26), and
this was followed by prayer. It must be remembered that this was a feast and not
a service so that eating and general conversation would be taking place
throughout, except at the solemn moments.
It is quite clear that the first three Gospels (the Synoptic Gospels) show the Last
Supper of Jesus to be the Passover meal. Jesus sent two of His disciples (Peter
and John - Luke 22:8) to ‘prepare the Passover’ (the lamb, the unleavened
bread, the bitter herbs, the wine, etc), so that He could ‘eat the Passover with His
disciples’ (Mark 14:12-15 and parallels). It was probably one of these who went
to the Temple area with the lamb for slaying. The room was ‘furnished and
ready’ which may mean that the owner had provided what was necessary. We
are told that they ate the meal reclining (Matthew 26:20; John 13:23) as would
be expected at the Passover meal.
It is possible that the breaking of bread by Jesus ‘after He had given thanks’ was
the same as the breaking of bread at the feast but if so it is noticeable that Jesus
gave thanks beforehand because He was enduing it with a new meaning . It
could, however, have been that Jesus introduced a second breaking of bread,
establishing a new pattern with a new significance. ‘This is my body’ parallels
‘this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate’. In the latter case it was
clearly symbolic, a partaking with the fathers, as it were, in their affliction, but
with a real sense of participation. Thus the former is also to be seen as symbolic,
a partaking with Jesus, as it were, in His sufferings and their consequence, again
with a real sense of participation. The wine which Paul calls the ‘cup of blessing’
(1 Corinthians 10:16), was probably the third cup given a new significance.
Some have argued that it could not have been the Passover meal. They have
argued:
1) A trial would not have been held on Passover night.
2) The disciples would not have borne arms on that night.
3) Simon of Cyrene would not have been ‘coming in from the country’ the
following morning.
4) Some Synoptic passages are inconsistent with it e.g. Mark 14:2
However these arguments are not convincing, because 1) Passover time, while the
pilgrims were still in the city, might be considered precisely the time when a
‘false prophet’ should be executed in order that ‘all Israel might hear and fear’
27

28. (Deuteronomy 17:13). It would be seen as a sacred duty to do it at such a time,
and to contribute to the feast, which may well have been why the opposition had
hotted up. And as far as they were concerned it was also the best time for
involving the secular authorities with their Roman soldiery so as to cover
themselves in the eyes of the people, for at Passover extra soldiers were in
attendance in Jerusalem. Furthermore the whole affair was to be carried out in
haste because Judas’ information made it possible for it to be done secretly while
Jesus was there available. They had been seeking such an opportunity for some
time, and dared not miss it.
2) Mark 14:2 merely expresses the plan of the authorities. Like all plans it was
subject to change if circumstances demanded. All good plans are subject to
alteration due to circumstances. Mark may simply have been bringing out that in
the end they were powerless to do it in the way that they wanted. Furthermore
some suggest translating ‘feast’ as ‘festal crowd’ rather than ‘feast day’ which is
quite possible, which then removes the supposed problem altogether.
3) There was no prohibition of arms being carried at the Passover.
4) ‘Coming in from the country’ need not necessarily indicate that Simon had
been outside the prescribed limits, and indeed he may not have been a Jew.
Besides it would always be possible that he had been delayed by some cause
beyond his control so that he had arrived late for the Passover, which could be
why it was mentioned
But this immediately faces us with a further problem. It is argued that John
18:28 (‘so that they might not be defiled but might eat the Passover’) seems to
suggest that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover sacrifice because his
enemies had not yet eaten the Passover. That would mean that the scene in John
13 occurred on the night before the Passover feast. Yet as we have seen the other
Gospels make clear that Jesus officiates at the Passover feast (Mark 14:12; Luke
22:7), and there can be no doubt that both are depicting the same feast.
However what must be borne in mind here is that John 18:28 may be speaking of
‘the Passover’, not as meaning the Passover feast itself on the evening of the 15th
of Nisan, but in a general sense as including the whole seven day feast (compare
Luke 2:23 where ‘the feast of the Passover’ is clearly the seven days of the feast
and Luke’s use in Luke 22:1), so that ‘eating the Passover’ may refer to
celebrating the whole eight days, and to participating in other special sacrifices,
as well as to the continual feasting during the week (unleavened bread had to be
eaten throughout the week and there would be thank-offerings as well). It may
well therefore not refer to the actual Passover celebration, in which case there is
no contradiction. They would need to be ritually pure in order to continue
enjoying the remainder of the feast.
We can compare with this how in 2 Chronicles 30:22 the keeping of the Feast of
the Unleavened Bread (Luke 22:13), which includes the Passover (Luke 22:15), is
described as ‘eating the food of the festival for seven days’.
28

29. Against this, however we should note that ‘to eat the Passover’ does at least
include eating the Passover supper in the Synoptics (Matthew 26:17; Mark
14:12; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:8; Luke 22:11; Luke 22:15). However, that does not
necessarily tie the escorts of Jesus to using it in the same way after the Passover
supper has passed.
Alternately it has been suggested that in fact the men involved had been so taken
up with the pursuit of Jesus into the night as a result of Judas’ unexpected offer
to lead them to Jesus in a place where he could be taken without fear of the
people, that they had not yet had time to complete their Passover meal. We only
have to consider the facts of that night to recognised how involved their night
had been! They may well have been disturbed in the middle of their Passover
meal and have convinced themselves that such a delay was justified in order to
deal with Jesus at what was clearly a crucial moment. The false prophet had to
be dealt with. Once they had dealt with Him they could then go home to finish
eating their Passover, which had been suddenly delayed for reasons of state and
religion, with contented minds. Thus they would need to retain their ritual purity
both for that day and for the remainder of the week.
In the same way John’s reference to ‘the preparation of the Passover’ or ‘the
Friday of the Passover’ (paraskeue tou pascha can mean either) (Luke 19:14) can
equally be seen as referring to the ‘preparation’ for the weekly Sabbath
occurring during Passover week, i.e. the Friday of Passover week at whichever
point it occurred, as it certainly does in verse Luke 19:31. This would mean that
it did not necessarily refer to the day of the preparation of the Passover feast
itself. Basically the word paraskeue did mean ‘Friday’ as well as ‘preparation’
(as in Greek it still does) and the term Passover (pascha) was used to describe the
whole festival. If this be the case by ‘the Friday of Passover week’ John is not
necessarily suggesting that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lamb.
Another alternative answer works on the basis that not all Jews celebrated the
Passover on the same day. We do know, for example, that the Essenes had their
own calendar to which they rigidly adhered, and forbade their members to
follow the orthodox calendar, and they would therefore celebrate the Passover on
a different day from the priests. And there are some grounds for suggesting that
Galileans, an independent lot who were looked on by Judeans as somewhat
unorthodox, may well have celebrated the Passover a day earlier than Judeans.
Thus it may be that Jesus and His disciples, who were Galileans, followed this
Galilean tradition, if it existed, and celebrated the Passover a day earlier than the
Judeans.
A further possibility that has been suggested is that in that particular year the
Pharisees observed the Passover on a different day from the Sadducees, due to a
dispute as to when the new moon had appeared that introduced Nisan, with
arrangements being made for Passover sacrifices on both days. This is thought to
have happened at least once around this time. If this were the case Jesus would
have been able to observe the feast of the Passover with His disciples and then
die at the same time as the Passover sacrifices.
29

30. The suggestion that John was either mistaken or changed the day for theological
purposes is the least likely of any explanation. The early church was far too well
aware of the fact that the Last Supper was ‘the Passover feast’ for such a change
to be accepted. It would have become a firm part of the tradition, and John
would no doubt have had this firmly pointed out to him by his ‘backers’ if they
had thought that he was saying otherwise (Luke 21:24-25). We must not assume
that the leaders of the early church were gullible and unwilling to speak their
minds, even to John. Nor does John emphasise anywhere in his Gospel that Jesus
died at the same time as the Passover lamb. Had this been his intention he would
surely have drawn attention to it more specifically.
It thus seems clear that the suggestion of a contradiction between the Synoptics
and John’s Gospel in the end simply arises from a misunderstanding of
Johannine terminology.
End of EXCURSUS.
Having examined the Passover problem in the excursus we will now return to the
passage in hand. In this passage Jesus gives directions for the preparation of the
Passover feast.
Analysis of 22:7-13.
a The day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed
(Luke 22:7).
b And He sent Peter and John, saying, Go and make ready for us the passover,
that we may eat (Luke 22:8).
c And they said to Him, “Where will you that we make ready?” (Luke 22:9).
d And He said to them, “Behold, when you are entered into the city, there a man
will meet you bearing a pitcher of water, follow him into the house into which he
goes” (Luke 22:10).
c “And you shall say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where
is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with My disciples?’ ” (Luke
22:11).
b “And He will show you a large upper room furnished, there make ready”
(Luke 22:12).
a And they went, and found as He had said to them, and they made ready the
passover (Luke 22:13).
Note how in ‘a’ the day came on which the Passover was to be sacrificed, and in
the parallel they made ready the Passover. In ‘b’ they were to go and make
ready, and in the parallel the room is described where they are to make ready. In
‘c’ they question Jesus as to where they are to make ready, and in the parallel
they question the master of the house as to where they are to make ready.
Centrally in ‘d’ they find the place by following a man carrying a pitcher of
water.
This central placing brings out that this symbol is intended to be significant.
Only women and the lowest of slaves carried pitchers of water. Thus they are to
follow one who is represented as the lowest of slaves, but who is bearing the
30

31. water of life. In the context of what Jesus is about to say (Luke 22:26-27) the
symbolism is clear. The One Who supplies living water (Isaiah 55:1-2) is also the
humble Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 5:12). As a result of what
Jesus will do, just as they follow this man, walking in humility and bearing
water, so are they also to follow Jesus, both in humble service and in bearing the
water of life. For there was a very real sense in which life would flow from that
room where the new covenant was proclaimed (compare Ezekiel 47).
MACLAREN, “THE LORD'S SUPPER
Paul had his account of the Last Supper direct from Christ. Luke apparently had his
from Paul, so that the variations from Matthew and Mark are invested with singular
interest, as probably traceable to the Lord of the feast Himself. Our passage has three
sections-the preparation, the revelation of Christ’s heart, and the institution of the
rite.
I. The Preparation.-
Peculiar to Luke are the names of the disciples entrusted with it, and the
representation of the command, as preceding the disciples’ question ‘Where?’ The
selection of Peter and John indicates the confidential nature of the task, which comes
out still more plainly in the singular directions given to them. Luke’s order of
command and question seems more precise than that of the other Gospels, as making
our Lord the originator instead of merely responsive to the disciples’ suggestion.
How is the designation of the place which Christ gives to be understood? Was it
supernatural knowledge, or was it the result of previous arrangement with the
‘goodman of the house’? Most probably the latter; for he was in so far a disciple that
he recognised Jesus as ‘the Master,’ and was glad to have Him in his house, and the
chamber on the roof was ready ‘furnished’ when they came. Why this mystery about
the place? The verses before our passage tell the reason.
Judas was listening, too, for the answer to ‘Where?’ thinking that it would give him
the ‘opportunity’ which he sought ‘to betray Him in the absence of the multitude.’
Jesus had much to say to His disciples, and needed the quiet hours in the upper
room, and therefore sent away the two with directions which revealed nothing to the
others. If He had told the group where the house was, the last supper might never
have been instituted, nor the precious farewell words, the holy of holies of John’s
Gospel, ever been spoken. Jesus takes precautions to delay the Cross. He takes none
to escape it, but rather sets Himself in these last days to bring it near. The variety in
His action means no change in His mind, but both modes are equally the result of His
self-forgetting love to us all. So He sends away Peter and John with sealed orders, as
it were, and the greedy ears of the traitor are balked, and none know the appointed
place till Jesus leads them to it. The two did not come back, but Christ guided the
others to the house, when the hour was come.
II. Luk_22:14 - Luk_22:18 give a glimpse into Christ’s heart as He partook,
for the last time, of the Passover.
He discloses His earnest desire for that last hour of calm before He went out to face
the storm, and reveals His vision of the future feast in the perfect kingdom. That
desire touchingly shows His brotherhood in all our shrinking from parting with dear
ones, and in our treasuring of the last sweet, sad moments of being together. That
was a true human heart, ‘fashioned alike’ with ours, which longed and planned for
one quiet hour before the end, and found some bracing for Gethsemane and Calvary
31

32. in the sanctities of the Upper Room. But the desire was not for Himself only. He
wished to partake of that Passover, and then to transform it for ever, and to leave the
new rite to His servants.
Our Lord evidently ate of the Passover; for we cannot suppose that His words in
Luk_22:15 relate to an ungratified wish, but, as evidently, that eating was finished
before He spoke. We shall best conceive the course of events if we suppose that the
earlier stages of the paschal ceremonial were duly attended to, and that the Lord’s
Supper was instituted in connection with its later parts. We need not discuss what
was the exact stage at which our Lord spoke and acted as in Luk_22:15-17. It is
sufficient to note that in them He gives what He does not taste, and that, in giving,
His thoughts travel beyond all the sorrow and death to reunion and perfected festal
joys. These anticipations solaced His heart in that supreme hour. ‘For the joy that
was set before Him’ He ‘endured the Cross,’ and this was the crown of His joy, that all
His friends should share it with Him, and sit at His table in His kingdom.
The prophetic aspect of the Lord’s Supper should never be left out of view. It is at
once a feast of memory and of hope, and is also a symbol for the present, inasmuch
as it represents the conditions of spiritual life as being participation in the body and
blood of Christ. This is where Paul learned his ‘till He come’; and that hope which
filled the Saviour’s heart should ever fill ours when we remember His death.
III. Verses 19 and 20 record the actual institution of the Lord’s Supper.
Note its connection with the rite which it transforms. The Passover was the memorial
of deliverance, the very centre of Jewish ritual. It was a family feast, and our Lord
took the place of the head of the household. That solemnly appointed and long-
observed memorial of the deliverance which made a mob of slaves into a nation is
transfigured by Jesus, who calls upon Jew and Gentile to forget the venerable
meaning of the rite, and remember rather His work for all men. It is strange
presumption thus to brush aside the Passover, and in effect to say, ‘I abrogate a
divinely enjoined ceremony, and breathe a new meaning into so much of it as I
retain.’ Who is He who thus tampers with God’s commandments? Surely He is either
One having a co-ordinate authority, or—? But perhaps the alternative is best left
unspoken.
The separation of the symbols of the body and blood plainly indicates that it is the
death of Jesus, and that a violent one, which is commemorated. The double symbol
carries in both its parts the same truth, but with differences. Both teach that all our
hopes are rooted in the death of Jesus, and that the only true life of our spirits comes
from participation in His death, and thereby in His life. But in addition to this truth
common to both, the wine, which represents His blood, is the seal of the ‘new
covenant.’ Again we mark the extraordinary freedom with which Christ handles the
most sacred parts of the former revelation, putting them aside as He wills, to set
Himself in their place. He declares, by this rite, that through His death a new
‘covenant’ comes into force as between God and man, in which all the anticipations of
prophets are more than realised, and sins are remembered no more, and the
knowledge of God becomes the blessing of all, and a close relationship of mutual
possession is established between God and us, and His laws are written on loving
hearts and softened wills.
Nor is even this all the meaning of that cup of blessing; for blood is the vehicle of life,
and whoso receives Christ’s blood on his conscience, to sprinkle it from dead works,
therein receives, not only cleansing for the past, but a real communication of ‘the
Spirit of life’ which was ‘in Christ’ to be the life of his life, so as that he can say, ‘I live;
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.’ Nor is even this all; for, as wine is, all the world
over, the emblem of festivity, so this cup declares that to partake of Christ is to have a
32

33. fountain of joy in ourselves, which yet has a better source than ourselves. Nor is this
all; for ‘this cup’ is prophecy as well as memorial and symbol, and shadows the new
wine of the kingdom and the marriage supper of the Lamb.
‘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.
Luke alone preserves for us the command to ‘do this,’ which at once establishes the
rite as meant to be perpetual, and defines the true nature of it. It is a memorial, and,
if we are to take our Lord’s own explanation, only a memorial. There is nothing here
of sacramental efficacy, but simply the loving desire to be remembered and the
condescending entrusting of some power to recall him to these outward symbols.
Strange that, if the communion were so much more, as the sacramentarian theory
makes it, the feast’s own Founder should not have said a word to hint that it was.
And how deep and yet lowly an insight into His hold on our hearts the institution of
this ordinance shows Him to have had! The Greek is, literally, ‘In order to My
remembrance.’ He knew that-strange and sad as it may seem, and impossible as, no
doubt, it did seem to the disciples-we should be in constant danger of forgetting
Him; and therefore, in this one case, He enlists sense on the side of faith, and trusts
to these homely memorials the recalling, to our treacherous memories, of His dying
love. He wished to live in our hearts, and that for the satisfaction of His own love and
for the deepening of ours.
The Lord’s Supper is a standing evidence of Christ’s own estimate of where the centre
of His work lies. We are to remember His death. Why should it be selected as the
chief treasure for memory, unless it was something altogether different from the
death of other wise teachers and benefactors? If it were in His case what it is in all
others, the end of His activity for blessing, and no part of His message to the world,
what need is there for the Lord’s Supper, and what meaning is there in it, if Christ’s
death were not the sacrifice for the world’s sin? Surely no view of the significance and
purpose of the Cross but that which sees in it the propitiation for the world’s sins
accounts for this rite. A Christianity which strikes the atoning death of Jesus out of
its theology is sorely embarrassed to find a worthy meaning for His dying command,
‘This do in remembrance of Me.’
But if the breaking of the precious alabaster box of His body was needed in order that
‘the house’ might be ‘filled with the odour of the ointment,’ and if His death was the
indispensable condition of pardon and impartation of His life, then ‘wheresoever this
gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there,’ as its vital centre, shall His death
be proclaimed, and this rite shall speak of it for a memorial of Him, and ‘show the
Lord’s death till He come.’
BI 7-13, “Go and prepare us the passover
Preparation for the Last Supper
Passover just at hand.
Day of preparation. The Lamb to be offered is Himself. “Go and prepare—get ready—
for Me; let it be heart-preparation.”
1. This preparation was general. All Old Testament teachings, histories,
prophecies, and events were a preparation for the death on the cross. “Go,
prepare to meet Me around that table of commemoration.”
33

34. 2. When, or at what time, concerned the disciples. Your time to prepare is now.
3. The character of this command. Imperative. “Go.” Now Grotius, who lived to
be fifty before he made this preparation, said, “I have passed the whole of my life
laboriously doing nothing.” Cast away your sins, your prayerlessness. “I have lost
ten years; I give the rest to Jesus,” should be the resolution of youth.
4. You will need to carry nothing in there. The feast is prepared. (S. H.Tyng, D.
D.)
Preparation for the Lord’s Supper
Part of the preparation for the Lord’s Supper consists in learning about Christ.
Unless we know Him we cannot remember Him. If we know little about Him our
remembrance of Him will be poor and shallow. Suppose you were asked to do
something, to illuminate your house or to plant a tree, in remembrance of some one
of whom you had never heard—Bocchoris, for instance—you might do it; but what
sense would there be in your doing it? You know nothing about him. What you did
would be a mere external and formal observance. If I told you that according to
Manetho he was the only monarch belonging to the twenty-fourth dynasty of
Egyptian kings, he would still be nothing more than a name to you. Was he a good
king or a bad king? Did he build temples, pyramids, great public works, make canals,
establish wise and beneficent laws, fight famous battles, contribute to the civilization
and happiness of his people, or did he do nothing? Was his reign long and glorious?
Was he remembered after his death with love and honour? Or was his memory
execrated? You don’t know; I believe no one knows. His name stands in a list of
ancient kings, that is all we can say, and to do anything in remembrance of him
would be an unmeaning ceremony. Remembrance must be based on knowledge, and
the richer our knowledge the more vivid is our remembrance. When there is to be
any public celebration of a great man, when a statue is to be erected or a building
opened in his honour, the newspapers tell us about his life, and about what he did for
the country; and speeches are delivered to recall the grounds on which his memory
deserves to be perpetuated. And so a large part of the proper preparation for the
Lord’s Supper consists in learning all we can know about the Lord Jesus Christ. The
four Gospels are the best preparation for the service. (R. W. Dale.)
The last passover
I. CHRIST’S DESIRE TO EAT THE PASSOVER. This in another place is expressed in
the strongest terms (Luk_22:15). Now, this he might do for the following reasons:
1. It was the Lord’s passover, so called in Exo_12:11.
2. Hereby he gave an undeniable proof, that He was made under the ceremonial
as well as moral law.
3. This was His last passover, and had an immediate relation to His subsequent
sufferings.
4. The company with which He was to eat the passover, and the gospel ordinance
He was about to institute in its room, might increase the ardour of His desire.
Hence those tender words: “I shall eat the passover with My disciples.”
II. Notice THE PLACE IN WHICH CHRIST WOULD EAT THIS PASSOVER. Not in
Herod’s, or the High Priest’s palace; for He who took upon Him the form of a
34

35. servant, did not affect state and grandeur. Not in the magnificent dwelling of a
Roman officer, or Jewish ruler, where He might be attended with a numerous retinue
of servants; He came not to be ministered to, but to minister. Now this may be
considered as emblematical Ñ
1. Of the gospel Church.
2. It may resemble the renewed and sanctified heart. “Commune with your own
heart” (Psa_4:4). “Enter into your own chamber” (Hebrews) The furnished room
may also resemble a heart endowed with all the gifts, and adorned with all the
graces of the Spirit. (B. Beddome, M. A. )
8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and
make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”
CLARKE, "He sent Peter and John, etc. - See the subject of these verses
largely explained on Mat_26:17-19 (note), and Mar_14:13, Mar_14:15 (note).
GILL, "And he sent Peter and John,.... That is, Jesus sent them, as the Syriac,
Persic, and Ethiopic versions express it; these were two favourite disciples of Christ,
and were now sent by him from Bethany to Jerusalem:
saying, go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat; it together; so
servants used to be sent, to go and prepare the passover for their masters; See Gill on
Mat_26:17.
PETT, "Two prominent Apostles were sent to ‘make ready the Passover’ as
representatives of their group. As we have already seen the owner of the
guestchamber would assist with some of the preparations, but the lamb itself had
to be offered by a representative of the group in the Temple and then taken to
the house to be cooked. The Passover lambs for all who were in Jerusalem would
be offered in the Temple, in the afternoon. There were so many that it would be
done in three sessions, which followed the afternoon daily offering which was
deliberately made early on this day. The first two would be absolutely packed
out. The two Apostles would thus be joining a large bustling crowd of men who
were taking their Passover lambs for the purpose, or were seeking to purchase
them in the court of the Gentiles. The lambs would need to be checked to ensure
that they were without blemish. They would then be taken into the court of the
Priests where each would slaughter his own lamb with the blood being caught in
a bowl by a priest who would then pass it along to another priest who was
standing there for the purpose, who would apply it to the altar. The whole
process had been streamlined, but it would still take some time.
35

36. 9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?”
they asked.
GILL, "And they said unto him, where wilt thou that we prepare?
Meaning, not in what village, town, or city, for it was a fixed and determined thing,
that the passover should be eaten at Jerusalem, and nowhere else; see Deu_16:2, but
in what house in Jerusalem?
HENRY, "It is probable that he went to the temple to preach in the morning, when
he sent Peter and John another way into the city to prepare the passover. Those who
have attendants about them, to do their secular business for them in a great measure,
must not think that this allows them to be idle; it engages them to employ
themselves more in spiritual business, or service to the public. He directed those
whom he employed whither they should go (Luk_22:9, Luk_22:10): they must
follow a man bearing a pitcher of water, and he must be their guide to the house.
Christ could have described the house to them; probably it was a house they knew,
and he might have said no more than, Go to such a one's house, or to a house in such
a street, with such a sign, etc. But he directed them thus, to teach them to depend
upon the conduct of Providence, and to follow that, step by step.
JAMISON, "
COFFMAN, "Harrison saw in this the likelihood that Jesus had "made previous
arrangements for a contact by means of a secret signal,"[7] but such a view is
refuted by a circumstance noted by Bliss. He said:
There was a custom that the head of each family should bring water from a
certain spring, which was to wet up the unleavened bread for the Passover. But
this man was not head of the house; nor does it appear how, among the
thousands that would be carrying water at the same time, that the incident could
have served as a sign.[8]
If Bliss' reckoning of this occasion of the last supper as the Passover should be
allowed, then it would nullify, absolutely the kind of sign Jesus mentioned,
because tens of thousands would have been doing the same thing. Obviously, this
was not the Passover evening. This leaves the alternative that a servant was
carrying the pitcher of water in a certain direction at a certain time of day, and
that his master was one who honored the Teacher and would provide the guest-
chamber. The answer to this is not some "secret-signal," set up by Jesus in
advance, but the omniscience of the Lord.
Mark 14:12-17 is parallel to this portion of Luke, and more extended remarks on
this passage will be found in my Commentary on Mark under those references.
[7] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press,
36

37. 1971), p. 263.
[8] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley
Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press), Vol. II, Luke, p. 312.
Verse 14
And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him. And he
said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I
suffer; for I say unto you, I shall not eat it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of
God.
I shall not eat it ...
Brook and Burkitt (Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1908, pp. 569ff) have
maintained, and others have oft-repeated it since, that these words indicate that
the Saviour did not celebrate the Passover and only had a strong desire to do
so.[9]
Of course, this is not the Passover; and the opinions of Brook and Burkitt were
correct. Jesus here spoke of the Passover which would be eaten the following
night at a time when he was in the tomb. This is another roadblock to the Friday
crucifixion theory. It is most likely, however, in view of what Luke immediately
stated, that this meal was very similar to the Passover, in fact following the
pattern closely, and yet not actually the Passover because it was a day earlier.
For cause, such arrangements were allowed.
ENDNOTE:
[9] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 557.
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man
carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him to the house that he enters,
GILL, "And he said unto them, behold,.... Giving them a sign, whereby they
should know the very house, where he would keep the passover:
when ye are entered into the city; that is, the city of Jerusalem; for Christ and
his disciples were now at Bethany, from whence he sent Peter and John thither,
37

38. where only the passover was to be killed and eaten:
there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; the Persic version
adds, "upon his back"; for which he had been to some well, or fountain in the city, in
order to mix with wine at the passover:
follow him into the house where he entereth in; so that it seems they were to
return, and go after him into the house, where he went with his pitcher of water; this
was a trial of the faith and obedience of the disciples, and, as the sequel shows, a
proof of the omniscience and deity of Christ.
JAMISON 10-13, "when ye are entered the city — He Himself probably
stayed at Bethany during the day.
there shall a man, etc. — (See on Luk_19:29-32).
PETT, "It is also clear that Jesus lived up to their expectations. He told them
that when they entered the city they would be met by a man bearing a pitcher of
water. As observed above, this would be unusual. It was mostly women who bore
pitchers of water. Men carried leather water skins. This was thus clearly a
prearranged signal. They were then to follow him into the house which he would
enter. It would appear that Jesus had made the preparations in such a way that
He could give instructions without divulging the whereabouts of the house to
someone who might overhear the instructions, like Judas, and without
incriminating the houseowner if the Apostles were arrested on their way there.
Until they arrived they did not know where the house was and the man with the
pitcher would not be directly connected with them. We can imagine Judas’
frustration at being unable to discover the whereabouts of the house so that he
could send the information to the chief priests.
But in view of the position of this verse in the chiasmus it is very probable that
Luke intends us to see from this description an apt picture of discipleship. The
one who led them symbolised Jesus bearing the water of life, Who would as a
humble servant lead them to the Messianic feast, where they would feast on Him.
Like the disciples we too are to follow the water-bearer Who offers life, and to
eat and drink of Him (compare Isaiah 55:1-3; John 4:10-14; John 6:33; John
6:35; John 6:48-51; John 6:53-58).
11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The
Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I
may eat the Passover with my disciples?’
38

39. GILL, "And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house,.... The master of it;
for the man bearing the pitcher of water seems to be a servant only:
the master saith unto thee: by these his two disciples, Peter and John; it looks as
if the word "master", as peculiar to Christ, and by way of eminency belonging to him,
Mat_23:10 was well known to those who believed, and were followers of him, as the
man of this house might be; see Joh_11:28. The Syriac and Persic versions read, "our
master saith", and leave out the other phrase, to thee:
where is the guest chamber; or dining room: the word properly signifies an inn,
or place to wait at; so called, from travellers unloosing their burdens there, either
from themselves, or their beasts; the Arabic version renders it, "the place of my rest":
a place for refreshment and feasting:
where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? who were a sufficient
number to eat the passover lamb by themselves; See Gill on Mat_26:18.
HENRY, "They went, not knowing whither they went, nor whom they followed.
Being come to the house, they must desire the master of the house to show them a
room (Luk_22:11), and he will readily do it, Luk_22:12. Whether it was a friend's
house or a public house does not appear; but the disciples found their guide, and the
house, and the room, just as he had said to them (Luk_22:13); for they need not fear
a disappointment who go upon Christ's word; according to the orders given them,
they got every thing in readiness for the passover, Luk_22:11.
12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all
furnished. Make preparations there.”
GILL, "And he shall show you a large upper room furnished,.... With all
things necessary, to eat and drink out of, at the passover;
there make ready. The Ethiopic version adds, "for us", as in Mar_14:15. The
Persic version renders it, "there prepare a place"; but this was prepared already; the
words design the preparation of the passover, and every thing proper for it.
13 They left and found things just as Jesus had
told them. So they prepared the Passover.
39

40. GILL, "And they went,.... From Bethany to Jerusalem:
and found as he had said unto them; they met the man with the pitcher of
water, and by following him, found the house Christ meant to keep the passover at;
they told the master of it, what Christ ordered them, who immediately showed them
a very convenient room, as he had described to them:
and they made ready the passover; provided a lamb, and got it killed and
dressed, and prepared every thing necessary for the keeping of the feast, according to
divine appointment; See Gill on Mat_26:19.
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles
reclined at the table.
BARNES, "When the hour was come - The hour of eating the paschal lamb,
which was in the evening. See the notes at Mat_26:20.
CLARKE, "And when the hour was come - That is, the evening. See Mat_
26:20, and Mar_14:17.
GILL, "And when the hour was come,.... When it was evening, the last of the
two evenings, when it was dark, at least after six o'clock; See Gill on Mat_26:20.
he sat down; or lay along on a couch, as was the custom; see the note, as before:
and the twelve apostles with him; for Judas, after he had made his bargain with
the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, came and took his place with the rest of the
apostles, both to cover his sin, and to watch the best opportunity of betraying his
master.
HENRY, "The solemnizing of the passover, according to the law. When the hour
was come that they should go to supper he sat down, probably at the head-end of the
table, and the twelve apostles with him, Judas not excepted; for it is possible that
those whose hearts are filled with Satan, and all manner of wickedness, may yet
continue a plausible profession of religion, and be found in the performance of its
external services; and while it is in the heart, and does not break out into any thing
scandalous, such cannot be denied the external privileges of their external
profession. Though Judas has already been guilty of an overt act of treason, yet, it
not being publicly known, Christ admits him to sit down with the rest at the
passover. Now observe,
40

41. JAMISON, "the hour — about six p.m. Between three and this hour the lamb
was killed (Exo_12:6, Margin)
BENSON, "Luke 22:14-18. When the hour was come, &c. — When the evening
approached, Jesus left Bethany; and every thing being prepared by the time he
came into the city, they all sat down at the appointed hour. And he said, With
desire I have desired — That is, I have earnestly desired it. He desired it, both
for the sake of his disciples, to whom he desired to manifest himself further, at
this solemn parting; and for the sake of his whole church, that he might institute
the grand memorial of his death. For I will not any more eat thereof until, &c. —
That is, it will be the last time I shall eat with you before I die. The particle until,
used here and Luke 22:18, does not imply that, after the things signified by the
passover were fulfilled, in the gospel dispensation, our Lord was to eat the
passover. It is only a Hebrew form of expression, signifying that the thing
mentioned was no more to be done for ever. Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of
heaven — That is, until the deliverance of mankind from the bondage of sin and
death is procured by my death and resurrection; a deliverance typified by that of
our fathers from the Egyptian bondage, to keep up the memory of which the
passover was instituted. And he took the cup, and gave thanks — Having spoken
as above, Jesus took a cup of wine in his hand, that cup which used to be brought
at the beginning of the paschal solemnity, and gave thanks to Almighty God for
his great goodness to his people, mentioning, no doubt, some of the principal
instances thereof, especially their redemption, first from Egypt, and then from
Babylon. And said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves, for I will not
drink, &c. — As if he had said, Do not expect me to drink of it: I will drink no
more before I die. Or, his meaning might be, After what passes, this evening, I
will not drink any more with you of the fruit of the vine; therefore, as it is the
last paschal supper that I shall partake of with you, let that consideration be an
additional reason for your celebrating it with peculiar seriousness and devotion.
Until the kingdom of God shall come — Till the gospel dispensation shall be fully
opened, or till that complete and spiritual redemption, which is typified by this
ordinance, shall be fulfilled and perfected.
BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. What ardency of desire, and vehemency of
affection our holy Lord expresses, to celebrate the passover with his disciples,
and to administer the sacramental supper to them before he left them: With
desire have I desired to eat with you before I suffer.
Thence learn, that it is very necessary, when sufferings do appear, especially
when death does approach, to have immediate recourse to the table of the Lord,
which affords both an antidote against fear, and is a restorative to our faith.
Christ, the night before he suffered, communicated with his disciples.
Observe, 2. The unexampled boldness of the impudent traitor Judas; though he
had sold his Master, he presumes to sit down at the table with him, and with the
other disciples: had the presence of Judas polluted this ordinance to any but
himself, doubtless our Saviour would not have suffered him to approach unto it.
41

42. It teaches us, that although nothing be more ordinary than for unholy persons to
press into the holy ordinances of God which they have no right (while such) to
approach unto, yet their presence pollutes the ordinances only to themselves.
Holy persons are not polluted by their sins, therefore ought not to be
discouraged from coming, by their presence.
Observe, 3. Christ did not name Judas, and say, Oh thou perfidious traitor; but,
Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. Doubtless
Christ did not name him, because he would not drive him to despair, but draw
him to repentance.
But, Lord, thou knows in what thou names us not. Oh how sad is it for any of the
family, who pretend friendship with thee, to conspire against thee; and after they
have eat of thy bread, to lift up the heel against thee!
Observe, 4. That though Judas was not named, yet he saw himself pointed at by
our Saviour: Behold the hand that betrayeth me is on the table; and Judas' heart
told him whose hand that was; yea, though Judas heard that dreadful sentence
denounced against him, Woe to the man by whom the Son of man is betrayed;
yet he is no more blanked than innocency itself: this shameless man had the
impudence to say to our blessed Saviour, Master, is it I? Though St. Luke says it
not, the other Evangelists tell us, that Christ answered him, Thou sayest it. Did
not Judas (think we) blush extremely, and hang down his guiltly head, at so
galling an intimation? Nothing less; we read not of any thing like it.
Lord, how does obstinacy in sinning steel the brow, and render it incapable of all
relenting impressions!
Immediately after the celebration of the passover, followed the institution of the
Lord's supper.
Where we have observable, the author, the time, the elements, and the
ministerial actions.
Observe, 1. The author of this new sacrament, Jesus took bread.
Learn thence, that to institute a sacrament is the sole prerogative of Jesus Christ;
the church has no power to make new sacraments; it is only her duty to celebrate
those which our Saviour has made.
2. The time of the institution, the night before the passion: The night in which he
was betrayed, he took bread.
3. The sacramental elements, bread and wine; bread representing the body, and
wine the blood of our Redeemer: bread being an absolutely necessary food, a
common and obvious food, a strengthening and refreshing food; and wine being
the most excellent drink; the most pleasant and delightful, the most cordial and
restorative; for these reasons amongst others, did Christ consecrate and set these
42

43. creatures apart for those holy purposes for which he designed them.
4. The ministerial actions, breaking of the bread and blessing of the cup: Jesus
took bread; that is, separated it, and set it apart from common use, for holy
purposes: He blessed it, that is, he prayed for a blessing upon it, and brake it,
thereby shadowing forth his body broken upon the cross: and he gave it to his
disciples, saying, this broken bread signifies my body, which is suddenly to be
broken upon the cross, for the redemption and salvation of a lost world, Do you
likewise this in remembrance of my death. As to the cup, Christ having set it
apart by prayer and thanksgiving, he commands his disciples to drink all of it;
For, says He, this cup is the new testament in my blood; that is, the wine in this
cup does represent the shedding of my blood, by which the new covenant
between God and man is ratified and confirmed. Drink ye all of this, says our
Saviour: whence we gather, that every communicant has as undoubted a right to
the cup, as he has to the bread in the Lord's supper; therefore for the church of
Rome to deny the cup to the common people is sacrilege, and directly contrary to
Christ's institution.
PETT, "Verse 14
‘And when the hour was come, he sat down (reclined), and the apostles with
him.’
The lack of any preparatory words with reference to His arrival (compare Mark
14:17) suggests that Luke intends us to see a deeper significance in ‘when the
hour was come’ than simply as a reference to the time of the usual Passover
meal, or the time that Jesus had fixed. It rather suggests that solemn hour that
had to come when Jesus would begin His preparations for certain death. We
must remember that to Luke this is now at the end of His prophetic ‘journeying
towards Jerusalem’ to die as a true prophet (Luke 13:33; Luke 18:31). And now
He had come to that hour. Compare here also John 13:1. From this moment on
His course was set. This solemnity would seem to be confirmed by the next verse.
There is an indication of firm courage behind the words here. Death was
approaching, but He would carry on as normal. He was prepared for what
would come, and was able to relax in the face of it. The Rabbis said that one
reason why the Passover had to be celebrated in a reclining position was as an
expression of joy and rest. It was in order to reveal that all was well.
Symbolically at least it indicated that, unlike at the first Passover, there was no
longer any need to be ready to move on. And yet Jesus was well aware that His
hour was come and that this night He would commence the path of suffering that
would end in a cruel death. But in spite of that He was quite ready to recline
among His disciples.
Verses 14-20
Jesus Proclaims His Coming Death By Means Of The Passover Symbols. His
Coming Suffering Is Now An Assumption. He Is To Be The Passover Lamb
Introducing the New Covenant (22:14-20).
Analysis.
43

44. a When the hour was come, He sat down, and the apostles with Him, and He said
to them, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I
suffer” (Luke 22:14-15).
b “For I say to you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of
God” (Luke 22:16).
c He received a cup, and when He had given thanks, He said, “Take this, and
divide it among yourselves (Luke 22:17).
b “For I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until
the Kingly Rule of God shall come” (Luke 22:18).
a And 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, this do in remembrance of
Me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you (Luke 22:19-20).
Note that in ‘a’ He desires to eat the Passover with them, and in the parallel He
eats with them the new Passover revealed in the giving of His body and the
pouring out of His blood. In ‘b’ He will no longer eat the Passover until it has
come to its true fulfilment in the Kingly Rule of God, and in the parallel He will
not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingly Rule of God comes. Central to
all is the cup of oneness and unity in blessing, which points ahead to their future
hope, which is to be divided among them that all might partake.
Verses 14-38
Crisis Point Is Reached In The Guestchamber (22:14-38).
In this passage we have described what occurred in the Guestchamber. This
divides up into five sections.
Overall Analysis.
a Jesus manifests the danger that lies before Him, the suffering that He is to face,
and the fact of His coming death, providing the symbol of what its significance
will be for His disciples in the light of the fact that the Kingly Rule of God is
coming (Luke 22:14-20).
b Jesus reveals the hand of a betrayer, wrought upon by Satan, whose life will
end in woe (Luke 22:21-23).
c The disciples are not to seek greatness, but the opportunity of humble service,
and this will finally be granted to them by their ruling in the Kingly Rule of God
(Luke 22:24-30).
b Jesus reveals the hand of one who, wrought upon by Satan, will deny Him, but
who through it, and through His intercession, will be strengthened to serve
others (Luke 22:31-34).
a Jesus makes clear the danger of the hour, it is the time for swords, but these
swords are symbolic rather than real. It is not through swords that they will
triumph (Luke 22:35-38).
Note that in ‘a’ the darkness of the hour is symbolised, and the same occurs in
the parallel. Both indicate that He is now about to be taken. In ‘b’ the fact of
betrayal by a friend is revealed, and in the parallel the fact of denial by a friend,
both as a result of Satan’s activity. One will end in woe for the party involved,
44

45. and the other in restoration. For one had sinned through deliberate and
continuing intent, the other at a bad three moments in an hour of deep
apprehension and tension through weakness. And central in ‘c’ is the whole
motive force for the future, the way of service which will lead to triumph. By this
they will succeed.
At this point we should also possibly consider the emphasis in the passages on
what He has to face:
· Jesus was to suffer to the limit. The time had come for Him ‘to suffer’
(Luke 22:15) and the bread and the wine are both said to point to the suffering of
death.
· Jesus’ betrayal by a close friend and professed loyal follower (Luke 22:21)
must have caused Him great grief of heart, thus increasing His suffering.
· He then draws attention to the temptations and afflictions that He has
had to face. And He informs the disciples that they have continued with Him in
His temptations and afflictions (Luke 22:28), and have experienced these with
Him, and the implication is that these will continue.
· He faces up Peter with the fact that he will deny Him (Luke 22:34). While
He does understand the reasons for it, it could hardly be anything less than a
great grief of heart to Him.
· He declares that they are now entering a period of conflict and danger
such as they have never faced before, so that they are to arm themselves against
it (Luke 22:36).
So the passage begins, continues and ends with the emphasis on suffering. He is
aware that the darkness into which He is entering is growing, and there is no
relief from His suffering which is pouring in on Him from all sides.
What Is To Be Seen As Jesus’ Main Emphasis In This Passage?
One further thing we must consider before looking in detail at this passage,
about which there is much controversy, is the significance of some of the ideas
used in it. And as we consider them we must constantly remember Jesus’ love of
the apt parable and His use of vivid illustration. For this passage can be seen as
having one of two emphases, depending on our interpretation of it.
1). On the one hand it can be seen as describing the future service on earth which
lay ahead for the Apostles in the present Kingly Rule of God being established on
earth, with a strong reminder of what will be required of them in it, and the
continuing fellowship that they will have with Him. This would fit well with the
connection of this passage with the following words of Jesus to Peter concerning
strengthening his ‘brothers’ which would be a part of his duty in watching over
and serving the people of God.
2). Or on the other hand it can be seen as looking beyond the present to His
return and to the final Kingdom and blessing. In this case He will be seen as
directing their eyes to their final reward, and avoiding the mention of what
immediately lies ahead.
We must remember in this regard that the disciples were imbued with the ideas
of their times. These included the coming of the Messiah, the enjoyment of a
45

46. Messianic Banquet of rejoicing and triumph, and the prospect of Israel ruling
over the nations. But what Jesus will now seek to do is reinterpret these ideas so
as to reveal that while they will be fulfilled, it is in a very different way than
Israel envisaged. These ideas all fixed their attention on the prestige and power
and glory that would be Israel’s. Jesus wants to fix His disciples’ minds on the
opportunities for humility and humble service that they presented. In a sense He
wants to turn the ideas upside down. It was Gentile kings like the King of
Babylon who sought to climb higher and higher (Isaiah 14:13-14). But His
disciples are to follow His own example and seek to become lower and lower
(Luke 14:7-11; Luke 18:14). They are not to seek ‘what they shall eat and drink’,
but to ‘seek the Kingly Rule of God’ (Luke 12:29; Luke 12:31).
But before looking at these questions, let us, in order to put it all in context, ask
ourselves what we would expect of Jesus here at this hour of crisis, especially in
view of what lies ahead? For He knew that this hour would result in His
suffering, and His resurrection, which would then be followed by His sending
forth of His disciples to all nations, commencing at Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47).
At this stage this was something that the disciples did not even dimly conceive of.
So it was surely necessary for Jesus to prepare them for it in terms that they
understood, but which later they would understand more deeply. We must
remember that their thoughts were on, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the
Kingly Rule to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6). His thoughts were on, ‘You will receive power
after the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you will be witnesses both in
Jerusalem -- and to the uttermost parts of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). How then was He
to convey the idea of the latter to those who were looking for the former? He
does it, in fact, by a brilliant use of parable and symbolism which they will not
come to fully understand until much later.
This is the view of many who feel that it is inconceivable that He would not in
some way say something about all this in His final words to them at this feast,
especially as He stresses the need for them to eat and drink of Him. They
therefore see Him as wanting to dynamically prepare them for their future, only
dimly understood, ministry on earth. But others see Him as rather pedantically
putting all His emphasis at the feast on what lies beyond their future ministry,
looking rather to the final consummation, and virtually omitting any mention at
all of the near future and the task that lay ahead. Their view is that He wants to
fill their minds with the splendour and glory that will one day be theirs. But
what is problematic in this view is that it overlooks His emphasis on humble
service and the kind of attitude that the disciples should have, and turns their
thoughts towards ideas which in context He specifically rejects as being
unworthy of them. For as we shall see this latter interpretation appears to
indicate that He is offering to them the very thing that He at first rejects.
In the eyes of these latter interpreters it is as though at this meal, at which He is
seeing His disciples for the last time before He leaves them, He is only interested
in the consummation and what will be enjoyed by them then, and not in the
process that will lead up to it, a process in which they will be so actively engaged.
Their view is that He leaves dealing with the latter until after the resurrection,
while here He lays all His emphasis on the glory that is to be theirs, even though
46

47. in Luke 22:25-26 it is the seeking of this glory which He in specifically eschews.
Thus they claim that He emphasises the future under the coming heavenly (or
Millennial) Kingly Rule of God, when they will all celebrate with Him in His
triumph, and virtually ignores their truly glorious future when they will achieve
their great triumphs in the spreading of the Kingly Rule of God on earth, prior
to going to be with Him. But in our view this error comes about because they
have failed to recognise that Jesus has to present the one in terms of the other
because of the continual failure of the disciples to grasp the realities that He has
brought, and above all the fact that it is contradictory when compared with His
words about service and seeking the lowest place..
The verses which are seen as giving this impression are as follows:
· ‘I say to you I will not eat of it (this Passover) until it be fulfilled in the
Kingly Rule of God’ (Luke 22:16).
· ‘I say to you I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine until
the Kingly Rule of God shall come’ (Luke 22:18).
· ‘And I appoint to you a Kingly Rule, even as My Father has appointed to
Me, that you may eat and drink at My table under My Kingly Rule, and you
shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Luke 22:29-30).
Setting these three statements together does seem at first, until they are
considered more carefully, to give a strong emphasis on the final consummation
(or, for those who believe in it, the Millennial kingdom). He will not eat -- or
drink -- until they eat and drink with Him at His table and sit on thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. It would seem that He is putting all the emphasis on
the glory that is to be theirs, that He is lifting up their hearts to consider the
power and authority that they will one day enjoy so that His crucifixion will not
be too much of a jolt.
But there is one major problem with this interpretation, and that is that it stands
in complete and utter contrast with the attitude that He is seeking to inculcate in
them in Luke 22:25-27. For there He inveighs against those who seek the higher
place and urges rather that they must think in terms of lowly humility and
humble service. He there tells them that they must seek the lowest place, that of
the youngest. They must not seek to be chiefs (to sit on thrones), but to serve.
They are not to be like the Gentile kings who want to lord it over people and be
called Benefactors. And He then gives from the example of His own life the way
in which they are to walk. They are not to seek to be sitters at table, but to be
servers at table. Is it really likely then that in the next breath He would seek
immediately to implant in them ideas which totally contradict this previous
exhortation? And this is reinforced by Luke 12:37 where we learn that at the
consummation He will gird Himself, and make them sit down to meat, and come
and serve them. Thus this is the kind of attitude that He wants them to have, the
idea of humble service, not that of lording it over a great banquet.
Some would reply, yes, that is to be their attitude while serving God on earth, but
the other picture is also given to them so that while serving they can look with
confidence to the day when they will be lifted out of service in order to share His
glory. Humility first, glory afterwards.
47

48. But this explanation assumes two things:
· The first is that the disciples had the same clear distinction in their minds
that we have between their period of active service to come, in which they would
serve humbly on earth, and the Kingly Rule which would follow when they
would be lifted up and glorified. But this is in fact patently untrue. If there is one
thing that is certain it is that their minds were in fact still very much in a whirl.
· And the second is that they would thus instantly be able clearly to
distinguish in His words to them in the Upper Room the difference between the
period of humble service described by Jesus and the period of glory that would
follow and would consider that for them it would be different from what it would
be for Jesus.
A few moments thought will make us aware that that is actually far from the
truth, for the truth is that they were, right up to the end, still very much taken up
with the question as to who would be the greatest (Luke 22:24). Thus by far the
most likely scenario for the understanding of Jesus’ words is that we are to see
Him as emphasising how they are to approach their future with humility, and
with the recognition of the need for humble service, even though in parabolic
terms, rather than emphasising the glory that was to be theirs, which in view of
their thoughts at that time would simply perpetuate their error.
For if there is one thing that is certain it is that the disciples did not have
everything about the future sorted out in their own minds. Their minds were not
on their future as depicted in Acts, which was something that would have to be
explained to them after the resurrection. For even after His resurrection, and
after the words He has given to them about going out with the Good News (Luke
24:47-48), their question and their interest was expressed in the terms of, ‘Lord,
do you at this time restore the Kingly Rule to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6). It is quite clear
therefore that in their minds there was considerable confusion (which given the
situation is not surprising). Thus it is equally clear that they would be treating all
His words at the Last Supper as running together with the situation described
later and as all speaking about the same situation. For Jesus makes very clear
that God’s purposes with regard to the Kingly Rule in the future was none of
their business. So Jesus therefore very much had to take their thoughts away
from this and demonstrate that what they must look forward to, while
describable in terms of His coming Kingly Rule, was actually a life of humble
and dedicated service.
And we may add to this the further point, that psychologically it would hardly
have been helpful to them if on the one hand He had emphasised the need to
humble themselves, and follow His example of humble service, and avoid the
attitude of Gentile kings, while at the same time pointing to the glory that lay
ahead for them when they too would rule over the nations. To ask them to keep
both ideas in mind, and keep them separate, and properly interpret and apply
them and live by them, would surely have been asking far more than they were
capable of grasping. We would suggest that it would not have been at all helpful,
without making the situation much clearer, to combine the two ideas together
with any hope of being properly understood. For Jesus was well aware that one
48

49. of the great problems of the disciples was their desire for greatness (Luke 22:24).
Would He really then encourage that desire by glistening promises, while at the
same time trying to urge on them the need for total humility? It really does not
seem likely. One would almost certainly have had to give way to the other in
their minds, and we would suggest, knowing our own hearts, that it would be the
way of humility that would go. Indeed when preachers follow this interpretation
that is what they tend to emphasise, the glory and privilege and authority that is
to be ours, something which goes in complete contrast with Jesus’ words in the
passage about humility. They are inculcating in us the very attitude that Jesus
deprecated.
Furthermore, how could He possibly, when on the verge of leaving them, have
not given them at least some instruction concerning what now currently lay
ahead for them in the not too distant future? And would such instruction, and
assurance of its success, not in fact have been much more encouraging than
promises concerning a more distant future? (This is especially so as that is
precisely what He does in John’s Gospel, although that would not be recorded in
writing for many years).
In the light of all this let us now consider His words as recorded in the Synoptic
Gospels, and especially in Luke, in preparation for what is to come, and see
whether or not they agree with this suggestion once considered carefully..
Note Concerning Jesus’ Words At The Last Supper About The Kingly Rule of
God And the Idea of Eating At His Table And Sitting On Twelve Thrones Ruling
The Twelve Tribes of Israel In Luke 22:14-30.
The first question that arises with regard to this matter is as to what Jesus is
referring to when He speaks of ‘the Kingly Rule’ in this passage. They will after
all shortly be going out to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God to the people of God
(and then to all nations) as the Book of Acts will make very clear (Acts 1:3 in the
light of Luke 22:6-8 where it is made clear that He is not opening their minds
about a coming permanent earthly Kingdom; Acts 8:12; Acts 14:22; Acts 19:8;
Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31). Are we then to see Him in Luke 22 as totally
ignoring this fact, and simply concentrating on the everlasting Kingdom? Or
does He rather have in mind in His words the message concerning the Kingly
Rule of God that they will soon be taking out and proclaiming?
In order to determine this let us consider carefully what He says in Luke 22
about the coming Kingly Rule of God.
The Coming Kingly Rule of God In Luke 22.
What Jesus in fact says is that:
1) He will not eat of the Passover until it is fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of
God (Luke 22:16).
2) He will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingly Rule
of God will come (Luke 22:18).
49

50. Clearly the significance of these verses will depend very much on whether we
interpret them in the light of the coming spreading of the Kingly Rule of God
through the spreading of the word, as depicted in Acts, which Luke intends to go
on to deal with in Acts, or whether we do it in terms of the everlasting (or
Millennial) Kingdom which in Acts 1:7 He dismisses as irrelevant to them.
Mark has here the words, ‘I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until that
day when I drink it new in the Kingly Rule of God’ (Mark 14:25). Matthew has
‘I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it
new with you in My Father’s Kingly Rule’ (Matthew 26:29). We should note that
all these are probably translations from the Aramaic, as well as each possibly
being an abbreviation of what He actually said. So Mark adds the expanded
thought of ‘drinking it new’. Matthew also has this but further adds ‘with you’.
Why then does Luke abbreviate the wording in Luke 22:18 and describe it in
terms of ‘the coming of the Kingly Rule of God’? Based on what we have seen
previously it would be in order to make clear a Jewish idiom to his Gentile
readers. Let us then consider what Luke normally indicates when he speaks of
the ‘coming of the Kingly Rule of God’ elsewhere in his Gospel. The idea occurs
a number of times.
· ‘And heal the sick who are in it, and say to them, The Kingly Rule of God
is come near to you’ (Luke 10:9).
· ‘Even the dust of your city, which adheres to our feet, we wipe off against
you. Notwithstanding be you sure of this, that the Kingly Rule of God is come
near’ (Luke 10:11).
· ‘But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, no doubt the Kingly Rule
of God is come upon you’ (Luke 11:20).
· And being asked by the Pharisees, when the Kingly Rule of God comes,
He answered them and said, “The Kingly Rule of God does not come with
observation, neither will they say, Lo here, or Lo there, for the Kingly Rule of
God is within (or ‘among’) you” (Luke 17:20).
It will be noted that in every case of the mention of ‘the coming of the Kingly
Rule of God’, it was present among them or ‘near’ so that they could come in
contact with it for themselves. Furthermore it did not come in openly outward
form, but was within or among them.
On the other hand, in the case where the Kingly Rule of God is spoken of as in
the future it is men who come to the Kingly Rule of God, and not the Kingly Rule
of God that comes to them. “And they will come from the east, and from the
west, and from the north, and from the south, and will sit down in the Kingly
Rule of God” (Luke 13:29).
The same can also be said of the other two Synoptic Gospels.
· “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the Kingly Rule of God
is come to you” (Matthew 12:28).
· ‘And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, That there are some of those
who stand here, who will not taste of death, until they have seen the Kingly Rule
50

51. of God come with power” (Mark 9:1).
In the first case the Kingly Rule of God has already come on them. In the second
the Kingly Rule of God will come with power within the lifetime of some of those
present. In both cases the words have in mind participation now, or definitely in
the very near future, in the Kingly Rule of God, in the latter case revealed in
terms of power.
Thus our conclusion must be that when Luke speaks of the ‘coming of the Kingly
Rule of God’ he has in mind its present manifestation. Indeed in the light of his
previous words his readers could hardly have seen it in any other way.
We should also note that later in Luke’s account in chapter 22 He then declares
that “I covenant to you a Kingly Rule, even as My Father has covenanted to Me,
that you may eat and drink at My table in My Kingly Rule and you will sit on
thrones judging (ruling over) the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:29-30).
(Some would, however, translate this as meaning that even as His Father
covenants to Him a Kingly Rule, so does He covenant to His disciples that they
may eat and drink at His table in His Kingly Rule, and that they will sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In this translation the disciples are
not themselves actually covenanted a Kingly Rule. Either translation is feasible
and the difference is not really very great. The Kingly Rule of God in which they
are to have a part is unquestionably involved whichever is chosen).
A large number of commentators take all these references in Luke 22 to signify
that He is referring to the final coming of God’s Kingly Rule in the everlasting
(or Millennial) Kingdom. They thus refer to the eating and drinking as referring
to the future triumphal Messianic banquet which is described in Scripture
(compare Isaiah 25:6) where the idea is of coming triumph and wellbeing, and
which is referred to in later Apocalyptic literature which concentrates on the
glory that is to be Israel’s. This Banquet is seen by them as the reward for all
those who have been faithful to Him (in their terms), something to be looked
forward to as bestowing honour and prestige and a great level of superiority, as
well as abundant joy. Those who interpret like this therefore tell us that in these
last moments of His presence with them Jesus completely ignores their near
future, and the important task that is to be theirs, about which they must have
been so concerned, and concentrates all His thoughts on when they will see Him
again in the more distant future, when they will enjoy positions of prestige and
authority, and does it in similar terms to these apocalyptic writers who so
misrepresent the situation (such an idea is not found in Isaiah). In the light of
what we have already seen it is, of course, possible. But it seems to us very
unlikely. And this unlikelihood is even more so when we consider the context of
the statement, which is that of seeking humility and humble service. You do not
encourage men to be humble by telling them of the greatness that awaits them.
However, before discussing this question more fully let us also consider one or
two other references in Luke to God’s Kingly Rule and the equivalent. In Luke
23:42, for example, the dying thief calls on Jesus and says, ‘Remember me when
you come in your Kingly Rule’. Jesus replies to this, ‘Truly I say to you. Today
51

52. you will be with me in Paradise’. It may, of course, be that Jesus was simply
ignoring the repentant thief’s statement, and that His reply was not directly
related to it, but many would see it as much more likely that Jesus actually saw
His Kingly Rule as immediately commencing in some way in ‘Paradise’, and as
something in which the thief would be able to partake. If not we might have
expected some indication of the fact.
(Whichever way we take it ‘today’ must probably signify ‘at this time, very
shortly’ as it does in Aramaic. For it was already within a short few hours of
sunset when the literal day would end. It may, however, be that what He meant
was that both He and the thief would be immediately transferred in spirit into
what Jesus calls ‘Paradise’, the more pleasant side of Hades. It would be
dangerous for us to be dogmatic about the question).
Furthermore at His trial Jesus is revealed as saying in reply to the question as to
whether He is the Messiah, ‘from henceforth will the Son of Man be seated at the
right hand of God’ (Luke 22:67-69). The Son of Man being seated at the right
hand of God can only here indicate that He has received His Kingship by
approaching the throne of God in accordance with Daniel 7:13-14. This can thus
only signify that ‘from this time on’ He considers that He will have been
enthroned and will therefore be ruling over His sphere of Kingly Rule. He
clearly considers that He will by this have entered on Kingly Rule.
Mark has it as, ‘you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power
and coming in the clouds of Heaven’ (Mark 14:62). As this can hardly
consistently indicate His immediate second coming, this must again be seen as
referring to the Son of Man’s ‘coming’ to the throne of God to receive Kingship
in Daniel 7:13-14, where He approaches God on the clouds of Heaven and takes
His kingly throne. Matthew has something similar, ‘Henceforth you will see the
Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of
Heaven’ (Matthew 26:64). And in Matthew’s case we have the later depiction of
the risen Jesus as looking back on this event and saying, ‘All authority has been
given to me in Heaven and on earth’ (Matthew 28:18). So all agree that shortly
after the crucifixion Jesus will receive Kingly Rule and will be reigning in
Heaven. This can be seen as further confirmed in Acts 2:33; Acts 2:36 where
Peter declares that Jesus has been exalted and has been made both Lord and
Christ.
Again prior to the Transfiguration Jesus had said, ‘There are some standing
here who will not taste of death until they see the Kingly Rule of God’ (Luke
9:27), which as we have seen Mark puts as ‘see the Kingly Rule of God come
with power’. This thus must be seen as indicating that as far as Jesus was
concerned the establishing of the Kingly Rule of God would occur within the
lifetime of many who heard Him. Matthew and Mark in their own different ways
agree, Mark declaring that the ‘Kingly Rule will come with power’ and Matthew
referring to it in language which relates to Daniel 7. As far as these words were
concerned therefore the coming of the Kingly Rule of God (in power) was to be
seen by that generation.
52

53. Again, in Luke 19:12-15, in a parable about the kingdom, the king receives
kingly rule and then returns. But as no specific timetable is given this does not
tell us anything more, although it does agree in the sense that it distinguishes the
receiving of kingly rule from his later return. He receives His kingly rule before
His return, not at it.
In contrast with all this, however, in Luke 13:28-29 there is the idea of a
heavenly Kingly Rule of God which follows the second coming of Jesus Christ
into which gather all the believers of the past from all parts of the world, but as
we have already seen in that case it is the people who come to the Kingly Rule of
God, not the Kingly Rule of God that comes to them. And in Luke 21:31 there is
the idea of the Kingly Rule of God being near, which will follow the fulfilment of
the signs of His coming. Both of these relate the Kingly Rule of God to His
second coming. But neither actually speak of the coming of the Kingly Rule of
God, and they are in contrast to the many verses in Luke where the Kingly Rule
of God is depicted as being already present or as ‘near’ to the people of that day
(Luke 6:20; Luke 7:28; Luke 10:9; Luke 10:11; Luke 11:20; Luke 16:16; Luke
17:21), and as ‘coming’. Neither of the verses that refer to the Kingly Rule of
God at the consummation actually speak of it as ‘coming’.
So we can summarise all this as follows:
1). The Kingly Rule of God is already present among them in Jesus, and at work
in their hearts (Luke 6:20; Luke 7:28; Luke 10:9; Luke 10:11; Luke 11:20; Luke
16:16; Luke 17:21; John 3:2-3).
2). The Kingly Rule of God is about to be revealed in power as a consequence of
His resurrection and as a result of His enthronement and subsequent receipt of
all authority in Heaven and earth (Luke 9:27; Luke 22:67-69; Luke 23:42; Mark
9:1; Mark 14:62; Matthew 26:64; Matthew 28:20; Acts 2:33; Acts 2:35).
3). The Kingly Rule of God will one day be revealed in Heaven, and in that day
all will enter it who are His (Luke 13:28-29; Luke 21:31).
But we would stress again that with regard to these it is only the first and the
second which are spoke of in terms of ‘the coming of the Kingly Rule of God’.
When, however, we come to Acts the Kingly Rule of God is unquestionably the
message that is offered through the preaching of the word (Acts 14:22; Acts 19:8;
Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31), and furthermore, in Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31
the preaching of the Kingly Rule of God is said to be specifically the equivalent
of preaching Jesus. None of these references, however, specifically speak of its
‘coming’, although in fact the suggestion would appear to be that it has come and
may be entered into by all who will respond.
So when we ask the question ‘Do the references to the coming Kingly Rule of
God by Jesus in Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18 have in mind the Kingly Rule of God
that comes at Pentecost, or does it refer to the Kingly Rule of God which comes
to fruition at the final consummation? there would only seem to be one answer.
And if we ask ‘Was Jesus simply giving an indication that the Kingly Rule of
God would not be long in coming because it would be the result of His
resurrection and enthronement, or was He talking about what would be the final
53

54. position when the future had come to its consummation?’, the weight of the
evidence lies with the former. So the same conclusion seems to apply to both
questions. The ‘coming of the Kingly Rule of God’ as such was seen as something
that that generation would experience.
With regard to the further statements in the verses, the Passover could certainly
be seen as ‘fulfilled’ in the deliverance of men and women through the cross at
Pentecost as they were thus brought into the Kingly Rule of God with power (see
1 Corinthians 5:7). Here was a greater deliverance by far than that at the
Exodus. Although it is true that it could also be seen as fulfilled at the
consummation when the saved were finally gathered in. And in the same way it
could be that the reference to drinking the fruit of the vine was an indication that
there was only a short period between His drinking with them then and the
coming of the Kingly Rule of God, although again it may be seen as having in
mind a longer term view.
So overall we would suggest that in exegetical terms as well the references to the
Kingly Rule of God in Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18 must be seen as suggesting that
when Jesus spoke of it, He had in mind the coming of the Kingly Rule of God
which would result from His approaching enthronement following His
resurrection, and through the work of the Holy Spirit, as in Acts. This would,
however, not exclude the fact that it would finally result for all who were thus
‘saved’ in the everlasting Kingdom. For in Jesus’ eyes the one ran into the other,
for elsewhere when speaking of blessing to be given to His own He says, ‘Both
now in this time --- and in the life to come’ (Mark 10:30).
Having come to this conclusion let us now consider whether it is supported by
the context.
The Context: The Lord’s Supper.
The next thing that we note is that while Jesus declares that He Himself will
cease eating the Passover and drinking the fruit of the vine for a period of time,
His disciples are to continue to do so. This could indicate a short term abstinence
for Himself while they continued with their eating and drinking, or it may have
been in order to indicate that they were to eat and drink of it constantly in the
future in a new form. In the longer text of Luke, (which we consider is
unquestionably correct, see later), this is made more explicit, even though no
mention is actually made of eating and drinking, for the bread is given ‘in
remembrance of Me’ and the cup is offered. Both of these ideas include the
thought of eating and drinking. Thus there is an emphasis on the fact that while
Jesus Himself will for an unstated period cease eating and drinking, the Disciples
will go on eating and drinking in remembrance of Him, and that what they will
eat and drink will be a reminder of His body and blood. Even in the shorter text
this is implied, for Luke’s readers would certainly there understand these words
or similar as following ‘this is My body’, due to their own celebration of the
Lord’s Table (compare 1 Corinthians 11:23-25).
One thing that arises from the reference to Jesus as ‘not eating and drinking’ is
54

55. as to whether the purpose of that is in order to suggest how soon the Kingly Rule
of God will come (‘it is so near that I will abstain from eating and drinking until
then’, for remember those who heard His words did not know what was coming),
or whether the idea is rather that He will meanwhile shortly be active in such a
way that the taking of food and wine would be improper, that is, that He sees the
abstention from wine as necessary because He sees Himself as about to act as a
serving priest (Leviticus 11:10) as in Hebrews, and because He is consecrating
Himself to what lies ahead as the equivalent of a Nazirite (Numbers 6) as John
the Baptiser did (Luke 1:15). That is, that He wants them to know that He is
totally devoting Himself to an important ministry that lies before Him, the
ministry of the cross and resurrection and enthronement. Like the mention of the
swords later it could be seen as a reference to preparation for the events that
now lay ahead. In His case the point would be that He was preparing Himself for
the offering up of Himself as the perfect and fully consecrated offering, for
abstinence from food and drink was a regular way of preparing for some
especially important task ahead (compare Acts 23:12; 1 Samuel 14:24-28). If this
is so then it is clear that He sees the task as fulfilled by Luke 24:43.
In indirect contrast with Jesus’ statement about not eating and drinking,
however, is the fact that His people will in the future be eating and drinking
because they will be partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This might be seen as
suggesting therefore that His abstinence will only be until then, at which point
He will again eat it and drink it with them at His Table. (Compare how He does
break bread with the two disciples at Emmaus after His resurrection - Luke
24:30). And we should note that here in chapter 22 this eating and drinking is
immediately connected with ‘the Table’, for immediately afterwards we are told
that ‘the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me on the Table ‘ (Luke 22:21).
The point here would seem to be that on the very table at which Jesus had
dispensed the bread and the wine, the betrayer was planning to betray Him. But
that shortly He would again (spiritually) be eating and drinking with them at His
Table once His Kingly Rule had begun after His resurrection. We should note
how in His resurrection appearance He specifically goes out of His way to eat
with them - Luke 24:41-43, compare John 21:13.
This is then followed shortly afterwards by Jesus’ illustration of Himself as One
Who humbly serves, where He declares, ‘Which is greater, he who sits at the
meal or him who serves? Is not he who sits at the meal? But I am in the midst of
you as Him Who serves’ (Luke 22:27). Unless this is just an illustration taken out
of the blue, (which is one possible way of looking at it), we might see this as
referring to what He will do in future at The Lord’s Table. There He will serve
those who come to that Table to partake of the bread and the wine. Or
alternately it could be seen as having reference to what has gone before, and
therefore to Jesus as presiding over the Passover. The problem then is that it
would not be a good illustration of humility, for the one who presided at the
Passover was usually someone who was seen as important. But if His point is that
He will in fact from now on, as the One Who is here to serve, be serving them
continually by giving them His body and blood, and will thus in the future be
present at the Lord’s Table in order to apply it to His people as the Servant Who
gave His life a ransom for them (Mark 10:45), then it does illustrate in His case a
55

56. humbling of Himself for His people.
But however that may be, what is unquestionably true is that the purpose of this
illustration is in order to demonstrate the humility, and the ambition to serve in a
humble capacity, that should be the lot of those who follow Him. Indeed He
stresses that fact. He says that His disciples should not be like the kings of the
Gentiles whose desire it is to lord it over everyone (Luke 22:25), but should be
like Him in His desire solely to benefit others by humble service. They should not
have the hearts of earthly kings, but the heart of the heavenly King, the heart of
a servant. They should not be seeking to sit on the High Table, but should be
seeking to serve at the lowest table. He is by this seeking to inculcate in these men
who have such a dangerous tendency to think in terms of attaining greatness, a
desire rather for humility and humble service, with no thought of obtaining
greatness.
That being so what follows must, if interpreted as signifying the glory that awaits
them at His future Table under His coming glorious Kingly Rule, be seen as
quite extraordinary. For what follows is a statement which is then so at variance
with what He has previously said that it is difficult to think of anything more
contradictory that could have been said. He would be saying, ‘although I am
calling you to the humblest of humbles service, nevertheless I am going to sit you
on twelve thrones as rulers’. Now that would be fine to someone theologically
trained who could make the distinctions that we make, but it could only be
totally confusing, and worse, to people as muddled as the Apostles were. It would
give them two contradictory ideas.
Let us consider it further. Depending on how we translate it this following
statement could be:
1) Either the statement that He has covenanted them a kingly rule, as a
result of which they will eat and drink at His table in His Kingly Rule, and will
sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
2) Or the statement that He has covenanted for them to eat and drink at His
table in His Kingly Rule, the one God has given Him by covenant, where they
will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Now whichever of these two translations is accepted this is often taken to mean
that they will join Him in the Kingly Rule of God at the Messianic Banquet at
which they will be privileged guests, as a result of which they will also sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and in terms of Jewish thinking
lording it over the Gentiles. They will be there as those who have been exalted
and raised to positions of authority in the everlasting (or Millennial) Kingdom.
Can you think of anything that would more fill the disciples in their present state
with pride and joy at being exalted, and with a feeling of superiority, and with a
renewed interest in who would be the greatest? We must ask therefore, ‘How
could this possibly immediately follow on an exhortation to seek the lowest level
of humble service such as we have previoulsy seen?
Can you therefore see why we have suggested that it is quite extraordinary? For
it would appear that at the same time as He is seeking to lure them away from
56

57. their attitude of seeking greatness, to being truly humble, and urging them to
desire not to sit at table as someone important, but to serve at table as one who is
least, and as one who serves others, He is also at the same time trying to fix their
minds on their coming greatness. With their previously dangerously arrogant
desires for greatness this is surely so contradictory that it is unbelievable. Indeed
it might be seen as encouraging hypocrisy. It would be saying, ‘be humble now
with a view to being rewarded with greatness. Earn your greatness by making a
show of being humble’. Let us confirm this further by looking at His two
parallels. Firstly consider:
· ‘The kings of the Gentiles, have lordship over them, and those who have
authority over them are called benefactors, but you shall not be so, but he who is
greater among you, let him become as the younger, and he who is chief, as he
who serves.’
And compare it with:
· You will sit on thrones ruling over (judging) the twelve tribes of Israel.’
It is surely immediately apparent that Jesus is here seemingly going against His
own dictum. On the one hand He appears to be saying, ‘You are to eschew power
and authority,’ while on the other He is bolstering them up with the very thought
that they should be looking forward to a similar kind of power and authority. He
is saying, ‘seek to be humble’, and at the same time saying ‘look forward to the
fact that you will be made great.’ Given the dangerously wrong ideas that the
disciples had revealed that they already had, this is surely, to say the least,
extremely unlikely. Is He not really asking too much of them? How can He hope
to inculcate an attitude of such humility and yet at the same time, in the same
breath, promise such greatness as an incentive? If He is He is surely taking the
cutting edge off His urging.
Now had He as an incentive compared being like the Gentile kings now, with
being like a Messianic prince in the future that would have been understandable.
He would be comparing earthly greatness with heavenly greatness. But the
exhortation to eschew theattitudeof the Gentile kings, and to follow the way of
humility and humble service, is, we suggest, totally incompatible with seeking to
arouse in them a desire for a similar future glory at the same time in the state of
their knowledge at that time, especially as, as far as they were concerned the
latter could be fairly soon (as Acts 1:6 demonstrates). The first promise thus
makes this view of His final saying very improbable indeed we might say
impossible. You can make a contrast between the pride of Gentile kings and the
humility of a servant, and you can make the contrast between the glory of
Gentile kings and the glory of being a Messianic prince, but you cannot do both
at the same time, for in the same context they are flatly contradictory attitudes.
And this is especially so in the light of what follows. Consider again:
· ‘Which is greater, he who sits at the meal, or him who serves. Is not he
who sits at the meal? Yet I am among you as one who serves,’
And compare it with:
· ‘I appoint to you, even as my Father has appointed me a kingly rule, that
you may eat and drink at my table in my kingly rule.’
57

58. If this latter means the Messianic Banquet where they feast in triumph and
glory, then it is in complete contradiction with the former. He would appear to
be encouraging at the same time two different attitudes of mind. How can this
latter possibly fit in with the idea that they are to be like the One Who serves?
They are two different approaches altogether. Either they set their hearts on the
way of humble service, desiring not to sit at table, except in the same way as
Jesus has as a servant, but to serve, or they set their hearts on the enjoyment of
sitting at table with the Messiah in the glory of the Messianic banquet. But they
cannot genuinely and honestly be expected to have both aims in mind at the same
time, especially as the latter has been a constant temptation to them. (It is even
worse if there is the thought of the Messiah serving them at His coming as in
Luke 12:37). Separately, in different contexts, the two aims might be compatible,
humility now, glory later, but not as two aims asked for in the same breath,
especially when it is asked of those who have a tendency to seek greatness, and
even more especially as He has been warning them against arrogance and
boastful pride. In the light of the earlier self-seeking of James and John He
would surely here be in grave danger of encouraging a similar arrogance and
boastful pride. Are they really then to be asked to seek the lowest place, while
keeping one eye on the highest place? It is hardly possible to think so. It would
surely not be inculcating the right attitude (which he has just described) at all.
But if it is not to be taken like this, how then are we to take it?
Before we answer that question let us remind ourselves again of something else,
and that is that during this time in the Upper Room, apart from the brief
reference to bread and wine, Jesus on this view has apparently said absolutely
nothing about the future that lies ahead for His disciples prior to His return,
contrary to what we find in John.
That being so these self-contradictions and obvious misapplications described
above must surely suggest that somehow we are misinterpreting these verses by
seeing in them a picture of their future exaltation, rather than a picture of
present service. For how could someone who has just derided Gentile kings
because of their attitude, and has put His behaviour as a servant forward as the
ideal of humble service, then talk as though His disciples should be seeking the
highest place, and should be looking forward to life on their own thrones, and be
shown to be completely ignoring all words about their coming service (which
John shows that He did talk about in the Upper Room)? It is surely simply not
conceivable. But how else then can we see them?
Taking the question of eating and drinking at His table first, we can relate it
back to Luke 22:19-20 and also to Luke 22:27. There His table is the one at
which He serves. Thus we might see the significance of the Table here as
referring not to the Messianic Banquet which is to come in which they will exalt
on their glory, but as His feeding of them at His Table in such a way that they
serve humbly along with Him at the true Messianic banquet on earth, as in the
feeding of the five thousand, by feeding His people, as he commands Peter in
John 21:15-17. In the light of what we have seen before, this would signify His
activity on their behalf as they partake in the Lord’s Supper, and as they thereby
58

59. work humbly within the Kingly Rule of God as He does. This would then not be
indicating a feasting in triumph at the Messianic feast in some future glory, but a
feasting in humility in the Kingly Rule of God as they partake of Christ and then
go out to serve others, sharing in His present glory. This fits precisely with Jesus’
urging to behave like humble servants.
But how then are we to think of their being given thrones from which they will
rule the twelve tribes of Israel? One thing we can be sure of, and that is that this
is surely to be seen as in clear contrast with the Gentile kings who lord it over
their people and want to be called benefactors. The point is not that they will
achieve better than the Gentile kings, for the attitude of the Gentile kings was to
be abhorred. Rather it is that they are to seek to be the very opposite. If one
thing is certain it is that it cannot mean that they should be looking forward
ambitiously to sitting on thrones ruling the people. It would here be arousing in
them all the wrong motives, and contradicting His warning about being like
Gentile kings.
That being so it is clear that Jesus must have some other idea in mind than that,
the idea of acting as His humble deputies in establishing the Kingly Rule of God
among people on earth so that these people might finally inherit the everlasting
kingdom. Rather than seeking to lord it over people, He will be saying, they must
instead be seeking to humbly serve God’s people in the same way as Jesus
Himself has done, bringing them into the Kingly Rule of God and building them
up in Christ. This would also then tie in perfectly with His following words to
Peter where He describes him, as a result of his being sifted by Satan, as being
prepared for this very task. But how then are we to obtain this idea from the
words that Jesus uses?
At this point reference must be made to Psalms 122:4-5, for that is the passage
for which Jesus obtained the idea. In that Psalm we read of, ‘Jerusalem --
whither the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord, for a testimony to Israel, to
give thanks to the name of the Lord, for there are set thrones for dispensing
righteousness, the thrones of the house of David’. This Psalm refers to the fact
that when ‘the tribes’ went up to Jerusalem they were to find justice at the hands
of those who sat on ‘the thrones of David’, that is, those who were representing
the son of David who was current at the time, by acting as his deputies and
judiciaries. It may even indicate princes of the royal house who have this
function. This would fit in admirably with what occurred in Acts. There the
Apostles in Jerusalem were seen as acting in the name of the greater son of David
Who was enthroned in Heaven (Acts 2:29-36; Acts 4:24-30), and were bringing
justice and righteousness to the people as they themselves symbolically sat ‘on
the thrones of David’, that is, were acting in Jesus’ Name. They were, as it were,
to be seen as acting in the name of the Greater David, and could thus be seen as
sitting on the metaphorical thrones of David acting in His name. This would also
then tie up with their following Him by ‘ruling’ in humility and humble service
over the people of God, as Jesus had while on earth, and with their eating and
drinking at the Lord’s Table. In other words they were to ‘rule’ over His people
with all humility.
59

60. But it might be asked, can the church be called ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ in this
way? The answer is in fact a resounding, ‘yes’. For ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ is
merely in the end a phrase indicating ‘all Israel’, having in mind its founding
fathers. At varying times there had been a varying number of tribes of Israel,
especially early on (see Judges 5), and always, after Ephraim and Manasseh had
split up, there were at least thirteen tribes, and yet even in Jesus’ day most pure
Jews identified themselves with one of ‘the twelve tribes’. We can compare how
Paul described himself as a Benjaminite. It was thus a general phrase, not one
that was specifically applicable. It pictured an ideal.
However, apart from very few Jews, this identification would not go back many
generations. Large numbers were originally linked with their tribes by adoption
rather than by birth, and the number of Jews who were actually descended from
the patriarchs, and certainly any who could prove it satisfactorily, would have
been very, very few. The main exception would be the descendants of the royal
house. Thus the phrase ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ really signifies ‘all who
professed themselves as Israel and were bound in the covenant’.
That the church was seen as the new Israel, the new covenant community, the
genuine fulfilment and continuation of Israel, comes out regularly in the New
Testament. Jesus had from the beginning set out to establish a new congregation
of Israel (Matthew 16:18). And almost from the beginning the unbelieving Jews
were seen as having been cut off from the true Israel, and the believing Gentiles
as grafted in (see for example John 15:1-6; Romans 11:17-33; Galatians 3:29;
Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-22; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 7:1-8).
And Peter in a letter which is clearly to all Christians, both in its content, and in
the fact that whenever he refers to ‘Gentiles’ it is always as those who are
unbelieving, writes to ‘the exiles of the Dispersion’ (1 Peter 1:1), those who are
strangers and pilgrims (1 Peter 2:11) dispersed around the world, clearly
referring this to the whole believing people of God, and therefore seeing them as
Israel. In the same way James writes to ‘the twelve tribes in the Dispersion’
(James 1:1), and again is writing to all Christians. This is demonstrated by the
fact of his total lack of reference to Gentile Christians in his letter, something
which would have been unaccountable in a letter written only to Jewish
Christians when he was seeking to give them guidance about their behaviour.
Had Gentile Christians not been included among those whom he addressed he
would have been failing in his duty not to explain how Christian Jews were to
behave towards them. So the non-mention of them, not even by a hint, confirms
that they are included among those to whom the letter is written. Thus as far as
James was concerned believing Gentiles had been incorporated into Israel and
were part of ‘the twelve tribes’.
For we must remember that the idea of ‘Israel’ was always a fluid one. From the
very beginning many ‘Israelites’ had been descendants of foreign servants within
the households of the patriarchs. Yet all in their ‘households’, (thus foreign
servants included), had gone down into Egypt and had retained their identity as
Israel. And when they left Egypt they had been joined by a mixed multitude
(Exodus 12:38) who would mainly from then on be seen as Israelites. They would
join in the covenant of Sinai, and be circumcised on entering the land. And
60

61. provision was specifically made for such people to be full blown Israelites
(Exodus 12:48). Indeed so many sought to join with Israel that provision was
made later as to who could and could not do so (Deuteronomy 23:1-7). And all
through their history proselytes were welcomed as true Israelites on equal terms
(at least theoretically) if they were circumcised and submitted to the covenant. So
the idea of Israel was not so much that of literal descendants of Abraham, but of
those who were faithful to the covenant. Those who were not were cut off from
Israel even if they were true-born. Those who wished to become a part of ‘Israel’
could do so, through circumcision and submission to the covenant. And it was in
fact precisely because the early church saw new converts as becoming a part of
Israel that the requirement for circumcision was debated. And the final solution
was not found in suggesting that they were not really joining Israel, but in the
argument that once they became Christ’s they were already circumcised with the
circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11) and therefore did not need to be
circumcised again. But they were certainly recognised as having become the true
seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29). For they were ingrafted into the olive tree
(Romans 11:17-28), and, as Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:13-22, they became
fellow-citizens with the saints (the Old Testament name for true Israelites) and of
the household of God. Thus the early church did unquestionably see themselves
as the true Israel, and therefore as ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’.
This being so the most consistent interpretation of this passage would seem to be
the one that sees it as referring to the Kingly Rule of God that would be
established at Pentecost and after, and which saw the Apostles as ‘serving at
table’ and ‘sitting on thrones’ by serving the people of God as they built up the
Kingly Rule of God on earth ready for their later transfer to Heaven.
Before moving on further there is one more emphasis that we can perhaps
examine, and that is the one in the passage about being ‘at (on) the table’.
Being At The Table In Luke 22.
In Luke 22:14 Jesus reclines with His disciples, and the assumption must be that
it was at the Table(s) present in the room. So here reclining at the Table indicates
closeness of fellowship. And it is as being at this Table that He gives them the
bread and wine representing His body and blood.
It comes therefore in shocking contrast when Jesus says, ‘the hand of him who
betrays Me is with Me at (on - ‘epi’) the Table’ (Luke 22:21). One of those who
were reclining at His Table, eating and drinking with Him, and had even
solemnly received bread and wine from Him, was planning to betray Him. To
behave in such a way was to go counter to all that was looked on as customary
and acceptable. It was to break all boundaries of decency. For it was a principle
of Eastern hospitality that when you ate with someone it was a guarantee of
friendship and of concern for their wellbeing.
In contrast Jesus then pointed out that He was here at the Table in order to
serve. While it was true that He was reclining at the Table with them, He said, it
was not as one who considered it as His right to be served, but as one who was
61

62. there in order to serve. He was not here to exercise authority over them but with
the sole purpose of serving them. Indeed He was here with the purpose of giving
Himself to them and for them. And this was to be an example to them, so that
they also were not to be like Gentile kings lording it over people, and being given
great titles, but were also in their turn, while reclining at Table, to serve, seeking
only the lowest place, that of the youngest (and at some stage He gave the
example by washing their feet).
So when He then goes on to say that in future they will sit at (on - ‘epi’) His
Table under His Kingly Rule, eating and drinking as they are now (unlike the
one who has betrayed Him), the thought is clearly that He will there continue to
serve them, and that they too should be thinking in terms of humble service as
they recline at His Table, as He has already enjoined. In the context of this whole
passage this suggests that it signifies their future humble service in the Kingly
Rule of God which will shortly come with power, and thus signifies what is to
follow the resurrection.
In other words Jesus takes the idea of the Messianic Banquet and turns it on its
head. The ideas that should be filling the heads of His disciples, He says, should
not be those of Messianic glory, but of Messianic service. Thus we may
summarise by saying that He has both assured them that the Kingly Rule that
they were expecting was coming, so that what is to follow in His coming death
should not leave them with any doubts about that, but that they should not be
looking at it as something that would bring them glory, but rather as something
that would enable them, like Him, to act faithfully as ‘the Servant of the Lord’
(Acts 13:47).
Having then examined some of these rather difficult concepts involved (difficult
because of our misconceptions of them) let us now look at this passage in more
detail, although necessarily with some repetition.
BI 14-20, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you
The last passover—Christ’s desire for it
“This passover before I suffer! “It tells us, surely, that there was some connection
between the passover and the suffering of Christ, and a special connection in this
passover at which He and His disciples were now sitting down.
Let us think of some of the reasons why the Saviour desired so earnestly to join in
this last passover before He suffered.
1. One reason was, that the passover had now reached its end, and found its full
meaning. The ancient covenant, which changed the slaves of Egypt into God’s
servants, gives place to the new, which changes his servants into His sons, and
commences that golden chain, “If children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint
heirs with Christ,” etc. And here, too, are the means of the redemption. The
passover, which sprinkled with the blood of the covenant the door-posts in the
land of Egypt, descends until its last victim dies beneath the shadow of the cross
of Christ. Its efficacy is gone, for He has appeared who is to finish transgression,
to make an end of sin, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness. At best it was
a shadow, but now the great reality has come, “Christ our passover, sacrificed for
us.” It is no unconscious victim, but one who freely gives Himself, the just for the
62

63. unjust, that He may bring us to God.
2. Another reason why Christ desired to be present at this passover was, for the
support of His own soul in the approaching struggle. “Before I suffer!” He had a
terrible conflict to meet, for which He longed, and at which He trembled. We may
feel startled at the thought that the Son of God should be dependent on such aid
at such a moment. And yet it is in keeping with all His history—with the whole
plan of redemption. The Divine and human are inseparably interwoven in the life
and work of Christ.
3. We are led naturally to this further reason—that Christ desired to be present at
the last passover because His friends needed special comfort. “To eat this
passover with you before I suffer.” He desired to make His converse with them at
this passover in the upper chamber a strength and consolation to them against
the sore temptations they were to encounter. And may we not believe that Christ
still prepares His people for what may be lying before them, and that He employs
His comforts “to prevent” them—to go before them—in the day of their calamity.
When darkness isabout to fall, God has lamps to put into the hand by
anticipation. He who made His ark go before His ancient people in all their
wanderings, causes the consolations of His Word to smooth the way of them that
look to Him. He knows what painful steps are before us in the journey of life,
what privations, what bereavements—it may be that the most solemn step of all
must ere long be taken—and He desires to eat this passover with us “before we
suffer.”
4. The last reason we give for Christ’s desire to be present at this passover is, that
it looked forward to all the future of His Church and people. At the close of the
last passover, Christ instituted that communion of the Supper which has come
down through many generations—which goes forth into all the world as the
remembrance of His death and the pledge of the blessings it has purchased for us.
How frail this little ark which His hand has sent out on those stormy waters, but
how safely it has carried its precious freight! And this presence of His, at the first
communion, looks still further—on to the period when, instead of His Spirit, we
shall have Himself. He desired to take His place in person at the first communion
in our world, and when the great communion opens in heaven, He shall be seen
in His place once more. (J. Ker, D. D.)
The Lord’s Supper
We need not look for great things in order to discover great truths. To those who
reach after God he will reveal his deepest secrets through things insignificant in
themselves, within the routine of common lives. No event occurs more regularly than
the daily meal. None, perhaps, gathers around it so many pleasant associations. Its
simplest possible form, in Christ’s time, consisted in eating bread and drinking a cup
of wine. Into this act, one evening, He gathered all the meaning of the ancient
sacrifices; all sacred and tender relations between Himself and His followers, and all
the prophecies of His perfected kingdom.
I. THE PREPARATION. “They made ready the passover.” Note concerning the
making ready that—
1. It was deliberate. The room was selected and secured. The hour was appointed.
Two of the disciples were chosen to prepare the lamb and to spread the table. The
Lord’s Supper is not less, but far more, rich in meaning than was the ancient
passover. It requires the preparation of mind and heart made by private
63

64. meditation, and by the gathering together beforehand of disciples for prayer,
conference, and instruction.
2. It was exclusive, “I shall eat the passover,” Christ said, “with My disciples.” No
others were invited, because no others were fitted to share in the ceremony which
He was to inaugurate.
3. It was familiar. He drew closer to His disciples as the time approached in
which He was to teach them how to celebrate His great act for the redemption of
the world. Such times must be cherished as the warm, spring hours of spiritual
growth.
4. It was solemn. The shadow of the greatest tragedy in the world’s history, close
at hand, hung over them, as they went through the silent streets to the prepared
guest chamber. His manner, His words, His actions, were filled with the
consciousness of it.
II. THE BETRAYER POINTED OUT.
1. It leads each true disciple to self-examination.
2. It helps to reveal to Himself She false disciple. Judas knew that he was out of
place in that upper chamber. The Lord’s table, which symbolizes the most
intimate fellowship with Him, is a means of leading selfish men to begin to realize
the awful and utter loneliness of sin.
3. It helps us to realize the baseness of a false confession of Christ.
III. THE SUPPER INSTITUTED.
1. A new sacrifice. Oxen, sheep, and doves had for centuries been slain as a sign
that through life offered in sacrifice, human life that had been forfeited by sin
might be restored. But from that night the broken bread takes the place of all
these, and represents to us the body of Christ given as a sacrifice for sinners.
2. A new covenant.
3. A new kingdom, which was begun when first Christ through the Holy Spirit
began to rule in one human heart. (A. E. Dunning.)
The happiness of attending The Communion
During the sunshine of his prosperity, Napoleon I. thought little of God and religious
duties. But when his power had been broken, and he was an exile at St. Helena, he
began to see the vanity of earthly things, and became earnest and attentive to
religion. Then it was that he returned a very remarkable answer to one who asked
him what was the happiest day in his life. “Sire,” said his questioner, “allow me to ask
you what was the happiest day in all your life? Was it the day of your victory at Lodi?
at Jena? at Austerlitz? or was it when you were crowned emperor?” No, my good
friend, replied the fallen emperor, “it was none of these. It was the day of my first
communion! That was the happiest day in all my life!” Sacramental service—
I. HOW INTENSE THE SAVIOUR’S LOVE FOR US MUST HAVE BEEN, in that His
desire was not extinguished by the knowledge that it was to be His death-feast.
II. HOW CLOSE HIS FELLOWSHIP WITH MEN, as shown in that He desired to
spend such an hour in their company.
III. HOW EAGER THE MASTER WAS TO MAKE THE DISCIPLES REALIZE THE
NEARNESS OF THE HEAVENLY BLESSING HE WOULD PURCHASE FOR THEM,
64

65. and to give them a pledge of it for their assurance. “I will not eat any more thereof,
until it be fulfilled,” etc. The Lord’s Supper, then instituted, is thus designed to be—
1. An evidence of Christ’s undying love.
2. An assurance of His intimate fellowship.
3. A confirmation of His promise of the everlasting blessedness.
(Anon.)
The Last Supper
I. THE PASSOVER PREPARED. This preparation is suggestive of three things.
1. The dispensation in which Christ and His apostles still were.
2. The all-comprehensive knowledge possessed by Christ.
3. That in the midst of enemies Christ still had friends in Jerusalem.
II. The passover eaten.
1. Our Lord’s punctuality (Luk_22:14).
2. Our Lord’s intense desire in respect to this passover.
(1) Because the last He would celebrate with them.
(2) Because He would impress them with the connection between Himself as
God’s Lamb, and the paschal lamb.
(3) Because He would awaken in them an intense desire for His second
coming, when He would sit down with them in the Kingdom of God.
III. THE PASSOVER SUPERSEDED.
1. By the establishment of an ordinance which commemorates the true passover
(see 1Co_5:7).
2. By the assurance of the better hope which this ordinance affirms Heb_
7:19-22).
3. By the emblematic re-crucifixion of our Lord, which should inspire them to a
constant remembrance of His personal love for them (1Co_11:24).
Lessons:
1. Retrospection essential.
(1) Bread broken.
(2) Wine poured out.
2. Introspection essential (1Co_11:28).
3. Prospection essential (1Co_11:26). (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
The cup of sneering and of Communion
I. THAT COMMUNION BETWEEN CHRIST AND BELIEVERS WILL BE
RENEWED IN HEAVEN. Even on this side heaven, seasons of pure spiritual
communion are not denied us. This exhausts the Saviour’s idea. His words are to be
taken not literally, but spiritually. The wine is put for the thing represented—the joys
65

66. and the felicities of the final state, and to drink the wine newwith Him is to partake
the inmost pleasure of His soul.
II. THIS COMMUNION WILL BE PERFECT AND UNMIXED. We receive only in
part; and this necessarily renders every act of communion imperfect. But in heaven it
will be otherwise. Our nature will be so purified and transformed, as that every power
and every property will be an avenue to convey the stream of life and glory into the
soul. The fellowship will be that of perfected spirits. There will be no darkness in the
understanding, no error in the judgment, no guilt in the conscience, no sin in the
heart.
III. THIS COMMUNION WILL RE UNINTERRUPTED AND ETERNAL. Sublime
and refreshing as are the seasons of spiritual joy which we experience on earth, they
are, generally speaking, but of short duration. Here perpetuity of enjoyment is
impossible, but there it is certain. The union between the Saviour and the soul will
never be dissolved, and therefore the fellowship will never end. Here we are
overtaken by fatigue and exhaustion, but there we shall be endowed with immortal
vigour; here sickness and infirmity often intervene, but there the inhabitants shall
never say they are sick; here we enjoy communion at intervals, there it will be eternal.
IV. THIS COMMUNION WILL BE HEIGHTENED BY THE PRESENCE AND THE
FELLOWSHIP OF THE WHOLE REDEEMED CHURCH. It is no common joy which
we experience even in the most private communion; but this joy is heightened when
we can blend with other souls in harmony with our own. What, then, must be the
communion of the coming world, where we shall hold immediate fellowship not only
with God and the Redeemer, but at the same moment, and in the same act, with
angels and the whole Church of the redeemed? Delightful is the union and fellowship
of minds on earth! When heart communes with heart it is like the mingling dew-
drops on the flower. But this union will be heightened in heaven. There we shall find
none but kindred minds, with which it will be impossible not to unite. The
blessedness of the future world is in reserve for those only who belong to the
kingdom of God on earth. Into the heavenly communion none will be received, but
those who have here held fellowship with a risen and glorified Saviour. (R. Ferguson,
LL. D.)
He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it
The Holy Communion
I. HOLY COMMUNION—WHAT IS IT?
1. It is Christ’s own ordinance. Being a communicant is the test of the reality of
your Christian profession.
2. It is the command of the Great Master. Emphatic, plain, straightforward,
definite. A test of our faithfulness RS the servants of Christ.
3. It is the dying wish of the best of Friends. You cannot disregard it, and be true
to Him.
4. Its great importance is taught plainly by the teaching and practice of the early
Church. It was at first the only act of united worship. And it was celebrated at
least every Lord’s Day.
II. WHAT IS ITS NATURE?
1. It is a memorial. A picture for all time of Christ’s body broken and blood shed
66

67. for the sins of man.
(1) A memorial to God the Father. In our prayers we say, “through Jesus
Christ our Lord”; or some such words; i.e., we plead before the Father what
He has done for us. In the Holy Communion we say, “for Jesus’ sake” not in
words, but in the very acts which He Himself has taught us. Thus it is our
highest act of prayer.
(2) A memorial to ourselves. How easily we forget. This refreshes our
memory, and rekindles our love.
(3) A memorial to an unthinking or unbelieving world. A witness to men that
we believe in Jesus, who lived and died and still lives for us.
2. It is a means of grace. Jesus Himself is pleased in this ordinance of his own
appointment to give us Himself.
3. It is a bond of union between ourselves and others. In partaking together one
sacred food we, made one with Jesus, are brought nearer to one another.
(1) A bond of union between those who belong to the same earthly family.
(2) A bond of union between those who belong to the same congregation.
(3) A bond of union between all Christians who love the Lord Jesus.
(4) A bond of union between those who are resting in paradise.
III. WHO OUGHT TO COME?
1. Those who know how poor their love is, and want to love God more.
2. Those who are trying to serve God, and fail because they are weak, and need
strength.
3. Those who are sinful, but desire to become holy.
4. Those who are careful and troubled about many things, and long for rest.
IV. WHO OUGHT NOT TO COME?
1. Those who are sinning, and do not want to give up their sin.
2. Those who think themselves good enough. The selfsatisfied obtain no blessing,
for they seek none.
V. HOW TO COME.
1. Humbly. Why? Because we are not worthy to come.
2. Trustingly and simply. Taking God at His word, and not asking questions.
3. Earnestly. Meaning what we are doing. Not because others come, but because
we realize that in our sinfulness and our unworthiness we find the strongest
reason why we ought to come.
4. Reverently. Humbly realizing the presence of Jesus, and earnestly desiring His
blessing.
5. Regularly. Have a fixed rule about it. Do not leave it to be done at any time
when it is convenient or suits you.
6. More and more frequently. As you grow older you ought to be more earnest,
and in order to serve God better you must seek more help. The grown-up man is
not content with the same amount of food as the child; and the man who is
desirous to grow up into the full measure of the stature of Christ, needs more
67

68. spiritual nourishment than the man who is only a babe in Christ.
7. Early. When your thoughts are fresh, your heart free from cares and worries,
your mind undisturbed by worldly things. Give to God the best you can. Let Him
have the first of the day. (C. J. Ridgeway, M. A.)
The Holy Communion
I. THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
II. ITS CHARACTERISTICS.
1. A Divine ordinance.
2. A perpetual ordinance.
3. A binding and obligatory ordinance.
4. It should be a frequent ordinance. No Lord’s Day without the Lord’s Supper.
III. THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED.
1. Deep humility of mind.
2. Grateful love to Jesus.
3. Faith.
4. Love to all mankind.
5. Joyous hope.
IV. THE ADVANTAGES ARISING FROM OBEDIENCE TO THIS COMMAND OF
CHRIST’S.
1. The soul will be strengthened.
2. Christ will be increasingly precious.
3. Holiness will be increased.
4. Heaven will be desired.
Application:
1. Address regular communicants. Come in a right spirit. Be watchful, humble,
prayerful, etc.
2. Address irregular communicants. Why so? It is disobedience, inconsistency,
injurious to yourselves, Church, world.
3. Those who never commune at all.
(1) The conscientiously doubtful. Do you hate sin? Believe in Christ, etc. Are
you willing to obey him? Then draw near, etc.
(2) Those who are really unfit for the Lord’s table, are also unfit for death,
judgment, eternity. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The Sacrament of Holy Communion
In preserving this festival, we are urged alike by affection and duty.
I. THE ACT.
68

69. 1. To stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, we may point out the
simplicity of this act.
2. But though simple it is significant. The material forms and visible things,
represent spiritual and invisible realities.
3. The participation of this Sacrament is a manifestation of
Christian unity (1Co_10:16-17).
4. This act is commemorative.
5. This ordinance is also sealing. A pledge of Divine mercy. A covenant act.
6. This Sacrament is also prospective. “Till He come.”
II. THE COMMAND. “This do.”
1. Unanimously.
2. Frequently.
3. Gratefully.
4. Reverently.
5. Worthily. “Discerning the Lord’s Body.” (R. M. Willcox.)
The Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper—what a title! How full of memories, how it carries us back into
the very heart of the past! What a solemn night it tells of—what a meeting—what a
parting! The Lord’s Supper, however often it is celebrated, always ought to carry us
back to the institution. For the little company of the disciples it was a night of gloom.
The week had opened amid Hosannas; for a moment it had seemed as if the Saviour
was to be the hero and the idol of the multitude. But the acclaims died away. The
bitter hostility of the rulers reasserted itself in a series of angry or crafty assaults; and
now we are on the very eve of that other and most opposite cry—“Away with Him;
crucify Him. His blood be on us, and on our children.” The fortunes of the new
gospel, as man must judge, were that night at the very lowest ebb. As the event
advances it is made quite evident that this is a parting meeting, and that the Lord and
Master knows it. He speaks of Himself as departing, not on a temporary journey, but
by a violent death. People who are bent upon explaining away everything that is
remarkable, still more everything that is superhuman in the Gospels, have denied
that the words “Take, eat, this is My Body; Drink ye all of this, for this is My Blood,”
were words of institution at all. They say that they were merely a pathetic way of
typifying to the disciples His approaching death, and had nothing to do with any
future commemoration of it when He should be gone. It is not necessary to argue this
point, because we have the clearest testimony from the earliest date rationally
possible; the testimony of friends and foes; of Christians and Pagans; of St. Paul and
St. Luke; of Pliny no less than Justin Martyr, that those who heard the words did
understand them as words of institution, and did act upon them as such. The
breaking of the bread, the coming together to eat the Lord’s Supper were phrases of
perpetual recurrence as soon as there was any Church founded, and wherever that
Church spread itself over Asia and Europe; and that custom, always, and everywhere,
explained itself by going back to the scene in the guest-chamber the night before the
Crucifixion. But now, if the words had this meaning, the thought comes upon us with
great force, how wonderful is it that our Lord, knowing that tiffs was His last night
upon earth as a man in flesh and blood, instead of regarding it as an end, looks upon
69

70. it as a beginning, speaks of it as a preliminary, a necessary preliminary to results
foreseen and foreknown, in particular to what He calls the remission or dismissal of
sins, and gives directions for the perpetual remembrance of His approaching baptism
of blood, in an ordinance which is to have for its marked feature the symbolic eating
and drinking of His own Body and Blood. Brethren, this is a great thought. Our Lord
in the same night in which He was betrayed, the very night before tie suffered, did
not look upon that betrayal or upon that passion as a disaster, as a blow struck at His
work, or His enterprise, but rather as its necessary condition. It is the fore-ordained
consummation. The same night in which He was betrayed, and in the clearest
foresight of His Crucifixion, He founds an ordinance, He institutes a sacrament in
express recognition, and for the everlasting remembrance, of His death of violence
and torture, of ignominy and agony. “Well, now let us pass on to the very words of
the institution, so much more surprising and startling than if they had merely spoken
of commemorating His death—“Take, eat, this is My Body”; “Drink ye all of this, for
this is My blood.” It would not have been at all startling, and not at all surprising, if
our Lord had hidden His disciples to come together from time to time to meditate
upon His cruel and suffering death. A mere man might have thought of this, might
even have made it a religious service to go over the particulars of His passion, partly
as a memorial to a lost friend, and partly for the encouragement of serious, devout,
and humble living. But this cannot be said of the expressions before us—“Take, eat,
this is My Body.” “Drink this, for it is My Blood.” So far from this being the common
language of a dying friend, it would be language of which all would shrink from the
hearing or the uttering. Brethren, it speaks for itself, that they must have regarded
Him who said, “Take, eat, this is My Body,” as one altogether different from any
common, or any merely human person. It would be cruelty, it would be impiety, it
would be insanity in any friend, living or dying, to use such expressions concerning
himself. They say this, if they say anything, “My death shall be your life;” “My body is
given, My blood is outpoured for you.” In that death is involved the life of the world.
In that separation of flesh and blood which is the act of dying, the sins of the world
are taken away; yet this is not as a single isolated fact just to be accepted, just to be
relied upon, without corollary or consequence—not so. “I, the dying, the once dead,
shall be alive again after death, and be your life, not as a dead man, but as one alive
after death; so must you deal with Me. You must receive Me into your hearts, you
must, as it were, eat Me and drink Me, so that I may enter into your very being, and
become a part of you; not as a man in human form treading upon the earth,
companying with you as a man with his friends, but in a totally different manner, as
one that died and was dead, but who now liveth to die no more; as one that has died
and risen again; as one that is now in heaven; as one that has the Holy Spirit, and
sends Him forth for perpetual indwelling in the hearts of His people. “So eat, so
drink, for refreshing, and for sustentation.” The flesh profiteth nothing”; no, not
though you could hold in the hand and press with the teeth the very body of the
Crucified. The flesh, even the sacred flesh, profiteth nothing; “it is the Spirit that
quickeneth.” One moment of spiritual contact with the risen and glorified is worth
whole centuries, whole millenniums, of the corporeal co-existence. (Dean Vaughan.)
The advantages of remembering Christ
I. We are to inquire, first, WHAT IS IMPLIED IN REMEMBERING CHRIST.
1. There is evidently implied in this remembrance a knowledge of Him, a previous
acquaintance with Him. He must have occupied much of our thoughts, have
entered into our hearts, and been lodged in the deepest recesses of our minds.
70

71. 2. Hence to remember Christ implies a heart-felt love for Him.
3. Hence to remember Christ implies also a frequent and affectionate recalling of
Him to our minds.
II. Let us proceed to inquire why CHRIST HAS LEFT US THIS COMMAND TO
REMEMBER HIM.
1. He has done this for a reason which ought greatly to humble us tie has said,
“Remember Me,” because He knows that we are prone to forget Him.
2. But our proneness to forget Christ is not the only reason why He has
commanded us to remember Him. He has given us this command, because He
desires to be remembered by us.
3. The great reason, however, why Christ has commanded us to remember Him,
is this—He knows that we cannot think of Him without deriving much benefit to
ourselves.
III. WHAT, THEN, ARE THE ADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM AN HABITUAL
REMEMBRANCE OF JESUS? This is our third subject of inquiry; let us proceed to
consider it.
1. The first of these benefits is comfort to the soul, when wounded by a sense of
sin.
2. An habitual remembrance of Christ has a tendency also to elevate our
affections.
3. This heavenly-mindedness would lead us to a third benefit resulting from this
remembrance of Christ—patience and comfort in our afflictions.
4. The remembrance of Christ tends also to keep alive within us a holy hatred of
sin. Nothing makes sin appear half so hateful, as the cross of Christ; nothing so
effectually checks it when rising in the soul, as the thought of a dying Saviour. O
let me never crucify the Son of God afresh!
IV. BUT IF WE WOULD HABITUALLY REMEMBER CHRIST, LET US NOT
FORGET THE COMMAND GIVEN US IN THE TEXT. “This do in remembrance of
Me.” We soon forget objects which are removed from our sight; and our Lord, who
knows and pities this weakness of our nature, has given us an abiding memorial of
Himself. He has appointed an ordinance for this very purpose, to remind us of His
love. (C. Bradley, M. A.)
Christ wanting to be remembered
The Holy Communion is the memorial of our Redeemer’s sacrifice.
I. CHRIST WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR US.
We never must forget the past, or lose sight of Calvary. Great Prophet, we must ever
think of what He has done to teach; Great Priest, what He has done to atone; and
Great King, what He has done to win the allegiance and devotion of our hearts.
II. OUR LORD WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED IN WHAT HE IS DOING FOR US.
He lives to carry on and to carry out His work of grace in our hearts and lives.
III. CHRIST WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR WHAT HE IS UNDER PLEDGE
TO DO. We anticipate the coronation of our King, and the marriage-supper of the
Lamb. Veils hide Him now; we long for the vision of His face. (R. Tuck, B. A.)
71

72. The Holy feast
1. A feast of charity.
2. A feast of commemoration.
3. A feast of sanctified communion.
4. A feast of hope. (J. B. Owen, M. A.)
The Sacrament of Holy Communion
I. A DIRECTION FROM CHRIST—“Do this.”
1. Addressed by our Lord
(1) to the apostles, and
(2) through them to the whole catholic Church.
2. Spoken as a Friend to His friends.
3. Spoken instructively. As our Prophet.
4. Spoken authoritatively. As our King, Christ expects us to keep this our military
oath with Him. If an earthly commander had but to say to his servant, “go,” and
he went; and “come,” and he came; how much more “ought we to be in subjection
to the Father of spirits and live?” “See then, oh believer, that ye refuse not Him
who speaketh.” Do not come to the Holy Table—
(a) formally;
(b) grudgingly, or of necessity.
But come—
(a) humbly;
(b) reverently;
(c) faithfully.
II. AN EXPLANATORY MOTIVE—“In remembrance of Me.” (R. S. Brooke, M. A.)
The cup of reconciliation
Warburton and Tucker were contemporary bishop and dean in the same cathedral.
For many years they were not even on speaking terms. It was on a Good Friday, not
long before Warburton’s death; they were at the Holy Table together. Before he gave
the cup to the dean, he stooped down, and said in tremulous emotion, “Dear Tucker,
let this be the cup of reconciliation between us.” It had the intended effect; they were
friends again to their mutual satisfaction. (Christian Age.)
The Lord’s Supper
I. THE INSTITUTION OF THIS HOLY RITE. “This do”—that is, do what I am doing.
To do what Jesus did we are to take bread and wine. And we are to take this bread
and wine, not for an ordinary meal—for they “had supped’; and St. Paul says, “If any
72

73. hunger, let him eat at home,”—but for a sacramental feast, a means of feeding in our
souls upon the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour. Again, if we would do what
Jesus did, we must, before we eat that bread and drink that wine, have them
consecrated: “Jesus blessed”; and, as St. Paul says, “the cup of blessing which we
bless.” Next, we are to have a minister to consecrate them. We do not find that any
disciples meeting together could consecrate the elements, for in Matthew we are told,
that “Jesus blessed it and brake it, and then gave it to the disciples and said, Take,
eat, this is My Body.” Again we find, that in doing this, our Lord accompanied it with
prayer.
II. THE PURPOSE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER—“do this in remembrance of Me.” The
remembrance of Jesus may be considered actively or passively—“this do in
remembrance of Me”—that is, to remind Jesus of us, or to remind us of Jesus. The
expression may be applied both ways, and may be profitably considered in either
view. We have need of reminding Christ of us, of our necessities, our wants, our joys,
and our sorrows, as in Is
43:26. In Num_10:9, we have the same truth of reminding God of us set before the
Jews, and so s gain in Mal_3:16-17. In this view of these words, we have then this
truth set before us that, in that holy ordinance, we remind Jesus of His covenanted
mercy, of His dying love, the price it cost Christ to purchase our souls, the greatness
of His promises, the reality and truth of our faith in Him, the necessity we have to
bring before Him our weakness and our woes. We remind Him that we do indeed
believe in Him, and that, believing in Him, we cling to His precious covenant. In
taking of the memorials of His dying love, we remind Him that we are those of whom
He has said, “He that believeth on Me, though He were dead, yet shall he live, and
whosoever liveth and believeth on Me shall never die.” But again, the remembrance
of Jesus, taken passively, implies that we remember Jesus; our remembrance of
Jesus implies, not merely a remembrance of one act of the Saviour, of one truth, or
one fact connected with His gospel or His life, but a remembrance of Himself. He
does not say, do it in remembrance of the cross-do it in remembrance of the garden,
but, do it in remembrance of Me—My person—My offices—My qualities—My whole
being—Christ Jesus our Redeemer—ourFriend. Remembrance of Jesus must vary in
intensity, and affection, and character, in proportion to our knowledge of His love,
His grace, His kindness, and His truth, and of our habitual abiding in Him in our
own souls.
III. WHO ARE THE PERSONS THAT OUGHT TO PARTAKE OF IT?
IV. THE DUTY OF OBSERVING IT. It was given for disciples. (J. Baylee, D. D.)
The Lord’s Supper an emblem and memorial
I. It is AN EMBLEM. The question is, then, what unseen things do these simple
objects represent?
1. The human nature of Christ; His incarnation.
2. The death of Christ, too, is shadowed forth in this ordinance. We have more
than bread before us in it, it is bread which has been broken; and more than wine,
it is wine which has been poured forth.
3. The consecrated elements are emblematical also of the great end and design of
our Lord’s incarnation and death.
II. Let us now go on to another view of this ordinance. IT IS A MEMORY. “This do,”
He says, “in remembrance of Me.” But it is not Himself simply considered, that our
73

74. Lord calls on us here to remember; it is Himself as these emblems set Him forth,
given and bleeding for us; it is Himself in His humiliation, sufferings, and death.
Why the institution of an ordinance to bring things like these to our remembrance?
1. Partly, perhaps, on account of the joy Christ Himself feels in the recollection of
them. His heart overflows with joy at the thought of His cross and passion, and
He would have us think of them and sympathize with Him in His joy.
2. The remembrance of Christ’s incarnation and death is of the utmost
importance to us; therefore also He may have established this memorial of them
among us. “All our fresh springs” are in our crucified Lord, and therefore He
brings Himself frequently before us as our crucified Lord that we may go to Him
as the great source of our mercies, and take of His blessings.
3. There is another reason to be given for the setting up of this memorial of our
Lord’s sufferings—it is our liability to forget them. (C. Bradley, M. A.)
Christ’s vicarious death
A single verse, written on paper, now yellow with age, hangs on the wall of a
nobleman’s study in London. It has a remarkable history, and has, in two notable
instances, at least, been blessed of God to conversion. The verse was originally
composed by Dr. Valpy, the eminent Greek scholar and author of some standard
school books. He was converted late in life, and wrote this verse as a confession of
faith:—
“In peace let me resign my breath,
And Thy salvation see;
My sins deserve eternal death,
But Jesus died for me.”
On one occasion Dr. Marsh was visiting the house of Lord Roden, where he held a
Bible reading with the family. He mentioned Dr. Valpy’s conversion by way of
illustration in the course of his remarks, and recited the verse. Lord Roden was
particularly struck with the lines, wrote them out, and affixed them to the wall of his
study, where they still are. Lord Roden’s hospitable mansion was often full of
visitors, among whom were many old army officers. One of these was General Taylor,
who served with distinction under Wellington at Waterloo. He had not, at that time,
thought much on the subject of religion, and preferred to avoid all discussion of it.
But soon after the paper was hung up he went into the study to talk with his friend
alone, and his eyes rested for a few moments upon the verse. Later in the day Lord
Roden upon entering his study came upon the general standing before the paper and
reading it with earnest face. At another visit the host noticed that whenever General
Taylor was in the study his eyes rested on the verse. At length Lord Roden broke the
ice by saying, “Why, General, you will soon know that verse by heart.” “I know it now
by heart,” replied the general, with emphasis and feeling. A change came over the
general’s spirit and life. No one who was intimately acquainted with him could doubt
its reality. During the following two years he corresponded readily with Lord Roden
about the things which concerned his peace, always concluding his letters by quoting
Dr. Valpy’s verse. At the end of that time the physician who attended General Taylor
wrote to Lord Roden to say that his friend had departed in peace, and that the last
words which fell from his dying lips were those which he had learned to love in his
lifetime. A young relative of the family, an officer who served in the Crimea, also saw
it, but turned carelessly away. Some months later Lord Roden received the
74

75. intelligence that his young acquaintance was suffering from pulmonary disease, and
was desirous of seeing him without delay. As he entered the sick-room the dying man
stretched out both hands to welcome him; at the same time repeating Dr. Valpy’s
simple lines. “They have been God’s message,” he said, “of peace and comfort to my
heart in this illness, when brought to my memory, after days of darkness and
distress, by the Holy Ghost the Comforter.”
The ordained memorial
I. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SUPPER IS A PERSONAL MEMORIAL. “In
remembrance of Me.” We are to remember not so much His doctrines, or precepts, as
His person. Remember the Lord Jesus at this Supper—
1. As the trust of your hearts.
2. As the object of your gratitude.
3. As the Lord of your conduct.
4. As the joy of your lives.
5. As the Representative of your persons.
6. As the Rewarder of your hopes. Remember what He was, what He is, what He
will be. Remember Him with heartiness, concentration of thought, realizing
vividness, and deep emotion.
II. THE MEMORIAL ITSELF IS STRIKING.
1. Simple, and therefore like Himself, who is transparent and unpretentious
truth. Only bread broken, and wine poured out.
2. Frequent—“as oft as ye drink it,” and so pointing to our constant need. He
intended the Supper to be often enjoyed.
3. Universal, and so showing the need of all. “Drink ye all of it.” In every land, all
His people are to eat and drink at this table.
4. His death is the best memory of Himself, and it is by showing forth His death
that we remember Him.
5. His covenant relation is a great aid to memory; hence He speaks of—“The new
covenant in My Blood.” We do not forget Adam, our first covenant-head; nor can
we forget our second Adam.
6. Our receiving Him is the best method of keeping Him in memory; therefore we
eat and drink in this ordinance. No better memorial could have been ordained.
III. THE OBJECT AIMED AT IS ITSELF INVITING. Since we are invited to come to
the holy Supper that we may remember our Lord, we may safely infer that—
1. We may come to it, though we have forgotten Him often and sadly. In fact, this
will be a reason for coming.
2. We may come, though others may be forgetful of Him. We come not to judge
them, but to remember Him ourselves.
3. We may come, though weak for aught else but the memory of His goodness.
4. It will be sweet, cheering, sanctifying, quickening, to remember Him; therefore
let us not fail to come. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
75

76. The Sacrament better than a sermon
Frequently to me the Supper has been much better than a sermon. It has the same
teaching-power, but it is more vivid. The Lord is known to us in the breaking of
bread, though our eyes have been holden during His discourse. I can see a good
meaning in the saying of Henry III., of France, when he preferred the Sacrament to a
sermon: “I had rather see my Friend than hear Him talked about.” I love to hear my
Lord talked about, for so I often see Him, and I see Him in no other way in the
Supper than in a sermon; but sometimes, when my eye is weak with weeping, or dim
with dust, that double glass of the bread and wine suits me best. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The ends for which the Holy Communion is appointed
1. It is appointed to be a memorial of Christ.
2. It is a standing evidence of the truth of Christianity.
3. It furnishes an opportunity of the open profession of the Christian religion in
general, and, especially, of our trusting in the sacrifice of Christ for forgiveness
and acceptance with God.
4. Another end of the Lord’s Supper is to be an act of Church fellowship, or
communion.
5. The Lord’s Supper gives an opportunity of covenanting with God, and
engaging to be the Lord’s. He who partakes of the Communion is, by that very
act, as completely and voluntarily bound to serve the Lord, as if he had engaged
aloud to do so in the plainest terms of speech, or subscribed, with his own hand, a
written deed to that effect. It follows, too, by necessary consequence, that, though
he is not bound to anything to which he was not in duty bound before, yet, if he
abandon himself to sin, he is justly chargeable with breach of engagement. This
argument does not rest on anything peculiar to the Supper; but it applies to it
with particular force.
6. Another very comprehensive end of this ordinance is to be a means of
cherishing all the graces of the Divine life. We say of cherishing them, not of
implanting them; for, though the grace of God is not to be limited, and may reach
the heart, for the first time, in any circumstances, those who partake of the Lord’s
Supper ought already to be possessed of the Christian character in some degree.
7. Once more, this ordinance is intended to lead our thoughts forward to our
Lord’s second coming. It is not only retrospective, but prospective. It is not only a
remembrance of something past, but an anticipation of something future. (James
Foote, M. A.)
Remembering Jesus
In remembrance of Him! What a flood of recollections comes back to us as we think
on these words. To every class, age, and character amongst us those words are
spoken. To you babes and children He says, “Do this in remembrance of Me, the
Child Jesus, who for you once lay as a babe in the manger at Bethlehem, who for your
sakes grew as a child in favour with God and man, who was obedient to His parents,
a gentle, holy Child; do this, be obedient, be gentle, be loving, keep your baptismal
vow in remembrance of Me.” It speaks to you, young men, and says, “Do this, keep
yourselves pure, flee fleshly lusts which war against the soul, be helpful, be earnest,
76

77. not slothful in business, labour honestly in your appointed task, do this in
remembrance of Me, who as a young man was pure and earnest and helpful, who
laboured patiently and obscurely in lowly Nazareth.” He speaks to all Who have
money or time or influence at their disposal, He says, “Do this, go about doing good,
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the fatherless and the widow; never turn
your face from any poor man; if thou hast much, give plenteously, if thou hast little
do thy diligence to give gladly of that little, do this in remembrance of Me, the Man
Christ Jesus, who went about doing good, who gave up all time, glory, honour,
wealth, life itself, for others, who sought out the ignorant and those who were out of
the way, who dried the widow’s tears, who ministered to the sick, who was not
ashamed to help and comfort even the publican and the fallen woman, who suffered
hunger and thirst, and want, and insult for His people; O you, who are called by My
name, do this in remembrance of Me, for in that ye do such things unto the least of
My people, ye do it unto Me, and verily ye have your reward.” To you who are
anyways afflicted and distressed lie speaks and says, “Do this in remembrance of Me,
bear this cross meekly in remembrance of that bitter cross of Mine, for what sorrow
is like unto My sorrow, what night of agony can equal that night in Gethsemane, what
grave can now be without hope since that one grave in the Garden which was
unsealed on Easter morning?” (H. J. Wilmot Buxton, M. A.)
The memorial of Jesus
I. THE INJUNCTION OF A DEEPLY DEVOTED FRIEND.
II. THE INJUNCTION OF A DEPARTED FRIEND.
III. WHAT DO WE SPECIALLY COMMEMORATE BY OUR COMPLIANCE WITH
THIS COMMAND? His death, as a sacrificial atonement for our sins, and as the most
remarkable display of His love for us, though sinners.
IV. In commemorating Christ’s death by this ordinance, WE RECALL THE
IGNOMINY, REPROACH, AND SHAME HE ENDURED ON OUR BEHALF.
V. Reflect that THESE THINGS, MORE THAN ALL OTHERS, ARE WORTHY OF
BEING HELD IN EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE.
VI. HERE, TOO, WE KEEP IN REMEMBRANCE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH
EVERY GENERATION HAS THE SAME INTEREST, AND WHICH PRESENT TO
ALL THE SAME MOST INVITING AND SOLEMN ASPECTS.
VII. Once more, in the same direction of thought, we observe that, IN THE
CELEBRATION OF DEEDS OF PROWESS AND PATRIOTISM, THE REMOTER
THE PERIOD OF THEIR PERFORMANCE, THE LESS IS THE INTEREST
AWAKENED BY THEM, while in relation to the great event which we this day
commemorate, THE REMOTER THE AGE AND GENERATION, THE DEEPER
WILL BE THE INTEREST FELT IN IT, AND MORE NUMEROUS WILL THEY BE
WHO CELEBRATE IT.
VIII. IN THIS ORDINANCE CHRISTIANS ARE CALLED UPON TO REMEMBER
AN UNSEEN FRIEND, UNTIL THE APPOINTED PERIOD OF HIS
REAPPEARANCE.
IX. FROM THE SIMPLE NATURE OF THE SYMBOLS EMPLOYED, WE INFER
THAT THIS COMMEMORATION IS TO BE UNIVERSAL AS THE CHURCH, AND
EXTENSIVE AS THE WORLD.
X. Notice the PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THIS COMMAND AS DISTINGUISHED
77

78. FROM ALL OTHERS ENJOINED BY DIVINE AUTHORITY. This commemorative
command is not issued to us so much in the manner of a Lord and lawgiver, as in the
character of a claim of gratitude and affection. The Creator commands thus, “Do this
and live; or, fail to do, and die.” So does the Lawgiver command—“Thou shalt do this
in fear of Me, and of the penalties of disobedience.” But our Lord’s command in the
text speaks to us in a very different manner. He does not say, “Do this in fear of Me as
God,” but “Do this in remembrance of Me, as Redeemer”—“Do this, I beseech you, as
you love Me, and as I have loved you. I have done My work—‘It is finished.’ Now do
your part in remembrance of this finished work.” In obeying this command, we obey
it as having especial and peculiar reference to the Mediator. Other commands, like
those of the moral law, respect the providence and moral government of God, and the
benefit of man—this one directly issues from, and gives glory to, the dying Redeemer,
the God-man, “the Author and Finisher of our faith.” In His other commands Christ
addresses us as our Master, our Shepherd, our Divine and Supreme Teacher—in this
He instructs us in our duties to God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves. All His other
commands appear to point OUTWARDS in the direction of various rights and duties;
this command only points REWARDS: others, away from Himself—this, to Himself,
“Do this in remembrance of ME—in remembrance of My body, My blood, My death.
That death which I endured for your sakes, do you at least remember for My sake.”
(J. R. Leifchild, M. A.)
Design of the Lord’s Supper
I. COMMEMORATIVE.
1. “In remembrance of Me”—the end.
2. “Do this”—the means.
II. REPRESENTATIVE.
1. The bread, or Christ’s body, represents His personality, or the Incarnation.
2. The wine, or Christ’s blood, represents His work, or the
Atonement.
3. The bread and wine, the body and blood, represent the incarnate career.
III. PROCLAMATIVE. An immortal witness to the crucifixion (1Co_11:20).
IV. COVENANTIVE (Luk_22:20). The engagement both Divine and human.
V. COMMUNICATIVE (1Co_10:17).
VI. ASSOCIATIVE. Personal membership in Christ is universal co-membership of
Christ’s people.
VII. ANTICIPATIVE (Mat_26:29). The dirge glides into the paean. Hint of the new
heavens and new earth. Bridegroom and bride at the same marriage-supper of the
Lamb (Rev_19:6-9). (National Baptist.)
The blood of the new covenant
I. THE NEW COVENANT OF FORGIVENESS AND LIFE. The new reminds of the
old. From the old we may learn what to look for as essential features of the new. Take
three illustrations:
78

79. 1. The covenant with Noah, on leaving the Ark.
2. The covenant with Abraham, on entering Canaan.
3. The covenant with Moses, on leading the people from Egypt. The new
covenant is an engagement between God and man, through Christ, who acts as
representative of God to man and of man to God. It implies mutual pledges. On
God’s side is pledged forgiveness; remission of sins; and life, in its fullest, highest
meaning. On man’s side is pledged the obedience of faith.
II. THE BLOOD WHICH SEALS AND SANCTIONS THE COVENANTS. Look again
at the three cases mentioned. Each covenant was sealed with blood. Noah took of the
clean beasts for his offering, which devoted the spared lives to the service of God.
Abraham divided the creatures, when he entered into his covenant. And Moses
sprinkled with blood both the book and the people, when the covenant was ratified.
Why always with blood? Because the blood is the symbol of the life, and, so, shedding
blood was a symbolical way of taking a solemn vow to give the whole life to
obedience. Then see how Christ’s blood becomes the seal of the new covenant. Take
Christ as Mediator for God. He condescended to our weakness, and pledged His very
being, His very life, to His faithfulness towards us. In this sense He is God’s sacrifice.
Take Christ as mediator for man. And in this He is man’s sacrifice. Then two things
come to view.
1. He seals our pledge that we will spend life in obedience, serving God up to and
through death. In accepting Christ as our Saviour, we acknowledge that He has
taken this pledge for us.
2. In giving His blood, His life, to us to partake of, Christ would give us the
strength to keep our pledge. Illustrate by the Scottish Covenanters, opening a
vein, and, signing with their life-blood the “Covenant” on the gravestone, in
Greyfriars Church, Edinburgh. What, then, is the pledge which we take afresh in
each sacramental act? Obedience unto death. The obedience of faith. What is the
pledge we receive afresh in every sacramental act? The assurance of Divine
forgiveness, and eternal life. Why do we take the sacramental emblems together?
In order that we may be mutual witnesses; and then true helpers one of another
in keeping our pledge. (The Weekly Pulpit.)
15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired
to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.
BARNES, "With desire I have desired - This is a Hebrew form of expression,
and means “I have greatly desired.” The reasons why he desired this we may suppose
to have been:
1. That, as he was about to leave them, he was desirous once of seeing them
together, and of partaking with them of one of the religious privileges of the
Jewish dispensation. Jesus was “man” as well as God, and he never
undervalued the religious rites of his country, or the blessings of social and
79

80. religious contact; and there is no impropriety in supposing that even he might
feel that his human nature might be prepared by the service of religion for his
great and terrible sufferings.
2. He doubtless wished to take an opportunity to prepare “them” for his
sufferings, and to impress upon them more fully the certainty that he was
about to leave them, that they might be prepared for it.
3. We may also suppose that he particularly desired it that he might institute for
“their” use, and for the edification of all Christians, the supper which is called
by his name - “the Lord’s Supper.” All his sufferings were the expression of love
to his people, and he was desirous of testifying “always” his regard for their
comfort and welfare.
Before I suffer - Before I die.
CLARKE, "With desire I have desired - A Hebraism for, I have desired most
earnestly. Our Lord’s meaning seems to be, that, having purposed to redeem a lost
world by his blood, he ardently longed for the time in which he was to offer himself
up. Such love did the holy Jesus bear to the human race. This eucharistic passover
was celebrated once, by way of anticipation, before the bloody sacrifice of the victim
of salvation, and before the deliverance it was appointed to commemorate; as the
figurative passover had been likewise once celebrated before the going out of Egypt,
and the deliverance of God’s chosen people. Quesnel.
GILL, "And he said unto them,.... The twelve apostles, as they were eating the
passover, it being usual to talk and converse much at such a time; See Gill on Mat_
26:21.
With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;
not for the sake of eating; for though he was traduced as a glutton, and did often eat
and drink in a free and familiar way, both at the tables of Pharisees, and of publicans
and sinners; yet he was not a man given to appetite; witness his fast of forty days and
forty nights, and his great negligence of himself, which sometimes obliged his
disciples to pray him to eat; see Joh_4:31. Indeed, according to the Jewish canons, it
was not judged proper that a man should eat much on the day before the passover,
that he might be hungry, and eat the passover, ‫,בתאבון‬ "with desire" (l), or with an
appetite. Our Lord may allude to this; but this was not the thing he meant; nor
merely does he say this on account of the passover, as it was God's ordinance; though
as he was made under the law, and that was in his heart, he had a great regard to it,
and a delight in it, which he had shown in his frequent and constant attendance on it
from his youth: but though he had kept many passovers, yet of none of them did he
say what he does of this, which was his fourth passover from his entrance on his
public ministry, and his last: two reasons are suggested in the text why he so greatly
desired to eat this passover; the one is, because he should eat it "with" his disciples;
an emphasis lies on the phrase, "with you", to whom, and not so much to the
passover, and the eating of that, was his desire; as it is to all his people: it was so
from everlasting, when he desired them as his spouse and bride; and in time, when
he became incarnate, suffered, died, and gave himself for them: his desire is towards
them whilst in unregeneracy, that they may be converted; and to them when
converted, notwithstanding all their backslidings and revoltings. His desire is to their
persons, and the comeliness and beauty of them, which he himself has put upon
80

81. them; and to their graces, and the exercise of them, with which he is ravished; and to
their company and communion with them, which he chooses and delights in: and his
desire is towards their being with him to all eternity, and which he delighted in the
fore views of from eternity; and is the joy set before him, and which carried him
through his sufferings and death; and is the amount and accomplishment of all his
prayers and intercession: and the other reason of this his strong desire in the text is,
that this was the last passover, and that his sufferings and death were just at hand,
and which he longed to have over; not that he desired these sufferings, for the sake of
them, which could not be agreeable to, and desirable by his human nature; but
because of the effects of them; since hereby justice would be satisfied, the law would
be fulfilled, sin atoned for, and the salvation of his elect obtained; for whom he bore
the strongest affection, and whom he loved with a love of complacency, and whose
salvation he most earnestly desired, and even sufferings for the sake of it.
HENRY, "1. How Christ bids this passover welcome, to teach us in like manner to
welcome his passover, the Lord's supper, and to come to it with an appetite (Luk_
22:15): “With desire I have desired, I have most earnestly desired, to eat this
passover with you before I suffer.” He knew it was to be the prologue to his
sufferings, and therefore he desired it, because it was in order to his Father's glory
and man's redemption. He delighted to do even this part of the will of God
concerning him as Mediator. Shall we be backward to any service for him who was
so forward in the work of our salvation? See the love he had to his disciples; he
desired to eat it with them, that he and they might have a little time together,
themselves, and none besides, for private conversation, which they could not have in
Jerusalem but upon this occasion. He was now about to leave them, but was very
desirous to eat this passover with them before he suffered, as if the comfort of that
would carry him the more cheerfully through his sufferings, and make them the
easier to him. Note, Our gospel passover, eaten by faith with Jesus Christ, will be an
excellent preparation for sufferings, and trials, and death itself.
JAMISON, "With desire ... desired — “earnestly have I longed” (as Gen_
31:30, “sore longedst”). Why? It was to be His last “before He suffered” - and so
became “Christ our Passover sacrificed for us” (1Co_5:7), when it was “fulfilled in
the Kingdom of God,” the typical ordinance thenceforth disappearing.
COKE, "Luke 22:15. With desire I have desired— This is a Hebraism, signifying
a very fervent and longing desire: "I have longed greatly," said he, "to eat this
passover with you before I suffer, because it is the last I shall ever celebrate with
you, and because I desire, before my death, to give you the strongest proofs of my
love." The proofs that he had in view were, his setting them pattern of humility
and love, by washing their feet;—his instructing them in the nature of his death,
as a propitiatory sacrifice;—his instituting the sacrament of the supper, in
commemoration of his sufferings;—his comforting them by the tender discourses
recorded by St. John, John 14:16 : in which he gave them a variety of excellent
advice, and many gracious promises;—last of all, his recommending them
solemnly by prayer to the protection and guidance of his heavenly Father. The
magnanimity which our Lord discovers in the expression before us, is beyond
conception: it implies, that although he knew this supper would be the last he
should celebrate with his disciples, and that he should rise from it but a few
hours before he suffered the most cruel insults and torments, which would end in
81

82. his death; yet such was his love to his faithful people, such his desire to glorify
his heavenly Father, that no passover was ever so welcome to him as this.
ELLICOTT, "(15) With desire I have desired.—The peculiar mode of expressing
intensity by the use of a cognate noun with the verb of action, though found
sometimes in other languages, is an idiom characteristically Hebrew (comp.
“thou shalt surely die” for “dying thou shalt die,” in Genesis 2:17), and its use
here suggests the thought that St. Luke heard what he reports from some one
who repeated the very words which our Lord had spoken in Aramaic. The whole
passage is peculiar to him, and implies that he had sought to fill up the gaps in
the current oral teaching which is reproduced in St. Matthew and St. Mark. It
was natural that in so doing he might feel some uncertainty as to the precise
position of these supplementary incidents, and hence the difficulties, of no great
importance, which present themselves on a comparison of the three narratives.
The words now before us bear obviously the impression of having been spoken at
the beginning of the Feast. The Master yearned, if we may so speak, for a last
Passover with His “friends,” as we yearn for a last Communion with ours; all the
more so, we may believe, because it was in His purpose to perfect the former by
transfiguring it into the latter. The words have been thought to confirm the view
that our Lord was anticipating by twenty-four hours the strictly legal time of the
Passover. It must be admitted, however, that they-do not in themselves suggest
that thought. All that can be said is that they fall in with it, if proved on
independent evidence.
PETT, "Jesus’ strong words here, which are a clear translation of an Aramaic
idiom ‘desiring I have desired’), stress how important this Passover meal is to
Him. There is a similarity of urgency here with His previous words, ‘I am come
to cast fire on the earth and would that it were already kindled, I have a baptism
to be baptised with and how I am straitened until it be accomplished’ (Luke
12:49). He had steadfastly set His face towards Jerusalem for this purpose, and
now the time had come. He Himself was going forward towards the suffering
that He had predicted and it was in the light of that that He had this great and
burning desire to eat ‘this Passover’ (either the Passover meal or Passover lamb,
the word could indicate either) with them beforehand. He had wanted to share
with them His last hours and His last Passover. Soon He would no longer be with
them, and He knew how much they would miss Him. We are probably also to see
in it how much, humanly speaking, He would miss them and regretted having to
leave them, even though He knew that it was for their good. It may also indicate
His eagerness that what was now about to happen should be over as quickly as
possible, i.e. ‘I have been earnestly waiting for this’.
SBC, “The Passover greatly desired.
I. We cannot enter into the Divine intensity of this desire, but it would seem that the
longing Christ had to eat this Passover with His disciples before He suffered arose,
(1) from the consciousness that, in that hour and in that act He would for ever put an
end to shadows, and bring in the substance of our redemption; (2) because that hour
was the winding up of the long years in which He had waited for His bitter passion;
82

83. (3) that last mournful Passover was a solace to the Son of Man. It was sad, but sweet.
II. What a light these words cast on the Blessed Sacrament which He then
bequeathed to us, and on the law which binds us to it. For (1) it shows us that the
Holy Sacrament is this last Passover continuing still. What was then begun is a
perpetual celebration. In heaven and in earth, it is but one act still, one priesthood
and one sacrifice. The Church is the upper chamber spread abroad; a sphere above
this visible world, hanging over all the earth. It is in all lands, under all skies, upon
the floods and in the mountains, in the wilderness and on trackless shores—wherever
two or three are gathered together, there is the upper chamber, and the paschal table,
the disciples and the Lord of the true Passover, the Sacrifice and the Priest. (2) This
may show us still further that with desire He desires still to eat this sacrament of His
love with us, The first moving cause of this Divine desire is, that He may pour forth
His blessings of power and grace upon us. (a) He desires to apply to us the benefits of
His passion. (b) He desires to give Himself to be our spiritual food. (c) He desires to
make us, even now in this life, behold His love. Love pent up withers away; but
Divine love cannot be straitened; it is like the light of heaven which pours down in
floods upon the earth. Our Redeemer is not only very God but very Man in all the
truth of our humanity, and His human affections follow the laws of our perfect
manhood. With desire He invites us to Himself, that He may show to our intimate
consciousness the personal love which moved Him to give Himself, with full
intention, for each several soul.
H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 248.
Consider some of the reasons why the Saviour desired so earnestly to join in this last
Passover before He suffered.
I. One reason was, that the Passover had now reached its end and found its full
meaning.
II. Another reason was for the support of His own soul in the approaching struggle.
III. Christ desired to be present at the last Passover, because His friends needed
special comfort.
IV. He desired it because it looked forward to all the future of His Church and people.
J. Ker, Sermons, p. 37.
16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it
finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
CLARKE, "Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God - That is, until that of
which the passover is a type is fulfilled in my death, through which the kingdom of
God, or of heaven, (See Mat_3:2), shall be established among men.
GILL, "For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof,.... Of the
passover, and which now, with the rest of the ceremonial law, was to be abolished:
83

84. until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God; signifying, not that he should eat of
it in the kingdom of God, where it would be fulfilled; seeing the passover was never
more to take place, neither in the Gospel dispensation, nor in the heavenly glory;
both which may be meant by the kingdom of God; but that he should never eat more
of it in this ceremonial way, since it would have its accomplishment in each of those
states: and it has been already fulfilled under the Gospel dispensation, which is often
meant by the kingdom of God; in himself, who is the passover sacrificed for us, 1Co_
5:7 for the passover lamb was a type of Christ, and he is the sum and substance of
that shadow, and the fulfilling end of that type; it had its accomplishment in him; of
which See Gill on 1Co_5:7 and it will also be fulfilled in the kingdom of heaven, or
eternal glory, when there will be a perfect deliverance of the saints from sin, Satan,
and the world; which the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt was typical of,
commemorated in the passover; and therefore then will be sung the song of Moses,
and the Lamb; and then will Christ, and his true followers, eat and drink together in
his Father's kingdom, and spend an endless eternity in never fading joys and
pleasures.
HENRY, "2. How Christ in it takes his leave of all passovers, thereby signifying his
abrogating all the ordinances of the ceremonial law, of which that of the passover was
one of the earliest and one of the most eminent (Luk_22:16): “I will not any more
eat thereof, nor shall it by any more celebrated by my disciples, until it be fulfilled in
the kingdom of God.” (1.) It was fulfilled when Christ our Passover was sacrificed
for us, 1Co_5:7. And therefore that type and shadow was laid aside, because now in
the kingdom of God the substance was come, which superseded it. (2.) It was fulfilled
in the Lord's supper, an ordinance of the gospel kingdom, in which the passover had
its accomplishment, and which the disciples, after the pouring out of the Spirit, did
frequently celebrate, as we find Act_2:42, Act_2:46. They ate of it, and Christ might
be said to eat with them, because of the spiritual communion they had with him in
that ordinance. He is said to sup with them and they with him, Rev_3:20. But, (3.)
The complete accomplishment of that commemoration of liberty will be in the
kingdom of glory, when all God's spiritual Israel shall be released from the bondage
of death and sin, and be put in possession of the land of promise. What he had said of
his eating of the paschal lamb, he repeats concerning his drinking of the passover
wine, the cup of blessing, or of thanksgiving, in which all the company pledged the
Master of the feast, at the close of the passover supper.
ELLICOTT, "(16) Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.—The words are
obviously the expression of the same thought as those in Matthew 26:29, where
see Note. Here the word “fulfilled” presents a new depth of meaning. The
“Passover” was fulfilled in the kingdom of God: (1) in the sacrifice on the cross;
(2) in every commemoration of that sacrifice by the acts which He appointed.
Every such act was one of Communion, not only of the disciples with each other,
but with Him, and in it He is, as it were, joining in the feast with them.
Hereafter, as in the promise of Revelation 3:20, “I will sup with him, and he with
Me,” there will be a yet fuller consummation. (Comp. Luke 22:18.)
PETT, "And the reason for this great desire was that this last Passover would
usher in the Kingly Rule of God. Indeed what was now to occur at this Passover,
which symbolised the giving of His body and blood, was what would cause its
fulfilment in the Kingly Rule of God. We must note here that there is a twofold
stress in this Passover meal. The first is in order to fix their eyes on the end at
84

85. which He is aiming (Luke 22:16-18), the establishment of the Kingly Rule of God
on earth which would be composed of all Who responded to Him and His words.
To this end, in the first part of the meal He stresses that He will neither eat the
Passover, nor drink the fruit of the vine, until its fulfilment is come about in the
Kingly Rule of God (Luke 22:16), that is, until the Kingly Rule of God comes
(Luke 22:18). Once this meal is over the final process of establishing for ever the
Kingly Rule of God, for which Israel and the world so long has waited, and for
which He has been laying the foundation, will begin and go on to fruition. (As we
have seen above reference to the ‘coming of the Kingly Rule of God’ always
refers to the present manifestation of that Kingly Rule on earth).
In the second part which then follows (Luke 22:19-20) He fixes their eyes and
their thoughts on the means. It is they who must now do the eating and the
drinking, while He serves them. And He lays great stress on the two symbols of
bread and wine (again indicating eating and drinking) which indicate how in the
process of this fulfilment His body is to be ‘given’ and His blood shed in the
establishment of the new covenant. This will be His greatest service. It is by
continual participation in this latter feast, which will bind them to Him, that they
will be able to ensure the fulfilment of the former, the establishment of the
Kingly Rule of God.
This contrast between His not eating and drinking, and the requirement on them
to eat and drink, must be seen as deliberate. It is a clear pattern (a pattern which
serves to help to confirm the longer version of the text). It brings out His
uniqueness as the Supplier and not the recipient, and His independence of the
means of salvation in contrast to their total dependence on them. And yet they
will all be one, He as the One who makes holy and the Trek-leader of their
salvation, and they as those who are made holy (Hebrews 2:10-11). It also
stresses that shortly He will Himself be elsewhere engaged. He will no longer be
physically with them. He will no longer be able to eat and drink with them
physically.
So the reason for His burning desire here was because He would not be able to
eat this memorial feast with them again on earth. It was to be His last Passover
with these men who had come to mean so much to Him. And it was the last
Passover meal that He would have until the coming of the Kingly Rule of God.
By this He was indicating how close was the coming of this Kingly Rule of God.
It would be fulfilled firstly and primarily as a result of His crucifixion,
resurrection and enthronement, in its manifestation as the word went out in and
from Jerusalem bringing deliverance to the world and establishing the Kingly
Rule of God among men,, and it would come to its final fruition at His second
coming. And while He would no longer be with them in His physical presence,
from now on they must go on drawing on His spiritual power as they go about
establishing His Kingly Rule.
In other words He is trying to inculcate the excitement of the first Passover. Then
Israel had spent a night of excitement in expectancy of the coming day, which
would commence their deliverance, would result in battles to come, and was then
intended to be finalised in the establishing of the Kingly Rule of God in Canaan.
85

86. Now He wants them to recognise that this is a new Passover, a special Passover,
and that this too will lead on to battles to come and a fulfilment in the final
establishing of the Kingly Rule of God.
For He alone knew at this point in time that this Passover was introducing the
most crucial moment in the history of the world. It was the time that was
introducing the offering of Himself as the great Passover Lamb (John 1:29; 1
Corinthians 5:7; Revelation 5:6; Revelation 5:9; Revelation 5:12) and as
commencing the continuing process of the wider establishment of the Kingly
Rule of God, which would finally end in the permanent and total establishment
of the Kingly Rule of God in Heaven where the Lamb as it had been slain would
be seated on the throne (Revelation 5:6). It was the Exodus deliverance not only
being repeated, but being multiplied a hundred time over (compare Luke 9:31
where His death is called an ‘exodus’). The previous Exodus had been intended
to result in a kingly rule of God on earth in Canaan. This one would result in an
extending of the Kingly Rule of God on earth which would finalise itself in an
eternal Kingly Rule of God in Heaven and the new earth, (as prophesied by
Ezekiel and others in terms that the people could then appreciate - Ezekiel
37:27-28; Isaiah 11:1-9; Isaiah 65:17-25).
He was now aware that He would never see another Passover on earth. The first
Passover had been eaten by Israel with the prospect of the coming kingly rule of
God lying before them when they entered Canaan. They knew then that they
would face warfare and suffering, and the need to go out and conquer, but once
the conquest was over the kingly rule of God over all Canaan would have come
about and all Israel would be then be able to come together in triumph (this was
the ideal although in the end it never fully materialised due to disobedience).
Thus we can see why this Passover symbolised to Jesus the coming of the greater
Kingly Rule of God. Through what He was about to suffer the whole process
would be begun and then brought to completion, but, as with the first Passover,
there would be the preliminary establishing of a Kingly Rule, but the final
success would only be once the battles and the suffering were over. Meanwhile
they (the people of God) would be able to continue partaking in the Passover to
the full, once they recognised in it its true significance, that it was He who was
the Passover Lamb, and that they must receive all the benefits of the new
covenant through Him, by partaking of Him as the bread of life (John 6:35)
through His death (John 6:51; John 6:53-58), and by receiving the benefits of
what the shedding of His blood would accomplish. Then would He be celebrating
the Passover with them again, with Himself as the Passover lamb.
It was thus a reaffirmation of His shortly having to experience suffering and
death, and a declaration of the work of conquest that had to be accomplished as
the Kingly Rule of God gradually came to fruition through them (as it began to
do in Acts), and it was a guarantee of the glorious hope for the future when the
final everlasting Kingly Rule of God would finally be established. All this was
within His view at this time. We can compare with it how the Servant knew that
after His death as a guilt offering all would finally come to successful fruition
(Isaiah 53:10-12). The Servant had the same certainty of victory and of what God
86

87. would accomplish. But Jesus’ words were not just a prophecy looking ahead, but
a recognition that now, from this time on, the last battle was beginning that
would result in everlasting triumph once the dark days were over, a battle that
could not fail to be won, for, ‘From henceforth the Son of Man will be seated at
the right hand of the power of God’ (Luke 22:69), something of which Stephen
would also shortly become aware (Acts 7:55-56).
The Passover was in fact also linked with the coming Kingly Rule of God in
Jewish eyes. For they too saw it as symbolising their future deliverance. But the
problem lay in the fact that the eyes of the unbelieving among the Jews were
closed to the realisation that the One Who would bring it about had come. They
had missed what they had been awaiting for so long because their hearts were
actually closed towards God, and too set on their own ideas. And while the
Kingly Rule of God did still from that time continue to spread throughout the
earth, they are still blindly waiting for it to come. But if they too will open their
eyes, as their fathers failed to do, they too can even now enter under His Kingly
Rule in Christ.
‘I will not eat it until it be fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of God.’ ‘It’ naturally
refers to the Passover. Thus He was making clear that this was His last Passover
on earth. They had shared with Him in a number of Passovers (as John’s Gospel
makes especially clear) but this was to be the last in which He would be with
them. And yet it was not to be seen as a tragedy, but as a triumphant
proclamation that He would one day return (1 Corinthians 11:26). For it would
lead to its ‘being fulfilled’ in the establishing of the Kingly Rule of God. The
deliverance by the power of God, which Passover spoke of, would finally be
accomplished. Firstly because through His sacrifice as God’s Passover Lamb the
Kingly Rule of God would become a reality on earth through the power of the
Holy Spirit at work through His Apostles, and through the cleansing effect of the
blood of Jesus, and secondly because as a result the eternal Kingly Rule of God
would finally be established in ‘Heaven’. The deliverance symbolised by the
Passover would be fulfilled in both the near and the more distant future. Jesus’
intention had never been to form a Kingly Rule of God of which the earth was its
permanent base. The prophets had spoken like that because they and their
hearers had had no conception of a heavenly existence for men. But Jesus’
purpose had always been to form a heavenly Kingly Rule of God which would
first be entered by initially believing on earth (John 3:3-6), and which would
then continue for ever. The Kingly Rule of God thus consists of all in both
Heaven and earth who truly believe (Hebrews 12:22-24).
‘I will not eat it until.’ The real aim of these words is in order to stress that the
Kingly Rule of God was really coming, and was coming soon, as it did at
Pentecost. Passover would be ‘fulfilled’ in the Kingly Rule of God because it
would lead on to Pentecost, and the march to victory would have begun. And He
wanted them to know that it would happen before there could be another
Passover at which He could eat.
But it may rightly be asked in what way He could eat the Passover in the future?
Perhaps in fact He did not really mean that He would ever again eat of it, but
87

88. was using it as a way of emphasising that these were His last days on earth.
Possibly He simply meant that what He was promising would occur before there
could be another Passover for Him to eat at. Or possibly He was hinting at the
idea of a spiritual fulfilment of Passover when they sat at His Table in the future
and they again enjoyed Passover, together with Him, along with all His people, in
the eating of the bread and the wine at the Lord’s Supper. And that that would
also be when He, as it were, spiritually drank of the fruit of the vine in company
with them (‘where two or three are gathered in My Name there am I among
them’ - Matthew 18:20) once the Kingly Rule of God had come at Pentecost.
Thus He would again both eat and drink with them once the Kingly Rule of God
was fully established on earth by the Holy Spirit over His people.
Others who see this coming Kingly Rule of God as referring to the coming of the
everlasting Kingdom see the possibility of this ‘eating of the Passover’ by Jesus
as something fulfilled in eternity. It must be remembered in this regard that the
Passover was a memorial of deliverance, and a declaration that the people were
protected by sacrificial blood, and His point could therefore be that in Heaven
and the new earth there will always be a memorial to the cross and a reminder
that we have been redeemed by His blood. That He will always be ‘the Lamb as
it had been slain’ (Revelation 5:6). That all will continue to glory in the cross.
Thus He could have been saying that there will in Heaven be a spiritual
equivalent to the eating of the Passover, when His people will eat heavenly food
and drink heavenly wine in His presence. That there will then be a kind of
Messianic Banquet. But it would, as we have seen, not fit in with the whole
passage.
In that case He would be telling them that eternity would be taken up with their
continually partaking of Him (compare Revelation 21:22; Revelation 22:3-5),
and that He would continually be with them in whatever would, in the new
Heaven and earth, be the equivalent of feasting (see Revelation 21:6; Revelation
22:1-2). Compare how in Zechariah 14 Heaven can be depicted in terms of the
annual Feast of Tabernacles. The idea there is not that we must expect a literal
fulfilment, a going back to the old, a literal slaughtering of beasts, (or in this case
an observance of the Passover with the sacrifice of a lamb), so that the only
things that lambs, who were then able to lie down with lions and wolves (Isaiah
11:6-9), would fear would be humans , but rather a fuller non-sacrificial
fulfilment in the heavenly realm. It would be a feast which represented God’s
triumph.
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and
said, “Take this and divide it among you.
88

89. BARNES, "And he took the cup and gave thanks - This was not the
“sacramental” cup, for that was taken “after” supper, Luk_22:20. 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 thus ingrafted the Lord’s Supper on the Passover, or superseded
the Passover by another ordinance, which was intended to be perpetual.
CLARKE, "He took the cup - This was not the sacramental cup, for that was
taken after supper, Luk_22:20, but was the cup which was ordinarily taken before
supper.
Divide it among yourselves - Pass the cup from one to another; thus the cup
which Christ gave to the first person on his right hand continued to be handed from
one to another, till it came to the last person on his left.
GILL, "And he took the cup and gave thanks,.... There were four cups of wine
drank at the passover, which the poorest man in Israel was obliged to drink; and over
each of which a blessing was pronounced (m): and this was one of them, and seems
to be the first; for the passover was begun by mixing a cup of wine, and blessing it, or
giving thanks over it (n); and which was usually done in the following manner (o):
"blessed art thou, O Lord, our God, the King of the world, who hast created "the fruit
of the vine": blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hath
chosen us above all people, and hath exalted us above every tongue, and hath
sanctified us by his commandments; and thou hast given unto us, O Lord our God, in
love, the stated festivals for joy, and the feasts and seasons for rejoicing; this day of
the feast of unleavened bread, this time of our freedom, a holy convocation, in
remembrance of the going out of Egypt; for thou hast chosen us, and thou hast
sanctified us, above all people; and the feasts of thine holiness with joy and rejoicing
thou hast made us to inherit: blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast sanctified Israel, and
the seasons: blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who hath kept us alive, and preserved
us, and hast brought us to this time.''
After this every one drank of his cup, and put it on the table: accordingly it follows,
and said, take this and divide it among yourselves; that is, every one drink of
it.
HENRY, "This cup he took, according to the custom, and gave thanks for the
deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and the preservation of their first-born, and then
said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves, Luk_22:17. This is not said
afterwards of the sacramental cup, which being probably of much more weight and
value, being the New Testament in his blood, he might give into every one's hand, to
teach them to make a particular application of it to their own souls; but, as for the
paschal cup which is to be abolished, it is enough to say, “Take it, and divide it
among yourselves, do what you will with it, for we shall have no more occasion for it,
89

90. JAMISON, "took the cup — the first of several partaken of in this service.
divide it among, etc. — that is, It is to be your last as well as Mine, “until the
Kingdom of God come,” or as it is beautifully given in Mat_26:29, “until that day
when I shall drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” It was the point of
transition between two economies and their two great festivals, the one about to
close for ever, the other immediately to open and run its majestic career until from
earth it be transferred to heaven.
CALVIN, "As Luke mentions that the cup was twice presented by Christ, we
must inquire, in the first place, if it be a repetition, (as the Evangelists are wont
frequently to say the same thing twice,) or if Christ, after having tasted the cup,
repeated the same thing a second time. This latter conjecture appears to me to be
probable; for we know that the holy fathers, during sacrifices, observed the
solemn rite of tasting the cup; (188) and hence those words of the Psalmist,
I will take the cup of salvation,
and will call on the name of the Lord, (Psalms 116:13.)
I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ, according to the ancient custom, tasted
the cup in the holy feast, which otherwise could not have been correctly
observed; and Luke expressly mentions this, before coming to give an account of
the new mystery, which was a totally different institution from the paschal lamb.
It was in compliance also with received and ordinary custom, that he is expressly
said to have given thanks, after having taken the cup. For at the commencement
of the supper, I have no doubt, he prayed, as he was accustomed never to sit
down at table without calling on God; but now he wished to discharge once more
the same duty, that he might not leave out a ceremony which, I have just now
shown, was connected with the sacred act of taking the cup and tasting it. (189)
COFFMAN, "The cup here in view was not the cup of the Lord's Supper, but the
cup of the simulated Jewish Passover, being observed by Jesus' disciples a day
earlier than the stated time, but which Jesus did not observe. This understanding
is clear from the following summary of the pattern for the Passover meal,
described by Farrar:
1. Each drank a cup of wine, "the cup of consecration," followed by a blessing.
2. Hands were washed, a table carried in, on which were bitter herbs, unleavened
bread, the paschal lamb, dates and vinegar.
3. The father dipped a morsel of unleavened bread and bitter herbs, about the
size of an olive (the sop), in the vinegar, giving it to each in turn.
4. A second cup of wine was poured, and the passover story was rehearsed.
5. The first part of a special song, the Hallel, was sung.
6. Grace was said and a benediction pronounced, after which the food, as in (3),
was further distributed to all.
90

91. 7. The paschal lamb was eaten and a third cup of wine was had.
8. After another thanksgiving, a fourth cup, the cup of "joy," was drunk.
9. The rest of the Hallel was sung.[10]SIZE>
Now it was after this supper that the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper. "After
supper" is specifically designated as the time (1 Corinthians 11:25). No lamb of
any kind was in evidence at this supper.
The cup in view in this verse was connected with the simulated passover and not
the Lord's Supper. As John Wesley put it:
"And he took the cup -" the cup that was used to be brought at the beginning of
the paschal solemnity. "And said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for
I will not drink ..." As if he had said, Do not expect me to drink it: I will drink no
more before I die.[11]
[10] George R. Bliss, op. cit., pp. 313-314.
[11] John Wesley, Notes on the New Testament (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R.
Allenson, Inc., 1950), p. 286.
ELLICOTT, "(17) Take this, and divide it among yourselves.—The cup was
probably the first of the three cups of wine, or wine mingled with water, which
Jewish custom had added to the ritual of the Passover. As being a distinct act
from that of Luke 22:20, it is natural to infer that it had a distinct symbolic
meaning. Looking to the fact that wine is partly the symbol, partly the antithesis,
of spiritual energy in its highest form (comp. Zechariah 9:17; Acts 2:13;
Ephesians 5:18), and to the re-appearance of the same somewhat exceptional
word for “divide,” in the tongues “parted, or divided, or distributed” (“cloven”
is a mistranslation), in Acts 2:3, we may see in this cup the symbol of the
bestowal of the spiritual powers which each of the disciples was to receive,
according to the gift of the self-same Spirit, who “divideth to every man severally
as He will” (the Greek word in 1 Corinthians 12:11 is, however, different, though
expressing the same thought), just as the second was the pledge of a yet closer
fellowship with His own divine life.
PETT, "Verse 17-18
‘And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks (eucharistesas), he said,
“Take this, and divide it (share it) among yourselves, for I say to you, I will not
drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingly Rule of God shall
come.”
During the Passover feast it was customary for four cups of wine to be drunk.
This was therefore probably the first cup, the initial opening of the feast,
although it may have been the second. And Luke probably has the saying that
follows it in the right place. It may be seen as quite likely that Jesus made some
poignant comment as each cup was drunk. It was after all a time of huge
91

92. significance. Luke then draws on His two main emphases, the one to do with the
soon coming and final certainty of the Kingly Rule of God which will not involve
His eating and drinking, and the one which spoke of the giving of His body and
of the new covenant sealed in blood, at which there would be eating and
drinking, for He wants to bring out both stresses individually. Matthew and
Mark meanwhile deliberately limit mention of the drinking of wine to one cup so
as to concentrate the minds of their readers on the cup later used in Communion
at the Lord’s Table. They therefore, in order to introduce these words, had to
tack them rather uncomfortably onto the words of institution which are similar
to those given below, because while they did not wish to omit them altogether,
their emphasis was on the significance of the Lord’s Supper as continually
celebrated by the church. They were combining the two aspects into one for that
purpose.
‘Divide it among yourselves.’ It was normal at the Passover for the presiding
person to drink first and then for the cup to be passed round. So this probably
means that Jesus had taken His first drink and was now offering it to them, so
that each might drink from the cup. It may, however, signify that Jesus did not
drink of it Himself, although in our view this seems unlikely in view of His
statement that He had so desired to share this meal with them. Indeed it would
mar the sense of oneness and unity. But the principle point here is that the wine
at this feast, and possibly in this cup, would be the last wine He would taste, until
the coming of the Kingly Rule of God that lay beyond it (apart from the cup of
suffering - Luke 22:42). It was an indication of how close was the coming of the
Kingly Rule of God, a coming which would be especially revealed by the pouring
out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
The description of this wine as His last taste before the coming of the Kingly
Rule of God was an assertion both of His certain approaching death, and of the
certainty of the coming of the Kingly Rule of God. It was also the guarantee of
His resurrection in preparation for it (for without bodily resurrection He would
not otherwise be able to drink of it again). So it was both an indication of His
coming death and a positive guarantee of His glorious coming victory and of the
‘good times’ that would one day come. It was an assurance that in spite of what
was to happen, the Kingly Rule of God would become a reality. It would begin
once He was taken up and enthroned, and would then continue for ever, and
they could all therefore carry with them this certainty, that they would once
more ‘sup together’ and ‘drink wine’ with Him under His Father’s Kingly Rule
(both on earth and in Heaven, compare Isaiah 25:6-8. See also Luke 12:37; Luke
14:24).
As already mentioned there are two main views about what He means here,
whether He means that they will once more eat and drink with Him in spiritual
fellowship around the Lord’s Table, or whether it refers to His future eating and
drinking in the eternal kingdom. We favour the first, firstly because otherwise
there is a sad lack of reference to the period that will come between His
enthronement and His coming again, and secondly because otherwise it would
indicate that He was telling them to seek humility and glory at the same time, an
unlikely possibility when it was spoken to men who wrongly had their minds
92

93. fixed on the highest place.
In our view we must see His not eating and drinking as a symbol of His
dedicating Himself to dying on the cross (compare Numbers 6:3), and of His
priesthood in offering Himself on it (Leviticus 10:8), as described more fully in
Hebrews 9:11-14.
But those who see it as referring to the coming of the everlasting Kingdom see it
as signifying that the reason why He would not drink was because His work
would not be done until all was accomplished. Cessation from the drinking of
wine indicated to a Jew either the intention of entering on priestly ministry
(Leviticus 10:8) or the intention to take a sacred vow (Numbers 6:3). It was a
symbol of those especially dedicated to a sacred task (Luke 1:15). We are
reminded here that, in Hebrews, Jesus’ future time is seen as being utilised in His
ever living to make intercession for us as our great High Priest (Hebrews 7:25).
No priest entering on his ministry was to drink wine. Thus Jesus may here be
stressing the total dedication of Himself to the saving task that lies ahead.
‘Eucharistesas (when He had given thanks).’ All the cups would be blessed
during the Passover so that this does not identify which cup it was. The verb is
also used by Luke of the bread. The use of this verb without an object is typically
Jewish.
18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the
fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
comes.”
CLARKE, "I will not drink of the fruit of the vine - That is, before the time
of another passover, the Holy Ghost shall descend, the Gospel of the kingdom be
established, and the sacramental supper shall take place of the paschal lamb; for in a
few hours his crucifixion was to take place. See on Mat_26:29 (note).
GILL, "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,.... That
is, wine; see the blessing at the passover cup in the notes on the preceding verse:
until the kingdom of God shall come; with power, as in Mar_9:1 in the
resurrection of Christ from the dead; in his exaltation and session at God's right
hand; in the pouring forth of the Spirit on the apostles; in the conversion of great
multitudes, both in Judea, and in the Gentile world; in the destruction of the Jews; in
the latter day glory; and in the ultimate state of happiness and bliss in the world to
come. The Ethiopic version reads, "until I drink it new in the kingdom of God"; as in
93

94. Mar_14:25.
HENRY, "Luk_22:18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine any more, I will not
have it any more drank of, till the kingdom of God shall come, till the Spirit be
poured out, and then you shall in the Lord's supper commemorate a much more
glorious redemption, of which both the deliverance out of Egypt and the passover
commemoration of it were types and figures. The kingdom of God is now so near
being set up that you will not need to eat or drink any more till it comes.” Christ
dying next day opened it. As Christ with a great deal of pleasure took leave of all the
legal feasts (which fell of course with the passover) for the evangelical ones, both
spiritual and sacramental; so may good Christians, when they are called to remove
from the church militant to that which is triumphant, cheerfully exchange even their
spiritual repasts, much more their sacramental ones, for the eternal feast.
ELLICOTT, "(18) I will not drink of the fruit of the vine.—Better, of the
product. (See Notes on Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25.) Here the words precede, in
the other Gospels they follow, the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is not
probable that the same words were repeated both before and after. The position
which it occupies here, as standing parallel to what had before been said of the
Passover, seems on the whole in favour of St. Luke’s arrangement. On the other
hand, it is noticeable, whatever explanation may be given of it, that St. Matthew
and St. Mark omit (in the best MSS.) the word “new” as connected with the
“covenant,” and emphasise it as connected with “the fruit of the vine,” while he
omits in the latter case, and emphasises it in the former. It is, perhaps, allowable
to think of him as taught by St. Paul, and possibly by Apollos, to embrace more
fully than they did, in all its importance, the idea of the New Covenant as set
forth in Galatians 3, 4, and Hebrews 7-10.
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it,
and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body
given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
CLARKE, "Took bread - See the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper
explained in the notes on Mat_26:26-29 (note).
This do in remembrance of me - That the Jews, in eating the passover, did it
to represent the sufferings of the Messiah, as evident from the tract Pesachim, fol.
119, quoted by Schoettgen.
Why do we call this the great hallel? (i.e. the hymn composed of several psalms,
which they sung after the paschal supper). Ans. Because in it these five things are
contained:
94

95. 1. The exodus from Egypt.
2. The dividing of the Red Sea.
3. The promulgation of the law.
4. The resurrection of the dead. And,
5. The sufferings of the Messiah.
The first is referred to, Psa_114:1, When Israel went out of Egypt, etc.
The second in Psa_114:3, The sea saw it and fled.
The third in Psa_114:4, The mountains skipped like rams, etc.
The fourth in Psa_116:9, I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.
The fifth in Psa_115:1, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give
glory; for thy mercy and thy truth’s sake. See the note on Mat_26:30.
GILL, "And he took bread and gave thanks,.... Or blessed it, as in Mat_26:26.
Here begins the account of the Lord's supper after the passover was eaten;
and brake it, and gave unto them; the disciples, as is expressed in Mat_26:26
saying, this is my body; See Gill on Mat_26:26.
which is given for you; or will be given for you, as an offering for sin in your room
and stead; and accordingly it was given into the hands of men, and of justice, and
unto death. The phrase denotes the substitution and sacrifice of Christ in the room of
his people, and the voluntariness of it; and is only mentioned by Luke in this
account: the Apostle Paul writes, which is broken for you, 1Co_11:24 alluding to the
breaking of the bread in the ordinance, and as expressing the bruises, wounds,
sufferings, and death of Christ: the Ethiopic version here adds, "for the redemption
of many".
This do in remembrance of me; that is, eat this bread in remembrance of my
love to you, and in commemoration of my body being offered up for you. Observe
this ordinance in the manner I now institute it, in time to come, in memory of what I
am about to do for you; for this direction does not only regard the present time and
action, but is intended as a rule to be observed by the churches of Christ in all ages,
to his second coming: and it is to be observed, that the Lord's supper is not a
reiteration, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ. This phrase is only
mentioned by Luke here, and by the Apostle Paul, who adds it also at the drinking of
the cup, 1Co_11:24. The Persic version here reads, "do this perpetually in
remembrance of me".
HENRY, " The breaking of Christ's body as a sacrifice for us is here
commemorated by the breaking of bread; and the sacrifices under the law were
called the bread of our God (Lev_21:6, Lev_21:8, Lev_21:17): This is my body which
is given for you. And there is a feast upon that sacrifice instituted, in which we are to
apply it to ourselves, and to take the benefit and comfort of it. This bread that was
given for us is given to us to be food for our souls, for nothing can be more
nourishing and satisfying to our souls than the doctrine of Christ's making
atonement for sin, and the assurance of our interest in that atonement; this bread
that was broken and given for us, to satisfy for the guilt of our sins, is broken and
95

96. given to us, to satisfy the desire of our souls. And this we do in remembrance of what
he did for us, when he died for us, and for a memorial of what we do, in making
ourselves partakers of him, and joining ourselves to him in an everlasting covenant;
like the stone Joshua set up for a witness, Jos_24:27.
JAMISON, "
CALVIN, "Luke 22:19.Which is given for you. The other two Evangelists leave
out this clause, which, however, is far from being superfluous; for the reason
why the flesh of Christ becomes bread to us is, that by it salvation was once
procured for us. And as the crucified flesh itself is of no advantage but to those
who eat it by faith, so, on the other hand, the eating of it would be unmeaning,
and of hardly any value, were it not in reference to the sacrifice which was once
offered. Whoever then desires that the flesh of Christ should afford nourishment
to him, let him look at it as having been offered on the cross, that it might be the
price of our reconciliation with God. But what Matthew and Mark leave out in
reference to the symbol of bread, they express in reference to the cup, saying,
that the blood was to be shed for the remission of sins; and this observation must
be extended to both clauses. So then, in order that we may feed aright on the
flesh of Christ, we must contemplate the sacrifice of it, because it was necessary
that it should have been once given for our salvation, that it might every day be
given to us.
BENSON, "Luke 22:19-20. And he took bread — Namely, some time after, when
the supper was ended, wherein they had eaten the paschal lamb. And gave
thanks, and brake it — Matthew and Mark say, Blessed and brake it. They do
not say, Blessed it: for the word it, though supplied in our translation in
Matthew, is not in the original: for which reason, and because Luke here uses the
word ευχαριστησας, he gave thanks, many are of opinion that the word God
should be supplied in Matthew; he blessed God. And gave unto them, saying,
This is my body — That is, the representation of my body, to be broken on the
cross. See the like form of expression, Genesis 41:26-27. As our Lord had just
now celebrated the paschal supper, which was called the passover, so, in the like
figurative language, he calls this bread his body. And this circumstance of itself
was sufficient to prevent any such mistake, as that this bread was his real body,
any more than the paschal lamb was really the passover. This do in
remembrance of me — The passover solemnity was usually concluded with
eating a little bread and drinking a cup of wine. Jesus, therefore, when he
instituted the Lord’s supper, did not appoint any new rite, but appropriated an
old one to a new purpose. Hence the propriety of the expression, This do in
remembrance of me. Do it no longer in remembrance of the deliverance from
Egypt, but in remembrance of me, who, by dying for you, will bring you out of
spiritual bondage, a bondage far worse than the Egyptian, under which your
fathers groaned, and will establish you in the glorious liberty of God’s children:
do it in remembrance of me, who, by laying down my life, will ransom you from
sin, and death, and hell; and will set open the gates of heaven to you, that you
may enter immortality and triumph. Likewise also the cup after supper — This
the Jews termed the cup of thanksgiving, it being the cup usually given by the
master of the family to each after supper: and Matthew says, Jesus took this, and
gave thanks. For, at the institution of the sacrament, he not only gave thanks
96

97. before he brake and distributed the bread, but before he delivered the cup, to
show how infinitely we are obliged to God for our spiritual food, the flesh and
blood of his Son, which nourishes the divine life in the soul. Saying, This cup is
the new testament, or covenant, (as the word διαθηκη rather means,) in my
blood — Here is an undeniable figure, whereby the cup is put for the wine in the
cup. And this is called, the new covenant in Christ’s blood, which could not
possibly mean that it was the new covenant itself, but only the seal of it, and the
sign of that blood, which was shed to confirm it. In other words, as the
expression, this is my body, signifies, This is the representation of my body; so,
this is my blood of the new covenant, must signify, This is the representation of
my blood. And Christ’s meaning in the passage is: All of you, and all my
disciples in all ages, must drink of this cup, because it represents my blood, shed
for the remission of men’s sins; my blood, in which the new covenant between
God and man is ratified; so that this institution exhibits to your joyful meditation
the grand foundation of men’s hopes, and perpetuates the memory of the same to
the end of the world.
We here see, then, that it is a primary end of this solemn service, to bring to the
devout remembrance of Christians the death of their Master, as the foundation
of the remission of their sins; and, in short, the whole mercy of the new covenant,
as founded on the shedding of his blood. Therefore, they err who make the
keeping up of the memory of Christ’s death in the world, as a simple fact, the
only end of the Lord’s supper. We may observe, further, that “from our Lord’s
words, here recorded, and from those wherewith the apostle has concluded his
account of the Lord’s supper, 1 Corinthians 11:26, As often as ye eat this bread,
&c., ye do show ( καταγγελλετε, ye preach, ye declare) the Lord’s death till he
come, it appears this sacrament was instituted, not only to bring Christ’s
sufferings, and the consequence thereof, to the remembrance of his disciples, but
to demonstrate the truth of these things to the world, in all ages. In this view, the
Lord’s supper is the strongest proof of his integrity, and of the truth of his
mission; for if he had been an impostor, and was to have suffered death on
account of his deluding the people, is it to be imagined that he would have
instituted any rite with a view to preserve the memory of his having suffered
punishment for the worst of crimes? No: this is beyond all human belief. And
therefore, since by this institution he has perpetuated the memory of his own
sufferings, it is a strong presumption that he was conscious of his own innocence,
that his character was really what the evangelists have represented it to be, and
that our faith in him, as the Son of God, is well founded.” — Macknight.
COFFMAN, "This was the beginning of the institution of the Lord's Supper, the
same being after the last meal they had just shared was concluded, placing it
after (8) and before (9) in the above pattern.
For full comment on "transubstantiation" and other questions, see parallel with
comments in my Commentary on Matthew. Here the eternal commandment of
remembering the Saviour was uttered. The vast difference in Judaism and
Christianity is in this very thing. Under the Law of Moses, there was a
"remembrance" made of sin upon every solemn occasion of worship, even upon
the day of Atonement; but in Christianity, there is no more a remembrance of
97

98. sin, but of the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. See elaboration
of this in my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 10:3-4.
ELLICOTT, "(19, 20) He took bread, and gave thanks.—See Notes on Matthew
26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25. The other two reports give “He blessed,” instead of
“He gave thanks.” There is, of course, no real difference between them.
Thanksgiving and blessing both entered into what we may call the Jewish
“Grace,” and were so far convertible terms. It is noticeable that St. Paul’s
account, in 1 Corinthians 11:23, agrees on this point with St. Luke’s.
Which is given for you.—Literally, which is now in the act of being given. The
sacrifice was already inchoate in will. St. Paul’s report omits the participle.
This do in remembrance of me.—Literally, as My memorial, or, as your
memorial of Me. The words are common to St. Luke and St. Paul, but are not
found in the other two reports. The word for “remembrance” occurs, in the New
Testament, only here and in Hebrews 10:3. In the Greek version of the Old
Testament it is applied to the shew-bread (Leviticus 24:7), to the blowing of
trumpets (Numbers 10:10), in the titles of Psalms 38:1 (“to bring to
remembrance,”) and Psalms 70:1. The word had thus acquired the associations
connected with a religious memorial, and might be applied to a sacrifice as
commemorative, though it did not in itself involve the idea of sacrificing. The
fact that our Lord and His disciples had been eating of a sacrifice which was also
a memorial, gives a special force to the words thus used. In time to come, they
were to remember Him as having given Himself, sacrificed Himself, for them,
and this was to be the memorial in which memory was to express itself, and by
which it was to be quickened. It may be noted that the early Liturgies, as a rule,
follow St. Luke’s report, attaching the word “memorial” sometimes to the bread,
sometimes to the cup, sometimes to both.
GREAT TEXTS OF THE BIBLE, "In Remembrance
This do in remembrance of me.—Luk_22:19.
1. There are many ways in which we may think of the Holy Communion. For it is
many-sided and rich in meaning. There are at least five aspects in which it may
be profitably regarded.
(1) It is a command.—It is something that we are bidden to do. “This do.” We
obey our Lord’s explicit command in meeting and celebrating the Holy
Communion, by partaking of bread and wine together in memory of Him. There
can be no sort of doubt that He did command His disciples to do this; and they
have obeyed His command from the very beginning down to the present day.
Whatever are its benefits, whatever other purpose it serves, it is an act of
obedience, and as such it makes appeal to us.
(2) It is a commemoration.—We do this “in remembrance” of Christ. This is the
aspect of the Holy Communion most strongly and prominently brought out in
the Prayer-Book. It is the Lord’s Supper; this is its first title. We remind
98

99. ourselves in the consecration prayer that our Lord “instituted, and in His holy
gospel commanded us to continue a perpetual memory of His precious death.”
When the bread is given to each one, he is bidden to take and eat in
remembrance that Christ died for him. When the wine is given he is bidden to
drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for him. And as a
commemoration it keeps ever before us the life and death of our Lord, it reminds
us of His teaching, of His words, of His example, of His work for us.
(3) It is a thanksgiving.—This is expressed in the name Eucharist, which means
thanksgiving. Our Lord in instituting this Sacrament began by giving thanks.
“He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it.” So from the very
beginning we read that they brake bread, and “did take their food with gladness
and singleness of heart, praising God.” By the very earliest writers outside the
New Testament, if not in the New Testament itself, this service is called “the
Thanksgiving,” the Eucharist.
(4) It is a fellowship.—This is implied in the very name Holy Communion. It
ought to be to us a constant reminder that our Christian life is an association, not
an isolated life; that some day the whole world shall be bound together with one
heart and one mind, and jealousies, rivalries and competitions shall utterly cease.
Every Christian congregation, and most of all its communicants, pledge
themselves to strive to realize this temper, crushing out all the little quarrels and
huffs and coldnesses and alienations that so often mar the peace of a
congregation, merging minor differences of opinion in the grand unity of love
and worship of Christ.
(5) There is also another fellowship.—“We have,” says St. John, “a fellowship
with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” This fellowship or communion
with God through Jesus Christ is by no means limited to the Holy Communion.
Over and over again it is spoken of independently of that rite. The communion
with God through Christ Jesus is having the same mind in us which was also in
Christ Jesus. He is the Vine, and we are the branches; He is the Head, and we are
the members. When we are called to be Christians, we are called into the
fellowship of Christ; we are incorporated into Him. This union with God
through Christ is a spiritual state, the slowly won result of prayer and self-
denial, and of the love and following of Christ. But it is equally plainly taught
that this fellowship with God is specially realized in the Holy Communion.
I do believe that you have partly misunderstood the meaning of the Holy
Communion. Certainly it should be, it must come to be, the most intimate act of
love between man and God; but it has also, surely, two other aspects at least for
which one should cling to it through years even of uncertainty. First, it is offered
to us as the vehicle of a spiritual Presence coming to work in us and for us,
bound by no laws save those of Spirit, and so able to act as mysteriously as love
(which indeed it is). It is not merely laid upon us as a duty, but let down to us as
a hope; in it God meets us while we are yet a great way off, and teaches and
changes us in ways we do not stop to notice and could not, perhaps, understand.
And, secondly, it is the great means whereby we all realize our unity and
fellowship one with another, in which we try to put aside for a little while our
99

100. own special needs and difficulties and peculiarities, and throw ourselves into the
wide stream of life with which the world is moving towards God. For these two
uses I would cling, I believe, to the Eucharist, by God’s grace, through the loss of
almost all else, even though mists and doubts were thick about me.1 [Note:
Bishop Paget, in Life by S. Paget and J. M. Crum, 66.]
2. It is the second of these five ways of regarding the Supper that we are to
consider at present. The Holy Communion is a commemoration. It is done “in
remembrance.”
The desire to be remembered after death is almost universal in human nature.
There may be some who can say—
Thus let me live unseen, unknown,
Thus unlamented let me die;
Steal from the world, and not a stone
Tell where I lie.
Or like Howard, who said, “place a sun dial on my grave, and let me be
forgotten.” But nearly all men have the wish to live, after they are gone, in the
thoughts and memories of others. They would fain have some kindly
remembrances of themselves in some human bosoms, would fain know that those
they leave behind think of them and remember them with some regret and
esteem. There are few who
To dumb Forgetfulness a prey,
This pleasing anxious being e’er resigned,
Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,
Nor cast one longing, lingering look behind.
On some fond breast the parting soul relies,
Some pious drops the closing eye requires,
Ev’n from the tomb the voice of Nature cries.2 [Note: R. Stephen, Divine and
Human Influence, ii. 65.]
In being conscious of the greatness of His act He differed, says Carlyle, from all
other men in the world. “How true also, once more, it is that no man or Nation of
men, conscious of doing a great thing, was ever, in that thing, doing other than a
small one! O Champ-de-Mars Federation, with three hundred drummers, twelve
hundred wind-musicians, and artillery planted on height after height to boom
the tidings of the revolution all over France, in few minutes! Could no Atheist-
100

101. Naigeon contrive to discern, eighteen centuries off, those Thirteen most poor
mean-dressed men, at frugal Supper, in a mean Jewish dwelling, with no symbol
but hearts god-initiated into the ‘Divine depth of Sorrow,’ and a ‘Do this in
remembrance of me’;—and so cease that small difficult crowing of his, if he were
not doomed to it?”1 [Note: Carlyle, French Revolution, ii. bk. i. ch. ix.]
Let us remember Him (1) for what He has been, (2) for what He has done, and
(3) for what He is.
I
For what He has Been
1. First of all, and in its simplest aspect, His memory is the memory of One who
lived, among men, a human life like their own, and yet a life such as none else
had ever lived before, or has ever lived since. Of that life the Sacrament is a
memorial. It is a memorial of One who, at a time when the world was full of
darkness and unrest, came into it saying that He came from God, and had a
message from God for all whose hearts were weary, whose minds were dark,
whose souls were full of doubts and fears; One who seemed to prove, by the very
nature of His life, that what He said of Himself was true, for it was a life which
shed a brightness and gladness around it, as from a light shining in a dark place.
The little children came gladly to His side. The humble household brightened as
He came, and bestirred itself to give Him heartiest welcome. Sickness and disease
disappeared at His gracious presence; the blind eyes were opened to behold Him;
the deaf ears were unstopped, so that their first sound of human speech should
be His kindly words. Even the dead arose at His command, and re-entered the
homes that they had left lonely, and went out and in among those whom their
loss had made desolate and afflicted. His life was one that gladdened other lives,
and bore about with it one living message of peace on earth and goodwill
towards men.
When you recall the memory of the dead, it is their life you chiefly recall—all
they were, how they looked and worked, what they said, and what they did, and
what they were, all the incidents connected with them during the years you were
together, the happy times you had in each other’s company, the sweet
intercourse you enjoyed, the bright scenes and seasons of communion and
pleasure, or the sad sorrowful times of suffering in your histories, all your hours
of joy, or your hours of sadness and sorrow, all they did for you, all their
ministries of thoughtfulness and kindness for your comfort and happiness, all
that made them helpful to you, all that made them dear to you, all their
gentleness and sweetness and tenderness, all their love, all their affection, all
about them that made them lovable and beloved, and endeared and bound them
to your heart.
Thus marvellous has been the power and influence of the memory of His life over
men and the world. Down through eighteen hundred years, it has been the
loftiest inspiration, and the greatest hope and comfort for human souls. The
world has been made wiser and better and richer and nobler by it, for it has
101

102. enlightened it, and reformed its laws and its institutions and its manners. Men
and women have been made holier and purer by it, for it has exerted a
transforming power over their whole-natures. The inner life it has cleansed, and
the outward it has adorned. It has entered into and purified men’s hearts and
feelings and desires and thoughts and tempers and dispositions. It has put down
pride and vanity, and envy and jealousy, expelled impurity, and made untruth
ashamed. It has cast out evil, and enthroned beauty and goodness in the soul,
and made harsh and rugged and unseemly natures sweet and lovely with
gentleness and meekness and patience and kindness and charity. It has
sweetened enjoyments and brightened and given a new zest to pleasures. It has
sanctified and glorified common work and duties. It has given patience and
fortitude to endure persecutions and sufferings and martyrdom and death in all
its awful forms. It has cheered men amidst struggles, and upheld them in
difficulties and depressions. It has soothed in pain and sickness and weakness,
and in agony of body and mind. It has sustained and calmed human nature in
the bitterest and most heartrending sorrows. It has consoled amid
disappointments and failures and baffled hopes, and given relief amid racking
cares and anxieties. It has brightened the terrible separations of death with the
hope and promise of immortality. In all the worst anguish of life it has been the
power, and the only one, to save from despair; and in the last struggles of death
it has taken out death’s sting, given solace and calmness and hope and peace, and
made the night of mortality radiant with the splendours of redeeming love.
2. It is not simply that Christ is about to die and desires to be remembered. He
has a great Messianic purpose in saying “This do in remembrance of me.” The
law of the Passover had run, “This day shall be unto you for a memorial”; and
our Lord simply puts Himself or His death in the place of the Passover and bids
His followers remember Him. The confidence with which He does so is nothing
short of majestic, Divine. In the popular mind He is a failure. His enemies
consider that they have defeated Him and extinguished His pretensions and His
hopes. His best friends are nervous and trembling with forebodings. In His own
mind alone is there a clear perception of the actual state of matters; in Him alone
is there neither misgiving nor hesitation. Far from hiding from His followers the
ignominious end that awaits Him, He speaks of it freely. He knows they will in a
few hours be scattered. He tells them so; and yet, so far from apologizing for
leading them into difficult and discreditable circumstances, so far from bidding
them forgive and forget Him, He actually bids them set aside the event which
was most memorable to them as Jews, and remember Him instead. His death is
to be more to them than their emancipation from slavery in Egypt. By their
connexion with Him they were to have so complete and all-sufficing a life that
they, prouder of their nationality than any other people, might forget they were
Jews. The Passover had done its work and served its purpose, and now it was to
give place and make way for the celebration of the real deliverance of the race.
Picture Him standing there on the eve of His death, knowing that His influence
on the world in all time to come depended on His being remembered by these
half-enlightened, incompetent, timorous men, and you see that nothing short of a
Divine confidence could have enabled Him to put aside the very core and symbol
of the Jewish religion and present Himself as the hope of the world.
102

103. When I muse upon the Blest
Who have left me for their rest,
When the solitary heart
Weeps within itself apart,
When all thoughts and longings fail
E’en to touch the dark thin veil
Hanging motionless to screen
That fair place we have not seen;
Then I bless the Friend who left,
For the traveller bereft,
First, the Promise to His own,
“Thou shalt be where I am gone;
Thou, when I return to reign,
Shalt be brought with me again”;
Then, the sacramental Seal
Of their present, endless weal;
Of Himself, the living Bond
’Twixt us here and them beyond;
And of all the joys that burn
Round the hope of His Return:
’Tis the Feast of Heaven and Home—
“Do ye this, until He come.”1 [Note: H. C. G. Moule, In the House of the
Pilgrimage, 64.]
3. But the memory of Christ is the memory of more than His beautiful and
gracious human life. It is the memory of One who through that life revealed
God; of One, who said, “I do not stand before you alone, and speak to you by My
own wisdom merely. One is with Me—one whom you know not—even God, God
103

104. whom you must know, whom you must love, through knowledge and love of
whom your souls must live; and whom, that you may know Him, I have come to
reveal to you, and that you may love Him, I have come to reveal to you as your
Father who loves you, who forgives all your trespasses, who calls you into
fellowship with Himself.” His memory is the memory of One who brought these
glad tidings to men. They are glad tidings, in the knowledge of which we have
been so trained, within the sound of which we have so habitually lived, that we
cannot understand their fresh full life for those to whom they were a new
revelation.
We live and move amid the glory and beauty of God’s fair world—in the clear
air of heaven and the bright shining of the sun on high, and we never think of the
priceless blessings of the blowing wind and the joyous sunshine, or of the loss
that would be ours were we to be shut up from these in silence and darkness. But
bring out the captive from the dungeon, where the air is thick and the light pale,
and set him on the mountain’s brow, and he is unconscious almost of all else,
save the glory and freedom of the wind and light. And so, could we whom use has
hardened but transport ourselves for one hour from the society of men whose
life, whether they will or not, is moulded by the principles of the revelation of
Christ—from the atmosphere of a Christian land, from the knowledge of all
Christian truth, from the offices of all Christian charity, from the
neighbourhood of all Christian law, and custom, and culture—to a land where
the name of Christ has never been heard, where the principles of His Church
have never had even the feeblest recognition, where the Christian idea of God is
utterly unknown, we should be able, in some sort, to realize the sense of light and
liberty and confidence which must have filled the hearts of those who, waking
from “the foul dream of heathen night,” or quitting the oppressive rites and
ordinances of the Jewish Law, came into the presence of the Messenger of God,
who said, “God is your Father. He is in Me, and I am in Him. You see Him
revealed in Me. He loves you with an everlasting love. Believe this, and your soul
shall live.”1 [Note: R. H. Story, Creed and Conduct, 114.]
4. How then are we to keep alive the remembrance of Christ? There is only one
way that is entirely worthy, and that is to illustrate the noble spirit of the
Sacrament in loving service. The best way to honour the memory of those we love
is to live lives which they would approve. We are to interpret to the world the
sacrifice of Christ by giving ourselves for others in some such way as He gave
Himself for us. We best honour the memory of our dead soldiers by making the
noblest use of the heritage which they purchased with their blood. Our praise
would be hollow if we were false to our country and made merchandise of liberty
and patriotism. We best honour the memory of Christ by exemplifying His spirit
in our daily conduct.
Our Master was most human in the Upper Room, and with His last wish suggests
irresistibly a mother’s farewell. She does not remind her children that she has
done all things for them at sore cost, for this was her joy. Nor does she make
demands of hard service now any more than in the past. But one thing the
mother hungereth and thirsteth for, and desireth not with words only but with
her eyes as she looketh round on those she can no longer serve, but will ever love.
104

105. “Do not forget me”—how few and short the words, how full and strong are they
written out at large. “Live as I would wish, believe as I have believed; meet me
where I go.”1 [Note: John Watson, The Upper Room, 78.]
When I forget Thee, like a sun-parched land
Which neither rain nor dew from heaven hath wet,
So my soul withers, and I understand
Wherefore Thou gavest me this high command
Not to forget.
When I forget the death which is my life,
How weak I am! how full of fear and fret!
How my heart wavers in a constant strife
With mists and clouds that gather round me rife,
When I forget!
Ah, how can I forget? And yet my heart
By dull oblivious thought is hard beset,
Bred in the street, the meadow, or the mart:
Yet Thou my strength and life and glory art,
Though I forget.
I will remember all Thy Love divine;
Oh meet Thou with me where Thy saints are met,
Revive me with the holy bread and wine,
And may my love, O God, lay hold on Thine,
And ne’er forget.
105

106. And not to-day alone, but evermore
Oh let me feel the burden of the debt—
The load of sorrow that the Master bore,
The load of goodness that He keeps in store,
And not forget!2 [Note: Walter C. Smith, Poetical Works, 494.]
II
For what He has Done
The memory of Christ is the memory of One who closed His perfect life by the
sacrifice of Himself; who sealed His testimony with His blood. It is indeed this,
more than aught else, that the symbols which we use in this Sacrament bring
home to us. It is to this that the words Christ uttered at His last supper chiefly
point. “This,” said He, “is my body which is given for you. This is my blood of
the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” A death for
us, a body wounded, blood poured forth—this is what we are especially
reminded of here. “Why was that body wounded? Why was that blood shed?”
Does any one ask? He who asks will find plenty of excellent doctrines to give him
abundant answer: but what appears always as the living centre of truth within
all doctrine, and far above all, is the simple fact that that death was endured,
that that sacrifice was offered; the simple fact that He who lived the perfect life
and brought to us the saving message of a Father’s love knew that it was needful
for our salvation that He should bow His head and die; knew that, without that
death, sin in us could not be conquered, and death for us could not be overcome,
and that therefore out of His true love to us He was content to die, that we
through Him might live, that we, believing in His love and truth and seeing these
to be stronger than even death itself, might thereby be rescued from the love and
power of our sins, and might be reconciled to the Father, of whose love the Son’s
self-sacrifice was the Divine expression.
It happened once that a family had a father who was a benefactor to the State
and did such service that after his death a statue was erected in a public place to
his memory, and on the pedestal his virtues were engraven that all might read his
name and revere his memory. His children mingled with the people as they stood
in that square and listened to their father’s praise with pride. But their eyes were
dry. This figure with civic robes, cut in stone, was not the man they knew and
loved. Within the home were other memorials more intimate, more dear, more
living—a portrait, a packet of letters, a Bible. As the family looked on such
sacred possessions, they remembered him who had laboured for them, had
trained them from first years, had counselled, comforted, protected them. All he
had done for the big world was as nothing to what he had done for his own.
106

107. When they gathered round the hearth he built, on certain occasions they spoke
of him with gentler voices, with softened eyes while the strangers pass on the
street. This Father is Jesus, and we are His children whom He has loved unto
death.1 [Note: John Watson, The Upper Room, 84.]
1. We commemorate His death.—He gives us as a remembrance of Him that
which inevitably recalls Him as He died. It is His body broken, His blood poured
out, that He sets before us. He does not give us a picture of Himself as He is now
and as John saw Him in vision. He does not appeal to our imagination by setting
before us symbols of unearthly majesty. He desires to be remembered as He was
upon earth and in the hour of His deepest humiliation. And it is obvious why He
does so. It is because in His death His nearness to us and His actual involvement
in our life and in all our matters is most distinctly seen. It is because that is His
most characteristic action; the action in which He uttered most of Himself, all
that was deepest in Him and all that it most concerned men to know. And as we
prize that portrait of a friend which brings out the best points in his character,
even though it is old and he has changed much since it was taken, so do all the
friends and followers of Christ think of Him as He was in His death. They
believe He is alive now, and that now He is clothed with such manifest dignity
and beauty as must attract boundless regard and admiration; but yet it is to the
humble, self-sacrificing, bleeding Christ their thoughts persistently turn. It is
there they find most to humble, most to encourage, most to win, most to purify,
most to bind them to their Lord.
Those who have seen the Russian Pilgrims at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
in Jerusalem have been impressed with the fervour with which they kiss the
marble slab of anointing and other sacred objects connected with the Cross and
Passion of our Saviour. So also in the shrines and churches at Moscow hundreds
of peasants and ordinary business people can be seen at all hours of the day
turning in to kneel for a few minutes and kiss some icon or picture of our Lord.1
[Note: F. S. Webster.]
2. We commemorate His death as the supreme act of His whole work of
salvation.—The Supper is the symbol of Christ giving up His life for us not only
as the highest expression of self-sacrificing love, but in a far deeper sense as the
ground upon which our sins can be forgiven and the Divine life imparted to the
soul. Christ’s suffering for us differs from our suffering for one another by the
whole diameter of human experience. No amount or degree of mere human
suffering can atone for sin. Christ’s suffering was unique in that it was
redemptive. Like ours it was an example, but unlike ours it was a dynamic.
Christ did not die for the world to show His love for it in the dramatic and
useless way that Portia stabbed herself to show her love for Brutus; Christ died
to save the world as none other ever did or could. We cannot fathom the depth of
the mystery of Christ’s death for sin, but this we know, that by it our sins are
forgiven and we are brought into oneness with God.
What was Christ’s death? It was a willing surrender of Himself into the hands of
the Father, knowing at the same time that it was the Father’s pleasure to bruise
Him. It was a willing pouring out of all the hopes of the flesh founded on the idea
107

108. of the continuance of present things; it was an acknowledgment of the
righteousness of the judgment of sorrow and death, which, on account of
transgression, God had laid on the flesh of which He had become a partaker.
And at the same time, while it was a surrender of Himself in filial confidence into
His Father’s hands, it was also in full assurance that He was to be gloriously
rewarded, by being raised triumphantly from the dead as the New Head and
Fountain of life to the Race, by taking hold of whom every child of Adam might
be saved.1 [Note: Letters of Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, i. 250.]
Only to be as the dust that His wounded feet trod,
Only to know and to hear
His love, like the deep-throbbing pulse in the bosom of God,
Slaying my sorrow and fear!
Lord, I remember the sins and the shadows, and yet
I remember the light of Thy face.
Let me but die at Thy feet, and the black trembling horror forget,
And only remember Thy grace—
Forgetting the darkness that walked with me all the way,
The shadow that froze me to see,
Only remembering the joy of the breaking of day
When my soul found Thee.2 [Note: L. Maclean Watt, The Communion Table,
16.]
3. We remember Him for what He has done in bringing us home to God.—In the
Sacrament there is a meeting between God and the soul, and the soul is taught to
find its satisfaction in God. It is taught to look out of itself, beyond itself, for all
that can change, and bless, and exalt, and ennoble it, and give it happiness. It is
not taught to depend upon its own feelings, its earnestness of faith, its power of
hope, its strength of love, or even its utter abnegation of self. It is not left to
imagine that it can raise itself from its fallen state, and effect its own union with
God. No, it is presented as in a state of hunger in this mysterious feast, craving
for God, longing for the powers that are in God to be exercised upon it, and
depending upon God’s own act to unite Himself to the soul. And the soul knows
that this union is possible, that it can be made one with God through God the
108

109. Son having been made man, and having died, and risen, through the working of
His life in itself. The faith of the communicant may be expressed in one single
sentence, “Christ in me, the hope of glory.”
Jesus, in Browning’s beautiful phrase, “calls the glory from the grey”; from the
heart of death itself He plucks the promise of life abounding. They shall come to
see that His Body has been given “for them,” that His Blood has been the seal of
a new friendship formed between them and their Father in heaven. In that holy
feast they shall eat the one, and drink the other. Faith in Him will never die,
while they do that.1 [Note: H. L. Goudge, The Holy Eucharist, 14.]
“He that dwelleth in me and I in him, eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,”
that is, becomes Christ Himself, is a faithful repetition of His life and spirit in
another and individual personality, is so transformed into His spiritual image
that he can say with St. Paul, “It is not I that live, but Christ that liveth in me.”
This is no mysterious, magical statement, but one in deep accordance with the
experience of the human heart. No one who has loved another, or lost one he
loved, who has felt the profound intertransference that passion makes, but will
understand and value it. It gives a real force, a natural meaning to St. Paul’s
words, “the communion of the body of Christ.” The observance of the Lord’s
Supper does not make that communion. It is the form among many others in
which the idea of that communion is most visibly enshrined. But in enshrining
that idea it enshrines another and a higher one—communion with God.2 [Note:
Stopford A. Brooke, Sunshine and Shadow, 214.]
III
For what He Is
1. The mode of remembrance appointed by our Lord reminds us that it is to the
same kind of personal connexion with Him as the first disciples enjoyed that we
are invited. We have the same symbol of our connexion with Him as they had.
We are no more remote from His love, no more out of reach of His influence. All
that He was to them He can be to us, and means to be to us. Our outward
circumstances are very different from theirs, but the inward significance of
Christ’s work and His power to save remain as they were.
As, when our Blessed Lord made Mary Magdalene feel and know that He was
really present with her, she poured out her whole heart in the burning fervour of
that acknowledgment, “Rabboni.”—my Master, my Lord, my All—so by our
every act and word we try to express to the Blessed Jesus what He is to us. Our
whole soul fastens on Him. Our spirit has no eye for any one, or anything else.
Our gaze is fixed on Him. He is with us, and we are with Him. We know what He
is in Himself, how pure, how fair, how holy, how perfect. We know what He has
been to us, how loving, how tender, how compassionate, how full of healing, and
pardon, and peace. And so every hymn is full of His praises; and every gesture is
an act of loving reverence to Him; and every sacred rite speaks of Him. We are
in His court, and under His eye, and there is an interchange of love between Him
and us. On our side there is the love of reverence. On His side there is the love of
109

110. a gentle, fostering, soothing protection.
Above all, it was necessary for a right understanding, not only of Dr. Arnold’s
religious opinions, but of his whole character to enter into the peculiar feeling of
love and adoration which he entertained towards our Lord Jesus Christ—
peculiar in the distinctness and intensity which, as it characterized almost all his
common impressions, so in this case gave additional strength and meaning to
those feelings with which he regarded not only His work of Redemption but
Himself, as a living Friend and Master. “In that unknown world in which our
thoughts become instantly lost,” it was (as he says in his third volume of
sermons) his real support and delight to remember that “still there is one object
on which our thoughts and imaginations may fasten, no less than our affections;
that amidst the light, dark from excess of brilliance, which surrounds the throne
of God, we may yet discern the gracious form of the Son of Man.”1 [Note: A. P.
Stanley, Life and Correspondence of Thomas Arnold, i. 32.]
2. Again, He bids us “Do this,” to remind us that we must daily renew our
connexion with Him. He desires to be remembered under the symbol of food, of
that which we must continually take by our own appetite, choice, and
acceptance. We do not gather at the Lord’s Table to look at a crown, the symbol
of a king who governs by delegates and laws and a crowd of officials, and with
whom we have no direct connexion. We do not assemble to view the portrait of a
father, who gave us life, but of whom we are now independent. We do not come
to garland a tomb which contains the mortal part of one who was dear to us and
who once saved our life. But we come to renew our connexion with One who
seeks to enter into the closest relations with us, to win our love, to purify our
nature, to influence our will. It is by maintaining this connexion with Him that
we maintain spiritual life; by taking Him as truly into our spirit by our
affections, by our choice, and by our faith as we take bread into our body.
Soon, all too soon, from this blest Sacrament
Back to the glare of day our feet are bent;
Soon wakes the week-day sun, and brings along
The cares and clamours of our human throng;
The world’s loud laughter, threats, or whisper’d spells,
Life’s battles, burthens, weeping, songs, and knells.
But we who from that Paschal Chamber come
Still in its shadows find our quiet home,
Safe in its precincts, near our Master’s heart,
’Midst all the stress of travel, school, and mart.
110

111. And still that Cross goes with us on our way;
We feast on that great Sacrifice all day.
The sealing Symbol comes but then and there;
The Truth is ever ours, and everywhere;
Faith needs but stretch her hand and lift her eyes,
And ready still for use her Banquet always lies.2 [Note: H. C. G. Moule, In the
House of the Pilgrimage, 68.]
3. And the Holy Supper had its heavenly counterpart. The Jews were wont to
picture the felicity of the Kingdom of Heaven under the image of a glad feast.
“This world,” said the Rabbi Jacob, “is like a vestibule before the world to come:
prepare thyself in the vestibule that thou mayest be admitted into the festal
chamber.” And it is written: “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of
God.” “Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” “Blessed are they
which are bidden to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And the feast of the
Passover was a foreshadowing of that heavenly banquet. It commemorated the
exodus from the land of bondage, but it was more than a commemoration. It was
a prophecy, and when the worshippers sat at the holy table, they thought not
merely of the ancient deliverance but of the final home-gathering.
It is an ancient and abiding thought that the visible world is the shadow of the
invisible, and everything which it contains has its eternal counterpart. This
thought runs all through the Holy Scriptures. It finds its highest expression in
the teaching of our Blessed Lord. In His eyes earth was a symbol of Heaven. He
pointed to human fatherhood and said: See there an image of the Fatherhood of
God. “If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how
much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that
ask him?” And each familiar thing—the lamp, the net, the seed, the flowers, the
birds, the wandering sheep—served Him as a parable.
For, nowise else,
Taught He the people; since a light is set
Safest in lanterns; and the things of earth
Are copies of the things in Heaven, more close,
More clear, more intricately linked,
More subtly than men guess. Mysterious,—
111

112. Finger on lip,—whispering to wistful ears,—
Nature doth shadow Spirit.1 [Note: D. Smith, The Feast of the Covenant, 177.]
From Mentone, where he spent the first winter of his illness, Dr. Robertson
wrote to his congregation at home:—
“By the time this may be read to you, your Spring Communion will be over.
Again, from the hands of the officiating elders, or rather, as I trust, from
Christ’s own pierced hand, you will have received the symbols of His sacrifice,
and said, as you received Himself afresh into your hearts, ‘This we do in
remembrance of Thee.’ Again, the Great High Priest, King of Righteousness, and
therefore also King of Peace, has brought down the bread and wine from the
altar of His atonement to feed you, returning, weary from the battle, but I trust
victorious over the evil; and in the strength of that meat may you go onward,
conquering the evil, and battling for the right, and good and true, so as at last to
have an entrance administered to you abundantly into the Kingdom, as part of
the victorious ‘Sacramental host of God’s Elect.’ ”1 [Note: A. Guthrie, Robertson
of Irvine, 287.]
COKE, "Luke 22:19. This do, &c.— From our Lord's words here recorded, and
from those wherewith the apostle has concluded his account of the sacrament, 1
Corinthians 11:26. (—for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do
shew the Lord's death till he come, — καταγγελλετε, ye preach,—ye declare the
Lord's death, ye assure the world of the truth of it,)—it appears that the
sacrament of the supper was instituted, not only to bring Christ's sufferings, and
the happy consequences thereof, to the remembranceof his disciples, but to
demonstrate the truth of these things to the world in all ages. In this view the
sacrament of the last supper is a most strong proof of our Lord's integrity, and of
the truth of his mission. For if he had been an impostor, and was to have suffered
death on account of his deluding the people, is it to be imagined that he would
have instituted any rite with a view to preserve the memory of his having
suffered punishment for the worst of crimes. This is beyond all human belief;
and therefore, since by this institution he has perpetuated the memory of his own
sufferings, it is a strong proof (though such proofs are not wanted) that he was
conscious of his own innocence; that his character was really what the
evangelists have represented it to be; and that our faith in him, as the Son of
God,is well founded.
PETT, "Verse 19-20
‘And 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, this do in remembrance of
me.” And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”
And then Jesus came to the second part of what He wanted to convey to His
disciples from the Passover feast. For in one sense in taking the Passover bread
and breaking it before passing it to them He was treating it like a regular meal
(usually the blessing came after the passing out of the Passover bread). He was
112

113. indicating that what He was doing had a special purpose connected with Himself,
that the blessing would flow out from Himself. It was a reminder of the feeding
of the multitude (Luke 9:16-17), and a guarantee that He would feed them in the
days to come (Luke 24:30-31; John 6:53-58). He wanted them to see in this bread
His body given for them on which they could feed as they continually came to
Him and believed on Him. He wanted them to see Him as the One Who could
feed their souls and give them continuingly abundant life (John 10:10).
He no doubt had in mind His words in John 6:35, ‘I am the bread of life (which
had come down from Heaven and gives life to the world - Luke 22:33), he who
comes to me will never hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst’. And
His later words, ‘I am the living bread who came down from Heaven. If anyone
eats of this bread he will live for ever. And the bread which I shall give for the
life of the world is my flesh’ (John 6:51). Thus in speaking of the giving of His
body He was conveying the fact that through His death He was offering them
life, eternal life (John 4:10-14) and that they would enjoy that lifeas they kept on
coming to Him and kept on believing in Him. This was no offer of a semi-
magical, mystical method of conveying something inaptly called ‘grace’, but an
offer of a living and continual personal relationship with Himself, an abiding in
the vine (John 15:1-6).
We must remember that eating flesh and drinking blood was a vivid Old
Testament way of describing the killing of people. In the Old Testament, when
the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalms
14:4; Psalms 53:4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who
hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3:3),
both were indicating the actions of those who were doing great harm to them,
including slaughtering them. To eat flesh is therefore to partake in the benefits
resulting from the suffering of another.
By eating the bread they would certainly not be indicating that they themselves
would kill Him, at least not directly (although their sins would kill Him), but by
their act they were equally certainly indicating their need to partake of His
suffering, to receive benefit through His suffering, and that it was their sins
which were responsible for His death. They were partaking in His death. Others
would kill Him, what they would do was benefit through His death and become a
part of it (see John 6:54). Thus this was not meant in any quasi-magical sense. It
was to be a spiritual act. The bread could not be His body, even by a miracle, for
He was Himself at that time there in His body (so those who try to make it more
have to call it a ‘mystery’, which in this case means something that not only
defies common sense and logic, which might be possible, but is totally self-
contradictory, which is not possible. Even the greatest of miracles could not
make a piece of bread eaten at a table the same as a human body present there
alive at the same table!). In sensible interpretation it had to mean ‘this represents
my body’ (compare the use of ‘is’ in Luke 8:11; Galatians 4:24; Revelation 1:20)
just as the bread at the Passover represented the bread of affliction.
When eating the Passover bread the Jews saw themselves as partaking in the
sufferings of their ancestors. In a sense they actually saw themselves as one with
113

114. them in corporate unity. Thus they enjoyed a genuine spiritual experience of
oneness with their deliverance (although the bread remained the same). In the
same way when Christians eat of this bread they see themselves as partaking in
the death of Christ, as having been with Him on the cross (Galatians 2:20). So by
recognising and acknowledging their close participation with Him in His death
by faith they recognise that through it they have received eternal life. But no
further lamb is slain or is needed. No further offering is made, or needs to be
made. Nothing needs to be done to the bread. He is the one sacrifice for sin for
the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; John
4:42; 1 John 4:14). They rather recognise that His offering of Himself once for all
(Hebrews 9:28) is something that they continually participate in, and that they
participate by constantly coming to Him and believing in Him (John 6:35). Thus
do they eat of His flesh and drink of His blood by benefiting through His death
(John 6:53-56), just as in the Old Testament men ‘ate flesh’ and ‘drank blood’
when they benefited by their deaths, and just as the Jews became partakers in
the blood of the prophets by consenting to their deaths (Matthew 23:30).
‘This do in remembrance of Me.’ By these words He was also setting up a means
of remembrance and continual participation in what He was to do for them. That
was what the Passover had always been to the Jews. As they participated in it
they felt that once again they were back in Egypt and God was coming down to
deliver them. They recognised that once again they were His people, awaiting His
powerful working. They felt as though they were being delivered again. When
they ate the bread they said, ‘This is the bread of affliction that we ate in Egypt’.
And they really felt that it was, for the ‘we’ represented the whole body of Israel
past and present. They felt as though they were there once again, at one with
their forefathers, that they were a continuation of their forefathers. It was not
just a memorial but a ‘remembrance’ (difference ours, the Greek word could
mean either) in which they were taken back in time and participated again with
their ancestors of old in the mighty working of God. And it was all with the hope
that one day it would happen again and introduce God’s kingly rule.
In the same way when the disciples, and those who came to believe on Him
through their words, took bread in this way and ate it, they were to feel that they
were once again walking with Jesus and supping with Him. They were to feel as
though they too were entering personally into His brokenness on the cross. They
were being crucified with Him (Galatians 2:20). And they were then to sense that
they were receiving new life from Him as the branch receives it from its oneness
with the vine (John 15:1-6), and dying and rising again with Him (Romans 6:4;
Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 2:1-6). And if their hearts were rightly disposed
towards Him, that is what would happen. And they were to see that they were
renewing their covenant with Him, a covenant sealed by His blood, that
guaranteed their position before the Father as His children (2 Corinthians
6:16-18). This last idea of the covenant is central to the Lord’s Supper. It is to be
more than a memorial, it is to be a personal remembrance, a full participation in
Him through the Spirit, and a recommitment to His covenant through which full
salvation has come. But there would be nothing mysterious about the bread. The
bread would not change either physically or spiritually (any more than the
Passover bread did). It would rather be the point of contact through which they
114

115. came in touch with the crucified and living Christ, coming to Him and believing
on Him continually, enjoying His presence among them (Matthew 18:20;
Matthew 28:20) and thus enjoying life through His name.
We should note that Jesus said ‘do this’ not ‘offer this’. It was an act of
remembrance not an offering. The offering was of Jesus, made once and for all
on the cross. The ‘doing’ of this was a remembrance of that offering. The wine
did not replace His sacrifice or even mime it. It was a memorial of the blood that
had been shed.
It is difficult to overstress the significance of what this change to the Passover
ritual meant. Consider the extraordinary fact. Here Jesus was taking over the
Passover, as He had taken over the Sabbath (Luke 6:5), and was applying it to
Himself. No ordinary prophet would ever have dared to do this. Humanly
speaking it was outrageous, unless the One Who did it was God Himself (which
is why Jesus made this crystal clear at this time - John 14:6-9). For it was to
make out that what He was about to do was as great, if not greater, than what
God, their Almighty Lord, had done at the Passover. It was to supplant the God-
ordained Passover. It was replacing the Passover by the new deliverance being
wrought by Him through the cross. In His death and resurrection it would be He
Who would ‘pass over’ His people, protecting them from the wrath to come, and
making available for them the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47). It was
declaring that in Him was fulfilled all that the Passover had meant to Israel, and
more. Here was God’s final and full act of deliverance for all who would shelter
beneath His blood. It was the fulfilment of all that the Passover had meant, and
to which the Passover had pointed.
‘And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant
in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.” ’ And in the same way,
when He took what was probably the third cup, (they were all cups of blessing,
but this was especially thought of as the cup of blessing), to be taken after eating
the Passover meal, He told them that it was the symbol of the new covenant in
His blood, a covenant sealed through the death of the Victim, and by
participation in the Victim. This took their minds back to the days at Mount
Sinai when the covenant had been offered and the people of God had accepted it
and had sealed it with the shedding of blood, the blood of His covenant, ‘the
blood of the covenant that He has made with you’ (Exodus 24:8). Then animals
had been offered in substitution and representation, and the blood had been
sprinkled on the people. Here then also was the sealing of a covenant in blood,
but this time it was in His blood, of which they in symbol ‘drank’ by receiving
the wine as they responded spiritually to Him in dependence on His sacrifice.
And the covenant was the new covenant by which God guaranteed to do a
transforming work in their hearts and lives (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews
8:8-13), bringing them full forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 26:18) and
inheritance among those who were made holy in Him (Acts 26:18).
Thus when they drank wine in the future (or when they participated in the
equivalent of the Passover in the future) they were to see in it a remembrance of
His death. The redness of the wine would remind them of His blood shed for
115

116. them. The drinking of the wine would remind them that they partook in the
benefits of His death. Just as their fathers had partaken of the blood of the
prophets by participating in killing them (Matthew 23:30), so they partook of the
blood of Jesus because they were participating in His death and receiving
forgiveness for their sins (Luke 24:47; 1 John 1:7), the very sins which had
brought about His crucifixion and were therefore responsible for His death. For
the cup of the new covenant in His blood was ‘poured out for them’ (so the
Greek), as He was, like the Servant of the Lord described of old (Isaiah 53:12),
numbered with the transgressors (Luke 22:37). Thus by coming to Him and
believing in Him through participation in the bread and the wine they would be
continually enjoying forgiveness and eternal life in His name. They would be
abiding in Him (John 6:53-56). They would be guaranteeing, as long as their
inward hearts were in parallel with their outward action, their participation in
the new covenant in His blood.
Once again He was taking a familiar Old Testament metaphor. In Zechariah
9:15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink
their blood (the blood of their enemies) like wine’ signifying a triumphant
victory and the slaughter of their enemies. And David used a similar picture
when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured
it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of
the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Furthermore Isaiah brought both
metaphors of eating and drinking together when he said of the enemies of Israel
that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be
drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49:26), signifying that they
would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood
meant killing someone or benefiting by their death.
So as we partake of the Lord’s Supper we are indicating that, as David would
have done if he had drunk the water brought to him by those who loved him, we
are seeking to benefit by His sacrifice of Himself. We are partaking in His death.
We are making His death our own, so that we might enjoy His life springing up
within us.
EXCURSUS on the Problems of 22:19-20.
It is sad that at this sacred point in the narrative it is necessary to pause in the
midst of having our thoughts fixed on Christ in this way in order to briefly
consider some of the problems connected with these verses. (A book could be
written on each). Those who are not concerned with the kind of things that we
will consider here can pass on and ignore this Excursus. But the first problem
that we have is as to whether a part of these verses is actually in the original text
of Luke (our conclusion will be a definite ‘yes). The second is as to how Luke’s
words tie in with the other Gospels and with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians
11:23-26. And the third is as to whether the bread and the wine are but symbols,
or whether they are more than symbols.
1). What part of these verses were not in the original text, if any?
116

117. To simplify the matter we can say that there is one important Greek manuscript,
and only one, which excludes the latter part of these verses. It excludes the
words, ‘which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in
like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
even that which is poured out for you.” ’ All the other most important Greek
manuscripts include the words. Only D does not. D is, however supported by Old
Latin versions and other manuscripts of versions (e.g. a b d e ff2 i l). Still others
rearrange the verse order (e.g. Syriac s c). And some would argue that it is so
unlikely that it would be omitted if it was once there that this must indicate that
it was not in the original version of Luke. But paradoxically the actual
abundance of it in Old Latin manuscripts, and the lack of the omission
elsewhere, rather emphasises a localised omission.
If there had been a number of witnesses on both sides, of a fairly even and
general nature, the argument from omission would have seemed conclusive. But
against it here is the argument as to how the same words, which are not
specifically reproduced from elsewhere word for word, could possibly have
found their way into all other Greek manuscripts in approximately the same
form, especially considering their widespread nature, apart from D, if it was not
there in the original. It is statistically impossible. It would seem logically from
the evidence that the omission must only have occurred in a text going to the area
where D was prominent, and that the words were present in all others, which
would serve to confirm that the original text of Luke, sent everywhere else,
included it. Otherwise surely some other Greek texts and versions must have
arisen in other areas excluding it. This solidarity of evidence is especially
impressive because such an early witness as Justin Martyr (c.150 AD) includes it,
even though he may well have been connected with the area in which D arose (D,
which has within its pages parallel Greek and Latin texts, is probably a Western
text, although this is disputed by some). On balance this is firmly and finally
conclusive for the inclusion of it. Those few secondary witnesses which then have
it included in a different order may be seen as an attempt to restore the text
without having the full information necessary for the restoration, or perhaps as
an attempt to fit it to the tradition that they used for the observance of the feast.
Then we must add a further argument and that is the fact that the whole of what
is said in these verses is required by the balance of Luke’s account. The first
mention of eating and drinking was of ‘not eating and drinking’ by Jesus. In
view of His then introducing the bread we would surely then expect some
comment on the eating and drinking of the disciples. Thus the verses fit aptly in
their place.
But why should D have excluded it? Various possible suggestions can be made.
Clearly the first possibility is that it happened in a very early manuscript, (from
which it was then copied in the area to which it went), through the carelessness
and sleepiness of an official scribe. Even today great scholars can very
occasionally make the most enormous howlers simply because their attention has
slipped for a brief moment in the complexity of what they are dealing with and
they never catch up on their error, and that in spite of the facilities that they
enjoy that early copyists never dreamed of. It is true that it was a huge mistake
117

118. to make, but it could have happened. Perhaps he got so caught up in the words
that he actually forgot to write them down, and then thought that he had done
so, and carelessly continued as though they were there. Copying was a long,
laborious and tiring task, and checking almost equally laborious. It was not
unusual for a dedicated scribe to end up absolutely exhausted, and in such a
state anything could happen. Secondly it may have been copied from a
manuscript of Luke’s Gospel which had had the words deliberately excised in
order to prevent the ‘sacred and most secret’ words of the most sacred Christian
ceremony being publicised to outsiders in the area to which it went. (Or possibly
for this reason Luke’s copy to Theophilus omitted it). Or it may have been
omitted because it did not agree with the tradition that the copyist’s church used
in the observance of the Communion/Lord’s Supper (the Didache omits the
sacrificial reference when describing their tradition of the Lord’s Supper) People
can do funny things when they regard something as ‘sacred’. That would, of
course, raise the questions to why it was not also done in Matthew and Mark.
But the answer to that may be that it was because the alteration took place in the
separate manuscript of Luke that the later copyist used, or because his church
actually used the version in Matthew and Mark. Thirdly, not knowing much
about the Passover feast, he may have been concerned at the mention of two
cups, and having already entered in about one cup, decided to omit the second.
But if that were the case we would not have expected him to end quite as
abruptly as he did. Or his decision may have been the result of the fact that he
was unhappy that Luke’s version did not seem quite to conform with Matthew
and Mark, and was therefore better left out. For the scribe would know that the
church for whom he wrote the manuscript would be well aware of the words
used in their own communion services and could include them themselves, and
would have Matthew and Mark to work from. This might especially be the case
if he knew of fierce disputes about which words were correct. Thus he may have
decided to leave the solution to the question up to them. And in considering any
of these arguments we should note how abruptly the shorter reading ends. It
requires a concluding comment which does not appear in the shorter reading.
Something certainly seems to be missing in the shorter version, especially to
anyone who did observe Communion/the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps this copyist
wanted each church to fill in the gap with their own traditional version of the
sacred words. Another possibility is that having already written about the wine
and the bread his mind might have temporarily ‘switched off’ so that when he
picked up again he did so after the (second) giving of the wine. If this manuscript
was then widely used in Old Latin areas (a copy of it was after all preserved,
which suggests that it may have been an ‘official’ text) it would explain the
comparative ‘abundance’ of Old Latin Texts which had the omission in them, as
compared with those found elsewhere. So all in all there are many possible
explanations and the facts would in our view seem to suggest very strongly that
in this case the longer reading is correct, while the shorter one arose from an
early copying error, mainly because of the impossibility of it otherwise being
contained in all other Greek manuscripts.
2). Why are their different versions of the words in the Gospels and in Paul?
In answering this question we shall first consider the breaking of the bread
118

119. passages, putting in capitals the words which are exactly the same. And in doing
so we must remember that none of the writers record all Jesus’ words. Each is
translating, and each selects what is suitable to the point that he is getting over.
It is not therefore in the main a choice between either/or but of both/and.
Matthew 26:26 'And as they were eating, Jesus TOOK BREAD, and blessed, and
BROKE IT, and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY
BODY.'
Mark 14:22 'And as they were eating, he TOOK BREAD, and when he had
blessed, he BROKE IT, and gave to them, and said, Take you, THIS IS MY
BODY.'
Luke 22:19 'And 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. This do
in remembrance of me.'
1 Corinthians 11:23-24 'For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered to
you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed TOOK BREAD,
and when he had given thanks, he BROKE IT, and said, "THIS IS MY BODY,
which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." '
Common to all is that HE TOOK BREAD, BROKE IT AND SAID, 'THIS IS
MY BODY', stressing the essential unity of the passages. Matthew adds to Jesus'
words, 'Take you, eat', Mark adds 'Take you'. Luke and Paul omit this but it is
clearly implied. Luke adds, 'Which is given for you, this do in remembrance of
me,' and Paul adds, 'which is for you, Do this in remembrance of me'. Paul's
'which is for you' parallels Matthew's 'take, eat' and especially Mark's 'take
you'. Luke's 'given for you' simply amplifies the idea. Thus the basic idea is the
same in all, with small differences of presentation in order to bring out
particular points. The additional words, 'Do this in remembrance of me' are, of
course, really required in order to explain the perpetuation of the feast
throughout the early church. Thus even if we had not been told about it we
would have had to assume it. Indeed, while 'This is my body' would certainly be
impressive standing alone, it does require extra words for it to make sense to the
hearers. It is possibly the writers and ministers who like dramatic pauses, and
not the original speaker, who wish it to stand in its starkness, knowing that the
readers/recipients would know its deeper significance. Of course, what His exact
words were in Aramaic can only be postulated, for we only have the Greek
translations. But the Greek in each case gives the true essential meaning of what
He was saying.
Slightly more complicated are the words about the cup.
Matthew 26:27-28 'And he took a CUP, and gave thanks, and gave to them,
saying, Drink you all of it, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT,
which is poured out for many to remission of sins.'
Mark 14:23-24 'And he took a CUP, and when he had given thanks, he gave to
119

120. them, and they all drank of it, and he said to them, THIS IS MY BLOOD of
THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many.'
Luke 22:20 And the CUP in like manner after supper, saying, THIS cup IS THE
new COVENANT in MY BLOOD, even that which is poured out for you.'
1 Corinthians 11:25 'In the same way also the CUP, after supper, saying, "THIS
cup IS THE new COVENANT in MY BLOOD. Do this, as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of me.'
In each Jesus takes a cup and says either, 'This is the covenant in my blood', or
alternatively the more stark equivalent in Hebrew form, 'This is my blood of the
covenant'. The former is interpretive of the latter. The ‘new’ may have dropped
out in Matthew and Mark because it was felt to be superfluous, or Luke and
Paul, in interpreting, may have added that it was a 'new' covenant, because they
wanted their Gentile readers to know that it was not just the old Jewish covenant
renewed. But all would be aware that it was in fact a new covenant, partly in
accordance with God's promise in Jeremiah 31:31, and partly because it was 'in
His blood' and looked to the cross, and Jesus' very words and actions thus
demanded it even if He did not say it. Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that He
said, 'which is poured out for ---'. Mark simply adds, 'for many', Luke adds. 'for
you' and Matthew adds 'for many to remission of sins'. Paul omits this but adds,
'Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me', which is actually
required to be said by Jesus (or something like it) to establish the permanence of
it as a symbol. As Mark's 'for many' probably has Isaiah 53, 11, 12 in mind it has
the same significance as Matthew's longer phrase 'for many to remission of sins'.
'Luke's 'you' simply personalises it, recognising that the 'you' is by then being
spoken to the whole church who are the 'many' for whom Christ died. Thus the
essential meaning is again the same. And as with the bread the importance of
doing it in remembrance must at some time have been said by Jesus for the
Apostles to take up the feast and perpetuate it as they did. The slight overall
differences emphasise the point each is seeking to bring out as they translate or
paraphrase from the Aramaic, without altering the basic sense. Essentially all
are saying the same.
3). Are the bread and wine symbols only, even though very important ones, or do
they become more than that?
To some extent we have already dealt with this question, but we must now
expand on it. The bread and wine were never intended to be ‘dispensed’ by some
authoritative figure as though divine favour could be dispensed. No human
person was ever intended to take control over them. There is never any
suggestion of that in Scripture. Each person who ate and drank the bread and
wine was intended to look directly to God as they ate and drank it together with
the fellow-members of their church. The whole point of the Passover meal was
that it was a ‘family and friends’ occasion. While the head of the household
might call on God for blessing while distributing the bread, there was no thought
of priestly ministry.
120

121. But as always eventually human beings had to take control of them. At first it
was genuinely in order to protect them from being used casually (compare the
need in 1 Corinthians 11:27-30). But it was not long before those who thought of
themselves more highly than they ought to think began to use them as a means of
control. They began to give the impression that by dispensing them or
withholding them they could control men’s salvation. And then they even began
to entrap God within them and hang Him up in a casket for all to see, and to
speak of the bread and wine as though it actually became the body and blood of
Christ. So easily can such a sacred ceremony be turned into something which it
was never intended to be. Fallen man has an innate tendency to bastardise pure
religion, especially if by it he can control people. (The same thing happened
originally in primitive religion in exactly the same way, where the basic idea of
the All-father gradually became debased into polytheism and magic).
For, as we have pointed out above, the bread at the actual Last Supper could
never have become His body in any real sense at all whether physical or
spiritual. When he said, ‘this is my body’, it could not possibly have been taken
literally. (For the use of ‘is’ in this way see Luke 8:11; Galatians 4:24; Revelation
1:20 where representation is clearly intended. In the Aramaic ‘is’ would
probably be lacking, as in Genesis 40:12 where again the idea is representative).
For He was still using His body, and they were still looking at Him in it. His
words at that stage could only possibly mean ‘this represents My body’ for they
could see his real body standing in front of them. To say that God somehow
made it His body, when His body was actually there among them, is so clearly
self-contradictory, that we could never suggest it of God. God is never self-
contradictory. The early Christians would know that the wine could not have
literally become His blood, for they knew that at the time when this was
instituted His blood still flowed through His veins. Even if they had been literally
turned into flesh and blood before them, it would still not have beenHisflesh and
blood. And this is so even if we had had no other grounds for seeing otherwise.
Those who insist, ‘but He said “This is my body” ’ and want to take it literally do
but make fools of themselves, and sadly of others. While He was in His body
there could be no way at all, even by a miracle, for the bread to be His body.
That is the one certainty.
But when we recognise that this phrase, ‘Thisismy body’ replaces ‘thisisthe
bread of affliction which our father’s ate’, the last phrase clearly symbolic even
though in a powerful way (there was no way in which it could be the bread in
question), the issue is settled. Both phrases refer to something that represents
what is spoken about, not the thing itself. Thus we have a second reason why it
should not be taken literally.
Are the bread and wine then ‘merely symbolic’? We must certainly remove the
‘merely’. They were symbolic in a deep and genuine way. They were a symbol to
be entered into and experienced through the Holy Spirit. Thus when we eat and
drink our spirits rise up to the One Whom they represent and have spiritual
communion with Him. In our spirits we are united with Him in His death and
resurrection (Romans 6:5). We recognise again that we have been made one with
Him, and we recognise that we are participating in all that He is for us.
121

122. For Jesus’ whole point was that we should see in the bread and wine pictures of
what He was here to do, and of the benefits that we could receive through Him.
It was fallen man who then recognised that he could use these ideas in order to
manipulate gullible people, and once the ideas had taken hold and were held
fanatically they were difficult to get rid of.
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the
cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in
my blood, which is poured out for you.[a]
CLARKE, "This cup is the new testament in my blood - Perhaps it might
be better to paraphrase the passage thus: This cup which is poured out for you,
signifies the blood of the new covenant, which is shortly to be ratified in (or by) the
shedding of my blood. Or, This cup is the new covenant, poured out for you with my
blood: - that is, the paschal sacrifice and my sacrifice happen together. But see
Kypke.
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, Luk_22:17. In this respect the present
mode of administering the Lord’s Supper is not strictly according to the original
institution.
GILL, "Likewise also the cup after supper,.... Both after the passover, and the
Lord's supper; that is, he took the cup after they had eaten the bread, and gave
thanks over it, and gave it to his disciples, bidding them drink of it, as in Mat_26:27,
See Gill on Mat_26:27,
saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
The Ethiopic version reads, "for many"; as in Mat_26:28 where it is added, "for the
remission of sins"; See Gill on Mat_26:28.
HENRY, "III. The institution of the Lord's supper, Luk_22:19, Luk_22:20. The
passover and the deliverance out of Egypt were typical and prophetic signs of a
Christ to come, who should by dying deliver us from sin and death, and the tyranny
of Satan; but they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, that brought us up out of the
land of Egypt; a much greater deliverance shall eclipse the lustre of that, and
therefore the Lord's supper is instituted to be a commemorative sign or memorial of
a Christ already come, that has by dying delivered us; and it is his death that is in a
special manner set before us in that ordinance.
1. The breaking of Christ's body as a sacrifice for us is here commemorated by the
breaking of bread; and the sacrifices under the law were called the bread of our God
(Lev_21:6, Lev_21:8, Lev_21:17): This is my body which is given for you. And there
is a feast upon that sacrifice instituted, in which we are to apply it to ourselves, and to
take the benefit and comfort of it. This bread that was given for us is given to us to be
122

123. food for our souls, for nothing can be more nourishing and satisfying to our souls
than the doctrine of Christ's making atonement for sin, and the assurance of our
interest in that atonement; this bread that was broken and given for us, to satisfy for
the guilt of our sins, is broken and given to us, to satisfy the desire of our souls. And
this we do in remembrance of what he did for us, when he died for us, and for a
memorial of what we do, in making ourselves partakers of him, and joining
ourselves to him in an everlasting covenant; like the stone Joshua set up for a
witness, Jos_24:27.
2. The shedding of Christ's blood, by which the atonement was made (for the blood
made atonement for the soul, Lev_17:11), as represented by the wine in the cup; and
that cup of wine is a sign and token of the New Testament, or new covenant, made
with us. It commemorates the purchase of the covenant by the blood of Christ, and
confirms the promises of the covenant, which are all Yea and Amen in him. This will
be reviving and refreshing to our souls, as wine that makes glad the heart. In all our
commemorations of the shedding of Christ's blood, we must have an eye to it as shed
for us; we needed it, we take hold of it, we hope to have benefit by it; who loved me,
and gave himself for me. And in all our regards to the New Testament we must have
an eye to the blood of Christ, which gave life and being to it, and seals to us all the
promises of it. Had it not been for the blood of Christ, we had never had the New
Testament; and, had it not been for the New Testament, we had never know the
meaning of Christ's blood shed.
JAMISON, "
COFFMAN, "In like manner after supper ... means that the cup, just like the
bread, that is BOTH ELEMENTS of the Lord's Supper, were taken AFTER
SUPPER. It is regrettable that some have failed to make the distinction noted
here, even going so far as to suppose that the cup may precede in observing the
Supper; but a true understanding of what is here stated refutes such error.
Which is poured out for you ... What a glimpse of the power and Godhead of
Jesus is in this. In a few short hours, he would be arrested, and on the morrow he
would be crucified; but here, he calmly announced that his blood was to be
poured out for the sins of men, setting up a memorial of it unto all generations.
Evidently, the reason for Luke's introduction of that first cup of the simulated
passover into the record here was for the purpose of dissociating the two events.
Parallel references on Luke 22:18-20 are Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24,
which see, along with comments, in my Commentary on Matthew and my
Commentary on Mark.
21 But the hand of him who is going to betray
me is with mine on the table.
123

124. CLARKE, "The hand of him that betrayeth me, etc. - What can be desired
more, says Dr. Lightfoot, as a demonstration that Judas was present at the eucharist?
And, whereas the contrary is endeavored to be proved out of John 13, nothing is
made out of nothing; for there is not one syllable throughout that whole chapter of
the paschal supper, but of a supper before the feast of the passover.
GILL, "But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me,.... By the "hand" is
meant, not figuratively the counsel, contrivance, and conspiracy of Judas to betray
him, as the word is used in 2Sa_14:19 but literally the hand of Judas, which was then
dipping in the dish with Christ, Mat_26:23 and it follows here, is
with me on the table; and is an aggravation of his sin, that one that sat with him at
his table, ate bread with him, and dipped his morsel in the same dish, should be the
betrayer of him, according to the prophecy in Psa_41:9 as well as describes and
points at the person that should do this action, even one of his disciples; for which
disciples, he had just now said, his body is given, and his blood is shed. The phrase,
"with me", is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions. From Luke's account it
appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's
supper, since this was said when both were over.
HENRY, "We have here Christ's discourse with his disciples after supper, much of
which is new here; and in St. John's gospel we shall find other additions. We should
take example from him to entertain and edify our family and friends with such
discourse at table as is good and to the use of edifying, which may minister grace to
the hearers; but especially after we have been at the Lord's table, by Christian
conference to keep one another in a suitable frame. The matters Christ here
discoursed of were of weight, and to the present purpose.
I. He discoursed with them concerning him that should betray him, who was now
present. 1. He signifies to them that the traitor was now among them, and one of
them, Luk_22:21. By placing this after the institution of the Lord's supper, though in
Matthew and Mark it is placed before it, it seems plain that Judas did receive the
Lord's supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity
was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the
table. There have been those that have eaten bread with Christ and yet have betrayed
him.
JAMISON, "
BENSON, "Luke 22:21-23. But behold — πλην ιδου. This particle ( πλην,
verumtamen, nevertheless, or notwithstanding) “is a proof,” says Bengelius,
“that Judas was present at the Lord’s supper;” for it shows that Christ’s
discourse is continued without interruption; and it appears, from Luke 22:14,
that when he sat down to the supper and begun the discourse, the twelve were
with him: Dr. Lightfoot was of the same opinion, who says, “What can be desired
more, as a demonstration that Judas was present at the eucharist?” Thus also
Henry: “By the placing this after the institution of the Lord’s supper, it seems
plain that Judas did receive that supper, did eat of that bread, and drink of that
cup.” On which he observes, “There have been those who have eaten bread with
Christ, and yet have betrayed him.” According to Matthew and Mark, however,
124

125. Jesus pointed out Judas, as the traitor, to the disciples at this supper, before the
institution of the sacrament, as at a prior supper (see John 13:23, &c.) he had
done to John. Perhaps he did it both before and after he instituted the eucharist.
So Dr. Macknight thought. “Our Lord,” says he, “was now deeply affected with
his own thoughts, for he uttered some of the things twice that lay heaviest upon
his spirit, as persons in great concern are wont to do; particularly after
delivering the sacramental cup, and telling them that his blood was shed for
them, he mentioned the treachery of Judas a second time. And this second
declaration came in very properly after the institution of the sacrament, which
exhibits the highest instance of his love to mankind; his dying to obtain the
remission of their sins. For it showed that the person who could deliberately do
so great an injury to so kind a friend, must have been a monster, the foulness of
whose ingratitude cannot be reached by the force of language.” The hand of him
that betrayeth me is with me on the table — “Manus quæ sacram cænam
sumpsit, quæque hostibus perfidam fidem dedit.” The hand which took the
sacred supper, and which gave a perfidious promise to enemies. So Bengelius.
And truly the Son of man goeth — That is, dieth; as it was determined — See on
Matthew 26:24-25.
COKE, "Luke 22:21-22. The hand of him that betrayeth me, &c.— Our Lord,
after delivering the sacramental cup, and telling them that his blood was shed for
them, mentions the treachery of Judas a second time; and this second declaration
came in with peculiar propriety after the institution of the sacrament, which
exhibits the highest instance of love to mankind,—his dying to obtain a remission
of their sins; for it shewed that the person who could deliberately do so great an
injury to so kind a friend, must have been a monster, the foulness of whose
ingratitude cannot be reached by the force of language. See the Inferences on
Matthew 26.
ELLICOTT, "(21-23) But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me . . .—See
Notes on Matthew 26:21; Matthew 26:25; Mark 14:18; Mark 14:21; John 13:21;
John 13:35. St. Luke’s account is here the briefest, St. John’s by far the fullest.
There is again a slight discrepancy in the order of facts, St. Luke placing the
mention of the Betrayal after, St. Matthew and St. Mark before, the institution of
the memorial. St. John, who makes no mention of the institution, leaves the
question open. On the whole, the order of the first two Gospels seems here the
most probable. and agrees better with the fourth. The date before us do not
enable us to say with certainty whether Judas partook of the memorial; but, if
we follow the first two Gospels, it would seem probable that he did not.
PETT, "Verse 21
“But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.”
There are few ideas that chill the blood more than that of ‘treachery’ and
‘betrayal’. All knew of the growing enmity of outsiders against Jesus, and now
He was telling them that one of them, one of the chosen twelve, would betray
him. It must have seemed unbelievable. And that such a person should be sitting
at the table eating with them demonstrated how deep must be his
unscrupulousness. For to the Easterner to eat with someone was a declaration of
125

126. friendship, and a guarantee of safety, honoured by all except the most degraded.
Such an idea was deeply rooted in custom.
‘The hand.’ No closer fellowship could be imagined than that of sharing the same
table with the hands constantly almost touching as they shared food on the table.
It would appear that Judas had been given a favoured place, just as he was given
a favoured sop (John 13:26), so that his hands and Jesus’ hands were on the
same table. To have someone’s hand with you can signify having their support
(Luke 1:66; Acts 11:21). But such an indication of a person by his hand is
essentially Semitic, especially when it is the hand of an enemy or of one working
to a contrary purpose (compare 1 Samuel 22:17; 1 Samuel 18:21; 1 Samuel
24:13; 2 Samuel 14:19). The idea may therefore be of hostility. There on the table
of fellowship and love and remembrance was the hand of the betrayer that would
seek to strike Him down.
Verses 21-23
The Warning of Betrayal (22:21-23).
Connected with His important words to do with the bread and the wine Jesus
declares that among those who have received the bread and wine is one who will
betray Him. Here was the second element in His suffering, that as He sat and
watched, Judas had eaten the bread and drunk the wine. It must have almost
broken His heart. But His words would run like an electric shock through the
gathered disciples. And they would look from one to another wondering who it
could possibly be who would betray Him. It is clear that they did not suspect
Judas. Judas’ mercenary mind was not as apparent to them as it was to Jesus.
And after all, he was the group’s treasurer. He had to be interested in finance. (If
he had stolen from the common purse, as John suggests (John 12:6), this would
only have become apparent after he had handed it over to someone else, if indeed
he ever did).
In Mark these words appear before the words concerning the bread and the
wine. It is of course always possible that they were spoken twice in slightly
different form as a dual warning to Judas. Indeed Luke’s comment does almost
look like a reminder of something that He has said before (with Luke 22:22
possibly introduced from the earlier mention in order to bring out was said
before). Alternately we might consider that Luke or his source places them here
in order to bring out the contrast with the significance of the bread and wine, or
in order to tie in with the parallel with Peter in the chiasmus, or that Mark,
whose account is very brief wants to present the giving of the bread and wine as
the final and focal point of the meal. For neither put chronology first in their
presentations except in certain specific sequences where it enhanced the message.
We might feel that chronologically speaking the order here is the most likely.
Would Jesus not want to complete the eating of the Passover, and the
establishing of the new order, before He moved on to more controversial topics?
But the question is not of great moment. What matters is that, whether before or
after the meal, it happened.Analysis.
a “Behold, the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me on the table” (Luke
126

127. 22:21).
b “For the Son of man indeed goes, as it has been determined, but woe to that
man through whom He is betrayed!” (Luke 22:22).
a And they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would
do this thing (Luke 22:23).
Note that in ‘a’ He declares that the betrayer is reclining at the table, and in the
parallel those reclining at the table ask themselves who it might be. Central is the
declaration concerning the traitor and his action. The Son of Man is indeed
going, it is determined by God, but woe to the one through whom He is betrayed.
BI 21-23, “The Son of Man goeth
The Son of Man, and His going
I.
THE SON OF MAN.
1. Reference of the appellation. Nothing is more certain than that the appellation,
“the Son of Man,” belongs to Jesus Christ, and is peculiar to Him.
2. Origin of the appellation (see Psa_18:17).
3. Meaning of the appellation. When the Messiah is termed “the Son of Man,” the
term fixes the mind both on the reality of His manhood, and on the
circumstances which distinguish Him among men. It marks Him as truly a man,
a descendant of man; but it as really marks Him as standing out from the rest of
men. The leading thoughts suggested by the designation, “the Son of Man,” as
given to our Lord Jesus Christ, are these: that He is a real man, truly a partaker of
human nature; that He is a perfect man, the normal man, man as he should be;
that He is the representative man, the second Adam, charged with the
responsibilities of the race; that He is the God-man, a true man in union with the
true God; finally, that He is the predicted man, the great subject of New
Testament prophecy; a man, a son of man—the man, the son of man.
II. THE GOING OF THE SON OF MAN. The predestined, predicted “going” of this
Son of Man comes now to be considered. “The Son of Man,” said the Son of Man
Himself, goeth, “goeth as was determined, goeth as it is written.” Heaven was His
original abode—earth was His present residence; but it was not intended to be His
permanent dwelling-place. He had come from heaven to earth, and was to go from
earth to heaven. When He came, He came not unsent. He was commissioned to do a
great work, and, when that work was accomplished, He was to return to Him that
sent Him.
1. He went to the grave.
2. He went to the grave as it is written. Before proceeding farther in tracing the
Son of Man’s amazing journey, it may be well for us here to stop and inquire how,
when He went thus to the grave, He went “as it is written”? Here, there are three
remarks which deserve our attention—
(1) He went in the character in which it was written He should go;
(2)He went in the disposition in which it was written He should go; and
(3) In many of the particular and even minute details of His progress, He
went “as it was written.”
(1) He suffered and died as a public person, the representative of His people,
127

128. the victim of sin. He suffered for us, the just in the room of the unjust; and
this is as it was written.
(2) He went, as we have seen, in the spirit of the most entire self-
devotedness, cheerful resignation, magnanimous fortitude. No man took His
life from Him; He laid it down of Himself. And all this was written of Him.
(3) The agony in Gethsemane was as it was written; also His betrayal, the
particular insults and injuries done Him, the manner in which His death was
accomplished the circumstances of His funeral, etc.
3. He went to heaven.
4. He went to heaven as it is written. (D. Brown, D. D.)
22 The Son of Man will go as it has been
decreed. But woe to that man who betrays
him!”
CLARKE, "The Son of man goeth - That is, he is about to die, Απερχεσθαι,
οιχεσθαι, abire, going, going away, and departing, are used, by the best Greek and
Latin writers, for death and dying. See Rosenmuller.
GILL, "And truly the son of man goeth,.... That is, dies, which is going the way
of all the earth, Jos_23:14
as it was determined; in the counsels and purposes of God, and agreed to by
Christ in the covenant of grace; see Act_2:23 the death of Christ, the manner of it,
and the means by which it was brought about, were all predetermined by God; yet
this did not, in the least, excuse the sin of those concerned in it, nor exempt them
from punishment:
but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed; who not only came to an
untimely end, and died an infamous death by his own hands, but went to his own
place, the place of everlasting torments allotted him: wherefore in Mat_26:24 it is
added, "it had been good for that man if he had not been born"; See Gill on Mat_
26:24.
HENRY, " He foretels that the treason would take effect (Luk_22:22): Truly the Son
of man goes as it was determined, goes to the place where he will be betrayed; for he
is delivered up by the counsel and foreknowledge of God, else Judas could not have
delivered him up. Christ was not driven to his sufferings, but cheerfully went to
them. He said, Lo, I come. 3. He threatens the traitor: Woe to that man by whom he
is betrayed. Note, Neither the patience of the saints under their sufferings, nor the
counsel of God concerning their sufferings, will be any excuse for those that have any
128

129. hand in their sufferings, or that persecute them. Though God has determined that
Christ shall be betrayed and he himself has cheerfully submitted to it, yet Judas's sin
or punishment is not at all the less.
PETT, "Verse 22
“For the Son of man indeed goes, as it has been determined, but woe to that man
through whom he is betrayed!”
These words are undoubtedly an appeal to Judas to consider what he was doing.
Let him recognise that what he was doing, he was doing to ‘the Son of Man’ Who
would shortly be approaching the throne of glory (Daniel 7:13-14). He was being
warned that he was in danger of betraying God’s Chosen One and committing
the unforgivable sin. He was deliberately hardening his heart in such a way that
it was becoming frozen in unbelief. It could therefore only result in the most
terrible woe. And the truth is that it was only one beyond the pale who could
have carried through what he was doing in the face of all the opportunities that
he had to consider what he was doing. And he could only have done it by
deliberately hardening and hardening an already hardened heart. The offer of
forgiveness was still open, but it was necessary for him to know that it would
shortly be closed, and that his situation was a matter of great grief to Jesus
(‘woe’ can also be translated as ‘alas’). But it is a sign of man’s fallenness that he
can carry through the most despicable of acts by rigidly setting his own heart on
it in opposition to his own conscience, even though afterwards it can only result
in deep remorse and unbearable regret.
But at the same time these were also words of assurance to the other disciples.
Let them not think that what was to happen would thwart the purposes of God.
For what was to happen was in fact purposed by God. For death and betrayal
were aspects of the treatment of ‘the son of man’ in Daniel 7 (the holy ones of the
Most High, together with their king), and the betrayal and death of the Coming
One was thus divinely predetermined, as Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah and the
Psalmist had made clear (Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 13:7; Psalms 22).
Judas could not thwart the divine purpose. He could only choose to destroy
himself by being a part of the fulfilling it. There was nothing predetermined
about Judas’ own behaviour, even though it was forecastable (John 6:70), that
was not his own choice. In rejection of every warning he chose his own way.
PETT, Verses 22-24
‘And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were
fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, as it is
written in the law of the Lord, “Every male which opens the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord”, and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in
the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons”.’ .
According to the law of Moses every firstborn male of Israel belonged to God for
the purpose of service in God’s Dwellingplace, because they were seen as having
been redeemed by God at the Passover and therefore as having become His.
Initially a sacrifice would be offered on their behalf. But then, in order that they
might redeemed from the obligation of service at the Tabernacle/Temple (they
129

130. had been substituted by the Levites) five shekels had to be paid to a priest at
least one moon period after the birth (Exodus 13:2; Exodus 13:12; Numbers
18:15; compare 1 Samuel 1:24-28). Although all this would be done Luke does
not mention it because what he is interested in is the presentation of Jesus to God
as holy. All the rest is merely background.
Furthermore when a woman bore a male child she was seen as fully ritually
unclean for seven days, (making unclean any who came in contact with her or
entered her room), and after that she was secondarily unclean for another thirty
three days. During that period of forty days she was not allowed to enter the
Temple or take part in a religious ceremony (on bearing a girl child it was for
eighty days). At the end of forty days her purification would be complete. Then
at the end of the forty days she had to offer up a lamb as a ‘whole burnt offering’
(literally ‘that which goes up’), an offering of atonement, dedication and
worship, and a pigeon for a ‘purification for sin sacrifice’, a sacrifice for dealing
with and removing sin. But in the case of the poor they could offer instead two
pigeons, one of the pigeons replacing the lamb. See for the regulations Leviticus
12. These regulations appear to have been slightly relaxed by Jesus’ day so that
two young pigeons were seen as sufficient for any woman whether poor or not.
Thus this offering need not indicate that they were poor.
There was no obligation to actually bring the child to the Temple, but women
who lived not too far from the Temple would want to take the opportunity of
showing off their babies when they came to offer their offerings. To have a male
child was a triumph and an occasion for gratitude.
The purpose of all these offerings was redemption and atonement. The idea
would seem to be that child birth was a constant reminder of the woman’s part
in the sin of Eden. Every child birth harked back to that day and thus to the
need for both atonement, and cleansing from impurity, for the woman.
Furthermore the baby would over the period be made constantly ritually unclean
by his contact with his mother and the afterbirth, thus he too would need to be
ritually ‘purified’.
‘As it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male which opens the womb shall
be called holy to the Lord.” Luke is not actually citing a particular verse
(although it may have been found like this in a compendium of Jewish or
Christian sayings) but is combining the ideas found in a number of Scripture
verses e.g. Exodus 13:2; Exodus 13:12; Exodus 13:15; Numbers 18:15.
Thus Jesus’ mother and father brought Him to the Temple to present Him
before God, having carried out the necessary requirements for ‘their’
purification. This ‘their’ may mean that of the mother and child, or it may have
been including the father. He would carry the taint of uncleanness from his
contact with his wife. We must distinguish the ‘purifying from uncleanness’ from
the sacrifices which followed, which were for atonement, although they too
purified in their own way. In all this God’s ordinances were gladly and
religiously fulfilled. Jesus was a full Jew, as He had to be for ‘salvation was of
the Jews’ as the Old Testament made clear (John 4:22), and the Jews would not
130

131. have accepted anyone who did not completely fulfil the Law.
It should be noted that Jesus constantly fulfilled all Jewish requirements, even
when it was not necessary in His own case because of His sinlessness. This was in
order to ‘fulfil all righteousness’, that is, do what was right for a man to do and
come nothing short of what God required of Israel, of which He had voluntarily
become a member. For Israel was summed up in Him. This would, as we know,
include participation in the Passover. He participated in these ceremonies in His
capacity as representative on behalf of the whole of Israel for whom He was
‘born under the Law’ (Galatians 4:4) and for Whom He would be the bearer of
sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).
But note how Luke skirts over the detail of the ceremonial. He is more concerned
to emphasise that Jesus was presented to God as One Who was holy before the
Lord. The ceremonial was secondary. And he makes no mention of the payment
of the five shekels which released Jesus from the obligation of Temple service. He
is rather concerned with the fact that Jesus was being offered to God for a
greater service. Nevertheless he lays great stress on His parent’s obedience to
God’s command in carrying out all that was required of them, emphasising their
continual piety and obedience to the Law (Luke 22:22-24; Luke 22:27; Luke
22:39). Until the cross and resurrection such fulfilment was fully required.
23 They began to question among themselves
which of them it might be who would do this.
GILL, "And they began to inquire among themselves,.... Two days before, at
the supper in Bethany, when the same thing was hinted to them, they looked at one
another, Joh_13:22 as persons in the utmost surprise and consternation, not being
able, for a while, either to speak to Christ, or one another; but now they inquired
among themselves, and of Christ likewise, Mat_26:21
which of them it was that should do this thing; so barbarous, shocking, and
horrible.
HENRY, " He foretels that the treason would take effect (Luk_22:22): Truly the Son
of man goes as it was determined, goes to the place where he will be betrayed; for he
is delivered up by the counsel and foreknowledge of God, else Judas could not have
delivered him up. Christ was not driven to his sufferings, but cheerfully went to
them. He said, Lo, I come. 3. He threatens the traitor: Woe to that man by whom he
is betrayed. Note, Neither the patience of the saints under their sufferings, nor the
counsel of God concerning their sufferings, will be any excuse for those that have any
hand in their sufferings, or that persecute them. Though God has determined that
Christ shall be betrayed and he himself has cheerfully submitted to it, yet Judas's sin
131

132. or punishment is not at all the less.
JAMISON, "
COKE, "Luke 22:23. And they began to inquire, &c.— Upon Christ's giving so
plain and moving a hint concerning his betrayer, all the disciples, except Judas,
were shocked and grieved to think that any one among them should ever commit
so base a villainy against their Lord; they were humbly jealous of their own
hearts, lest they should deceive them; and were exceedingly solicitous to clear
themselves, and to know who it was that should be guilty of this horrible
wickedness.
PETT, "Such a statement as Jesus had made could only cause surprise and
concern. And yet it seems that they were sufficiently aware of their own
weakness to recognise that it could be true, although they may well have thought
at the time that He meant betray Him accidentally. Otherwise we would have
expected a vociferous denial. But the eyewitness remembered the discussions
well, and commented on them. It had been the least tasteful thing about those
last hours. It was a reminder of the fact that the one who stands must beware lest
he fall (1 Corinthians 10:12). But all the while Judas had to keep up his act, as
the discussion went on around him. His heart had to be rigidly set to do evil.
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which
of them was considered to be greatest.
BARNES, "A strife - A contention or debate.
Which of them should be the greatest - The apostles, in common with the
Jews generally, had supposed that the Messiah would come as a temporal prince, and
in the manner of other princes of the earth - of course, that he would have officers of
his government, ministers of state, etc. Their contention was founded on this
expectation, and they were disputing which of them should be raised to the highest
office. They had before had a similar contention. See Mat_18:1; Mat_20:20-28.
Nothing can be more humiliating than that the disciples should have had “such”
contentions, and in such a time and place. That just as Jesus was contemplating his
own death, and laboring to prepare them for it, they should strive and contend about
office and rank, shows how deeply seated is the love of power; how ambition will find
its way into the most secret and sacred places; and how even the disciples of the
meek and lowly Jesus are sometimes actuated by this most base and wicked feeling.
CLARKE, "There was also a strife among them - There are two different
132

133. instances of this sort of contention or strife mentioned by the evangelists, each of
which was accompanied with very different circumstances; one by Matthew, in Mat_
18:1, etc., by Mark, Mar_9:33, etc.; and by Luke, in Luk_9:46, etc. That contention
cannot have been the same with this which is mentioned here. The other, related in
Mat_20:20, etc., and Mar_10:35, etc., must be what Luke intended here to record;
and this strife or contention was occasioned by the request which Zebedee’s wife
made to our Lord in favor of her sons, James and John; but, then, Luke has
mentioned this very much out of the order of time, it having happened while our
Lord and his disciples were on their way to Jerusalem: Mat_20:17; Mar_10:32. See
Bp. Pearce.
GILL, "And there was also a strife among them,.... The Persic version reads,
"at a certain time there was a contention among the apostles"; and some think, that
this refers to the time when the mother of Zebedee's two sons asked the favour of
Christ, to set one of them at his right hand, and the other at his left, in his kingdom;
which greatly incensed the other disciples, and occasioned a dispute about
precedence; when our Lord interposed, and used much the same arguments as here;
and which, it is thought, Luke here inserts out of the proper place. The Ethiopic
version renders it, "then his disciples disputed among themselves"; pinning it down
to this very time: and what might give occasion to the present dispute, may be what
Christ had said concerning the kingdom of God, Luk_22:16 which they
understanding of the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, and fancying, by his words,
that it was near at hand, began to strive among themselves who should be the
greatest in it; or it might be brought on by their inquiry among themselves, who
should betray him, which might lead them on each one to throw off the imputation
from himself, and to commend himself as a steady follower of Jesus, and to express
his hopes of being his chief favourite, and principal minister in his kingdom: for the
strife was,
which of them should be accounted the greatest; by Christ; or that should be
so in his kingdom. Perhaps the contention might be chiefly between Peter, James and
John, the two sons of Zebedee, and who were the favourite disciples of Christ; and
Peter might urge his seniority, and what Christ had said to him, Mat_16:18 and the
rather, since it is certain Satan was now busy about him; wherefore Christ calls him
by name, and singles him out among the rest, Luk_22:31.
HENRY, "II. Concerning the strife that was among them for precedency or
supremacy.
1. See what the dispute was: Which of them should be accounted the greatest. Such
and so many contests among the disciples for dignity and dominion, before the Spirit
was poured upon them, were a sad presage of the like strifes for, and affections of,
supremacy in the churches, after the Spirit should be provoked to depart from them.
How inconsistent is this with that in the verse before! There they were enquiring
which would be the traitor, and here which should be the prince. Could such an
instance of humility, and such an instance of pride and vanity, be found in the same
men, so near together? This is like sweet waters and bitter proceeding at the same
time out of the same fountain. What a self-contradiction is the deceitful heart of man!
2. See what Christ said to this dispute. He was not sharp upon them, as might have
been expected (he having so often reproved them for this very thing), but mildly
showed them the sin and folly of it.
133

134. JAMISON, "there was — or “had been,” referring probably to some symptoms
of the former strife which had reappeared, perhaps on seeing the whole paschal
arrangements committed to two of the Twelve. (See on Mar_10:42-45.)
BARCLAY, "STRIFE AMONG THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST (Luke 22:24-30)
22:24-30 Strife arose amongst them about which was to be considered greatest.
Jesus said to them, "The kings of the gentiles exercise lordship over them and
those who have authority over them claim the title of Benefactor. It must not be
so with you; but let him who is greatest among you be as the youngest; and let
him who is the leader be as him who serves. Who is the greater? He who sits at
table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at table? But I am among you as one
who serves. You are those who have stayed with me in my tribulations; and I
assign to you a kingdom, just as my Father has assigned one to me, that you may
eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit upon thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel."
It is one of the most poignantly tragic things in the gospel story that the disciples
could quarrel about precedence in the very shadow of the cross. The seating
arrangements at a Jewish feast were very definite. The table was arranged like a
square with one side left open. At the top side of the square, in the centre, sat the
host. On his right sat the guest of first honour; on his left the second guest;
second on his right, the third guest; second on his left the fourth guest; and so on
round the table. The disciples had been quarrelling about where they were to sit,
for they had not yet rid themselves of the idea of an earthly kingdom. Jesus told
them bluntly that the standards of his kingdom were not the standards of this
world. A king on earth was evaluated by the power he exercised. One of the
commonest titles for a king in the east was Euergetes (Greek #2110), which is the
Greek for Benefactor. Jesus said, "It is not the king but the servant who obtains
that title in my kingdom."
(i) What the world needs is service. The odd thing is that the business world
knows this. Bruce Barton points out that you will find by the road-side, over and
over again, the sign, Service Station. It was the claim of one firm, "We will crawl
under your car oftener and get ourselves dirtier than any of our competitors."
The strange thing is that there is more argument about precedence, and more
concern about people's "places" in the church than anywhere else. The world
needs and recognizes service.
(ii) It is only the man who will consent to serve more than anyone else who will
really rise high. It frequently happens that the ordinary worker will go home at
5.30 p.m. to forget his or her job until next morning, while the light will be
burning in the office of the chief executive long after that. Often passers-by
would see the light burning in John D. Rockefeller's office when the rest of the
building was in darkness. It is a law of life that service leads to greatness; and
the higher a man rises the greater the servant he must be.
(iii) We can found our life either on giving or on getting; but the plain fact is that
if we found it on getting we shall miss both the friendship of man and the reward
of God, for no one ever loved a man who was always out for himself.
134

135. (iv) Jesus finished his warning by promising his disciples that those who had
stood by him through thick and thin would in the end reign with him. God will
be in no man's debt. Those who have shared in the bearing of Christ's cross will
some day share in the wearing of his crown.
BENSON, "Luke 22:24-27. And there was also a strife among them, &c. — Of
the kind of contentions here spoken of there are two instances recorded by the
evangelists, evidently different from each other, and each attended with very
different circumstances. The former is mentioned by Matthew 18:1-4; by Mark
9:33-37; and by Luke 9:46. This certainly is not that here referred to. The other,
recorded Matthew 20:20, &c.; and Mark 10:35, &c., is thought, by most
commentators, to be that which Luke here speaks of. See the notes on these two
last mentioned passages. Some, however, are of opinion, that a third contention
of a similar kind arose among the disciples, at this last paschal supper which our
Lord ate with them; and that it arose from some expressions which he dropped
respecting the glory of his heavenly kingdom, which the disciples erroneously
interpreted of a glorious temporal kingdom, which they continued to expect him
to erect. And it must be acknowledged, that the manner in which Luke
introduces his account of this dispute here, favours this interpretation of the
passage. For, immediately after he had informed us of the disciples beginning to
inquire among themselves which of them it was that should betray Christ, he
proceeds to say, And there was also a strife among them which of them should be
accounted the greatest. Be this as it may, if it really was a third contention of the
same sort with those which had occurred before, it appears that Christ composed
it by the arguments which he had made use of for the same end formerly. For, he
said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, &c. —
Among the Gentiles, they are reckoned the greatest men who have the greatest
power, and who exercise it in the most absolute manner. Such, however, have at
times affected the pompous title of benefactors, ( ευραγεται, a surname which
some of the kings of Egypt and Syria assumed,) and thereby have tacitly
acknowledged that true greatness consists in goodness. But your greatness shall
not be like theirs; shall not consist in temporal power over your fellow-creatures,
or in honour or dignity among them, though it should be joined with an
affectation of titles which denote qualities truly honourable. Whosoever desires
to be great among you, let him be so by his humility and by his serviceableness to
the rest, in imitation of me, your Master, whose greatness consists in this, that I
am become the servant of you all. He that is greatest among you, let him be as the
younger — According to the manner of the Jews, the aged expected great service
and submission from the young; and he that is chief — He that presides over the
rest in any office of peculiar trust and influence; as he that doth serve — Let him
be as humble and condescending as the servant. For whether is greater — Which
of the two is naturally accounted greater by a stranger who happens to come in;
he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? — That stands and waits upon the
guests? Is not he that sitteth at meat? — Accounted greater? But I am among
you as he that serveth — These words may, no doubt, have a respect to the whole
of Christ’s life; yet they seem to refer more particularly to his having lately
washed the disciples’ feet, as John informs us, John 13:14. See notes on Matthew
20:25; Matthew 20:28. “It seems to have been our Lord’s view,” says Dr.
135

136. Campbell, “in these instructions, not only to check in his apostles all ambition of
power, and every thing which savoured of a desire of superiority and dominion
over their brethren; but also to restrain that species of vanity which is near akin
to it, the affectation of distinction from titles of respect and dignity. Against this
vice particularly the clause under consideration seems to be levelled. The
reflection naturally suggested by it is, How little are any, the most pompous
epithets which men can bestow, worthy the regard of a good man, who observes
how vilely, through servility and flattery, they are sometimes prostituted on the
most undeserving.”
COFFMAN, "The measure of agreement between Matthew 20:25-28; Mark
10:42-45 and this paragraph in Luke, is no proof that Luke describes the same
occurrence as Matthew and Mark. Such disputes frequently occurred, and why
could not the Saviour have answered their arguments in words more or less
similar?[13]
What a shame it was that in the very act of the Lord's giving the memorial
supper, the apostles should still have been concerned over places of rank in the
kingdom!
ENDNOTE:
[13] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 563.
ELLICOTT, "(24) And there was also a strife among them.—The incident that
follows is peculiar to St. Luke. The noun which he uses for “strife” does not
occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but the corresponding adjective meets us
in the “contentious” of 1 Corinthians 11:16. The dispute was apparently the
sequel of many previous debates of the same kind, as, e.g., in Luke 9:46;
Matthew 18:1; Mark 9:34; and the prayer of the two sons of Zebedee (Matthew
20:23; Mark 10:37). What had just passed probably led to its revival. Who was
greatest? Was it Peter, to whom had been promised the keys of the kingdom, or
John, who reclined on the Master’s bosom, or Andrew, who had been first-
called? Even the disciples who were in the second group of the Twelve, might
have cherished the hope that those who had been thus rebuked for their
ambition or their want of faith had left a place vacant to which they might now
hopefully aspire.
BURKITT, "If these words be not placed out of order by St. Luke here, it may
seem very strange, that the apostles immediately after receiving the sacrament,
should entertain their minds with thoughts of precedency and superiority; and
much stranger yet, that they should discourse openly of such a subject as this,
especially considering what our Saviour had just before told them, that he was
betrayed into the hands of sinners. But whether at this time or not, it is most
certain, at some time or other a strife was found amongst them, which should be
the greatest. Now that our Saviour might effectually quench those unhappy
sparks of ambition which were kindled in his apostles' minds, he tells them that
supremacy and dominion belong to secular princes, not to evangelical pastors,
who ought to carry themselves with humility and condescension one towards
another. Not that Christ directs to a parity and equality amongst his ministers,
136

137. or forbids the pre-eminency of some over others; but the affecting of superiority,
and true love of pre-eminency, is that which our Saviour disallowed.
Learn,
1. That so far ought the ministers of Christ to be from affecting a domination
and superiority of power over their fellow brethren, that, in imitation of Christ
their Lord and Master, they ought to account themselves fellow-servants: I am
among you as one that serveth.
2. That such ministers as do love and affect pre-eminency and superiority, are
most unfit for it, and they deserve it best that seek it least.
3. That the dignity and honor which the ministers of Christ should chiefly and
only affect, is in another world; and the way to be the greatest and highest there,
is to be low and humble here; mean in our own eyes, and little in our own
esteem: Whosoever is chief, says Christ, let him be your servant.
PETT, "Verse 24
‘And there arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to
be greatest.’
A little consideration will demonstrate how easily their questioning of themselves
about their frailty could quickly lead on to an assertion by each that they at least
were trustworthy, and then on to the question of who was to be the most
prominent in the future because of their reliability.
How far the disciples were from having the right attitude and understanding
comes out here. Jesus had stressed the coming of the Kingly Rule of God and the
sad consequence was therefore that their eyes were still on what they could attain
for themselves once the coming earthly Rule, which they were anticipating, came
to fruition (compare Acts 1:6, where they were still expecting it). Each wanted to
ensure that they obtained their rightful place in it. None of them wanted to be
‘left behind’. The pride of life still ruled. Jesus had been speaking about the
Kingly Rule of God coming. That part of His message at least they had
understood (or so they thought). And all of them therefore wanted to be someone
important in the future that they saw lying ahead, once Jesus had brought His
plans to a successful conclusion. It is quite clear that Jesus’ warnings of His
imminent death and betrayal had not really sunk in as of immediate concern.
What was counting most for them at this time was the fact of the coming Kingly
Rule of God and their hope of their own prominence in it.
Verses 24-30
The Humility Which Is To Distinguish Those Who Are His (22:24-30).
Having established the basis for the future by means of the new significance of
the bread and wine, and having warned that He was about to be betrayed, He
now emphasised the kind of attitude that was essential in His service. The whole
future would depend on it. They had continued with Him in His trials and
137

138. afflictions. Let them now recognise that they must continue with Him in His
humble service. In the future it would be when the leaders of the church in later
centuries lost this attitude, that they sank into formalism, and produced the very
opposite of what Jesus wanted, a hierarchical and overbearing church which had
lost its heart and its spirituality. Such people certainly wanted to sit on thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel, but they did not want to accept what that
involved in the eyes of Jesus.
Note the reference here to His afflictions. In Luke 22:15 He had referred to His
future suffering, a reference which was the prelude to His institution of the
Lord’s Supper, in Luke 22:21-23 he had expressed His sadness and grief at
Judas’ betrayal. Now he joins His disciples with Him as He describes the
afflictions that He and they have undergone. As the writer to the Hebrews tells
us, He learned obedience by the things that He suffered (Hebrews 5:8).
a There arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be
greatest (Luke 22:24).
b And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them, and
those who have authority over them are called Benefactors” (Luke 22:25).
c “But you shall not be so, but he who is the greater among you, let him become
as the younger, and he who is chief, as he that serves” (Luke 22:26).
d “For which is greater, the one who sits at meat, or the one who serves? Is not
he who sits at meat? But I am in the midst of you as He Who serves ” (Luke
22:27).
c “But you are they who have continued with me in my temptations” (Luke
22:28).
b “And I appoint to you Kingly Rule, even as my Father appointed to Me” (Luke
22:29).
a “That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you shall sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30).
Note that in ‘a’ the question is as to which of them is to be the greatest, and in the
parallel none will be the greatest for they are to share twelve equal thrones. In
‘b’ is displayed the lordship of Gentile lords, and in the parallel he displays the
different kind of lordship that will be theirs in the Kingly Rule of God. In ‘c’
they are to seek an attitude of humility in service, and in the parallel they
continue with Him in His testings, which were partly testings as to whether He
would shun glory and follow the path of humility and service (Luke 4:1-13).
Centrally in ‘d’ He lays down that He has Himself chosen the way of humility
and service, and that it is to be an example to them.
We should note at once here that Luke 22:30 must be interpreted in line with
what has gone before, and not as though it stood on its own. The last thing that
Jesus is saying is, ‘Don’t worry, what the Gentiles seek after you will achieve at
last’. He is rather saying that what the gentile kings seek after should be
eschewed.
BI 24-30, “He that is greatest among you let him be as the younger
How to be the greatest in Christ’s Kingdom
138

139. I.
THERE IS A NECESSARY AND NATURAL DESIRE IN MAN FOR SUPERIORITY.
1. It is taken for granted that the principle exists universally.
2. It is admitted that the desire is an inherent principle.
3. It is therefore a holy and righteous principle.
4. It is a necessary principle.
II. THE BEST MEN MAY FAIL TO DISCOVER THE TRUE WAY TO HONOUR AND
DIGNITY.
1. The cause of the disciple’s failure. This strife arose in the absence of the
Saviour
2. The spirit of their failure. “Accounted.” Carnal, external, worldly ambition.
3. The manifestation of their failure.
III. FIDELITY TO CHRIST IN TRIAL QUALIFIES FOR THE HIGHER SPHERES
AND HONOURS IN HIS KINGDOM.
1. Adherence to Christ brings us into contact with the greatest trials.
2. All true disciples cleave to Christ, even in His trials.
3. Christ will honourably acknowledge and reward fidelity in His disciples.
(1) It is honour as reward for humble service.
(2) It is distinguished honour.
(3) It will be satisfying honour. (T. M. Evans.)
The evils of worldly ambition
I. THE DISPUTE AROSE—
1. Out of ignorance as to the nature of the kingdom of Christ.
2. Out of the worldly ambition of their own hearts.
II. THE LORD REBUKED THIS SPIRIT OF WORLDLY AMBITION. By drawing
their attention to His own example. Application:
1. Show the widespread prevalence of this worldly ambition in the Church.
2. Urge lowliness of mind.
(1) By the strong commendation Christ bestows on it.
(2) By the injury done to the cause of Christ, when His followers manifest the
opposite spirit. (F. F. Goe, M. A.)
Lessons
1. Beware of a proudly aspiring and envious spirit. Seek not to rise on the ruins of
others, or by trampling on others.
2. Remember wherein true greatness consists, and follow after it. It consists in
high attainments in piety and usefulness.
139

140. 3. Whatever your attainments may be, be humble, if you would be great.
4. Let the disciples of Christ continue with Him, notwithstanding every trial.
(James Foote, M. A.)
Self-seeking
I. The narrative we are considering discloses what effect SELF-SEEKING HAD on
the disciples.
1. It blinded their eyes to the glory of the Son of God. They saw, indeed, His
mighty works, and longed to be able to do such works themselves; but the hidden
life of righteousness and peace and love they did not see and were not yet capable
of seeing. Darkness cannot comprehend the light. Men seeking conspicuous
places cannot understand the mind which was in Christ Jesus, who made Himself
of no reputation, humbled Himself, and became obedient even to the death of the
cross.
2. The self-seeking spirit plunged the disciples into a quarrel on the eve of a great
occasion.
3. The self-seeking spirit put the disciples into a false attitude of presumption,
undertaking more than they were able to do. “Jesus answered and said, Ye know
not what ye ask.”
4. The spirit of self-seeking confused their notions of dominion. They had
adopted the maxims of the Gentiles, and were in danger of believing that a man
was great simply because he exercised authority.
II. SELF-SACRIFICE.
1. The courage of self-sacrifice. It shrinks back from no danger, fears no
hardship, and is superior to all suffering. He took the twelve disciples apart and
said unto them: “We go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed,
condemned, and crucified.” Knowing all things that should be accomplished, He
went forward; He went forward that they might be accomplished.
2. The universality of self-sacrifice. Because this is the way of the Son of Man,
therefore it must become the way of every man. Each man is to take up his cross.
Each man is to become like the man.
3. The reward of self-sacrifice. Spiritual promotion comes according to just and
immutable law.
4. The kingdom of self-sacrifice. They would reverse the maxims of the Gentiles,
and reckon the servant greater than the Master.(Edward. B. Mason.)
“As he that doth serve”
Dr. Muhlenburg gave a beautiful illustration of obedience to his Master when he once
took up a tray of dishes in St. Luke’s hospital and carried them down to the kitchen.
Some one meeting him, and protesting against his doing such menial work, he
quickly said, “What am I, but a waiter in the Lord’s hotel?”
The law of service
The desire for distinction is one of the radical principles of our nature; never so
crucified and buried but that, in unexpected ways and moments, it may revive, and
140

141. rise again in power. In the world we find it, and in the Church. Charles V. could lay
off the imperial purple, but could not so easily dispossess himself of the imperial will.
Simon Stylites, on his pillar in the Lybian desert, was as willing to draw crowds out
after him as any most lordly Bishop of Alexandria. The decrepit anchorite, in spite of
his austerities, was still a man; his stomach hungry for bread, his heart hungry for
applause. This subtle passion is strongest in the middle and more athletic period of
life. It comes in between the love of pleasure, which besets our youth, and the love of
gain, which besets our age. Though liable to desperate abuse, this passion, like every
other, was benevolently given. If it causes wars, and builds up oppressive
institutions, poisoning the hearts and cursing the lives of men, it is likewise one of
the sharpest spurs to honourable toil, inspires the grandest achievements, and strikes
its deepest roots into the deepest natures. It is, then, not to be fought against, as an
enemy to virtue, but drawn into service rather, as an ally.
I. TRUE GREATNESS IS NOT INDICATED EITHER BY A CONSPICUOUS
POSITION, OR THE BUZZ OF POPULAR APPLAUSE. Exalted stations add nothing
to human stature. A great reputation may chance to balloon a very little man.
II. TRUE GREATNESS IS NOT INDICATED INFALLIBLY EVEN BY THE
PRESENCE OF GREAT ABILITIES, OR GREAT ACQUISITIONS. Hero-worship is a
perpetual fact in history. Mankind are sadly prone to be fascinated by mere ability, or
what is so esteemed, irrespective of its exercise; by mere learning, irrespective of its
aims and uses. We encounter this idolatry in every walk of life. Much lamentation is
poured out over what is called dormant power—Cromwells that lead no armies,
Newtons that write no “Principia,” Miltons that build no lofty rhymes. Men are
named in every circle, of whom it is remarked that they are possessed of great
abilities, if they would only exercise them; or possessed of great learning, if they
would only use it. No doubt there is such a thing as having one’s talent, a real talent,
laid up in a napkin. But there is probably much less of waste in this way than is
commonly supposed. There is a meaning, perhaps, in that feature of the Gospel
parable, which represents the idle talent as being a solitary and single one; a talent in
some one direction, as that of a mere chemist, mathematician, linguist, or logician.
Ability of this sort, thus partial, limited, and narrow, may doubtless be content to
slumber, or exercise itself only in trifling. But true greatness cannot justly be
predicated of any such ability. Real power has fulness and variety. It is not narrow
like lightning, but broad like light. The man who truly and worthily excels in any one
line of endeavour, might also, under a change of circumstances, have excelled in
some other line. He who eight times led conquering legions into Gaul, could also
write matchless commentaries describing their exploits. He who fought at Marengo
and Austerlitz, could also build Alpine roads and construct the Code Napoleon. He
who sang “Paradise Lost,” could also pen ablest state papers.
III. THE IDEAL AND MEASURE OF GREATNESS, AS SET BEFORE US BY
CHRIST HIMSELF, CONSISTS IN USEFULNESS. He who does the greatest amount
of good in this world is the greatest man. This is the Christian sentiment. It is also at
bottom the universal sentiment. The Titans of ancient fable, who piled mountains
together, and stormed the heavens, were not great, only huge. Hercules was great by
virtue of the twelve great labours which he performed. Grecian art, faultless as it was,
failed of being great by being sensual. Hindoo generals are not great leaders, for,
though they wield vast masses of men, they wield them to little or no purpose. He is
not great, who merely wastes the nations; only he is great who saves and serves them.
This rule, which the historic judgment of the world thus proceeds upon, is more an
instinct than a principle. Christianity lays it down with emphasis as the highest law.
According to this law, he only is great of heart who floods the world with a great
affection. He only is great of mind who stirs the world with great thoughts. He only is
141

142. great of will who does something to shape the world to a great career. And he is
greatest who does the most of all these things, and does them best. As to the
particular sphere in which a man shall lay out the labour of his life, this must b.e
determined by a wise regard to individual tastes, talents, and circumstances. Each
must choose for himself the employment and sphere best suited to his gifts. But all
must choose with one heart, one purpose, in the fear of God, and under the light of
eternal realities.
IV. THE MOTIVES TO THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A RULE OF LIFE ARE
OBVIOUS AND STRONG.
1. It is the key to happiness. God is infinitely happy in His boundless beneficence.
Christ was happy in giving Himself up a sacrifice for the world. In all ages, the
happiest of men have been the busiest and most beneficent.
2. It enhances power; relative power and actual power. He who works for God
and man, with the least of solicitude about himself, has all the forces of
Providence working with him. All these forces are powerful, so is he; and their
triumph is his triumph. Moreover, the benevolent affections are the best
stimulants of the intellect, the best allies and energizers of the will. Henry Martyn
was twice the man for going to Persia that he would have been had he remained
in England; and consequently has twice the fame. It is by dying that we live. It is
only the good and the self-denying who rule us from their urns.
3. It is noble. Selfishness is pitiful and paltry. (R. D. Hitchcock, D. D.)
He that serveth—
The servant of sinners
We find in these words a double reference—first, to the character, and secondly, to
the office, of the Son of Man; to His character as the lowly one, to His office as the
servant. For the purpose of bringing both these things before His disciples, He makes
use of those marvellous words, “I am among you as the Serving One.” Consider three
things in reference to this service.
I. ITS HISTORY. It is not with His birth in Bethlehem that Christ’s service begins.
His visit to our first father in paradise was its true commencement. After that we find
Him, age after age, visiting the children of men, and always in the character of one
ministering to their wants. At His ascension He only entered on a new department of
service; and as the Advocate with the Father, the Intercessor, the Forerunner, we see
Him still serving. Nor, when He comes again in strength and majesty, as King of
kings and Lord of lords, does He lose sight of His character as the Ministering One
Luk_12:37).
II. LET US CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THIS SERVICE. It is in all respects like
Himself—like Him who, though He was rich, for our sakes became poor.
1. It is willing service. His varied rounds of service are no heavy task. He is the
willing servant of the needy.
2. It is a loving service. Out of no fountain save that of love could such amazing,
such endless acts of service flow. The loving and the serving are inseparable.
3. It is self-denying service. To continue ministering, day after day, in the midst
of reproach, and opposition, and rejection, was self-denial and devotedness such
as man can hardly either credit or conceive.
142

143. 4. It is patient, unwearied service. He has compassion on the ignorant, and on
them that arc out of the way. He breaks not the bruised reed; He quenches not
the smoking flax. By day or by night we find Him ever girt for service.
5. It is free service. It cannot be bought, for what gold could purchase it? Neither
does it need to be bought, for it is freely rendered.
III. ITS ENDS AND OBJECTS. It is to sinners that this service is rendered; and there
is much in this to exhibit the ends which it has in view. This gracious servant of the
needy is willing to be employed by any one, no matter who, let him be the poorest,
and the sickliest, and the feeblest of all who ever sought a helper, a protector, or a
guide, on their way to the kingdom. (H. Bonar, D. D.)
The life of service
Let us ask ourselves why our Lord has done so much for mankind in proposing a life
of service as the true life of man. Service, I apprehend, is thus necessary in some
shape for all of us, because it involves the constant repression of those features of our
nature which constantly tend to drag it down and degrade it. Aristotle remarked,
more than two thousand years ago, that all our faulty tendencies range themselves
under the two heads of temper and desire—bad temper or ill-regulated desire. When
the one element is not predominant in an undisciplined character, you will find, in
some shape, the other, and sometimes you will find the one and sometimes the other
at different periods in the life of the same man. Now, service—that is, the voluntary
undertaking of work in obedience to the Higher Will—is a corrective to each of these
tendencies.
1. It is a corrective, first of all, of temper in its ordinary and everyday form of self-
assertion or pride. The man who serves from his heart cannot indulge in self-
assertion; he represses self if he tries to perform his service well. Each effort, each
five minutes, of conscientious service has the effect of keeping self down, of
bidding it submit to a higher and more righteous will; and this process steadily
persevered in ultimately represses it, if not altogether, yet very considerably. And
what a substantial service this is to human nature and to human character. Be
sure of this, that self-assertion, if unchecked, is pitiless when any obstacle to its
gratification comes in its way. The self-asserting man delights in making an equal
or an inferior feel the full weight of his petty importance; he enjoys the pleasure
of commanding in the exact ratio of the pain or discomfort which he sees to be
the cost of obedience; and thus, sooner or later, selfassertion becomes tyranny,
and tyranny, sooner rather than later, means some revolt which carries with it the
ruin of order. The tyrant in the State, in the family, in the office, in the workshop,
is the man bent on the assertion of self; and, despite the moments of passing
gratification which he enjoys, such a tyrant is really more miserable than his
subjects, for the governing appetite of his character can never be adequately
gratified; it is in conflict with the nature of things, it is in conflict with the laws of
social life, it is in conflict with the Divine will; and when it is repressed, curbed,
crushed by voluntary work in obedience to a higher will, a benefit of the very first
order has been conferred on human nature and on human society.
2. And in like manner work voluntarily undertaken in obedience to a higher will
corrects ill-regulated desire. Distinct from gross sin is the slothful, easy,
enervated, self-pleasing temper which is the soil in which gross sin grows. The
New Testament calls this district of human nature concupiscence—that is to say,
misdirected desire—desire which was meant to cleave to God—at least, to centre
in God the eternal beauty, but which, through some bad warp, does, in fact,
143

144. attach itself to created objects, and generally to some object attractive to the
senses. This evil can only be radically cured by making God the object of desire—
that is to say, by a love of God; and a true love of God will express itself in
service—the service of man as well as of God (1Jn_4:20). Service keeps this ill-
regulated desire at bay, and it centres the soul’s higher desire or love more and
more perfectly on its one legitimate object. And then, incidentally, it braces
character, and this is what is wanted if a man is to escape from the enervation of a
life of sensuous and effeminate ease. (Canon Liddon.)
The glory of service
Helpfulness is the highest, quality of the human life. Service is the crowning glory of
man. The serving type is the noblest type of all the manifold varieties of human
development. The principle of the text is not to the effect that service is one and the
same with, or altogether made up of, what we know as the activities of life. “And if I
bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, and have
not love, it profiteth me nothing.” That it is not always what we call the most active
life which is the most useful. Activity is not all of service. There is the moral power
static, as well as the moral power dynamic. Again, let us note that service does not
discard the element of beauty or the splendour of intellectual gifts. Beauty, rightly so
named, binds up ever within it a factor of highest value. A beautiful picture is nothing
less than a moral force in the world. The Madonna face, the Madonna form, through
the centuries rebuke coarseness, teach purity, uplift human thoughts, refine human
souls. So with flowers. Their beauty has a moral value. The window-sill which lifts
them up is twice blessed. It blesses him who plants and him who passes. The law of
service, as proclaimed by highest authority, refuses her not beauty as an ally. All that
is meant is that, when Beauty stands by herself, divorced from Service, hen the latter
is higher, nobler. So also of the splendour of mental gifts. This splendour also may
rest upon, may add a new beauty and a new power to that which is the highest type of
human life. But when it stands off by itself, when it offers itself as a substitute for or a
rival of service, then to the latter must be given the pre-eminence. Measured by the
true standard of human greatness, the inventor of the Calculus is less of a man than
the founder of London’s ragged schools. It is better and it is nobler to help one poor,
vicious human life into a pure and happy immortality than it is to weigh the sun or to
write equations for the planets. The same must also be said when high station is
brought into comparison with helpfulness. But let us turn to the direct consideration
of the great canon of human worthiness.
I. HELPFULNESS IS MORE LIKE, IN MORE PERFECT HARMONY WITH, THE
DIVINE BEAUTY, WITH THAT DIVINE BEAUTY WHICH HAS ITS EVENER
APOCALYPSE UPON NATURE’S FIELD AND IN THE HUMAN SOUL. Even upon
His material works has God stamped the law of sympathetic service. Read this
written out in the clouds of the sky. These are the great water-carriers of the world.
And how diligently, how joyously, they carry on their labour of love t The huge
masses skip and whirl and chase each other like lambs at play; but, however weary,
they never think of laying down the burden which they bear. And the mountains, too,
are in service. Look upon the Andes, vertibral ridge of a continent. They are a giant
hand raised to catch and redistribute the moisture of the trade-winds from the
Atlantic, thus sending it back across the plains in healthful and life-giving streams.
And water, too, serves. By one of its lines cold is carried southward, and by another
heat is carried northward, thus diminishing the inequalities of temperature and
making the earth a pleasant residence for man. So is it through every department.
Nature is an organism. Not a drop of water leads a selfish life, not a wind-blast is
144

145. without its mission. And let that human life which dares to lift heavenward the
formal profession as the fulfilment of the Divine demand—let such a one take his
rebuke from ocean’s lips! Let him hear it sounding in the winds of heaven! Let him
hear it thundered forth by the everlasting mountains. Human lives are not wanted in
this world for ornament. God has prettier things for this purpose. And such a life, I
say, is in full harmony with the Divine. For a long time the world and man knew not
God. In this ignorance and blindness we can well imagine men asking the question,
“What is God?” To whom is He like? Is He the Zeus of the celestial world, full of
vindictiveness and passion? Is He the Oriental monarch, luxuriously lounging in the
palace room of the universe? And while men so questioned, the door of heaven
opened, and a Divine one in visible form walked forth before the eyes of men. And
this form, what was it? “That of a servant.” He bore men’s burdens. He healed men’s
sicknesses. He comforted human sorrows. He went about doing good. He gave His
life a ransom for many. And now that the Divine Spirit is in the world the
manifestation is the same. He, too, cowries in service. He is the Advocate, the
Comforter, His the soft hand which wipes away the falling tear and binds up the
broken heart. Such is the Divine, such is Deity.
II. But, in the second place, OF ALL MORAL FORCES, HELPFULNESS IS THE
MOST POTENT IN THE EDIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER. There is
nothing which grounds a man in truth and righteousness so firmly, there is nothing
which lifts him up so surely, as the doing of good to others. This, indeed, is only the
highest illustration of a law wide as the realm of human life. The bird which sings for
others gladdens its own heart with its song. The brook which flows with music for
listening ears grows more clear and limpid as it flows. Old ocean’s mighty tides and
racing gulf streams, which ever serve the need of man, paint the great deep with its
spotless blue, and bring safety and life to all the mighty host which march and
counter-march within its hollow bed. In doing good, everything in God’s universe
gets good. Service of others is highest service of self, and the best way for any man to
grow in grace is to move forward into service.
III. But, again, HELPFULNESS IS MORE LASTING, MORE IMMORTAL, THAN
ANYTHING ELSE OF HUMAN LIFE. “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;
whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall
vanish away. But charity never faileth.” Bad as is this world, it is good enough to
transmute and to hold immortality within it. The beauty of the beneficent deed, the
widow’s two mites, the alabaster box of ointment, Sir Philip Sidney’s cup of cold
water; the passing shadow of Florence Nightingale, which the dying soldier strove to
kiss; above all, the patient and gentle self-denial of the Christ life—these are pictures
which this world—God’s world, after all—will not let fade. The suns of centuries rise
and set upon them. Consider what this canon of human worthiness calls for of those
who would receive honour under it.
1. This, first of all: personal goodness. In this world of ours the tares grow
together with the wheat. Service of man calls for a servant first of all; and this can
no one of us be who is not disinterestedly in love with his kind, and true and pure
in all his works. To do good works which shall endure we ourselves must be good.
2. In the second place, the canon of the text demands that we should be willing to
help when help is required.
3. The law of the higher type also makes this a duty. We should seek
opportunities for doing good. The glory of the patriarch of Uz was written in
these words, “The cause that I knew not I searched out.”
4. The principle of the text teaches also the obligation of self-training. If we do
not know how to help now, why, then, we should learn. If we are unfit for service
145

146. now, we must make ourselves fit. Congenital infirmities may be corrected. The
inertia of selfish idleness and of grasping covetousness may be overcome by him
who, upon his knees, opens his heart to the entrance of the Divine Spirit. The
enthusiasm of humanity may be caught from the example and inspiration of
Jesus Christ. The mill-wheel will cease to revolve when the waters of the rushing
stream are cut off; the moving train will stop when the glowing heat cools within
the hidden chamber; and charity in this world will degenerate into a professional
schedule without inspiration and without power when the name of Jesus is no
longer writ by the hand of Faith upon its banner. (S. S. Mitchell, D. D.)
Servus servorum
I. OUR LORD’S POSITION.
1. In the world our Lord was not one of the cultured few on whom others wait. He
was a working-man, and in spirit Servant of servants.
2. In the circle of His own disciples He was one that served.
3. In celebration of Holy Supper, He was specially among them “as He that
serveth,” for He washed His disciples’ feet.
4. In the whole course of His life, Jesus on earth ever took the place of the
servant or slave. His ear was bored by His entering into covenant. “Mine ears hast
thou digged, or pierced (Psa_40:6 (margin); Exo_21:6). His office was
announced at His coming, “Lo, I come to do thy will!” (Psa_40:7; Heb_10:5-9).
His nature was fitted for service: He “ took upon Him the form of a servant”
(Php_2:7). He assumed the lowest place among men (Psa_22:6; Isa_53:3). He
cared for others, and not for Himself. “The Son of Man came not to be served but
to serve” (Mar_10:45). He laid aside His own will (Joh_4:34; Joh 6:38). He bore
patiently all manner of hardness (1Pe_2:23).
II. THE WONDER OF IT—that He should be a servant among His own servants. The
marvel of it was rendered the greater—
1. As He was Lord of all by nature and essence (Col_1:15-19).
2. As He was superior in wisdom, holiness, power, and in every other way, to the
very best of them (Mat_8:26-27; Joh_14:9).
3. As He was so greatly their Benefactor (Joh_15:16).
4. As they were such poor creatures, and so unworthy to be served.
III. THE EXPLANATION OF IT. We must look for this to His own nature.
1. He is so infinitely great (Heb_1:2-4),
2. He is so immeasurably full of love (Joh_15:9; 1Jn_3:16).
IV. THE IMITATION OF IT.
1. In cheerfully choosing to fulfil the most lowly offices.
2. In manifesting great lowliness of spirit and humility of bearing Eph_4:1-3;
Php_2:3; 1Pe_5:5).
3. In laying ourselves out for the good of others. Let self: sacrifice be the rule of
our existence (2Co_12:15).
4. In gladly bearing injustice rather than break the peace, avenge ourselves, or
146

147. grieve others (1Pe_2:19-20; 1Pe 3:14).
5. In selecting that place in which we receive least, and give most; choosing to
wait at table rather than to sit at meat. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Christlike service
A true character can never be built on a false foundation; on the denial of a fact or on
pretending not to see it. There are greater men and less; stronger and weaker; wiser
and less wise; men fit to rule and men fit only to be led; some who can teach and
others whose business it is to learn. The right relationship between men.is to be
reached, if at all, by a manly acknowledgment of the facts which divide them and the
individual superiorities which set one above another. It is he who can rightly say,
“Master and Lord am I”; who can also say with the fullest emphasis, “I am among you
as the servant”!
I. Since, then, THE MORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS VOLUNTARY SERVICE
were those which gave it worth, let us try in a few words to disentangle these moral
characteristics and understand them. They may be summed up, I think, in these two:
in unselfish love as the root-virtue, and in lowliness of mind as the specific shape
which love must take when it girds itself to serve.
II. Taking, then, these words of Jesus, “I am in the midst of you as your attendant,”
to be virtually DESCRIPTIVE OF HIS WHOLE POSITION ON EARTH and the spirit
of His entire career, we find that His life may be described thus: it was a voluntary
service of other men, rooted in pure love for them, and carried out with such
lowliness of mind as deems no office degrading which can be lovingly rendered.
Notice next, more expressly than we have yet done, that such lowly, loving service of
others was not in His case an occasional effort or a mere ornament of character
exhibited now and then. It formed the staple of His life. Christ came, not to be
ministered unto, but to minister; not to enrich Himself, either with nobler or baser
wealth, but to impoverish Himself that He might make many rich. With Him it is not,
as with other men, “I will sit at table, and do you wait on Me”; but it is, “you sit at
table, and I will wait.”
III. But is this, after all, A MORE EXCELLENT WAY WHICH JESUS HAS SHOWN?
Wherein is it more excellent? The King’s Son came among us. We called Him our
“Lord and Master,” and we said well; but He was as one who served us! Now we know
that the Father on high is like unto Him. The divinest part of His relationship to His
creatures lies here, that being Lord of all He makes Himself the servant of all. How is
He by day and night creation’s unwearied watcher, provider, attendant, benefactor!
The lions roar and He feedeth them. Not a sparrow falls but He heeds it. The lilies
spin not, yet He clothes them. True, patient minister to each creature’s need, in
whose loving eyes nothing is too minute to be remembered nor too mean to be
served; He is for ever with tender humble carefulness laying His might and His
providence and His inventiveness and His tastefulness at the service of all creation.
What! cries out the heart of the proud, is this your conception of the Eternal? Were
not all things made for His glory, then? Yes, indeed, for His glory; but not in the
ignoble sense we so often intend! Not made to be sacrificed to His pleasure. Not
made for a boastful display of His omnipotence or skill; nor as mere trappings or
attendants to lend dignity to His court. Away with such vain thoughts, borrowed
from the barbaric and vulgar splendour of an Oriental despotism! Verily, the universe
is the mirror of its Creator’s glory; but it is so because it shows Him to be prodigal of
His love, lavishing His care upon the least, stooping to adorn the poorest, and made
then supremely glad when He can see His creatures glad. The glory of God; where is
147

148. it? that He ministers to all! His blessedness; what is it? to make others blessed! I see,
then, that when the Son came among us as a servant, it became Him as a son to do
so, for it became the Father whose Son He was. It was a prolongation only, although
a right marvellous one, of that character whose Divineness men had been slow to see,
but which God the Maker had pencilled with light across His creation. (J. O. Dykes,
D. D.)
Continued with Me in My temptations
The solitariness of Christ in His temptations
We get here a wonderful glimpse into the heart of Christ, and a most pathetic
revelation of His thoughts and experiences; all the more precious because it is quite
incidental, and, we may say, unconscious.
I. THE TEMPTED CHRIST. “In My temptations”—so He summed up His life! The
period to which He refers lies between the wilderness and the garden, and includes
neither. His whole ministry was a field of continual and diversified temptations. No
sham fight.
1. Let us think of the tempted Christ, that our conceptions of His sinlessness may
be increased. His was no untried and cloistered virtue, pure because never
brought into contact with seducing evil, but a militant and victorious goodness,
that was able to withstand in the evil day.
2. Let us think of the tempted Christ, that our thankful thoughts of what He bore
for us may be warmer and more adequate, as we stand afar off and look on at the
mystery of His battle with our enemies and His.
3. Let us think of the tempted Christ, to make the lighter burden of our cross and
our less terrible conflict easier to bear and to wage. So will He continue with us in
our temptations, and patience and victory flow to us from Him.
II. THE LONELY CHRIST. The most solitary man that ever lived. His nearest
kindred stood aloof from Him. Even in the small company of His friends, there were
absolutely none who either understood Him or sympathized with Him. Talk of the
solitude of pure character amid evil, like Lot in Sodom, or of the loneliness of
uncomprehended aims or unshared thoughts—whoever experienced that as keenly as
Christ did? The more pure andlofty a nature, the more keen its sensitiveness, the
more exquisite its delights, and the sharper its pains. The more loving and unselfish a
heart the more its longing for companionship; and the more its aching in loneliness.
That lonely Christ sympathizes with all solitary hearts. If ever we feel ourselves
misunderstood and thrown back upon ourselves; if ever our heart’s burden of love is
rejected; if our outward lives be lonely and earth yields nothing to stay our longing
for companionship; if our hearts have been filled with dear ones and are now empty,
or but filled with tears, let us think of Him and say, “Yet I am not alone.” He lived
alone, alone He died, that no heart might ever be solitary any more.
III. THE GRATEFUL CHRIST. His heart was gladdened by loving friends, and He
recognized in their society a ministry of love. Where there is a loving heart there is
acceptable service. It is possible that our poor, imperfect deeds shall be an odour of a
sweet smell, acceptable, well-pleasing to Him. Which of us that is a father is not glad
at his children’s gifts, even though they be purchased with his own money, and be of
little use? They mean love, so they are precious. And Christ, in like manner, accepts
what we bring, even though it be chilled by selfishness, and faith broken by doubt,
and submission crossed by self-will. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
148

149. I appoint unto you a kingdom
Called to a kingdom
There was once a young prince, heir to the throne of Russia, who was giving himself
to every form of dissipation. He took up his residence in Paris, and entered heartily
into all its gaieties. One evening, as he u as seated with a number of young profligates
like himself, drinking, gambling, and making merry, a message was privately
conveyed to him that his father was dead. Pushing away from him the dice and the
wine-cup, he rose up and said, “I am emperor!” and forthwith announced that his
must henceforth be a different kind of life. Young men, I have to tell you tonight of a
kingdom to which you are called. To you the Lord Jesus says, “I appoint unto you a
kingdom, as My Father hath appointed unto Me.” To no meaner rank are you to
aspire than to that of “kings and priests unto God.” But when the day came that Saul
was actually to be made king, the youth was “not to be found.” He had hid himself
among the stuff. Saul concealed amid the baggage, perhaps the commissariat for that
large assembly of people; hidden, tall fellow as he was, amid the heap of boxes and
baskets of all kinds—is he not a picture of many a young man whom God is calling to
a kingdom, but who is chin-deep in business, so absorbed in worldly matters that he
cannot attend to the affairs of his soul? (J. T.Davidson, D. D.)
MACLAREN, “PARTING PROMISES AND WARNINGS
It was blameworthy, but only too natural, that, while Christ’s heart was full of His
approaching sufferings, the Apostles should be squabbling about their respective
dignity. They thought that the half-understood predictions pointed to a brief struggle
immediately preceding the establishment of the kingdom, and they wished to have
their rank settled in advance. Possibly, too, they had been disputing as to whose
office was the menial task of presenting the basin for foot-washing. So little did the
first partakers of the Lord’s Supper ‘discern the Lord’s body,’ and so little did His
most loving friends share His sorrows.
I. Our Lord was not so absorbed in His anticipations of the near Cross as
to be unobservant of the wrangling among the Apostles.
Even then His heart was enough at leisure from itself to observe, to pity, and to help.
So He at once turns to deal with the false ideas of greatness betrayed by the dispute.
The world’s notion is that the true use and exercise of superiority is to lord it over
others. Tyrants are flattered by the title of benefactor, which they do not deserve, but
the giving of which shows that, even in the world, some trace of the true conception
lingers. It was sadly true, at that time, that power was used for selfish ends, and
generally meant oppression. One Egyptian king, who bore the title Benefactor, was
popularly known as Malefactor, and many another old-world monarch deserved a
like name.
Jesus lays down the law for His followers as being the exact opposite of the world’s
notion. Dignity and pre-eminence carry obligations to serve. In His kingdom power is
to be used to help others, not to glorify oneself. In other sayings of Christ’s, service is
declared to be the way to become great in the kingdom, but here the matter is taken
up at another point, and greatness, already attained on whatever grounds, is
commanded to be turned to its proper use. The way to become great is to become
small, and to serve. The right use of greatness is to become a servant. That has
149

150. become a familiar commonplace now, but its recognition as the law for civic and
other dignity is all but entirely owing to Christianity. What conception of such a use
of power has the Sultan of Turkey, or the petty tyrants of heathen lands? The worst of
European rulers have to make pretence to be guided by this law; and even the Pope
calls himself ‘the servant of servants.’
It is a commonplace, but like many another axiom, universal acceptance and almost
as universal neglect are its fate. Ingrained selfishness fights against it. Men admire it
as a beautiful saying, and how many of us take it as our life’s guide? We condemn the
rulers of old who wrung wealth out of their people and neglected every duty; but
what of our own use of the fraction of power we possess, or our own demeanour to
our inferiors in world or church? Have all the occupants of royal thrones or
presidential chairs, all peers, members of Parliament, senators, and congressmen,
used their position for the public weal? Do we regard ours as a trust to be
administered for others? Do we feel the weight of our crown, or are we taken up with
its jewels, and proud of ourselves for it? Christ’s pathetic words, giving Himself as
the example of greatness that serves, are best understood as referring to His
wonderful act of washing the disciples’ feet. Luke does not record it, and probably did
not know it, but how the words are lighted up if we bring them into connection with
it!
II. Verses 28 to 30 naturally flow from the preceding.
They lift a corner of the veil, and show the rewards, when the heavenly form of the
kingdom has come, of the right use of eminence in its earthly form. How pathetic a
glimpse into Christ’s heart is given in that warm utterance of gratitude for the
imperfect companionship of the Twelve! It reveals His loneliness, His yearning for a
loving hand to grasp, His continual conflict with temptations to choose an easier way
than that of the Cross. He has known all the pain of being alone, and feeling in vain
for a sympathetic heart to lean on. He has had to resist temptation, not only in the
desert at the beginning, or in Gethsemane at the end, but throughout His life. He
treasures in His heart, and richly repays, even a little love dashed with much
selfishness, and faithfulness broken by desertion. We do not often speak of the
tempted Christ, or of the lonely Christ, or of the grateful Christ, but in these great
words we see Him as being all these.
The rewards promised point onwards to the perfecting of the kingdom in the future
life. We notice the profound thought that the kingdom which His servants are to
inherit is conferred on them, ‘as My Father hath appointed unto Me,’-that is, that it is
a kingdom won by suffering and service, and wielded by gentleness and for others. ‘If
we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.’ The characteristics of the future royalty of
Christ’s servants are given in highly figurative language. A state of which we have no
experience can only be revealed under forms drawn from experience; but these are
only far-off approximations, and cannot be pressed.
The sacred Last Supper suggested one metaphor. It was the last on earth, but its
sanctity would be renewed in heaven, and sadness and separation and the following
grief would not mar the perfect, perpetual, joyful feast. What dim visions of rule and
delegated authority may lie in the other promise of judging the twelve tribes of Israel,
we must wait till we go to that world to understand. But this is clear, that continuing
with Jesus here leads to everlasting companionship hereafter, in which all desires
shall be satisfied, and we shall share in His authority and be representatives of His
glory.
III. But Jesus abruptly recalls Himself and the Twelve from these
remoter prospects of bliss to the nearer future of trial and separation.
150

151. The solemn warning to Peter follows with startling suddenness. Why should they be
fighting about precedence when they were on the verge of the sorest trial of their
constancy? And as for Peter, who had, no doubt, not been the least loud-voiced in the
strife, he needed most of all to be sobered. Our narrow limits forbid our doing even
partial justice to the scene with him; but we note the significant use of the old name
‘Simon,’ reminding the Apostle of his human weakness, and its repetition, giving
emphasis to the address.
We note, too, the partial withdrawal of the veil which hides the spirit world from us,
in the distinct declaration of the agency of a personal tempter, whose power is
limited, though his malice is boundless, and who had to obtain God’s permission ere
he could tempt. His sieve is made to let the wheat through, and to retain the chaff. It
will be hard to empty this saying of its force. Christ taught the existence and
operation of Satan; but He taught, too, that He Himself was Satan’s victorious
antagonist and our prevailing intercessor. He is so still. He does not seek to avert
conflict from us, but prays that our faith fail not, and Himself, too, fulfils the prayer
by strengthening us.
Faith, then, conquers, and withstands Satan’s sifting. If it holds out, we shall not fall,
though all the winds howl round us. We are not passive between the two antagonists,
but have to take our share in the struggle. Partial failures may be followed by
recovery, and even tend to increase our power to strengthen other tempted ones, by
the experience gained of our own weakness, which deepens humility and forbearance
with others’ faults, and by the experience of Christ’s strength, which makes us able to
direct them to the source of all safety.
Peter’s passionate avowal of readiness to bear anything, if only he was with Christ, is
the genuine utterance of a warm impulsive heart, which took too little heed of
Christ’s solemn warning, and fancied that the tide of present feeling would always
run as strong as now. Emotion fluctuates. Steadfast devotion is chary of mortgaging
the future by promises. He who knows himself is slow to say, ‘I will,’ for he knows
that ‘Oh that I may!’ is fitter for his weakness. Very likely, if Peter had been offered
fetters or the scaffold then and there, he would have accepted them bravely; but it
was a different thing in the raw, cold morning, after an agitating night, and the
Master away at the far end of the great hall. A flippant maid’s tongue was enough to
finish him then.
It is sometimes easier to bear a great load for Christ than a small one. Some of us
could be martyrs at the stake more easily than confessors among sneering
neighbours. Jesus had spared the Apostle in the former warning of his fall, but He
spoke plainly at last, since the former had been ineffectual; and He addressed him by
his new name of Peter, as if to heighten the sin of denial by recalling the privileges
bestowed.
IV. The last part of the passage deals with the new conditions consequent
on Christ’s departure.
The Twelve had been exempt from the care of providing for themselves while He was
with them, but now they are to be launched into the world alone, like fledglings from
the nest. Not that His presence is not with them or with us, but that His absence
throws the task of providing for wants and guarding against dangers on themselves,
as had not been the case during the blessed years of companionship. Hence the
injunctions in verse 36 lay down the permanent law for the Church, while verse 37
assigns as its reason the speedy fulfilment of the prophecies of Messiah’s sufferings.
Substantially the meaning of the whole is: ‘I am on the point of leaving you, and,
when I am gone, you must use common-sense means for provision and protection. I
151

152. provided for you while I was here, without your co-operation. Remember how I did
so, and trust Me to provide in future, through your co-operation.’
The life of faith does not exclude ordinary prudence and the use of appropriate
means. It is more in accord with Christ’s mind to have a purse to keep money in, and
a wallet for food-stores, than to go out, as some good people do, saying, ‘The Lord
will provide.’ Yes, He will; but it will be by blessing your common-sense and effort.
As to the difficulty felt in the injunction to buy a sword, our Lord would be
contradicting His whole teaching if He was here commanding the use of arms for the
defence of His servants or the promotion of His kingdom. That He did not mean
literal swords is plain from His answer to the Apostles, who produced the formidable
armament of two.
‘It is enough.’ A couple are plenty to fight the Roman Empire with. Yes, two too
many, as was soon seen. The expression is plainly an intensely energetic metaphor,
taking line with purse and scrip. The plain meaning of the whole is that we are called
on to provide necessary means of provision and defence, which He will bless. The
only sword permitted to His followers is the sword of the Spirit.
25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles
lord it over them; and those who exercise
authority over them call themselves
Benefactors.
BARNES, "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, but that “his”
kingdom was to be of a different character, and they were not to expect it there.
Over them - That is, over the “nations.”
Are called benefactors - The word “benefactor” is applied to one who bestows
“favor” on another. It was applied to kings by way of “compliment or flattery.” Some
of them might have been truly benefactors of their people, but this was by no means
true of “all.” Yet it was applied to all, and especially to the Roman emperors. It is
found applied to them often in the writings of Josephus and Philo.
CLARKE, "Are called benefactors - The very Greek word used by the
evangelist, ευεργεται, was the surname of some of the Ptolemies of Egypt; Ptolemy
Euergetes, i.e. the Benefactor. It was a custom among the ancient Romans to
distribute part of the lands which they had conquered on the frontiers of the empire
to their soldiers; those who enjoyed such lands were called beneficiarii, beneficed
persons; and the lands themselves were termed beneficia, benefices, as being held on
the beneficence of the sovereign; and it is no wonder that such sovereigns, however
tyrannical or oppressive they might have been in other respects, were termed
benefactors by those who were thus dependent on their bounty.
152

153. GILL, "And he said unto them,.... The disciples; that is, Jesus said to them, as
the Syriac and Persic versions express:
the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; by which our Lord
would dissuade his disciples from seeking to introduce a superiority over one
another, since this was the practice of the Heathens, of the men of the world, of
ignorant Gentiles; whereas Christ's kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, and not of this
world, and therefore, not to be managed in such a way.
And they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors; either
by themselves, or by their court flatterers, to cover their ambition, tyranny, and
cruelty. Two of the King's of Egypt were called by the name Euergetes (p); the word
that is here used, and translated "benefactors"; and it was commonly given to other
kings, princes, and men in power: so Cyrus was called by the Armenians; Antigonus
by the Greeks; and Phylacus among the Persians: the same name was given to
Mithridates king of Pontus, to Titus Aelius Hadrianus, to Menander, to Marcus
Aurelius Severus, and to Cato Uticensis, and others (q).
HENRY, "(1.) This was to make themselves like the kings of the Gentiles, who
affect worldly pomp, and worldly power, Luk_22:25. They exercise lordship over
their subjects, and are ever and anon striving to exercise lordship too over the
princes that are about them, though as good as themselves, if they think them not so
strong as themselves. Note, The exercising of lordship better becomes the kings of
the Gentiles than the ministers of Christ. But observe, They that exercise authority,
and take upon themselves to bear sway, and give law, they are called Benefactors -
Euergetas, they call themselves so, and so their flatterers call them, and those that set
themselves to serve their interests. It is pretended that they have been benefactors,
and upon that account they should be admitted to have rule; nay, that in exercising
authority they are benefactors. However they may really serve themselves, they
would be thought to serve their country. One of the Ptolemies was surnamed
Euergetes - The Benefactor. Now our Saviour, by taking notice of this, intimates, [1.]
That to do good is much more honourable than to look great; for these princes that
were the terror of the mighty would not be called so, but rather the benefactors of
the needy; so that, by their own confession, a benefactor to his country is much more
valued than a ruler of his country. [2.] That to do good is the surest way to be great,
else they that aimed to be rulers would not have been so solicitous to be called
Benefactors. This therefore he would have his disciples believe, that their greatest
honour would be to do all the good they could in the world. They would indeed be
benefactors to the world, by bringing the gospel to it. Let them value themselves
upon that title, which they would indeed be entitled to, and then they need not strive
which should be the greatest, for they would all be greater - greater blessings to
mankind than the kings of the earth, that exercise lordship over them. If they have
that which is confessedly the greater honour, of being benefactors, let them despise
the less, of being rulers.
JAMISON, "benefactors — a title which the vanity of princes eagerly coveted.
COFFMAN, "The kings of the Gentiles ... Here, just as in the similar passages
from Matthew and Mark, cited above, the Lord was condemning the pyramidal
153

154. type of government so characteristic of all nations. He forbade such systems in
his kingdom.
Benefactors ... This was "a title carried by the Greek kings of Egypt and
Syria,"[14] which was about as incongruous a designation as could be imagined.
In all ages, usurpers have loved to call themselves by titles which denied their
essential character; nor has the device perished from the earth. Are not such
titles as Innocent, Pius, and Boniface exactly of the same quality?
ENDNOTE:
[14] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 264.
COKE, "Luke 22:25-26. The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship, &c.—
"Among the Gentiles, they are reckoned the greatest men who have the greatest
power, and who exercise it in the most absolute manner. Such, however, have at
times affected the pompous title of Benefactors, Ευεργετης, (a surname, which
some of the kings of Egypt and of Syria assumed) and thereby have tacitly
acknowledged that true greatness consists in goodness. But your greatness shall
not be like theirs, shall not consist in the exercise of tyrannical power, though it
should be joined with an affectation of titles, which denote qualities truly
honourable. Whoever desires to be great or chief among you, let him be so by
humility, and by his serviceableness to the rest; in imitation of me your Master,
whose greatness consists in this,—that I am become the servant of you all."
Instead of greatest, Luke 22:26 the original word might be rendered more
properly eldest, as it is opposed to the youngest. Comp. Romans 9.
12. According to the manners of the Jews, the aged expected great service and
submission from the younger. See the notes on Matthew 20:25; Matthew 20:34.
ELLICOTT, "(25) The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them.—See
Notes on Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42. The repetition of the same words that had
then been spoken in answer to the petition of the sons of Zebedee, suggests the
probability that they were again prominent in the strife for pre-eminence.
Are called benefactors.—This takes the place of “their great ones exercise
authority upon them,” in St. Matthew and St. Mark. Antiochus VII. of Syria,
and Ptolemy III. of Egypt, were examples of kings who had borne the title of
Euergetes, or benefactor. There is apparently an emphasis on “are called” as
contrasted with “let him become,” in the next verse. The world gave the title of
“benefactor” to those who were great in power only. In Christ’s kingdom true
greatness was to be attained by benefiting others in the humblest services.
PETT, "So Jesus gently pointed out that their attitude was abysmal. It was the
same as that of the Gentiles. Among the Gentiles their kings took up a position of
lordship and expected men to bow down and submit to them. And they loved to
be looked on as ‘Benefactors’ (this was specifically so of certain Ptolemaic and
Seleucid kings who took this very title, as did later Trajan in Rome. Compare
also 2 Maccabees 4:2 of Onias the High Priest). They wanted to be seen as those
154

155. who graciously bestowed benefits on their subjects. It is an interesting fact of
history that even the most evil of kings still wanted to be thought of as ‘good’,
and as benefactors. They were constantly declaring all the wonderful things that
they had done for the people whom they had enslaved. So the more authority
they had, the more they wanted to be able to exert it, and yet at the same time
they wanted to be thought well of. While their whole thoughts were on power
and prestige and position, they still wanted to be appreciated. Indeed they very
often did feel that their subjects owed them a great deal. There are none as blind
as those who have a high opinion of themselves and of their own importance. It
was indeed a sad day for the church when the bishops began in exactly the same
way to see themselves as ‘benefactors’. The more they did so the more arrogant
they became.
26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the
greatest among you should be like the youngest,
and the one who rules like the one who serves.
BARNES 26-27, "But ye shall not be so - Christ here takes occasion to explain
the nature of his kingdom. He assures them that it is established on different
principles from those of the world; that his subjects were not to expect titles, and
power, and offices of pomp in his kingdom. He that would be most advanced in “his”
kingdom would be he that was most humble; and in order to show them this, he took
a towel and girded himself after the manner of a servant, and washed their feet, to
show them what ought to be their feelings toward each other. See Joh_13:4-17.
He that sitteth at meat - The master of the feast, or one of his guests.
But I am among you ... - This was said in connection with his washing their
feet. He “showed” them how they ought to feel and act toward each other. “They”
ought, therefore, not to aim at office and power, but to be humble, and serve and aid
one another.
CLARKE, "Let him be as the younger - Dr. Lightfoot justly conjectures that
Peter was the eldest of all the disciples; and he supposes that the strife was kindled
between him and the sons of Zebedee, James and John. These three disciples were
those whom Christ had distinguished by peculiar marks of his favor; and therefore it
is natural to conclude that the strife lay between these three, the two brothers and
Peter. Shall we or Peter be at the head? Neither, says our Lord. Let him, Peter, who is
chief (ᆇ µειζων, the eldest) among you, be as, John, ᆇ νεωτερος, the younger. The
younger part of the disciples do not appear to have taken any part in this contention;
and our Lord shows Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, that they must be as
unambitious as the younger in order to be acknowledged as his disciples. Dr.
Lightfoot thinks that Peter was the mover of this strife, and therefore our Lord
155

156. rebukes him by name.
GILL, "But ye shall not be so,.... See Gill on Mat_20:26.
but he that is greatest among you; in age or gifts, or would be thought to be the
greatest, who is most ambitious of grandeur and authority, which perhaps might be
Peter's case, who was the oldest man:
let him be as the younger; as John, the beloved disciple, who was the youngest of
them; and be as modest, and as humble as he, and reckon himself as in his place, and
condescend to men of low estates, and esteem each other, even the youngest, better
than himself. So the phrase, ‫היכזעירא‬ ‫היכרבא‬ (r), "both greater and lesser", is used of
the elder and younger.
And he that is chief; that is, a spiritual ruler and governor in the church of God, as
all the disciples were:
as he that doth serve; for the apostles and ministers of the word, though they are
over others in the Lord, and have the rule over them, yet they are servants for Jesus'
sake, and so ought to reckon themselves; See Gill on Mat_20:27.
HENRY, "(2.) It was to make themselves unlike the disciples of Christ, and unlike
Christ himself: “You shall not be so,” Luk_22:26, Luk_22:27. “It was never intended
that you should rule any otherwise than by the power of truth and grace, but that you
should serve.” When church-rulers affect external pomp and power, and bear up
themselves by secular interests and influences, they debase their office, and it is an
instance of degeneracy like that of Israel when they would have a king like the
nations that were round about them, whereas the Lord was their King. See here, [1.]
What is the rule Christ gave to his disciples: He that is greater among you, that is
senior, to whom precedency is due upon the account of his age, let him be as the
younger, both in point of lowness of place (let him condescend to sit with the
younger, and be free and familiar with them) and in point of labour and work. We
say, Juniores ad labores, seniores ad honores - Let the young work, and the aged
receive their honours. But let the elder take pains as well as the younger; their age
and honour, instead of warranting them to take their ease, bind them to double work.
And he that is chief, ho hēgoumenos - the president of the college or assembly, let him
be as he that serves, hōs ho diakonōn - as the deacon; let him stoop to the meanest
and most toilsome services for the public good, if there be occasion. [2.] What was
the example which he himself gave to this rule: Whether is greater, he that sitteth at
meat or he that serveth? he that attendeth or he that is attended on? Now Christ was
among his disciples just like one that waited at table. He was so far from taking state,
or taking his ease, by commanding their attendance upon him, that he was ready to
do any office of kindness and service for them; witness his washing their feet. Shall
those take upon them the form of princes who call themselves followers of him that
took upon him the form of a servant?
JAMISON, "But ye ... not — Of how little avail has this condemnation of
“lordship” and vain titles been against the vanity of Christian ecclesiastics?
156

157. ELLICOTT, "(26) He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger.—
The latter word naturally carried with it, as in the old monastic rule, juniores ad
labores, the idea of service. In Acts 5:6, “the young men” appear as a distinct
body in the society of disciples, with functions like those of the later deacons or
sextons; and the same sense is, perhaps, traceable in 1 Timothy 5:1; Titus 2:6; 1
Peter 5:5.
He that is chief.—Here again the Greek word came to have a half-technical sense
as equivalent, or nearly so, to bishop or presbyter. So in Hebrews 13:7; Hebrews
13:17; Hebrews 13:24, where it is rendered “they that have the rule over you.”
He that doth serve.—The verb is the same as that from which the word “deacon”
is derived, and, with Matthew 23:11, Mark 10:43, probably suggested the
ecclesiastical use of the word. It is noticeable that the first recorded example of
that use is in the salutation to “the bishops and deacons” of Philippi (Philippians
1:1), the Church which more than any other was under St. Luke’s influence. The
“seven” of Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5, of whom we commonly speak as the first deacons,
are never so named in the New Testament.
PETT, "But it was to be different with them. They were not to be like these
Gentile kings. They were to take up an attitude of humility and service. They
were not to think of being the greatest, but of being the least. They were not to
look for the position of ‘elder statesman’ but to desire to be seen as of least
account. They were not to seek chief status, but to seek to be servants. And this
all genuinely from the heart, and not by some massive deception which was
simply seeking to be honoured as ‘humble’ as a result of putting on an act. They
were genuinely to consider themselves not just as servants of God, but as
servants of their brethren and of mankind, just as Jesus did. (And indeed no
man’s ministry is in more danger than when people praise him to the skies and
treat him as though he was important).
27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table
or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at
the table? But I am among you as one who
serves.
GILL, "For whether is greater,.... Christ appeals to themselves, and puts a case
that is plain and obvious to any one, who is the greater, and more honourable
person;
he that sitteth at meat; that sits, or lies down at table, and another waits on him:
157

158. or he that serveth? that stands behind, observes orders, and ministers to those
that sit down:
is not he that sitteth at meat? you, and every one must own, that he is the
greatest, and most honourable person:
but I am among you as he that serveth; Christ took upon him the form of a
servant, and instead of being ministered unto, ministered to others; and had very
lately, but two days before, gird himself, and took a basin and a towel, and washed
and wiped the feet of his disciples: now our Lord, by his own example throughout the
whole of his conduct among them, as well as by such a single action, would dissuade
from their ambitious views of superiority over each other, and learn of him who was
meek and lowly, and by love serve one another.
SBC, “We find in these words a double reference: (1) To the character, and (2) to the
office, of the Son of Man; to His character as the Lowly One, to His office as a
servant. For the purpose of bringing both these things before His disciples He makes
use of those marvellous words: "I am among you as the serving one." Consider three
things in reference to this service: (1) Its history; (2) its nature; (3) the ends and
objects which it is intended to meet.
I. Its history. It is not with His birth in Bethlehem that Christ’s service begins. His
visit to our first father in Paradise was its true commencement. After that we find
Him, age after age, visiting the children of men, and always in the character of one
ministering to their wants. At His birth His life of service visibly began.
II. Its nature. (1) It is willing service. (2) It is a loving service. (3) It is self-denying
service. (4) It is patient, unwearied service. (5) It is free service.
III. Its ends and objects. It is to sinners that this service is rendered; and there is
much in this to exhibit the ends which it has in view. We need forgiveness, cleansing,
healing, strength, wisdom, faith, protection. He ministers these to us, according to
our need. In every scene and place and duty and struggle and trial He will be at our
side, as the servant, to minister to us in everything, so that in nothing we may be
found lacking.
H. Bonar, Short Sermons, p. 70.
PETT, "And this is the reason why. It is because they were to take up His own
attitude. He was here as the Servant in order to serve both God and man. He was
not here seeking greatness, otherwise He could have ensured it. He was here to
do God’s will and serve others in any way that He could, without seeking honour
for Himself. He was indeed the One Who had the right to be honoured (John
5:22-23). And yet He had not sought it for Himself. He had sought only to be as
good a servant as He could be. There can be little doubt that behind these words
He saw Himself as the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah, whose ideal was to serve,
and Who committed Himself to serve, and would do so even when He came in
His glory (Luke 12:37).
This was the opposite of the way in which all mankind thought. To mankind the
important person was the one whom others served. They assessed their prestige
by how many people served them and bowed down to them. The man who could
sit and eat while others served him was the one who was most important. But the
158

159. disciples were, like Him, to take up the opposite position. They were to find
‘greatness’ by being true servants of others, not in ostentatious hypocrisy, but
genuinely. They had to have the heart of servants. For the more they truly
served, not in order to later obtain reward, but because they had the hearts of
servants like He had, the more they would be honoured in the eyes of God. They
could take as an example what He had told them earlier, that when He came in
His glory they would sit at table while He genuinely served them (Luke 12:37).
That was the attitude to be continually followed in the Kingly Rule of God. Even
in His glory He would be a servant, Whose sole purpose was to genuinely serve
and reveal love to others. For that is the attitude that prevails in Heaven. If He
had not already done so He would shortly illustrate it by washing their feet (John
13:2-15).
His words here repeat the thought contained in Mark 10:42-45, although with
sufficient difference for us to recognise that it is a repetition of the same idea
rather than the same statement given in a different place (see also Matthew
23:1-11 for a similar idea). But the identification with the idea of the Servant of
the Lord is the same in each case.
Note, however, the particular illustration here in terms of a household servant.
This ties in with Jesus’ parables about the servants. It is a repetition of what He
has already taught them, but emphasising the lowliness and position of servitude
they are to seek. They are to see themselves as the slaves of all. It is not therefore
restricted to church ministry, but applies to Christians in all aspects of their lives
(even to kings). The true sign of the Christian who is doing the Lord’s will is that
he enjoys being the servant of all, and desires no acknowledgement for what he
does. Nor does he consider that it puts him in any special position. He does only
what it is his duty to do, to serve his Lord, and to serve others. He seeks only to
be pleasing to God.
28 You are those who have stood by me in my
trials.
BARNES, "My temptations - My trials, my humiliations, and my assaults from
the power of Satan and a wicked world.
GILL, "Ye are they which have continued with me,.... From the beginning of
his ministry, to that very time, they abode by him, and never departed from him,
when others withdrew and walked no more with him:
159

160. in my temptations: not in the wilderness by Satan; for they were not with him
then, not being as yet called to be his disciples and followers: but in his afflictions, by
the reproaches, and cavils, and ensnaring questions of the Scribes and Pharisees, and
their attempts upon him to take away his life by stoning, &c. which were trials and
temptations to him. So the Ethiopic version renders it, "in my affliction": now, since
they had stood their ground, and firmly adhered to him in all his trials, he would
have them still continue with him, and in his interest, though they should not have
that temporal glory and grandeur they expected; but, on the contrary, fresh troubles
and exercises, reproach, persecution, and death itself; and, for their encouragement,
he promises both pleasure and honour, though of another sort, than what they were
seeking after.
HENRY, "(3.) They ought not to strive for worldly honour and grandeur, because
he had better honours in reserve for them, of another nature, a kingdom, a feast, a
throne, for each of them, wherein they should all share alike, and should have no
occasion to strive for precedency, Luk_22:28-30. Where observe,
[1.] Christ's commendation of his disciples for their faithfulness to him; and this
was honour enough for them, they needed not to strive for any greater. It is spoken
with an air of encomium and applause: “You are they who have continued with me
in my temptations, you are they who have stood by me and stuck to me when others
have deserted me and turned their backs upon me.” Christ had his temptations; he
was despised and rejected of men, reproached and reviled, and endured the
contradiction of sinners. But his disciples continued with him, and were afflicted in
all his afflictions. It was but little help that they could give him, or service that they
could do him; nevertheless, he took it kindly that they continued with him, and he
here owns their kindness, though it was by the assistance of his own grace that they
did continue. Christ's disciples had been very defective in their duty. We find them
guilty of many mistakes and weaknesses: they were very dull and very forgetful, and
often blundered, yet their Master passes all by and forgets it; he does not upbraid
them with their infirmities, but gives them this memorable testimonial, You are they
who have continued with me. Thus does he praise at parting, to show how willing he
is to make the best of those whose hearts he knows to be upright with him.
[2.] The recompence he designed them for their fidelity: I appoint, diatithemai, I
bequeath, unto you a kingdom. Or thus, I appoint to you, as my Father has
appointed a kingdom to me, that you may eat and drink at my table. Understand it,
First, Of what should be done for them in this world. God gave his Son a kingdom
among men, the gospel church, of which he is the living, quickening, ruling, Head.
This kingdom he appointed to his apostles and their successors in the ministry of the
gospel, that they should enjoy the comforts and privileges of the gospel, help to
communicate them to others by gospel ordinances, sit on thrones as officers of the
church, not only declaratively, but exhortatively judging the tribes of Israel that
persist in their infidelity, and denouncing the wrath of God against them, and ruling
the gospel Israel, the spiritual Israel, by the instituted discipline of the church,
administered with gentleness and love. This is the honour reserved for you. Or,
Secondly, Of what should be done for them in the other world, which I take to be
chiefly meant. Let them go on in their services in this world; their preferments shall
be in the other world. God will give them the kingdom, in which they shall be sure to
have, 1. The richest dainties; for they shall eat and drink at Christ's table in his
kingdom, of which he had spoken, Luk_22:16, Luk_22:18. They shall partake of
those joys and pleasures which were the recompence of his services and sufferings.
They shall have a full satisfaction of soul in the vision and fruition of God; and herein
they shall have the best society, as at a feast, in the perfection of love. 2. The highest
160

161. dignities: “You shall not only be provided for at the royal table, as Mephibosheth at
David's, but you shall be preferred to the royal throne; shall sit down with me on my
throne, Rev_3:21. In the great day you shall sit on thrones, as assessors with Christ,
to approve of and applaud his judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel.” If the saints
shall judge the world (1Co_6:2), much more the church.
JAMISON, "continued, etc. — affecting evidence of Christ’s tender
susceptibility to human sympathy and support! (See on Joh_6:66, Joh_6:67; see
Joh_16:32.)
CALVIN, "Luke 22:28.You are they who have continued with me. Although
Luke appears to relate a different discourse of Christ, and one which was
delivered at a different time, yet I have no doubt that it refers to the same time.
For it is not a continued discourse of Christ that is here related, but detached
sentences, without any regard to the order of time, as we shall shortly afterwards
have occasion to state. But he employs more words than Matthew; for he
declares that, as the apostles had accompanied him, and had remained
steadfastly in his temptations, they would also be partakers of his glory. It is
asked, in what sense does he call them his temptations? I think that he means the
contests by which God tried him and the apostles in common. And properly did
he use the word temptations; for, according to the feeling of human nature, his
faith and patience were actually tried.
BENSON, "Luke 22:28-30. Ye have continued with me in my temptations — εν
τοις πειρασμοις μου, in my trials and afflictions: and his whole life was little else
than one continued series of them, particularly from the time of his entering on
his public ministry. And I appoint unto you a kingdom — I will preserve you in
all your temptations and trials here, and will confer on you a kingdom of glory
hereafter: I appoint, not a primacy to one, but a kingdom to every one; and that
on the same terms as my Father hath appointed to me — Who have fought and
conquered. That ye may eat and drink at my table, &c. — That ye may enjoy the
highest happiness as guests, not as servants, and the highest dignity, not as
subjects, but as princes. Now as these honours, which I shall hereafter confer on
you, are incomparably beyond those about which you seem so solicitous, let a
consideration of this awaken a nobler ambition in your minds, than that which
appears now to influence them; and, instead of contending for superiority over
each other, in my church militant, in which you must expect to meet with
continual reproach and suffering, aspire after high degrees of that celestial glory,
which you are to share with me in my church triumphant. See on Matthew
19:28-29. The words seem to be primarily applicable to the twelve apostles, and
secondarily to all Christ’s servants and disciples, whose spiritual powers,
honours, and delights, are here represented in figurative terms, with respect to
their advancement both in the kingdom of grace and glory.
COFFMAN, "This promise refers to earth and this life ... His kingdom would be
administered by them ... For centuries, the story of civilization has been the story
of this kingdom.[16]
At my table in my kingdom ... This identifies the church, wherein the Lord's
Table is ever found, to be the kingdom in view here. That man who is not eating
161

162. and drinking at the Lord's Table is not in the kingdom of God.
Twelve thrones ... These are to be understood spiritually, as are the "twelve
tribes of Israel." This refers to the word of the holy apostles as the supreme
authority in the Lord's church. Also, it should be noted that death would not
remove them from office, no successors to the Twelve being envisioned by the
Lord. See the comments in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:28. Luke
did not mention "twelve" thrones, but Matthew did (Matthew 19:28). "These
expressions are applicable primarily to the Twelve apostles."[17]
My kingdom ... As Bliss said, "This is the only instance in which Jesus calls the
kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven `my kingdom'." The kingdom of
God is the kingdom of Christ.
[16] H. D. M. Spence, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952), Vol. 16, Luke, p. 200.
[17] John Wesley, op. cit., p. 287.
ELLICOTT, "(28) Ye are they which have continued with me in my
temptations.—We trace a kind of loving tenderness in this recognition of
faithfulness following upon the words of rebuke. The “temptations” cannot, it is
clear, be those of which we commonly speak as the Temptation of the Christ, for
that had been encountered in absolute solitude. The word must, accordingly be
taken in its wider sense of “trials,” as in 1 Corinthians 10:13; James 1:2; James
1:12; 1 Peter 1:6, and probably referred to the crises in our Lord’s ministry
(such, e.g., as those in Matthew 12:14; Matthew 12:46; John 6:60; John 6:68;
John 12:43) when the enmity of scribes and rulers was most bitter, and many
disciples had proved faithless and faint-hearted.
BURKITT, "Observe here, what an honorable acknowledgment Christ makes of
the constancy of his disciples' love and affection towards him: Ye are they that
have continued with me in my temptations; that is, in my afflictions, trials, and
sufferings. It is an easy matter to abide with Christ in days of peace, in times of
consolation; but when we are under afflictions, temptations and troubles, then to
abide and keep close to Christ, this is the proof of love and friendship. And as
Christ makes an honorable mention of their constancy towards him, so he
presently assures them of an honorable reward: I appoint unto you a kingdom.
Learn hence, that such as are sharers with Christ in his sufferings, shall certainly
communicate with him in his glory: If we suffer with him, we shall also reign
with him.
And whereas our Saviour promises his apostles to sit upon thrones with him
judging the twelve tribes of Israel; we may gather, that such ministers as do most
service for Christ, and forsake most to follow him, and continue in temptation
and tribulation with him, shall in his kingdom partake of most honor and dignity
with him and from him: You shall eat and drink in my kingdom, and sit on
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Possibly the apostles, and all the
162

163. zealous, faithful and laborious ministers of Jesus Christ, shall be nearer his
throne in heaven, than either saints or angels; nearer than the angels, because by
Christ's assuming the human nature, they are more nearly allied to him; he is
their friend, but our brother; and nearer than other saints, as having done more
eminent service for Christ, and brought more honor and glory to him by a
laborious diligence in their place and station, They that turn many to
righteousness, shall shine, etc. Daniel 12:3
PETT, "Then He pointed out to them that up to this point they had indeed
walked in this way. They had continued with Him in the lowly life that He had
chosen. They too had faced insults, as He had. They too had had nowhere to lay
their head. They too had had to take a lowly position. They had chosen to share
with Him the way of service. From the commencement of His ministry up to this
point He had faced continual temptation and testing. And included in that
temptation had been the temptation to take the easy way and to use His powers
to smooth His way. Even the temptation to take for Himself authority and power
and be exalted. The temptations in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-11) in which He had
faced these questions, had been but a prelude to the continual temptations that
had faced Him since. He had been challenged and tested in every way, on the one
hand by insults, byperverse questioners, by a family who thought that He was
going in the wrong direction, and by those who hated Him. And on the other by
voluntarily going without what all men sought, by choosing poverty, by being
faced with those who sought to drive Him to take honour for Himself by
announcing Himself as a king, and by His own knowledge of how He could make
all different simply by the wrong and selfish use of His powers. He could have
wrought mighty wonders and forced Himself on their attention. He could have
smitten His enemies where they stood. He could have compromised with the
Scribes or the Chief Priests. They would certainly have welcomed Him if only He
had been ‘reasonable’ (had generally backed up their ideas) and had
compromised. But that was not why He was here. He was here to truly serve God
and men. He was here to reveal truth. And thus He had only called on His
powers for these purposes, and in order to turn men’s thoughts towards God. He
had chosen the way that led to affliction, and never the way that led to His own
glory.
And the disciples had continued with Him in this. They too had learned to use
the gifts that He had given them in order to preach and serve, and not in order to
obtain honour for themselves. They had done well. But it was important that
they continued in this way. It was important that they continued to walk as He
walked, and thus continued to face and overcome the temptations that He had
faced and overcome. And once He had left them they would have to fight those
temptations again, but now alone, especially in the days when, instead of
obviously being assistants, they would be seen as important in their own right.
They would be seen as supreme over the church. Then would come the great
danger that they would think of themselves more highly than they ought to
think. They would begin to think of themselves as ‘Somebodies’. But this they
must for ever eschew. They must rather have their hearts set on the lowest place.
163

164. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my
Father conferred one on me,
BARNES, "And I appoint unto you a kingdom - He assures them here that
they should “have” a kingdom - their expectations would be realized. They had
continued with him; they had seen how “he” had lived, and to what trials he had been
subjected; they had all along expected a kingdom, and he assures them that they
should not be disappointed.
As my Father ... - They had seen how God had appointed a kingdom to “him.” It
was not with pomp, and splendor, and external glory, but it was in poverty, want,
persecution, and trial. So would “he” appoint to them a kingdom. They should
“surely” possess it; but it would be not with external splendor, but by poverty and
toil. The original word “appoint” has the force of a “covenant” or compact, and means
that it should be “surely” or certainly done, or that he pledged himself to do it. All
Christians must enter into the kingdom of heaven after the manner of their Lord -
through much tribulation; but, though it must be, as it was with him, by many tears
and sorrows, yet they shall surely reach the place of their rest and the reward of
heaven, for it is secured to them by the covenant pledge and faithfulness of their Lord
and King.
CLARKE, "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed
unto me - The Codex Alexandrinus, with some other MSS., the later Syriac, and
Origen, read in the first clause, διαθηκην, a covenant. I appoint unto you a Covenant,
as my Father hath appointed unto me a kingdom: - Ye shall be ministers of the new
covenant, as I am king in that spiritual kingdom to which it relates. This is a curious
reading: but our Lord is probably to be understood as promising that they should get
a kingdom - a state of blessedness, as he should get it - they must go through much
tribulation in order to enter into the kingdom of God. So the Son of man suffered that
he might enter into his glory: for the joy that was set before him, he endured the
cross, and despised the shame, and is set down on the right hand of God.
GILL, "And I appoint unto you a kingdom,.... Not a temporal one, but a
spiritual one; and either intends that they should have in the government of the
church, peculiar to them, as apostles, they being set in the first, and highest place,
and office, in the church; and have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or the Gospel
dispensation, and church state, committed to them, whereby they should open the
door of faith to men, both to Jews and Gentiles; and have the power of binding and
loosing, or of pronouncing things to be lawful or unlawful to be retained and used,
and even of remitting sins in a ministerial and declarative way; and not only of
rebuking and reproving for sin with authority, but even of inflicting corporeal
164

165. punishment on delinquents, and that in a very severe way, as in the cases of Ananias
and Sapphira, Elymas the sorcerer, the incestuous person at Corinth, and
Hymenaeus and Philetus: or the kingdom of grace, which they had in common with
all the saints, which lies not in outward things, but in righteousness, peace, and joy,
and which can never be moved, or taken away; by virtue of which Christ reigns in the
hearts of his people, and they are kings, and priests to God, and have power, as
princes, with God and men, and overcome, and reign over their own lusts, and the
world and Satan: or that kingdom, and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom,
which shall be given to the saints of the Most High, Dan_7:27 in the latter day glory
and kingdom state of Christ on earth, when the saints shall reign with him; or the
kingdom of glory prepared from the foundation of the world; a gift of our heavenly
Father's, which the saints are called unto, made meet for, and have a right unto, in
Christ, and are heirs of, and into which he will introduce them at the last day: and
indeed, all these senses may be taken into the account of this text:
as my Father hath appointed unto me; a kingdom, not of nature and
providence, which he has in right of nature, being of the same essence, and having
the same perfections with his Father; and in right of creation, all being made by him;
for this is not given, or appointed to him; nor is he accountable for it to any, since he
receives it not from any: but his mediatorial kingdom, which is given him, and which
he will deliver up the account of to his Father another day; see Dan_7:14 which took
place here on earth in the days of his flesh; though it was not of this world, nor came
with observation, or with worldly pomp and splendour; and became more visible
upon his resurrection from the dead, his exaltation at the right hand of God, the
effusion of the Spirit, the great conversions among men, and the destruction of the
Jewish nation. This kingdom takes in the whole Gospel dispensation, reaching from
the times of Christ being in the flesh, to his second coming; and comprehends all the
elect of God, who are a kingdom of priests, or a royal priesthood, in whose hearts
Christ reigns by his Spirit, and grace; it includes the whole visible Gospel church
state on earth, which is God's holy hill of Sion, over which he has set Christ, as king,
and which he governs by laws of his own enacting, and by governors appointed under
him, among whom he will reign; first more spiritually in the latter day, when the
Gospel shall be spread all over the world, and the kingdoms of this world shall
become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and next personally with all his
saints together, for the space of a thousand years; and last of all triumphantly to all
eternity, in the ultimate glory and kingdom of his Father.
HENRY, "The recompence he designed them for their fidelity: I appoint,
diatithemai, I bequeath, unto you a kingdom. Or thus, I appoint to you, as my Father
has appointed a kingdom to me, that you may eat and drink at my table.
Understand it, First, Of what should be done for them in this world. God gave his
Son a kingdom among men, the gospel church, of which he is the living, quickening,
ruling, Head. This kingdom he appointed to his apostles and their successors in the
ministry of the gospel, that they should enjoy the comforts and privileges of the
gospel,
JAMISON, "I appoint, etc. — Who is this that dispenses kingdoms, nay, the
Kingdom of kingdoms, within an hour or two of His apprehension, and less than a
day of His shameful death? These sublime contrasts, however, perpetually meet and
entrance us in this matchless history.
165

166. CALVIN, "29.And I appoint to you the kingdom. Here he makes them not only
judges, but kings; for he shares with them the kingdom which he received from
the Father There is an emphasis in the word appoint, that they may not, by
warmth and vehemence of desire, hasten too eagerly to possess the kingdom of
which he alone has the lawful right to dispose. By his own example, also, he
exhorts them to patience; for, though he was ordained by the Father to be a
King, yet he was not immediately raised to his glory, but even emptied Himself,
(Philippians 2:7,) and by the ignominy of the cross obtained kingly honor. To eat
and drink at his table is put metaphorically for being made partakers of the
same glory.
COKE, "Luke 22:29-30. And I appoint unto you, &c.— The kingdom which the
Father bestowed on Jesus, as the reward of his humiliations, was his mediatorial
kingdom, Philippians 2:9 not the happiness of heaven, which he enjoyed from
eternity; wherefore, the kingdom which he bestowed on his apostles as the
peculiar reward of their services, being of the same nature with his own, was the
authority which they enjoyed next to him in the gospel dispensation. That ye may
eat and drink at my table, &c. is evidently metaphorical, and signifies, that they
were to share with him in the honours and pleasures of his high dignity; and sit
on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We may just observe, that it is well
known that the word διατιθεμαι, used Luke 22:29 and rendered appoint,
properly signifies to covenant, or "to bestow in virtue of a covenant;" and
therefore the last clause of this verse may properly allude to what divines
commonly call, "the covenant of redemption," to which there are so many
references in scripture, and concerning the reality of which we could have no
doubt, if the references were not so express; considering, on the one hand, the
great importance of that undertaking of our Lord's to which it refers; and, on
the other, the plain declarations of those prophesies which his spirit suggested;
and the confidence wherewith he has promised those blessings, which as
Mediator it empowers him to bestow on all his faithful saints.
ELLICOTT, "(29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom.—As being the verb from
which is formed the noun for “covenant,” or “testament,” the Greek for
“appoint,” has a force which we lose in the English. This was part of the New
Covenant with them. They were to be sharers in His glory, as they had been in
His afflictions. The latter clause, “as the Father hath appointed unto Me,”
conveys the thought that His throne also was bestowed on the fulfilment of like
conditions. The “sufferings” came first, and then the glory (1 Peter 1:11). He was
to endure the cross before He entered into joy (Hebrews 12:2). The Name that is
above every name was the crowning reward of obedient humility (Philippians
2:8-9).
PETT, "And because they had continued faithfully with Him, walking in His
way, and accepting His standards, He was now appointing to them a kingly rule
even as His Father had appointed one to Him. He was making them His deputies.
They would now take over responsibility for the Kingly Rule of God on earth,
and it was because they had developed servant hearts. Note the connection of the
word with covenant. This was binding between Him and them.
166

167. But as we have just been told, this was not to be the normal kind of kingly rule.
For when He had drawn men under the Kingly Rule of God, what Had He then
done? He had exercised His kingly rule over them in humility and as a Servant.
He had had no thought of lording it over them, but of being their servants for
His Father’s sake. He had given Himself to the point of exhaustion. And now
they must do the same for His sake. For God’s Kingly Rule was over all who
belonged to God, over all who were submitted to, or willing to submit to Him.
And like He Himself had been, they themselves were in the same way to be
servant-rulers under God in the expanding of His Kingly Rule and for the
glorifying of His Name. They were to tend and feed the sheep (John 21:15-17).
They were to give themselves for the sheep.
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in
my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel.
CLARKE, "Sit on thrones - See on Mat_19:28 (note). Marcion left the whole of
this verse out, according to Epiphanius: probably because he did not understand it.
GILL, "That ye may eat, and drink, at my table, in my kingdom,.... In the
Gospel dispensation, or Gospel church state, in which Christ has a table, called the
table of the Lord, 1Co_10:21 which is the Lord's supper, and is a table well furnished
with the best of provisions, his flesh and blood, of which believers may eat and drink
with a hearty welcome; Christ himself being present to sup with them: and in his
personal reign on earth, where will be the marriage supper of the Lamb, to which all
the saints will be called; and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and be
regaled with joys and pleasures not to be expressed: and in the ultimate glory, when
the Lamb shall feed them, and shall lead them to fountains of water; and they shall
never hunger nor thirst more, but shall have fulness of joy, and be satiated with
pleasures that will never fade nor end:
and sit on thrones; expressive of the great honour and dignity they were raised to,
both in this, and the other world, from a low and mean estate, being before as
beggars on the dunghill, now among princes, and on thrones, even on the same
throne with Christ; see 1Sa_2:8
judging the twelve tribes of Israel; doctrinally and ministerially; accusing the
Jews, and arraigning them for the crucifixion of Christ; passing sentence upon them,
and condemning them, and declaring that they should be damned for their disbelief
and rejection of him; See Gill on Mat_19:28.
167

168. HENRY, "This kingdom he appointed to his apostles and their successors in the
ministry of the gospel, that they should enjoy the comforts and privileges of the
gospel, help to communicate them to others by gospel ordinances, sit on thrones as
officers of the church, not only declaratively, but exhortatively judging the tribes of
Israel that persist in their infidelity, and denouncing the wrath of God against them,
and ruling the gospel Israel, the spiritual Israel, by the instituted discipline of the
church, administered with gentleness and love. This is the honour reserved for you.
Or, Secondly, Of what should be done for them in the other world, which I take to be
chiefly meant. Let them go on in their services in this world; their preferments shall
be in the other world. God will give them the kingdom, in which they shall be sure to
have, 1. The richest dainties; for they shall eat and drink at Christ's table in his
kingdom, of which he had spoken, Luk_22:16, Luk_22:18. They shall partake of
those joys and pleasures which were the recompence of his services and sufferings.
They shall have a full satisfaction of soul in the vision and fruition of God; and herein
they shall have the best society, as at a feast, in the perfection of love. 2. The highest
dignities: “You shall not only be provided for at the royal table, as Mephibosheth at
David's, but you shall be preferred to the royal throne; shall sit down with me on my
throne, Rev_3:21. In the great day you shall sit on thrones, as assessors with Christ,
to approve of and applaud his judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel.” If the saints
shall judge the world (1Co_6:2), much more the church.
PETT, "And in this service of expanding, and ‘ruling’ in humility over, the
Kingly Rule of God, they would be able to eat and drink at His Table. But what
does He here mean by ‘His Table’? Many see it as the Table in the future
Messianic kingdom (of which there has been no positive mention). But if we take
the words in context ‘My table’ must here be connected with ‘I am in the midst
of you as Him Who serves’ (Luke 22:27), for His service there was in terms of the
table of those who sat at food, and of those who served it. It therefore here
signifies ‘the table at which I now serve in the midst of you, and will continue to
serve’. Thus as they had sat and watched as He had washed their feet at His
Table, so in the future would they eat and drink at His Table as they were served
by His hands, and should themselves as a result reveal the same humility, and in
the same way serve others, sharing with them also the Lord’s Table. This can
only mean in context that through their participation in the Lord’s Supper He
would continue humbly to serve them, a service which would then lead them on
to serve others in the same way.
So this table at which they would eat and drink is to be connected with His
present serving, and must surely therefore be that at which they will receive the
Lord’s Supper, eating the bread and drinking the wine from His hands as they
had at this Passover, rather than some future Messianic table in the unknown
future of which there is no evidence in the context. And being in such a situation
there could be no sense of greatness or of arrogance, but only a sense of humility
and undeserving that would itself result in their serving others as they
recognised the great debt and gratitude that they owed to Him. This would thus
involve continual humility, continual humble service, and continual obedience to
the will of God as they minister to the people of God, in the way that Jesus had
just previously described.
168

169. And they would also ‘sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’. The only
Old Testament passage which really connects with this is found in Psalms 122:5
where we learn that ‘thrones of the house of David’ were set up in Jerusalem in
order to ‘bring justice/righteousness’ to ‘the tribes of the Lord’ who went up
there. This must mean that those who sat on these thrones ‘judged’ in Jerusalem
in David’s name, possibly even being princes of the house of David, and
dispensed justice and righteousness to the tribes of the Lord. In the same way the
Apostles are to be appointed by Him to act over His people as overseers of what
is right in the name of the greater David, bringing to them true justice and
righteousness in the name of the King because they are ‘the tribes of the Lord’.
In context there can be no thought of taking up a superior position here. That
would be contrary to all that Jesus has just said. (How quickly we jump to our
own conclusions because that is how we think, just as the Gentiles did). The point
is rather that they will watch over His people, as He has done, with the same
attitude of meekness, humility and service. They will sit in His place and act in
His name with His attitude towards the people, sitting on the spiritual ‘thrones of
the house of David’. He, the Greater David, will have taken His throne above,
from which He can continue to serve. They as His representatives will act in His
name, serving on earth in all humility, sitting on ‘the thrones of David’. It is the
same idea as is found in John 21:15-17 under a different figure, where Peter, and
by implication the other disciples, were to be under-shepherds over the sheep.
Here they were to be servant-rulers over the Kingly Rule of God, in the same
ways as He had been, and would continue to be, as the Servant-King. This was to
be their privilege. They would fulfil it by continuing with the establishing of the
Kingly Rule of God on earth by winning men and women under His Rule, and by
caring for them as under-shepherds. This establishing of the Kingly Rule of God
is indeed a central theme in Acts (Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 14:22; Acts 19:8; Acts
20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31).
In John we have the same idea expressed in different words, ‘Truly I say to you
whoever receives whom I send receives me, and whoever receives Me receives
Him Who sent Me’ (John 13:20).
We have only to think for a moment to realise that any suggestion that this
statement is intended to exalt the Apostles in any worldly (or even heavenly)
sense is totally contrary to all that Jesus has said in Luke 22:25-27. He is rather
declaring that like Him they are to be servants, both now and in the future. He is
instituting them into the new position that will soon be theirs as overseers of, and
ministers to, the churches. To see it as signifying that they can look forward to
being in a position of glorious authority over the people of Israel (especially the
earthly people of Israel) would be to see them as being instilled with an attitude
of being exalted in precisely the way that Jesus had rejected both for Himself
and for them.
But can the church be called ‘the twelve tribes of Israel? The answer is a
resounding, ‘yes’, as we have seen above. For ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ is
merely in the end a phrase indicating ‘all Israel’, having in mind its founding
fathers.
169

170. To repeat what we have already said. At varying times there were a varying
number of tribes of Israel, but even in Jesus’ day most ‘pure’ Jews identified
themselves with one of ‘the twelve tribes’. We can compare how Paul described
himself as a Benjamite. However, apart from the few, this identification would
not go back many generations, and the number of Jews who could demonstrate
that they were actually descended from the patriarchs themselves, even if there
were any, would not have been many. Thus the phrase really signifies ‘all who
professed themselves as Israel and were bound in the covenant’.
That the church was seen as the new Israel, the new covenant community, the
genuine fulfilment and continuation of Israel, comes out regularly in the New
Testament. The unbelieving Jews were seen as having been cut off from the true
Israel, and the believing Gentiles as grafted in. See for example John 15:1-6;
Romans 11:17-33; Galatians 3:29; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:11-22; 1 Peter
2:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 7:1-8. And Peter in a letter which is clearly written to
all Christians, both because of its content and because whenever he refers to
‘Gentiles’ in it, it is always as those who are unbelieving, writes to them as ‘the
exiles of the Dispersion’ (1 Peter 1:1), those who are ‘strangers and pilgrims’ (1
Peter 2:11) dispersed around the world, referring by this to the whole believing
people of God. In the same way James writes to ‘the twelve tribes in the
Dispersion’ (James 1:1), and again is writing to all Christians. This is
demonstrated by the fact of his total lack of reference to Gentile Christians in his
letter, something which would have been unaccountable in a letter written only
to Jewish Christians when he was seeking to give them guidance about their
behaviour. Had Gentile Christians not been included he would have been failing
in his duty not to explain how they were to behave towards them. So the non-
mention of them, even by a hint, confirms that they are included among those to
whom the letter is written. To him believing Gentiles had been incorporated into
Israel and were part of ‘the twelve tribes’.
So this ‘judging (overseeing) of the twelve tribes of Israel’ began immediately
after the resurrection when the Apostles in Jerusalem were in a position of
humble authority over the whole church in Jerusalem and Judea. And at that
stage they were all Jews or adherents to Judaism who had ‘believed’ and had
thus become a part of the true vine (John 15:1-6). As His deputies they sat on
‘the thrones of David’ and ‘ruled’ over them, in the special sense of ruling as
‘servant-rulers’ that He had already described. They had authority over them in
order to be their servants. And then when the expansion to the Gentiles was
revealed, the believing Gentiles too would be incorporated under that Kingly
Rule. But as with Jesus, it was not to be a rule of dogmatic authority, but of
Christ-like service.
The establishment of the Apostles is, as we will discover in our commentary,
vividly brought out in the first chapters of Acts where in Jerusalem the Apostles,
supplemented by Matthias, do everything together. And it is to the Apostles in
Jerusalem (along with the elders) that major questions are brought which have
to be decided on (Acts 15). In the event this would only cease because Jerusalem,
having finally rejected the Messiah, was itself finally rejected (see our
170

171. commentary on Acts).
It may, of course, be that the idea is then also to be seen as enduring in some way
into the eternal kingdom, but if so it would only be in a general way, as a general
indication of blessing on them at that time (like the servant who receives ten
cities in the parable, something not to be taken literally, but indicating
everlasting reward). Indeed nothing is more sure than the fact that the idea of
having a servant heart is to continue into eternity. And then others would also
‘rule’ with them. This includes all the martyrs and all who rejected the mark of
Satan - Revelation 20:4 - to say nothing of Old Testament believers. If we do
extend it like this the thought will then rather be that the prestige and glory that
they had enjoyed on earth at His command, the prestige of being faithful and
devoted servants, would also be theirs in the eternal future as a gracious gift
from God at the foundation of the new Jerusalem in the new Heaven and the new
earth (Revelation 21). There also they would maintain the idea of being servants.
We should note that Jesus did not make quite the strict differentiation that we do
between the earthly Kingly Rule of God, already established under Him, and
continued in Acts, and the heavenly Kingly Rule of God. He saw it as one whole,
as being fashioned on earth in the crucible of life before being finalised in
Heaven (compare Hebrews 12:22-24). His people both had, and would have,
eternal life, and this was depicted in terms of two resurrections, the first
resurrection a spiritual one (John 5:24-25; Ephesians 1:19 to Ephesians 2:6) and
the second a bodily one (John 5:28-29). He saw the true church on earth from
Heaven’s viewpoint, as Paul did when he called them citizens of Heaven
(Philippians 3:20) and spoke of them as sons of the Jerusalem which was above
(Galatians 4:26). He saw them as already having been transported to being
under His Kingly Rule (Colossians 1:13), for He was to build His new
‘congregation’ (of Israel) on the foundation of His Apostles (Matthew 16:18;
Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14).
Note for example how when speaking of the future rewards of His disciples He
says that these rewards will be ‘in this present time and in the age to come’
(Luke 18:30; Mark 10:30), thus seeing them as having dual application, both on
earth and in Heaven. In the same way Paul can speak of the ‘new creation’ as
having already commenced (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15), and of
Christians as being citizens of Heaven (Philippians 3:20), dwelling already in
heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:6). While John in Revelation sees the
martyrs, and those who had rejected Antichrist in the person of the state and of
the forces of evil, as reigning with Christ over the period between the first and
second advent, that is over the divinely predicted ‘a thousand years’, which
represents a vague and long period of undefined length as determined by God
(Revelation 20:4 compare 2 Peter 3:8), a period which precedes the final defeat
of Satan and the setting up of the everlasting Kingdom at the final resurrection.
(Thus the ‘thousand years’ of Revelation is not looking forward to a coming
Millennium, but is at present in process of fulfilment the perfectly measured time
of which the extent is unknown between the first and second coming).
Comparison can also be made with Matthew 19:28. This is in interesting contrast
171

172. with Luke’s citation of Jesus’ words. In Matthew reference is made to being
‘ontwelvethrones judging (overseeing) the twelve tribes of Israel’, and this is seen
as following the ‘regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in His glory’. We
note here that ‘twelve’ thrones are mentioned because at the time that this was
said in Matthew Judas had not betrayed Jesus. In Luke 22 the ‘twelve’ is
dropped before thrones, for Jesus knew that one Apostle no longer qualified and
no other had yet been appointed.
But the description in Matthew is to be seen as having reference to ‘the
regeneration’ as it came about through the work of the Holy Spirit after
Pentecost, where it is also described as ‘the times of refreshing from the presence
of the Lord’ (Acts 3:19), and certainly at that time Stephen specifically sees the
Son of Man as already then in His glory (Acts 7:55-56). For we note that in
Matthew 19:28 Jesus speaks of the Son of Man sitting in His glory, not as coming
in His glory. He took this seat of glory on His resurrection (Luke 24:26; Acts
2:33; Acts 2:36; Acts 3:13; Acts 5:31; Acts 7:55-56; compare John 17:5) which
would later also be manifested at His coming (Matthew 25:31). So this overseeing
will begin immediately, and in the final consummation it will spill over into the
everlasting kingdom. For in that everlasting kingdom all will be eager to serve.
But we cannot really see it as signifying that the twelve Apostles will have sole
supreme authority over the people of God in Heaven (or even, for those who
believe in an earthly Millennium, over an earthly kingdom in the distant future,
after being resurrected). This can be rejected for three reasons:
· Firstly because one of the twelve then mentioned betrayed Him, although
it is true that he could later be replaced, and was.
· Secondly, and more importantly, because we would then have to ask,
‘what about Abraham, and the twelve patriarchs, and Moses, and Elijah, and
Isaiah, and David, and John the Baptiser, and Paul, and Barnabas, and many
others’? Here we can specifically compare Luke 13:28 where it is they and not
the Apostles who are mentioned in connection with the eternal kingdom. Jesus
had after all refused to confirm who would sit to His right and left when He was
established in His Kingly power (Mark 10:40). It is difficult to see how these
others could be exempted from also sharing thrones in either a supposed
Millennium or in the heaven Kingly Rule of God, if the idea was to be taken
literally.
Thirdly because the whole idea of them being offered a position of glory as an
incentive goes absolutely in the opposite direction to that in the previous verses.
Jesus would hardly seek to set up an idea here that He had just roundly
condemned in the previous verses. It is an indication of our fallen hearts that we
think how wonderful such a promise would be. We just cannot get over our
desire to be lords of creation. We do not mind serving, but it is only as long as it
is as kingpins, or will lead to our being kingpins. How different that is from the
thoughts of Jesus Who delighted in being a servant to all.
On the other hand we do know that in Acts this being set over God’s people was
precisely what did happen to the Twelve, with one having been replaced. They
did act as ‘judges’ over the Kingly Rule of God on earth in Jerusalem, when it
had been established after Pentecost, and as it expanded outwards into the world
172

173. among all nations. They were given the power to ‘bind and loose’ (Matthew
16:19; Matthew 18:18). They could then certainly be seen as ‘sitting on the
thrones of David’, that is, sitting in authority as representing the Son of David, in
accordance with Psalms 122:5. We must therefore see the prime reference of
these verses as being to this position following Pentecost, but put in
eschatological terms.
Peter’s Coming Denial (Luke 22:31-34).
Having declared to them the future responsibility that they will have as overseers
of God’s people after the resurrection, Jesus now warns His Apostles, and Peter
especially, what is involved in such a responsibility, and promises that Peter is
being prepared for it, as are they all. They must recognise that if they are to be
overseers they must also continue to endure the testings which come with such a
privilege. It is not possible to be a leader among God’s people and yet remain out
of Satan’s firing line. They will thus be clearly in his sights. They have already
shared such testings along with Him (Luke 22:28), and they must now recognise
that these testings will continue.
So parallel with the exposure of Judas’ coming betrayal in the chiasmus, we now
have the exposure of Peter’s coming denial. He also is to be sifted. This too
betrays Satan’s hand at work on this awful night when all the spiritual forces of
evil are at work (Colossians 2:15), for, as well as entering Judas, he is to be
permitted to sift Peter, and the others, to the full. Satan would by this do his best
to make them useless in Christ’s service, and to turn them against God, as he had
tried to do with Job (Job 1, 2), and as he had done with Judas, for he could still
not understand the gracious mercy of God that could forgive and uphold His
saints. Thus Satan is seen as very active at this final juncture as he seeks to
thwart the purposes of God. He knows that his time is short. This is both an
encouragement and a warning. It is an encouragement in that we recognise here
that he could not thwart the purposes of God, but it is a warning lest, like Judas,
we allow him to steal away our part in it. Peter’s failure and subsequent
restoration, on the other hand, acts as an encouragement in that, even if Satan
trips us up, we can be sure that there is always a way back if we come in true
repentance. And through it he would learn to serve.
But this denial by Peter was also to be the fourth aspect of Jesus’ suffering, for
when Jesus turned and looked on Peter (Luke 22:61) there must have been great
grief in His heart at the thought that even Peter had failed Him, (and that even
though He had known that it would happen).
So as Jesus had said earlier, the Apostles had continued with Him in His
temptations and dangers (Luke 22:28), and now they would still continue to be
called on to do so (He speaks of ‘you’ in the plural), for to be connected with
Jesus was no easy matter. Thus they must be allowed to be tempted. Peter was
merely the first, and most open to it because of his impetuosity. And, as Peter
would, they would all sometimes fail. The Bible never hides the truth about
man’s weakness. Nevertheless the lesson received through Peter’s experience was
the assurance that they would always find a welcome back if their failure had
173

174. been through weakness and not continual hardness of heart, and they had truly
repented.
Four points result from this incident. Firstly the total composure of Jesus.
Although He recognised Peter’s weaknesses He had no doubts about His own
ability to deal with all the temptations of Satan, even though, in the human
frailty which He had taken on Himself, He winced before what lay ahead.
Secondly it demonstrates that Satan is limited in what he can do to God’s people
by what God is willing to permit. Thirdly it demonstrates that Satan had been
permitted to enter Judas in order to see what Judas would do. But that he could
not force him to do it. In the end the choice was not Satan’s but Judas’s. Judas
chose his own course, and solidly hardened his own heart. It was the end of a
long process of going backwards, already visible to Jesus in John 6, which ended
in deep regret and remorse, but not in repentance because he had hardened his
heart beyond the possibility of repentance. And fourthly it demonstrates that
Satan was permitted to sift Peter in order to see what Peter would do. But the
important thing was that while Peter failed in weaker moments, he repented, and
turned back to Jesus, for he was under Jesus’ intercessory protection. He had
thus never turned against Him in his heart, nor had he hardened his heart. So
one would perish because he had irrevocably hardened his heart, and the other
would be delivered by the gracious intercession and working of Jesus Christ
because, although he had failed through weakness, his heart was not
permanently hardened, but was still open towards Christ and he was thus able to
find forgiveness.
And yet for Jesus both of these incidents must have come as body blows, even
though He knew what their results would be. His testing was not just to be
limited to the cross. It was to result from all that Satan could throw at Him, as in
the midst of His trials at the hands of His enemies, one of His boon companions
betrayed Him, and another denied that he knew Him. Satan was certainly being
allowed the opportunity to do his very worst so that Jesus might overcome to the
uttermost.
Analysis.
a “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as
wheat” (Luke 22:31).
b “But I made supplication for you, that your faith fail not (Luke 22:32 a).
c And do you, when once you have turned again, establish your brethren” (Luke
22:32 b).
b And he said to him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to
death” (Luke 22:33).
a And He said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you will
three times deny that you know me” (Luke 22:34).
Note that in ‘a’ Satan will sift Peter as wheat, and in the parallel Peter will
betray Jesus three times. In ‘b’ Jesus guarantees his faith (but not that he will be
faithful in the short term), while in the parallel Peter foolishly guarantees his
own faithfulness, at which he will be fail, but will not lose his faith. Centrally in
‘c’ Peter will be restored and thus able to strengthen his brethren. So we see that
174

175. even in his permitted failure there is a deeper purpose, so that he will be able to
fulfil his responsibility of ‘ruling’ over the new Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of
you as wheat.
BARNES, "Simon - Peter. Jesus, foreseeing the danger of Peter, and knowing
that he was about to deny him, took occasion to forewarn him and put him on his
guard, and also to furnish him with a solace when he should be brought to
repentance.
Satan hath desired - Satan is the prince of evil. One of his works is to try the
faith of believers to place temptations and trials in their way, that they may be tested.
Thus God gave Job into his hands, that it might be seen whether he would be found
faithful, or would apostatize. See the notes at Job_1:7-12. So Satan desired to have
Peter in his hands, that he might also try him.
May sift you as wheat - Grain was agitated or shaken in a kind of fan or sieve.
The grain remained in the fan, and the chaff and dust were thrown off. So Christ says
that Satan desired to try Peter; to place trials and temptations before him; “to agitate
him” to see whether anything of faith would remain, or whether all would not be
found to be chaff - mere natural ordor and false professions.
CLARKE, "Simon, Simon - When a name is thus repeated in the sacred
writings, it appears to be always intended as an expression of love, manifested by a
warning voice. As if he had said, While thou and the others are contending for
supremacy, Satan is endeavoring to destroy you all: but I have prayed for thee, as
being in most danger.
Satan hath desired - you - That is, all the apostles, but particularly the three
contenders: the plural pronoun, ᆓµας, sufficiently proves that these words were not
addressed to Peter alone. Satan had already got one, Judas; he had nearly got
another, Peter; and he wished to have all. But we see by this that the devil cannot
even tempt a man unless he receive permission. He desires to do all evil; he is
permitted only to do some.
GILL, "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon,.... Peter is particularly, and by name,
spoken to, either because he might be a principal person in the debate and
contention about superiority, mentioned in the context; or because he was chiefly to
suffer in the following temptation of Satan; or because he was generally the mouth of
the rest of the apostles; and he is addressed, not by the name of Peter, the name
Christ gave him, when he first called him, signifying his future solidity, firmness, and
steadfastness; because in this instance, he would not give any proof of it; but by his
175

176. former name, Simon, and which is repeated, partly to show the earnestness of Christ
in the delivery of what follows, and partly to express his affectionate concern for him;
so the Jews observe (s) concerning God's calling, "Moses, Moses", Exo_3:4 that ‫כפול‬
‫חבה‬ ‫,לשון‬ "the doubling of the word", is expressive "of love", and finding grace and
favour; even as it is said, "Abraham, Abraham", Gen_22:11 or it may be to excite
attention to what Christ was about to say. Though the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic
versions read the first of these, "to Simon", thus: Jesus said to Simon,
Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you; not only Peter, but all the
apostles; for the word υµας, "you", is plural: Satan, the enemy of the woman's seed,
the accuser of the brethren, the wicked one, and the tempter, desired, asked leave of
God, for he can do nothing without permission; that he might have these disciples
under his power, and in his hand; just as he got leave to have the goods, and even the
body of Job in his hand, and fain would have had his life, and soul too, could he have
obtained it; and he would have the lives and souls of others; for he goes about,
seeking to devour whom he may; and he had now an evil eye upon the apostles, and
wanted an opportunity to gratify his malice and envy: his end in desiring to have
them in his power was,
that he may sift you as wheat; not to separate the chaff from the wheat, but to
make them look like all chaff, by covering the wheat of grace with the chaff of sin and
corruption; or to destroy the wheat, was it possible; or to toss them to and fro as
wheat is in a sieve; that is, to afflict and distress them; see Amo_9:9 by scattering
them both from Christ, and one another; by filling them with doubts about Jesus
being the Messiah and Redeemer: and by frightening them with the fears of enemies
and of death, which end he obtained; see Mat_26:56.
HENRY, "III. Concerning Peter's denying him. And in this part of the discourse
we may observe,
1. The general notice Christ gives to Peter of the devil's design upon him and the
rest of the apostles (Luk_22:31): The Lord said, Simon, Simon, observe what I say;
Satan hath desired to have you, to have you all in his hands, that he may sift you as
wheat. Peter, who used to be the mouth of the rest in speaking to Christ, is here
made the ear of the rest; and what is designed for warning to them all (all you shall
be offended, because of me) is directed to Peter, because he was principally
concerned, being in particular manner struck at by the tempter: Satan has desired to
have you. Probably Satan had accused the disciples to God as mercenary in following
Christ, and aiming at nothing else therein but enriching and advancing themselves in
this world, as he accused Job. “No,” saith God, “they are honest men, and men of
integrity.” “Give me leave to try them,” saith Satan, “and Peter particularly.” He
desired to have them, that he might sift them, that he might show them to be chaff,
and not wheat. The troubles that were now coming upon them were sifting, would try
what there was in them: but this was not all; Satan desired to sift them by his
temptations, and endeavoured by those troubles to draw them into sin, to put them
into a loss and hurry, as corn when it is sifted to bring the chaff uppermost, or rather
to shake out the wheat and leave nothing but the chaff. Observe, Satan could not sift
them unless God gave him leave: He desired to have them, as he begged of God a
permission to try and tempt Job. Exētēsato - “He has challenged you, has undertaken
to prove you a company of hypocrites, and Peter especially, the forwardest of you.”
Some suggest that Satan demanded leave to sift them as their punishment for
176

177. striving who should be greatest, in which contest Peter perhaps was very warm:
“Leave them to me, to sift them for it.”
2. The particular encouragement he gave to Peter, in reference to this trial: “I have
prayed for thee, because, though he desires to have them all, he is permitted to make
his strongest onset upon thee only: thou wilt be most violently assaulted, but I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, that it may not totally and finally fail.” Note,
(1.) If faith be kept up in an hour of temptation, though we may fall, yet we shall not
be utterly cast down. Faith will quench Satan's fiery darts. (2.) Though there may be
many failings in the faith of true believers, yet there shall not be a total and final
failure of their faith. It is their seed, their root, remaining in them. (3.) It is owing to
the mediation and intercession of Jesus Christ that the faith of his disciples, though
sometimes sadly shaken, yet is not sunk. If they were left to themselves, they would
fail; but they are kept by the power of God and the prayer of Christ. The intercession
of Christ is not only general, for all that believe, but for particular believers (I have
prayed for thee), which is an encouragement for us to pray for ourselves, and an
engagement upon us to pray for others too.
3. The charge he gives to Peter to help others as he should himself be helped of
God: “When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren; when thou art recovered
by the grace of God, and brought to repentance, do what thou canst to recover
others; when thou hast found they faith kept from failing, labour to confirm the faith
of others, and to establish them; when thou hast found mercy with God thyself,
encourage others to hope that they also shall find mercy.” Note, (1.) Those that have
fallen into sin must be converted from it; those that have turned aside must return;
those that have left their first love must do their first works. (2.) Those that through
grace are converted from sin must do what they can to strengthen their brethren that
stand, and to prevent their falling; see Psa_51:11-13; 1Ti_1:13.
JAMISON, "Simon, Simon — (See on Luk_10:41).
desired to have - rather, “hath obtained you,” properly “asked and obtained”;
alluding to Job (Job_1:6-12; Job_2:1-6), whom he solicited and obtained that he
might sift him as wheat, insinuating as “the accuser of the brethren” (Rev_12:10),
that he would find chaff enough in his religion, if indeed there was any wheat at all.
you — not Peter only, but them all.
SBC, “These words contain a warning, a comforting assurance and a solemn charge.
Note:—
I. The warning. We must remember that the word "you" is not used here in the sense
of our common language—that is, to express a single person. Our Lord does not say
that Satan had desired to have Peter only, but all the Apostles. The hour was coming,
when their faith was to be severely tried, when they were to be sifted as wheat, to see
what in them was good corn, and what chaff. In our lives also the words can never be
otherwise than true.
II. The comforting assurance. "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." This is
spoken of Peter particularly; it is "I have prayed for thee" not, I have prayed for you,
but though these words speak of Peter only, yet we have the assurance elsewhere that
it is true of us also. Nay, on that very evening when He thus declared that He had
prayed for Peter, we know that He prayed for the other Apostles too, and not for
them only, but for us also.
III. All are warned of the coming danger; but one is especially prayed for, that being
converted himself he might also strengthen his brethren. These words were
177

178. addressed to Peter, and if we read the first twelve chapters of the Acts, we shall find
their fulfilment. There we find him, indeed, strengthening his brethren, passing
through all quarters, and by signs and wonders, by the word of wisdom, by fervent
boldness and love unfeigned convincing the unbelievers, opening the eyes of the
ignorant, baffling the threats of the enemy—enlightening, cheering, and comforting
his fellow-Christians. But this also was said, not to Peter only, but to us. In every
society, there are those like him to whom it may be said, "When thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren." There are, and always must be, some who have more
influence than their neighbours. Every advantage which we have over others makes
us subject to this charge. If we are older, we should strengthen those that are
younger; if we have the ascendency given by strength and activity, by decision of
character, or by general ability, or by consideration of whatever sort, then we, being
converted, should strengthen our brethren; we are answerable not for our souls only,
but also in a certain measure, for those of others.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iii., p. 114.
CALVIN, "Luke 22:31.Lo, Satan hath desired. The other two Evangelists relate
more briefly and simply, that our Lord foretold to his disciples their fall. But the
words of Luke contain more abundant instruction; for Christ does not speak of
the future trouble in the way of narrative, but expressly declares, that they will
have a contest with Satan, and, at the same time, promises to them victory. It is a
highly useful admonition, whenever we meet with any thing that gives us offense,
to have always before our eyes the snares of Satan; as Paul also teaches, that
we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with spiritual armies,
(Ephesians 6:12.)
The meaning of the words therefore is: “When, a short time hence, you shall see
me oppressed, know that Satan employs these arms to fight against you, and that
this is a convenient opportunity for destroying your faith.” I have said that this is
a useful doctrine, because it frequently happens that, from want of
consideration, we are overcome by disregarding temptations, which we would
regard as formidable, if we reflected that they are the fiery darts (Ephesians
6:16) of a vigorous and powerful enemy. And though he now speaks of that
singularly fierce attack, by which the disciples, at one time, received dreadful
shocks, so that their faith was well nigh extinguished, yet he manifestly conveys a
more extensive doctrine, that Satan continually goes about, roaring for his prey.
As he is impelled by such furious madness to destroy us, nothing is more
unreasonable than that we should give ourselves up to drowsiness. Before there
is apparent necessity for fighting, let us already prepare ourselves; for we know
that Satan desires our destruction, and with great skill and assiduity seizes on
every method of injuring us. And when we come to the conflict, let us know that
all temptations, from whatever quarter they come, were forged in the workshop
of that enemy.
That he may sift you as wheat. The metaphor of sifting is not in every respect
applicable; for we have elsewhere seen that the Gospel is compared to a
winnowing-fan or sieve, by which the wheat is purified from the chaff (Matthew
3:12;) but here it simply means to toss up and down, or to shake with violence,
178

179. because the apostles were driven about with unusual severity by the death of
Christ. This ought to be understood, because there is nothing in which Satan
takes less delight than the purification of believers. Yet though it be for a
different purpose that he shakes them, it is nevertheless true, that they are driven
and tossed about in every direction, just as the wheat is shaken by the
winnowing-fan. But we shall shortly afterwards see that a still more disastrous
fulfillment of these words was experienced by the disciples. And this is what is
meant by the words of our Lord, as related by Matthew and Mark: you will all
be offended at me. They mean that the disciples will not only be attacked, but
will nearly give way; because the ignominious treatment of Christ will quite
overpower their minds. For whereas it was their duty to advance steadily with
their Master to the cross, fear kept them back. Their infirmity is thus exhibited
to them, that by prayers and groans they may betake themselves to God’s holy
protection.
BARCLAY, "PETER'S TRAGEDY (Luke 22:31-38; Luke 22:54-62)
22:31-38,54-62 "Simon, Simon," Jesus said, "Look you, Satan has been allowed
to have you that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you that your
faith may not wholly fail. And you--when you have turned again--strengthen
your brothers." He said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and
to death." "Peter," he said, "I tell you, the cock will not crow today before you
have three times denied that you know me."
And he said to them, "When I sent you out without purse or wallet or shoes, did
you lack for anything?" They said, "For nothing." But he said to them. "But
now, let him who has a purse take it, and so with a wallet; and let him who has
no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this which stands written
must be fulfilled in me--'And he was reckoned with the law-breakers'--for that
which was written of me is finding its fulfilment." They said, "Lord, here are
two swords." He said to them, "It is enough.". . .
So they seized Jesus and led him away, and brought him to the High Priest's
house. Peter followed a long way away. When they had kindled a fire in the
middle of the courtyard, and were sitting there together, Peter sat in the midst of
them. A maidservant saw him as he sat in the firelight. She looked intently at
him. "This man, too," she said, "was with him." He denied it. "Woman," he
said, "I do not know him." Soon after another man saw him and said, "You, too,
were one of them." Peter said, "Man, I am not!" About an hour elapsed and
another insisted, "Truly this man, too, was with him. I know it for he is a
Galilaean." Peter said, "Man, I don't know what you are talking about." And
immediately--while he was still speaking--a cock crew. And the Lord turned and
looked at Peter. And Peter remembered what the Lord had said, that he said to
him, "Before the cock crows today you will deny me three times." And he went
out and wept bitterly.
We take the story of the tragedy of Peter all in one piece. Peter was a strange
paradoxical mixture.
179

180. (i) Even in spite of his denial he was fundamentally loyal. H. G. Wells once said,
"A man may be a bad musician, and yet be passionately in love with music." No
matter what Peter did, however terrible his failure, he was nonetheless
passionately devoted to Jesus. There is hope for the man who even when he is
sinning is still haunted by goodness.
(ii) Peter was well warned. Jesus warned him both directly and indirectly. Luke
22:33-38 with their talk of swords is a strange passage. But what they mean is
this--Jesus was saying, "All the time so far you have had me with you. In a very
short time you are going to be cast upon your own resources. What are you going
to do about it? The danger in a very short time is not that you will possess
nothing; but that you will have to fight for your very existence." This was not an
incitement to armed force. It was simply a vivid eastern way of telling the
disciples that their very lives were at stake. No one could say that the seriousness
and danger of the situation, and his own liability to collapse were not presented
to Peter.
(iii) Peter was over-confident. If a man says, "That is one thing I will never do,"
that is often the very thing against which he must most carefully guard. Again
and again castles have been captured because the attackers took the route which
seemed unattackable and unscalable and at that very spot the defenders were off
their guard. Satan is subtle. He attacks the point at which a man is too sure of
himself, for there he is likeliest to be unprepared.
(iv) In all fairness it is to be noted that Peter was one of the two disciples (John
18:15) who had the courage to follow Jesus into the courtyard of the High
Priest's house at all. Peter fell to a temptation which could only have come to a
brave man. The man of courage always runs more risks than the man who seeks
a placid safety. Liability to temptation is the price that a man pays when he is
adventurous in mind and in action. It may well be that it is better to fail in a
gallant enterprise than to run away and not even to attempt it.
(v) Jesus did not speak to Peter in anger but looked at him in sorrow. Peter could
have stood it if Jesus had turned and reviled him; but that voiceless, grief-laden
look went to his heart like a sword and opened a fountain of tears.
I think I'd sooner frizzle up,
I' the flames of a burnin' 'ell,
Than stand and look into 'is face,
And 'ear 'is voice say--"Well?"
The penalty of sin is to face, not the anger of Jesus, but the heartbreak in his
eyes.
(vi) Jesus said a very lovely thing to Peter. "When you have turned," he said,
180

181. "strengthen your brothers." It is as if Jesus said to Peter, "You will deny me;
and you will weep bitter tears; but the result will be that you will be better able
to help your brothers who are going through it." We cannot really help a man
until we have been in the same furnace of affliction or the same abyss of shame
as he has been. It was said of Jesus, "He can help others who are going through
it because he has been through it himself." (Hebrews 2:18.) To experience the
shame of failure and disloyalty is not all loss, because it gives us a sympathy and
an understanding that otherwise we would never have won.
BENSON, "Luke 22:31-34. And the Lord said, &c. — To make his disciples
humble and watchful, and kindly affectionate one to another, Christ assured
them, that Satan was seeking to destroy them all by his temptations. As if he had
said, O Simon, Simon, behold Satan — As in the case of Job; (Job 2:4-5;) hath
desired to have you — My apostles, εξητησατο υμας, hath required you, or
sought you out; or requested permission, as Dr. Campbell translates it; to sift
you as wheat — To assault you by furious and violent temptations, or to try you
to the uttermost. I must assure thee, therefore, that an hour of terrible trial is
just at hand, which will press harder than thou art aware, on thee and all thy
companions here. But I — Forseeing the danger to which thou, Peter, wilt be
peculiarly exposed, I have graciously prevented thee with my watchful care; and
have prayed for thee — For thou wilt be in the greatest danger of all my
disciples; in order that thy faith fail not — Altogether. And when thou art
converted — Renewed to repentance, or hast returned to thy duty, as
επιστρεψας may be rendered; when thou art recovered from thy fall, and
confirmed again in faith and holiness; strengthen thy brethren — All that are
weak in faith, or shaken in mind by the approaching trial, and ready to
relinquish the service they have undertaken. When thou art recovered by the
grace of God, do what thou canst to recover others; when thy own faith is
strengthened, labour to confirm the faith of others, and to establish them; when
thou hast found mercy, encourage others to hope that they also shall find it. And
do thine utmost, all the remainder of thy days, by word and deed, to engage all,
over whom thou hast any influence, to a steady adherence to my cause in the
midst of the greatest difficulties, and especially by setting them an example of
eminent faith and fortitude. And he said, Lord, I am ready to go with thee to
prison and to death — So Peter thought at this time: and such was his present
intention and resolution; but he was not sufficiently acquainted with himself, nor
aware of his own weakness. See on Matthew 26:33-35. And he saith, I tell thee,
Peter — I most assuredly say unto thee; the cock shall not crow this day — Or
rather, it shall not be the time of cock-crowing to-day, see on Mark 14:39; before
thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me — And shalt solemnly disclaim all
regard to me. So terrified shalt thou be at the faces of these enemies whom thou
now defiest. In other words, notwithstanding thy pretended affection and
fortitude, a few hours shall not pass till, in great consternation at the dangers
with which I and my disciples shall be threatened, thou shalt basely deny, three
several times, that thou art my disciple. Peter therefore had no reason to be
elated, though on a former occasion he had confessed Jesus to be the Son of God.
And his behaviour in this instance affords a very affecting example of human
vanity, in the midst of the greatest weakness.
181

182. COFFMAN, "The episode of Peter's denial was fully treated in my Commentary
on Matthew, Matthew 26:31-35 and Matthew 26:69-75, and likewise in the
parallels in Mark 14:30ff and in John 13:36-38; John 18:15-27.
Satan asked to have you ... Christ here spoke of the kingdom of evil as a domain
ruled over by an intelligent, personal head. Peter's defection was not due so
much to his personal weakness as it was to the weakness of all men without the
Saviour. The Great Sacrifice had not yet been offered. For a few hours, the
Prince of Life would be under the dominion of the powers of darkness; and it
was impossible that under those conditions Peter could make good his boast.
Besides, his heart, even then was not completely in tune with the will of God.
Geldenhuys observed that "The inclusion of this prediction and its subsequent
fulfillment is a testimony to the historical truth"[18] of the gospels. It is
impossible to believe that the primitive church would have invented, or
circulated, such a story, about such an apostle as Peter, if, in fact, it had been
anything other than historical truth.
THE CHANGED STATUS OF THE APOSTLES
Upon the eve of his death, the Lord called attention to a dramatic change in the
status of the apostles. Until that time, there had been no need for them to be
concerned in any manner with worldly needs and provisions, the Lord having
taken care of everything; but, with his death, resurrection, and ascension to the
other world, all that was to be changed. Prudence, foresight, even means for self-
defense, would be needed: and so he instructed them.
ENDNOTE:
[18] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 569.
ELLICOTT, "(31) And the Lord said, Simon, Simon.—The first three Gospels
agree in placing the warning to Peter after the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
The two-fold utterance of the name, as in the case of Martha (Luke 10:41), is
significant of the emphasis of sadness.
Satan hath desired to have you.—Both this verb, and the “I have prayed,” are in
the Greek tense which indicates an act thought of as belonging entirely to the
past. The Lord speaks as though He had taken part in some scene like that in the
opening of Job (Job 1:6-12; Job 2:1-6), or that which had come in vision before
the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 3:1-5), and had prevailed by His intercession
against the Tempter and Accuser.
That he may sift you as wheat.—The word and the figure are peculiar to St.
Luke’s record. The main idea is, however, the same as that of the winnowing fan
in Matthew 3:12; the word for “sift” implying a like process working on a
smaller scale. The word for “you” is plural. The fiery trial by which the wheat
was to be separated from the chaff was to embrace the whole company of the
disciples as a body. There is a latent encouragement in the very word chosen.
182

183. They were “to be sifted as wheat.” The good grain was there. They were not
altogether as the chaff.
BURKITT, "Here I shall give,
1. The general sense of the words.
2. The particular matters contained in them.
3. The special observation from them.
The sense of the words is this; as for you my disciples in general, and for thee
Peter in particular, I must tell thee, that Satan has accused you all before God,
and desires that he may have the sifting of you all by his winnowing winds of
temptation and persecution, that he may shake your faith, and weaken your
confidence; but I have prayed for you all, and particularly for thyself who art in
greatest danger of falling, because so confident of thine own strength and
standing, that thy faith, though severely shaken, may not utterly fail; and when
by repentance thou art recovered from thy fall, be careful to confirm and
strengthen others, that they may not fall in like manner.
The particular matter contained in these words, are these; a Christian's danger,
a Christian's safety, and a Christian's duty.
1. A Christian's danger, Satan hath desired to sift you.
Where observe, 1. The person particularly warned of the danger, Simon, Simon:
the doubling of the word, doubtless carries a special intimation with it: it denotes
the greatness and nearness of Peter's danger, his own security and insensibleness
of that danger, and the great affection of Christ his monitor, to give him warning
of his danger.
Observe, 2. The warning itself, and that is, of a devilish conspiracy against
himself and all the apostles, Satan hath desired to have you; to have you for his
own, if it might be; to have you as believers, rather than other men; to have you
as eminent believers, rather than other Christians; and to have you as apostles
and ministers, rather than other eminent believers. And as Satan has desired to
have you, so to sift you too, to winnow you as wheat; not to fetch out the chaff,
but to make the chaff.
Here note, that Satan has his winnowing winds of temptation, and his tempestous
winds of persecution, for the sifting of God's children.
Note farther, that it is the wheat, the good corn, that Satan winnows; not chaff,
nor dross; sinners, that are all chaff, and nothing but dross, Satan will not be at
the pains to sift and winnow them.
But what is the sifting? Answer, in sifting, two things are performed:
183

184. 1. The agitation, shaking and tossing of the corn from side to side. The
separation of the corn from the chaff and dust; Satan intends the former, God
effects the latter: The corn is improved, not impaired, by winnowing. The saints
of God shall be no losers in the end by Satan's temptations, how many and how
strong soever they may be in the way.
2. The Christian's safety: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.
Where note, 1. The care that Christ had for Peter, and in him of all believers: I
have prayed for thee; for thee, as a believing Christian, and for thee as a tempted
Christian; and it is not said, I will pray for thee, but I have prayed for thee.
Christ prayed for Peter, before Peter understood that he had need of Christ's
prayer; Christ prayed for Peter as soon as ever Satan desired to sift Peter.
Our intercessor is full as nimble and speedy in his suit for us, as Satan is in his
accusations against us: he has desired, but I have prayed; he is a potent assailant,
but thou has a powerful assistant.
Observe, 2. The subject matter prayed for, that thy faith fail not; not that thy
faith be not assaulted, not that thy faith be not shaken, but that thy faith may not
fail by an absolute and total deficiency.
The third particular is the Christian's duty: When thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren. When converted, that is, when recovered form thy fall,
when restored upon thy repentance to the divine favor. This conversion is not
from a state of sin; Peter was converted before; but it was from an act of sin, into
which he should lapse and relapse; Strengthen thy brethren; that is, establish
others in the faith, from which tou art shamefully fallen thyself.
Now the lessons of instruction from the whole are these:
1. That temptations are like siftings: God sifts to purge away our dust and dross;
Satan sifts, not to get out the chaff; but to bolt out the flour; his temptations are
levelled against our faith.
2. That Satan has a continual desire to be sifting and winnowing God's flour;
Satan's own children are all bran, all chaff, these he sifts not: God's children
have flour mixed with bran, good wheat mixed with chaff; these he desires to sift,
winnow, and fan; not to separate the bran and dross, but to destroy the flour.
3. That the intercession of Christ gives security, satisfaction, and encouragement
to all believers, that though their faith may, by temptations, be shaken and
assaulted, yet, that it shall never be finally vanquished and overcome: I have
prayed that thy faith fail not.
4. That lapsed Christians, when recovered and restored, ought to endeavor to
restore and to recover, to strengthen and establish others: When thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren.
184

185. GREAT TEXTS OF THE BIBLE, "Sifted as Wheat
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat:
but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not: and do thou, when once
thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren.—Luk_22:31-32.
1. Our Lord has just been speaking words of large and cordial praise of the
steadfastness with which His friends had continued with Him in His temptations,
and it is the very contrast between that continuance and the prevision of the
cowardly desertion of the Apostle that occasioned the abrupt transition to this
solemn appeal to him, which indicates how the forecast pained Christ’s heart. He
does not let the foresight of Peter’s desertion chill His praise of Peter’s past
faithfulness as one of the Twelve. He does not let the remembrance of Peter’s
faithfulness modify His rebuke for Peter’s intended and future desertion. He
speaks to him, with significant and emphatic reiteration of the old name of
Simon that suggests weakness, unsanctified and unhelped: “Simon, Simon,
behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat.”
2. The imagery of the passage is borrowed from the Old Testament. There was a
day, says the author of the Book of Job, when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Like them, he has
his petition. He has cast a malignant eye, in his going to and fro in the earth,
upon the prosperity and the integrity of one righteous man. He is well assured
that the two things are one. The integrity is bound up in the prosperity. God has
made a hedge about him, so that no evil comes nigh his dwelling. Let his
prosperity be touched, and the integrity will go with it. He desires to have him.
And God says, Behold, he is in thine hand. Such is the figure. He is to be tried.
He is to be tempted. Satan begs him of God, that he may sift him as wheat.
Now, about a week or fortnight after this, I was much followed by this Scripture,
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you.” And sometimes it
would sound so loud within me, yea, and as it were call so strongly after me, that
once above all the rest, I turned my head over my shoulder, thinking verily that
some man had, behind me, called me: being at a great distance, methought he
called so loud. It came, as I have thought since, to have stirred me up to prayer
and to watchfulness; it came to acquaint me that a cloud and storm was coming
down upon me; but I understood it not.1 [Note: Bunyan, Grace Abounding.]
The Lord’s words, addressed specially to Simon, give to the whole circle of the
disciples an indication of—
I. Danger.
II. Defence.
III. Duty.
I
185

186. Danger
“Behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat.”
1. All the disciples were in danger. The Saviour here forewarns the whole band
of Apostles that Satan had asked to have them, that he might sift them as wheat.
Hitherto he had only been permitted to sift them with a gentle agitation. Now he
sought permission to shake them violently, as wheat is shaken in the sieve; to toss
them to and fro with sharp and sudden temptations; to distract their minds with
dismal forebodings and apprehensions, in the hope that they would be induced to
let go their fast hold of Faith, and take refuge in utter and irretrievable
defection. Our Lord states this plainly, because it was important for them to
know the full extent of their danger, in order that they might be on their guard.
He does not tell them so plainly how far Satan’s assault upon them would be
attended with success. His disclosure stops short just where it would appear to be
most interesting to His hearers. And this is generally the case with the Divine
communications. Vain man would always like to be told more than it is good for
him to know. But God draws the line, not with reference to our curiosity, but
with reference to His own gracious purposes for our well-being. The Saviour
warns His disciples of their danger, to induce them to watch and pray. If He had
told them more—if He had revealed to them all that was to happen within the
next twenty-four hours—they would have considered their fate as sealed, and
would have given way to utter despair. But, while withholding this information,
He told them something else which, instead of harming, was calculated to
encourage and help them. Having excited their fears, by telling them what their
adversary purposed against them, He threw into the opposite scale the cheering
intelligence of what He would do and had already done for them. He told them,
that He had chosen one of them, whom He would take under His special
protection—not for the sake of that individual alone, but in order that his
preservation might be the means of saving them all.
Satan desires us, great and small,
As wheat to sift us, and we all
Are tempted;
Not one, however rich or great,
Is by his station or estate
Exempted.
No house so safely guarded is
But he, by some device of his,
186

187. Can enter;
No heart hath armour so complete
But he can pierce with arrows fleet
Its centre.
For all at last the cock will crow,
Who hear the warning voice, but go
Unheeding,
Till thrice and more they have denied
The Man of Sorrows, crucified
And bleeding.
One look of that pale suffering face
Will make us feel the deep disgrace
Of weakness;
We shall be sifted till the strength
Of self-conceit be changed at length
To meekness.
Wounds of the soul, though healed, will ache;
The reddening scars remain, and make
Confession;
Lost innocence returns no more;
We are not what we were before
Transgression.
187

188. But noble souls, through dust and heat,
Rise from disaster and defeat
The stronger,
And conscious still of the divine
Within them, lie on earth supine
No longer.1 [Note: H. W. Longfellow, The Sifting of Peter.]
(1) The devil has not only sought them; he has obtained them, that he may sift
them as wheat. The words are even stronger than the Authorized Version
renders them; it is not only “Satan hath desired,” but “Satan hath obtained his
desire.” We might even translate them, “Satan hath got hold of you.” And the
pronoun is plural; it was not only Peter, but all the twelve, that Satan had
desired, and had for a space obtained. The one who was always the ready
spokesman for the rest, and who, through his impetuous rashness, was to thrust
himself into the fire of temptation, was to give the most flagrant proof of Satan’s
possession, in that he would deny with cursings his Master and his discipleship;
but all were to be overtaken and to be found wanting, in that they would forsake
their Lord in His dire extremity, and would leave Him in the hands of His foes.
Satan had desired and had gained them all.
Twice in the New Testament this figure of sifting or winnowing is brought before
us, and, strange to say, the sifter or winnower in the one case is our Lord Jesus
Christ Himself, and in the second case the wicked tempter. St. John the Baptist,
when speaking of the coming Messiah, says, “Whose fan is in his hand, and he
will throughly purge his floor,” etc. And here we have that very Messiah
speaking of the devil sifting even His Apostles. By “sifting” is meant testing,
shaking those to whom the process is applied in such a way that part will fall
through and part will remain.
The sifting of wheat is a most hard and thorough, but a most necessary, process.
The wheat, as it has grown, has become associated with the protecting chaff,
which it is necessary should be blown away, and with the foreign substances
taken from the earth and from the air, which must be separated. Before the
wheat is ready for use it must be sifted or winnowed; no pains must be spared to
make the process as thorough as possible. Only an enemy to the wheat, or a
disbeliever in its true powers, would desire to spare it such an ordeal. As it falls,
after such a process, solid and clean, into the receptacle which has been prepared
for it, its value is greatly enhanced. There is now no doubt about its true nature
and the work to which it should be put. It carries out all the points of the analogy
to notice that Peter is not promised that he shall be saved from the sifting
process; no hand is put forth to hold him securely sheltered; no cloud wraps him
188

189. away from danger. Peter is too valuable to be thus treated. If he is wheat, he
must be sifted.
When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose
for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler,
a snob, a coward—in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His
Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and
the kingdoms have failed because of this inherent and continual weakness, that
they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing—the
historic Christian Church—was founded upon a weak man, and for that reason
it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.1 [Note: G. K.
Chesterton, Heretics.]
(2) The devil will do his best to scatter the wheat, and keep the chaff.
Throughout the ages the Spirit of Evil reveals a cynical distrust of goodness.
Between the time of ancient Job and the self-confident Peter, the Spirit of Evil
had not changed in character or method. Now he has asked to have Simon that
he may sift him, sure that his character is unsound, and that all his professions
are chaff. His failure with a hundred Jobs meantime has not given him any
confidence in goodness. Evil never can believe in good. Still is this Satan
hurrying to and fro throughout the earth, peering into every keyhole of
character to find baseness there, sneaking into every corner of the soul to catch it
in its depravity. Years after this sifting of Simon, in which the Spirit of Evil
repeated the work upon Job, to whom he came as he said, “from hurrying to and
fro in the earth,” the sifted Peter speaks of Satan, in his first letter (v. 8) as the
“peripatetic, a wandering, roaring lion, intent on finding prey.” That is the
history of evil, and in nothing has it a surer manifestation than in its scepticism
concerning goodness.
Milton, in his most masterly manner, has delineated the sneering diabolism of
distrust in that “archangel ruined.” Evil begins its infernal career in its utter
lack of faith in goodness; and its Satanic spirit is most manifest when virtue
appears to have a blackened heart, righteousness to have been insincere, and
truth to be only a concealed falsehood. Here is the very profession of evil.
But of this be sure,
To do aught good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to His high will
Whom we resist. If then His providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
189

190. And out of good still to find means of evil;
Which oft times may succeed, so as perhaps
Shall grieve Him.1 [Note: Milton, Paradise Lost, i. 158.]
Watts painted his Miltonic Satan with the face averted from the light of the
Creator with whom he talked. For title, these words were used: “And the Lord
said unto Satan, whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said,
From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” The
Satan the painter conceived is a mighty power ruling over the evils which were
unconnected with sin.2 [Note: M. S. Watts, George Frederic Watts, i. 97.]
2. The disciples had brought the peril upon themselves. They gave, as it were, an
invitation to Satan to come into their company. They had evidently not paid any
great regard to Christ’s teachings concerning love and humility. The evil spirit of
envy and ambition which they had harboured among themselves was the scent
which attracted Satan to that particular upper room. These men, by their angry
strife or calculating worldliness, lit, as it were, a beacon which brought the Spirit
of Evil to the battle. If these Apostles had had more of the spirit of true prayer, if
their spirits had been more humble, if their hearts had been more guileless, and
their characters attuned by discipline to the teachings of the Lord, the devil
would never have been attracted to that upper room, his eye had never shone
with triumph at their bickerings, nor had they stood in such danger of an awful
overthrow.
There was in Peter in particular one great defect—a large amount of self-
confidence, which made him quick at speaking and acting; and self-confidence in
the New Testament is always treated in one way, as that which shuts out
confidence in God. It is the enemy of faith. Faith is insight, and self-confidence is
a blinding influence. Again and again there is pressed upon us the necessity of a
lowly estimate of self; “Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that
humbleth himself shall be exalted”; God who dwells “in the high and holy
place,” dwells also with him who is of a humble spirit. If God was to dwell in
Peter, if the Divine was really to take up His abode in him and rule him, if the
impulsive and vehement strength of the man was to be made a steadfast and
certain fire, and to be hallowed by the Divine indwelling, so that he might lead
the Apostles during those critical times which were coming, then clearly his self-
confidence must be purged out of him, he must be sifted as wheat, the grain must
be separated from the chaff.
But the others were not less guilty than Peter. It is not the case that he, who
should have been a pattern to the rest, proved the weakest of all, and the first to
fly. When the chief priests came with a band of soldiers to take Jesus, Peter was
the only one of the Apostles who made even a show of resistance. Peter and one
other were the only two who followed Jesus into the palace of the High Priest.
Peter’s failure, when it did happen, was owing to a train of circumstances from
which his brethren, by their more hasty and precipitous failure, were exempt.
Satan on his first sifting, shook out all the other Apostles; but it required a
190

191. stronger temptation, a more violent agitation of the sieve, to unfix the faith of
Peter. And as Peter was the last to fall, he was also the first to rise and put
together again the fragments of his shattered faith. From that hour he was an
altered man. He added to his zeal, steadfastness; he exchanged his confident
boasting for humility and dependence upon God. In this blessed recovery, do we
not plainly see the influence of Divine grace? Are we not reminded immediately
of the Saviour’s words—“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that
he might sift you as wheat; but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail
not.”
My feelings being easily excited to good as well as bad, I am apt to mistake an
excited state of the feelings for a holy state of the heart; and so sure am I of the
deception that, when in an excited state regarding eternal things, I tremble,
knowing it is the symptom of a fall, and that I must be more earnest in prayer.
Self-confidence is my ruin.1 [Note: Norman Macleod, in Memoir, i. 129.]
3. Peter and the others were unconscious of peril. There they recline, rising now
and then to emphasize their angry words. Their minds are occupied only with
thoughts of place and power in some fancied coming kingdom. The strife grows
keen, and all forgetful of their Master’s loving words, humility is banished from
the room, and self-assertiveness speaks loud with its imperious voice. All
unconscious of the tempter’s presence, these men dispute among themselves, and
it was not till afterwards that Peter was informed by Christ that the devil’s eye
had been intently set on him, and that, whilst he had been claiming to be
greatest, Satan had almost claimed him for his own.
When it was once said to him, “I would fain know what the devil is like in shape
and character,” Doctor Martin said, “If you would see the true image and form
of the devil, and what his character is, give good heed to all the commandments
of God, one after another, and represent to yourself a suspicious, shameful, lying,
despairing, abandoned, godless, calumnious man, whose mind and thoughts are
all set on opposing God in every possible way, and working woe and harm to
men.” The devil seeks high things; looks to that which is great and high; scorns
what is lowly. But the eternal, merciful God, reverses this, and looks on what is
lowly. “I look on him who is poor and of a broken heart.” But what is lifted up,
He lets go; for it is an abomination to Him.2 [Note: Luther, Table-talk (ed.
Förstemann), i. 140.]
4. But the power of Satan is strictly limited. God reigns though Satan sifts. The
powers of evil are in God’s holy hands. Evil is not altogether its own master, and
cannot therefore be the master of the world. “Over all” is now “God blest
forever!” “And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand, only spare
his life.” So God permitted Job’s trial and stood behind the demoniac forces
which racked the sufferer, restraining and checking them. Then look at this case.
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat;
but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once
thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren.” So said his Master when the
incarnate God permitted Simon’s trial. So He has always intimated that He
“stands within the shadow keeping watch above his own.”
191

192. Alas! we live in the kingdom of the devil ab extra; therefore we cannot hear or
see any good ab extra. But we live in the blessed kingdom of Christ ab intra.
There we see, though as in a glass darkly, the exceeding, unutterable riches of the
grace and glory of God. Therefore, in the name of the Lord let us break through,
press forward, and fight our way through praise and blame, through evil report
and good report, through hatred and love, until we come into the blessed
kingdom of our dear Father, which Christ the Lord has prepared for us before
the beginning of the world. There only shall we find joy. Amen.1 [Note: Luther,
Letters, v. 684.]
It is a strange thing that so fine a spirit as Satan is let loose to do so much
mischief, but he is only “the prince of the power of the air,” not of the power of
the spirit. I believe there may be more devils than men. They are legion, and go
in companies, so far as we can gather from the hints of Scripture. I think each
temptation that assails a man may be from a separate devil. And they are not far
off; probably our atmosphere was the place of their original banishment. And
there they live—air-princes. But mark, they have no power over the innermost
spirit; nay, they can have no knowledge of the secrets of the heart of man. No
single heart-secret is known to any single devil. These are known only to the
Searcher of the hearts, who is also their Maker. Some good Christians disquiet
themselves by forgetting this. I would say that our adversary can look and hear,
see and listen, and make inferences. He has only a phenomenal knowledge, and
that not perfect. He is but a creature, and cannot know the secrets of the
universe. It ought to comfort all men that only our Maker knows our
constitution.2 [Note: John Duncan, Colloquia Peripatetica, 181.]
II
Defence
“But I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not.”
1. Our Lord anticipates the devil. His intercession precedes the tempter’s attack.
He presents Himself as the Antagonist, the confident and victorious Antagonist,
of whatsoever mysterious, malignant might may lie beyond the confines of sense,
and He says, “My prayer puts the hook in leviathan’s nose, and the malevolent
desire to sift, in order that not the chaff but the wheat may disappear, comes all
to nothing by the side of My prayer.”
“Intercession,” it has been said, is “the divinest gift of friendship.” Somebody
may be thinking of a child far away upon the frontiers of the Empire. Ah!
severance is the penalty of Empire, and what a pain it is—what a deep wound—
in a parent’s heart! You have not seen that absent child for many a year. You
almost dread meeting him again, lest you should not recognize him or he you. He
writes to you not quite so frequently or intimately as he used to write; absence
and distances soon or late chill the warmest hearts, and you and he are moving
slowly apart, like ships bound for different ports on the infinite deep. What can
you do for him? One thing only,—you can pray. Prayer is the wireless spiritual
192

193. telegraphy transcending time and space. You are near him, if ever, in your
prayers.
Or your child may be drifting into sin. He has gone like the prodigal into the far
country. He has not yet like the prodigal “come to himself.” He has ceased to visit
you, even to answer your letters. He is dead—all but dead to you—while he lives.
Oh! it is only prayer that, if God will, may help you to help him. Some day
perhaps he will arise and come to his father; and you will welcome him; and the
past will be no more. It will be the answer to your prayer. “I have made
supplication for thee,” said the Saviour, “that thy faith fail not.”1 [Note: J. E. C.
Welldon, The School of Faith, 100.]
2. The prayer of our Lord was personal. It was a particular supplication for
Peter. The precise terms in which Jesus prayed for Peter we do not know; for the
prayer on behalf of the one disciple has not, like that for the whole eleven, been
recorded. But the drift of these special intercessions is plain, from the account
given of them by Jesus to Peter. The Master had prayed that His disciple’s faith
might not fail. He had not prayed that he might be exempt from Satan’s sifting
process, or even kept from falling; for He knew that a fall was necessary, to show
the self-confident disciple his own weakness. He had prayed that Peter’s fall
might not be ruinous; that his grievous sin might be followed by godly sorrow,
not by hardening of heart, or, as in the case of the traitor, by the sorrow of the
world, which worketh death: the remorse of a guilty conscience, which, like the
furies, drives the sinner headlong to damnation.
In the first parish where I laboured lived a man who was not only agnostic in his
attitude towards things religious, but even derided them, and was wont to chaff
his wife on her devotion to her church. The wife, however, went on her quiet but
earnest way, living out her religion in the home. One morning very early the
husband awoke and discovered his wife beside his bed absorbed in whispered
prayer. Her pale, upturned face was fixed with intensity upon the Invisible, and
her warm hand was resting upon his own, she supposing him to be asleep. As the
husband’s eyes opened on the unexpected scene, the suggestion came like a flash
to his soul, “My wife’s God is more real to her than her husband is. If she is so
earnest for my welfare as to rise at such an hour and pray alone for me, it is time
I had some care for my own soul”; and he instantly arose from his bed, knelt
beside her and added his own prayer to hers. He gave his heart to God on the
spot, and that very morning came to the early meeting at the church and
announced his change of heart; the next Sabbath he united with the church. The
conviction of reality in the wife’s intimacy with God was what roused and
brought him; the wife had something to impart, which of itself wrought to open
the husband’s soul.1 [Note: H. C. Mabie, Method in Soul-Winning, 20.]
(1) Peter needed special prayer because of the pre-eminent position that he
occupied. Those who play the hero on great occasions will at other times act very
unworthily. Many men conceal and belie their convictions at the dinner-table,
who would boldly proclaim their sentiments from the pulpit or the platform.
Standing in the place where Christ’s servants are expected to speak the truth,
they draw their swords bravely in defence of their Lord; but mixing in society on
193

194. equal terms, they too often say in effect, “I know not the man.” Peter’s offence,
therefore, if grave, is certainly not uncommon. It is committed virtually, if not
formally, by multitudes who are utterly incapable of public deliberate treason
against truth and God. The erring disciple was much more singular in his
repentance than in his sin. Of all who in mere acts of weakness virtually deny
Christ, how few, like him, go out and weep bitterly!
(2) There was something in the temperament of Peter that called for special
intercession. Of all the disciples who were to be sifted, or brought under
temptation, it was to Peter alone that Christ’s heart went out in urgent entreaty.
But why for Peter rather than for the others? Why should the merciful feelings
of His heart be concentrated on him? Was it because he was nearer and dearer,
and more amiable than the others; more equable in disposition, more exemplary
and mild? No, for he was the reverse of this. Peter’s eminence among the
disciples at this time was not of this kind. He was hot-headed, rash, and
egotistical, unstable and inconsistent. At one moment he was brave as a lion,
heroic in all his impulses, and tense in all his purposes; the next he was timid,
vacillating, and cowardly. You see him at one moment sword in hand, foremost
to defend his Master; the next he stands by the fire in the court-yard stamping
and swearing, denying with oaths that he knew any such man as Jesus. But why
should Christ pray for such a man? one is naturally led to inquire. Why did His
love go out so warmly and tenderly towards one capable of so much treachery
and falsehood, one so selfish and unreliable? Why select him from the other
disciples, and lavish upon him so much tender solicitude and prayer?
(3) Judas needed special intercession as well as Peter, but he put himself beyond
the reach of grace. Judas sins and falls to his utter ruin: Peter falls and is
restored. What accounts for this difference? Is it entirely because Christ prayed
for the one disciple and never prayed for the other? None of us, surely, would say
that it is. We are compelled to look at the matter in the light of their character.
Judas is cool, crafty, calculating, selfish; Peter at heart loves that which is holy
and just and true, and hates that which is wrong and vile. He may fall into sin by
his rashness, but he hates it when once he sees it; and he knows how to repent
and seek forgiveness and restoration. His heart is tender and true. His tears of
penitence are genuine. He is such an one as may be prayed for. There is material
in him to work upon. The life of the soul is not extinct. The Divine breath will fan
it into a flame again.
He weeps, and bitter are his tears,
As bitter as his words were base,
As urgent as the sudden fears
Which even love refused to face.
O, love so false and yet so true,
194

195. O, love so eager yet so weak,
In these sad waters born anew
Thy tongue shall yet in triumph speak.
Thou livest, and the boaster dies,
Dies with the night that wrought his shame;
Thou livest, and these tears baptize—
Simon, now Peter is thy name.
A rock, upon Himself the Rock
Christ places thee this awful day;
Him waves assault with direful shock,
And cover thee with maddening spray.
But safe art thou, for strong is He:
Eternal Love all love will keep:
The sweet shall as the bitter be;
Thou shalt rejoice as thou dost weep.1 [Note: T. T. Lynch, The Rivulet, 132.]
3. Our Lord did not ask for Peter that he might be exempted from temptation,
but simply that his faith should not fail. Faith meant everything to Peter. It was
the foundation on which all that was good and noble in his character was built
up. And the trial went to strengthen his faith. Peter’s vanity was sifted out of
him, his self-confidence was sifted out of him, his rash presumption was sifted
out of him, his impulsive readiness to blurt out the first thought that came into
his head was sifted out of him, and so his unreliableness and changeableness
were largely sifted out of him, and he became what Christ said he had in him the
makings of being—“Cephas”—“a rock,” or, as the Apostle Paul, who was never
unwilling to praise the others, said, a man “who looked like a pillar.” He
“strengthened his brethren,” and to many generations the story of the Apostle
who denied the Lord he loved has ministered comfort.
195

196. 4. In Peter’s case, good came out of evil. The sifting time formed a turning-point
in his spiritual history: the sifting process had for its result a second conversion,
more thorough than the first—a turning from sin, not merely in general, but in
detail: from besetting sins, in better informed if not more fervant repentance,
and with a purpose of new obedience, less self-reliant, but just on that account
more reliable. A child hitherto—a child of God indeed, yet only a child—Peter
became a man strong in grace, and fit to bear the burden of the week.
The bone that is broken is stronger, they tell us, at the point of junction, when it
heals and grows again, than it ever was before. And it may well be that a faith
that has made experience of falling and restoration has learned a depth of self-
distrust, a firmness of confidence in Christ, a warmth of grateful love which it
would never otherwise have experienced.1 [Note: A. Maclaren.]
III
Duty
“Do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethern.”
Our Lord’s meaning was that a new power of personal helpfulness was to come
to Peter through his sad experience, which he should use in strengthening others
to meet temptation. Then, when he had passed through that terrible night, when
he had been lifted up again, when he had crept back to the feet of his risen Lord
and had been forgiven and reinstated, he had double cause for gratitude—that
he himself had been saved from hopeless wreck and restored, and, still more,
that he was now a better man, prepared, in a higher sense than before, to be an
apostle and a patient, helpful friend to others in similar trial.
1. Peter had now the qualifications for strengthening the brethren. He has
known by experience the unforgetting, rescuing love of the Christ—the grace of
God. O, what a reality it comes to be when a man has lost the chaff of himself
and feels that he himself is freer to be and to grow! Pentecost rings yet with the
eloquence of that once broken heart of Peter. Hope in Christ? What a certainty
did it have to him! His first latter is called “the epistle of hope”; God has always
been making hopefulness in this way. Jacob the supplanter had been made
Israel—Prince of God; and now Peter was sifted out of Simon—sifted out with
an experience which made him a ceaseless strengthener of men.
When Peter sank into the depths, his self-confidence was broken. At the moment
of his lowest fall, while oaths were on his lips, “the Lord turned and looked upon
Peter.” There was an expression in the Master’s face which made that look the
truning-point in Peter’s life. He did not speak. There are times when words are
not wanted—times, perhaps, when real feeling cannot speak. Christ simply
looked at Peter—a look which told of real sorrow and real love, and had in it
something of the reproach that a great love, when deeply wounded, must feel. It
was enough. It brought to Peter’s mind all that had been so piteously forgotten;
it brought back the real Peter; and “he went out and wept bitterly.” They were
196

197. tears, I doubt not, terribly to witness—the tears of a strong man in deep agony;
of a man broken down by remorse, a man who must shun his fellows, and creep
away anywhere out of everybody’s sight, that no one may remind him of his
shame. So he went for those three days, we know not whither, into solitude, till
John found him and brought him to the tomb on Easter morning; but in those
silent hours the work was done. His mind went back over the old story. He came
to himself. The past lived again, as it does in such moments. How often he had
been betrayed by his self-confident temper; how again and again it had led him
into sin and shame; how ling before he had boldly cast himself into the lake, only
to fail, at the critical moment, in showing any real faith. And so he would be
brought to feel that which marks a real stage in a man’s development—when he
pieces his life together, and sees that his weakness and error had early roots—
that he had not to mourn a single faithlessness out of harmony with his real self,
but that his denial was but the crowning catastrophe of a long story of self-
confidence which was always poisoning his good, and plunging him deeper into
sin and shame.
2. Peter took up the task laid upon him and justified to the full his Master’s
confidence. He was a tower of strength to the Church, and warned all against the
machinations of the Evil One, “who, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking
whom he may devour.” Indeed, Peter’s fall, so far from damaging the cause of
Christianity, was to be made an instrument for promoting its success. How
strange! When a number of men are joined together in carrying on an enterprise
of this sort, any weakness or wavering on the part of their leader is commonly
fatal to the whole undertaking. Here the very contrary was to happen. Peter’s
fall was to be the means of his brethren’s recovery from their worse fall. Such is
God’s way of working in things spiritual. A pious man who has been betrayed
into a great fall cannot recover himself in such a manner as to place himself only
in the same situation as before he fell. He will be more earnest, more zealous,
more watchful over himself, more anxious for the honour of God, than ever
before. He will feel a desire, especially if his offence has been public and
notorious, to make amends, humanly speaking, for the scandal he has brought
upon religion. And not only is he disposed to promote the glory of God by
stablishing or strengthening his brethren; he is also more qualified to do so. He
has learnt another lesson, in addition to his former experience, of the
deceitfulness of man’s heart and the deceits of man’s ghostly enemy. So it was
with Peter. He did not rest satisfied with strengthening and entrenching his own
position; he made it the great object of his life and labours to warn, to admonish,
to exhort, and to stablish his brethren. We can see the evidence of this in his
speeches, as recorded in the Book of Acts; we can see it also in his two Epistles,
which we may regard as his legacy to the Church, his testamentary reparation
for the scandal of his fall.
It was remarked by an old minister whom William Peebles used to hear, that the
devil is just the believer’s fencing-master; for by trials and temptations he
teaches him how to fight himself.1 [Note: A. Philip, The Evangel in Gowrie, 265.]
From the time of which I speak the whole character, current and outlook of my
life changed. The Scriptures lighted up, Christian joy displaced depression,
197

198. passion for souls ensued, courage triumphed over fear in public religious
exercises. Other people also recognized the realness of the change, and the whole
providential course of life since has corroborated the divineness of the vision of
that night. About that time the college was broken up through the occurrence of
a case of smallpox among the students, and I went home. Calling on my pastor
the next morning, and reporting the great change which had occurred in me,
with quick sympathy he replied, “The Lord has sent you home in this frame just
at the time when we most need you. The state of religion is low among us: the
young people’s meeting has died out: you are the means to revive it.” Then
taking a note-book and pencil he wrote down the names of about two hundred
young people in the town, and putting it in my hands said, “There, go and bring
them in. Lead them to Christ. That’s your work.” Encouraged by such a
proposal, I set about it. The first visit I made was characterized by a soul-contest
of hours resulting in the conversion of a young woman. That led to another and
that to others until an entire Bible class of influential young persons surrendered
to Christ. From that the work so spread that ere the summer was over nearly all
the persons named in my note-book were converted and added to the several
churches of the town.1 [Note: H. C. Mabie, Method in Soul-Winning, 16.]
3. One more turning there was to be in Peter’s life. He was in Rome—so the story
runs—in the Neronian persecution. His faith failed. He fled from the city. But at
the gate of the city he met the sacred form of his Master. He said to Him,
Domine, quo vadis?—“Lord, whither goest thou?” And the Lord made answer,
“I go to Rome, to be crucified.” St. Peter understood the words. He, too, turned
back. He entered the city again. He was martyred there. That was his last, his
supreme conversion. And by it he “strengthened his brethren.”
O Jesu, gone so far apart
Only my heart can follow Thee,
That look which pierced St. Peter’s heart
Turn now on me.
Thou who dost search me thro’ and thro’
And mark the crooked ways I went,
Look on me, Lord, and make me too
Thy penitent.2 [Note: Christina G. Rossetti.]
COKE, "Luke 22:31-32. Simon! Simon!— This repetition of the name of Simon,
shews much earnestness in our Saviour, and intimates the great danger to which
Peter was exposed. Our Lord speaks herein the plural,— υμας ; "You, my
apostles in general."—That he may sift you as wheat, is an expression denoting
198

199. the violent agitations, the formidable temptations, and numerous artifices, which
the enemy of mankind would make use of to try their integrity. See Amos 9:9.
"But, continues our Lord, I have prayed for thee,—Peter, in particular,—
foreseeing the danger to which thou wilt be peculiarly exposed; and when thou
art returned back to thy duty, [ επιστρεψας, ] from those wanderings into which
I foresee thou wilt fall;—strengthen thy brethren, by setting them an example of
eminent faith and fortitude; and do thine utmost through all the remainder of
thy days, to engage all, over whom thou hast any influence, steadily to adhere to
my cause, in the midst of the greatest difficulties." There can be no objection
against taking the charge in this comprehensive sense; and as there can be no
question but that Peter, after he had wept his fall so bitterly as we know he did,
applied himself to rally his dispersed brethren, and to prevent their fleeing from
Jerusalem till the third day was over,—in the morning of which he was up
betimes, and early at the sepulchre of our Lord; (See John 20:3.)—so, indeed, the
strain of his epistles shews his long and affectionate remembrance of this solemn
charge. Many passages of the first are peculiarly intended to animate his
Christian brethren to a courageous adherence to Christ amid the greatest
dangers; and the second has several cautions to guard them against the
seductions of error; in some instances more to be dreaded than the terrors of the
severest persecution. See Acts 9:35; Acts 11:2., &c.
PETT, "There is an important emphasis in this passage that emphasises what
has gone before. It is clear that Jesus regularly called Peter ‘Simon’, for that was
his original given name (Matthew 16:17; Matthew 17:25; Mark 14:37; John
21:15-17), while His only actual use of the name ‘Peter’ was in this passage. To
Jesus in their daily activities Peter was always ‘Simon’. This then makes even
more emphatic the deliberate alteration in this passage from ‘Simon’ to ‘Peter’.
‘Peter’ was, as it were, Simon’s throne name (Luke 6:14; Mark 3:16; Matthew
16:18; Acts 10:5). It is because he is now about to enter onto a new phase of his
life, which will begin with this extraordinary sifting, that the change takes place.
It is a further indication of Peter’s taking his place on one of ‘the thrones of
David’. (By the time that the Gospels were written Peter was established as
Peter, but he is never directly addressed as that in the Gospels).
The repetition of Simon’s name (Simon = Peter) indicates the intensity of Jesus’
words, and the affection that He feels for Peter (compare Luke 10:41. The
thought is powerful. Satan has desired that the Apostles (‘you’ in the plural)
might be put where he can get at them, so that just as wheat is sifted in
separating the grain from the chaff, he can give them a thorough going over.
Without God’s permission he could not do so. But God does allow it for He has
confidence in the disciples and knows that it will be for their good. They have
been with Him throughout His temptations, and they too will be allowed further
testing.
‘Sift you as wheat.’ This sifting of wheat imitated the purposes of God. John the
Baptiser had declared that one day God would sift men like wheat (Luke 3:17).
Thus Satan sought that he too might be allowed to do the same. Satan is
confident that if he sifts Peter the grain will fall away and only the chaff will be
left. He always had confidence in men that they would fail in the end. What he
199

200. does not realise is that by his actions in fact the opposite will happen, because of
the mercy and goodness of God. For he knows nothing of mercy and goodness.
As a result of the coming of the Holy Spirit the wheat will be gathered into the
barns of God, and Satan will be left with only the chaff which in the end will
burn along with him.
There are similarities between what is happening to Peter here and what
happened to Joshua the godly High Priest in Zechariah 3. There too Satan
arraigned him before the Lord, only finally to be thwarted because of God’s
protecting hand. For God will not allow His true servants to fail in their hour of
need if their hearts are right towards Him (that is, if they truly believe in Him).
32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your
faith may not fail. And when you have turned
back, strengthen your brothers.”
BARNES, "That thy faith fail not - The word “faith,” here, seems to be used in
the sense of religion, or attachment to Christ, and the words “fail not” mean “utterly
fail” or fail altogether - that is, apostatize. It is true that the “courage” of Peter failed;
it is true that he had not that immediate confidence in Jesus and reliance on him
which he had before had; but the prayer of Jesus was that he might not altogether
apostatize from the faith. God heard Jesus “always” Joh_11:42; it follows, therefore,
that every prayer which he ever offered was answered; and it follows, as he asked
here for a specific thing, that that thing was granted; and as he prayed that Peter’s
faith might not utterly fail, so it follows that there was no time in which Peter was not
really a pious man. Far as he wandered, and grievously as he sinned, yet he well knew
that Jesus was the Messiah. He “did know” the man; and though his fears overcame
him and led him to aggravated sin, yet the prayer of Christ was prevalent, and he was
brought to true repentance.
When thou art converted - The word “converted” means turned, changed,
recovered. The meaning is, when thou art turned from this sin, when thou art
recovered from this heinous offence, then use “your” experience to warn and
strengthen those who are in danger of like sins. A man may be “converted or turned”
from any sin, or any evil course. He is “regenerated” but once - at the beginning of his
Christian life; he may be “converted” as often as he falls into sin.
Strengthen thy brethren - Confirm them, warn them, encourage them. They
are in continual danger, also, of sinning. Use your experience to warn them of their
danger, and to comfort and sustain them in their temptations. And from this we
learn:
1. That one design of permitting Christians to fall into sin is to show their own
weakness and dependence on God; and,
2. That they who have been overtaken in this manner should make use of their
experience to warn and preserve others from the same path.
200

201. The two epistles of Peter, and his whole life, show that “he” was attentive to this
command of Jesus; and in his death he manifested his deep abhorrence of this act of
dreadful guilt in denying his blessed Lord, by requesting to be crucified with his head
downward, as unworthy to suffer in the same manner that Christ did. Compare the
notes at Joh_21:18.
CLARKE, "I have prayed for thee - From the natural forwardness and
impetuosity of thy own spirit, thou wilt be brought into the most imminent danger;
but I have supplicated for thee, that thy faith may not utterly fail - εκλειπᇽ, from εκ,
out, and λειπω, I fail, to fall utterly or entirely off. Peter’s faith did fail, but not utterly:
he did fall, but he did not fall off, apostatize, or forsake his Master and his cause
finally, as Judas did. Every body sees, from Peter’s denial of his Lord, that his faith
did fail, and his great courage too; and yet they read, in the common translation, that
Christ prayed that it might not fail: can they then conceive that our Lord’s prayer was
heard? The translation which I have given above removes this embarrassment and
apparent contradiction. It was certainly Peter’s advantage that our Lord did pray for
him; but it was not so much for his honor that he should stand in need of such a
prayer, beyond all others. Lightfoot.
When thou art converted - Restored to a sense of thy folly and sin, and to me
and my cause - establish these thy brethren. All the disciples forsook Jesus and fled,
merely through fear of losing their lives; Peter, who continued for a while near him,
denied his Master with oaths, and repeated this thrice: our Lord seems to intimate
that, after this fall, Peter would become more cautious and circumspect than ever;
and that he should become uncommonly strong in the faith, which was the case; and
that, notwithstanding the baseness of his past conduct, he should be a proper
instrument for strengthening the feeble minded, and supporting the weak. His two
epistles to the persecuted Christians show how well he was qualified for this
important work.
GILL, "But I have prayed for thee,.... Christ prayed for all the apostles; but
particularly for Peter, because he was in the greatest danger: whether the prayer
Christ refers to was that in Joh_17:1 in which are many passages relating to the
preservation, sanctification, final perseverance and glorification of the apostles, as
well as of other saints, as in Joh_17:9 and so these words might be spoken a little
after that prayer was ended, which was about this same time; or whether it was any
other, and only mental, and not vocal, is not certain: however, the petition was,
that thy faith fail not; Satan in his temptations strikes principally at the faith of
God's people; that being a grace which gives much glory to God, and in the exercise
of which believers have much peace, joy, and comfort; both which he envies and
grudges; and it is also a shield which keeps off, and quenches his fiery darts, and is a
piece of armour he is sadly harassed with, and therefore endeavours all he can to
weaken and destroy it, or wrest it out of their hands: but though, through the power
of sin, and the force of temptation, it may fail as to some degree of the steadfastness
of it, as to the acting and exercise of it, and as to the sense believers may have of it;
yet never as to its principle, it being an irrevocable gift of God's grace; a work of his
almighty power; a solid and substantial grace, even the substance of things hoped
for; an immortal and incorruptible seed, and of which Christ is the author and
finisher; and to nothing more is its security owing, than to the prayers of Christ,
201

202. which are always heard, and to his powerful mediation, and prevalent intercession;
Christ is the advocate of his people; he prays that they might have faith, and then he
prays, that it may not fail; and it shall not, notwithstanding all the opposition of hell,
and earth, unto it:
and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren: Peter was now a
converted man, and had been for some years; but whereas he would fall by
temptation into a very great sin of denying his Lord, and which was attended with
such circumstances as made him look like an unconverted, and an unregenerate
man; his recovery by the fresh exercise of faith in Christ, and repentance for his sins,
is called conversion: and which was not his own act, but owing to the power and
efficacy of divine grace; see Jer_31:18. Some versions render it in the imperative, "in
time, convert, turn, or return, and strengthen thy brethren"; as the Syriac, Arabic,
and Persic versions: as he afterwards did: for whereas all the disciples forsook Christ,
and fled, some one way, and some another, Peter, after his recovery, got them
together again, and returned with them to Jerusalem; when they with him assembled
together, till the third day Christ was risen: he strengthened their faith in the
Messiah, and put them upon filling up the place of Judas, by choosing another
apostle; and on the day of "Pentecost" preached a most excellent sermon, which as it
was made useful for the conversion of three thousand sinners, was, doubtless, a
means of confirming the minds of the disciples; and he has left two exceeding useful
epistles for the strengthening of his brethren in all ages of time; the design of which
is to establish the saints in faith and holiness, that they may not be drawn aside, and
fall from the steadfastness of their faith, either by the lusts of the flesh, or by the
persecutions of men, or by the error of the wicked.
HENRY, " The particular encouragement he gave to Peter, in reference to this
trial: “I have prayed for thee, because, though he desires to have them all, he is
permitted to make his strongest onset upon thee only: thou wilt be most violently
assaulted, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, that it may not totally
and finally fail.” Note, (1.) If faith be kept up in an hour of temptation, though we
may fall, yet we shall not be utterly cast down. Faith will quench Satan's fiery darts.
(2.) Though there may be many failings in the faith of true believers, yet there shall
not be a total and final failure of their faith. It is their seed, their root, remaining in
them. (3.) It is owing to the mediation and intercession of Jesus Christ that the faith
of his disciples, though sometimes sadly shaken, yet is not sunk. If they were left to
themselves, they would fail; but they are kept by the power of God and the prayer of
Christ. The intercession of Christ is not only general, for all that believe, but for
particular believers (I have prayed for thee), which is an encouragement for us to
pray for ourselves, and an engagement upon us to pray for others too.
ELLICOTT, "(32) I have prayed for thee.—The individualising pronoun is
significant as indicating to the Apostle, who was most confident, it may be, of his
claim to greatness, that he, of the whole company of the Twelve, was in the
greatest danger. In the Greek the other pronoun also is emphatic. “It was I who
prayed for thee.” The prayer was answered, and the words that follow assume
the answer as certain. In one sense “faith” did “fail” when the disciple denied his
Lord; but repentance came after it, and a new power was gained through that
weakness to make others strong. The word for “strengthen” does not meet us in
the other Gospels, but is used frequently by St. Paul (Romans 1:11; 1
Thessalonians 3:2, et al.), and twice by St. Peter himself (1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter
1:12).
202

203. PETT, "Notice the emphatic ‘I’. Jesus stands over against Satan and proves the
more powerful. None other could have done this, only the One Who was
‘Stronger than he’ (Luke 11:22). And because He has made supplication for
Peter all will be well. Peter’s faith, having been battered, will finally stand the
test. Furthermore, once he has ‘been turned again’ (or ‘has turned himself
again’) and come back to Jesus, he is also to establish his brother disciples, and
all the people of God (‘the brethren’). Note how God has a purpose in all that He
allows (compare Hebrews 12:2-13). What was to happen to Peter would in the
end benefit him, for it would serve to humble him, and it would benefit the
people of God as well. This was his preparation for his servant-throne from
which he would tend the sheep (John 21:15-18). In later centuries the leaders of
the church would take up the idea of thrones. Men are always looking to exalt
themselves. But what they would totally reject was the actual idea of being the
servants of all. (They would retain the language but reject its content). It is
impossible for anyone to feel that he should be put on a pedestal, and at the same
time remain humble.
This need revealed in Peter is found in us all. That is why the writer to the
Hebrews points out that He ever lives to make intercession for us (Hebrews
7:25), so that He can save us to the uttermost. For as was true in the case of
Peter, (earthly rocks are very vulnerable), without His constant intercession we
too would be lost
33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with
you to prison and to death.”
GILL, "And he said unto him,.... That is, Simon, or Simeon, said unto him, as the
Syriac and Persic versions express it; he made a reply to Jesus, saying, as one fearless
of danger, and confident in himself:
I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death; he suggests, that
he was not afraid of Satan, nor of his temptations, of being sifted, shaken, and tossed
by him: he was not to be frightened out of his faith by him, or to be scared with a
prison, and death itself; he was ready for both; and they were welcome, come when
they would; and rather than part from, or deny his Lord, he was then prepared to go
with him, at once, to either of them. The phrase, to go, is not in the Syriac version.
HENRY, "4. Peter's declared resolution to cleave to Christ, whatever it cost him
(Luk_22:33): Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death. This
was a great word, and yet I believe no more than he meant at this time, and thought
he should make good too. Judas never protested thus against denying Christ, though
often warned of it; for his heart was as fully set in him to the evil as Peter's was
203

204. against it. Note, All the true disciples of Christ sincerely desire and design to follow
him, whithersoever he goes, and whithersoever he leads them, though into a prison,
though out of the world.
BURKITT, "St. Peter's resolution to accompany Christ both to prison and to
death, was holy and good; but his too confident opinion of his own strength and
ability so to do, without a divine aid and assistance, was his failing and infirmity.
Self-confidence is a sin, too, incident to the holiest and best of men. Little did St.
Peter think what a feather he should be in the wind of temptation, if once God
left him to himself, and to Satan's assaults.
Learn farther, how hard a matter it is for a Christian to excel in gifts, and not to
be overconfident and conceited. To see a man eminent in gifts, and yet exemplary
in humility, is a rare sight; if we stand in the evil day, it is an humble fear of
falling that must enable us to stand.
PETT, "Peter was appalled at Jesus’ words. He had full confidence in his own
ability to go through whatever was to come and to overcome it. So
acknowledging Jesus’ Lordship, (see in parallel John 13:37. Compare also Luke
5:8; Luke 9:54; Luke 10:17; Luke 10:40; Luke 11:1 etc.) he insists that whether
it be prison or death that he has to face, he will face it without fear. And he
meant it. Furthermore we must remember that in the Garden he did show his
courage and was ready to take on the whole Roman army (Luke 22:50 with John
18:10), and he was even prepared to infiltrate the ranks of the enemy in the
courtyard of the High Priest’s house (Luke 22:54; John 18:15-18). But what in
his self-confidence he was not aware of was what a night of terrible tension could
do to a man’s nerves. It required a different type of person to Peter, so confident
in his own ability but so vulnerable, to stand up to that. But only Jesus knew it.
(This weakness comes out again in Peter’s controversy with Paul - Galatians
2:11-14).
‘To prison and to death.” As a former disciple of John the Baptiser Peter would
have imprinted on his mind what had happened to John and he thus wanted
Jesus to know that he also was prepared to face up to what John had had to face.
34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the
rooster crows today, you will deny three times
that you know me.”
CLARKE, "The cock shall not crow this day - Mat_26:34, and Mar_14:30,
say, this night; both expressions are right, because the Jewish day, of twenty-four
hours, began with the evening, and ended at the evening of the following day. On
Peter’s denial, see the notes on Mat_26:31-35 (note).
204

205. GILL, "And he said,.... "To him", as all the Oriental versions add; to Peter, as what
is said shows; that is, Jesus said to him, as the Syriac and Persic versions express:
I tell thee, Peter; who knew him, and his heart, better than he did himself, as well as
knew what was to come, and what would befall him; and therefore declares it, as he
does with the greatest assurance and certainty, and which might be depended on,
and accordingly came to pass:
the cock shall not crow this day; in this night, as in Mar_14:30 or this night, as
in Mat_26:34 for it was now night; a natural day includes both night and day; a like
way of speaking, see in Luk_2:8
before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me; as he did, Luk_
22:57. See Gill on Mat_26:34.
HENRY, "5. Christ's express prediction of his denying him thrice (Luk_22:34): “I
tell thee, Peter (thou dost not know thine own heart, but must be left to thyself a
little, that thou mayest know it, and mayest never trust to it again), the cock shall not
crow this day before thou even deny that thou knowest me.” Note, Christ knows us
better than we know ourselves, and knows the evil that is in us, and will be done by
us, which we ourselves do not suspect. It is well for us that Christ knows where we
are weak better than we do, and therefore where to come in with grace sufficient; that
he knows how far a temptation will prevail, and therefore when to say, Hitherto shall
it come, and no further.
COKE, "Luke 22:34. The cock shall not crow this day, &c.— As it is plain from
this passage, and from the event, that the cock actually crew before Peter's third
denial, we must certainly take the words of St. Luke and St. John for the
common time of cock-crowing, which probably did not arrive till after the cock,
which Peter had heard, had crowed the second time, and perhaps oftener; for it
is well known, that those vigilant animals, on any little disturbance, often crow at
midnight, or before it, though they do not quit their roost till about three in the
morning, which was usually called the cock-crowing. See on Mark 13:35 and the
Inferences on Mark, xi
PETT, "But Jesus tenderly turned to him and warned him of what was to come.
Note the change from ‘Simon’ to ‘Peter’ (a rock). This is the only time that we
know of that He has actually directly addressed him as Peter, although it was He
Who gave him the name (Mark 3:16), and had promised that one day he would
provide the rock on which the new people of God would be founded, the
declaration of Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) (Matthew 16:18). Rock man he may
think himself to be, He says, but let him realise that before cockcrow he would
deny Him three times.
There is no contradiction between this and Mark’s reference to the cock crowing
twice. Luke is speaking of cockcrow in general. He does not want to puzzle his
readers by speaking of a double cock crow. The third of the Roman watches was
called ‘cockcrow’, ending around 3:00 am. But Mark and Jesus were aware of
205

206. the reality of life known to them through their familiarity with Jerusalem, and
that the distant cocks would be heard first across the valley, and the nearer cocks
a short time afterwards. In Jerusalem cock crow would only come after the
second crowing of the cocks was heard.
It will be noted that in Matthew and Mark similar words as these were spoken as
they were approaching the Garden. It may well have been that Jesus gave this
warning twice, for the contexts and the wording are quite different. Or it may be
that Luke (or his source) has transferred it here so as to fit in with his chiasmatic
scheme.
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you
without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack
anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
BARNES, "When I sent you ... - See the notes at Mat_10:9-10.
Lacked ye ... - Did you want anything? Did not God fully provide for you? He
refers to this to convince them that his words were true; that their past experience
should lead them to put confidence in him and in God.
GILL, "And he said unto them,.... To the disciples, as the Persic version reads;
not to Peter only, but to them all:
when I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes; without the necessaries
of life, without proper accommodations for a journey, without provisions, or money,
to buy any with: so ανευ βαλαντιου, "without a purse", is, by the Scholiast on
Aristophanes (t), interpreted by ανευ αργυριου και δαπανης, "without money and
expense": Christ here refers to his mission of them in Mat_10:5
lacked ye any thing? any of the common blessings of life, food to eat, or raiment to
wear?
206

207. and they said, nothing; they lacked nothing at all; wherever they came, they had
friendly accommodations; they were provided with every thing necessary for them;
they had both food and raiment, and good lodgings in every place; the houses and
hearts of men were opened by Christ to receive them, though they were sent out by
him so empty and destitute.
HENRY, "IV. Concerning the condition of all the disciples.
1. He appeals to them concerning what had been, Luk_22:35. He had owned that
they had been faithful servants to him, Luk_22:28. Now he expects, at parting, that
they should acknowledge that he had been a kind and careful Master to them ever
since they left all to follow him: When I sent you without purse, lacked you any
thing? (1.) He owns that he had sent them out in a very poor and bare condition,
barefoot, and with no money in their purses, because they were not to go far, nor be
out long; and he would thus teach them to depend upon the providence of God, and,
under that, upon the kindness of their friends. If God thus send us out into the world,
let us remember that better than we have thus begun low. (2.) Yet ye will have them
own that, notwithstanding this, they had lacked nothing; they then lived as
plentifully and comfortably as ever; and they readily acknowledged it: “Nothing,
Lord; I have all, and abound.” Note, [1.] It is good for us often to review the
providences of God that have been concerning us all our days, and to observe how we
have got through the straits and difficulties we have met with. [2.] Christ is a good
Master, and his service a good service; for though his servants may sometimes be
brought low, yet he will help them; and though he try them, yet will he not leave
them. Jehovah-jireh. [3.] We must reckon ourselves well done by, and must not
complain, but be thankful, if we have had the necessary supports of life, though we
have had neither dainties nor superfluities, though we have lived from hand to
mouth, and lived upon the kindness of our friends. The disciples lived upon
contribution, and yet did not complain that their maintenance was precarious, but
owned, to their Master's honour, that it was sufficient; they had wanted nothing.
JAMISON, "But now — that you are going forth not as before on a temporary
mission, provided for without purse or scrip, but into scenes of continued and severe
trial, your methods must be different; for purse and scrip will now be needed for
support, and the usual means of defense.
CALVIN, "Luke 22:35.And he said to them. The whole object of this discourse
of Christ is to show, that hitherto he spared his disciples, so as to lay on them no
heavier burden than they were able to bear. He reminds them of the indulgence
exercised during the past time, that they may now prepare themselves with
greater alacrity for severer warfare. For why did he, while they were altogether
destitute of skill and training, keep them in the shade and in repose, at a distance
from the darts of the enemy, except that, by gradually gathering courage and
strength during the interval of leisure, they might be better prepared for
fighting? The meaning is: “Hitherto you have had an easy and prosperous
condition, because I wished to treat you gently, like children; the full time is now
come, when I must employ you in labor, like men.” But the comparison which he
makes between the two periods is still more extensive; for if they wanted nothing,
when they proceeded to discharge their office without taking with them a stock
of provisions, when a state of peace allowed them leisure to provide for their
necessities, much more now, in the midst of tumult and excitement, ought they to
207

208. lay aside anxiety about the present life, and run wherever necessity calls them.
And although Christ makes special mention of what he had done in reference to
the twelve apostles, he shows likewise, that while we are still beginners and weak
in faith, he continues to indulge us till we grow up to be men; and, therefore, that
they act improperly who devote their leisure to the pursuit of luxuries, which
abate the rigor of their faith. And let us not doubt that Christ has regard to us in
the present day, since he does not hurry us into the battle while we are still
untrained and inexperienced, but, before sending us to the field, supplies us with
arms and courage.
BENSON, "Luke 22:35-37. And he said, When I sent you without purse, &c. —
“Our Lord, having finished what he had to say to Peter in particular, now
turned to the other disciples, and put them in mind how they had been
prohibited, when they were first sent out, to make any provision for their
journey, and directed to rely wholly on God; and that, though they had
accordingly gone away without purse, scrip, and shoes, they had never wanted
any thing, but had had abundant provision made for them by the kindness of
men whom God had disposed to befriend them: but he told them that matters
were now altered; they were to be violently assaulted by their enemies, were to
meet with the strongest temptations, and to be so hotly persecuted by their
countrymen, that they could no longer expect any succour at their hands; for
which reason, he ordered them in their future journeys to provide money, and
clothes, and swords for themselves: that is, besides relying on the Divine
Providence, as formerly, they were to use all prudent precautions in fortifying
themselves against the trials that were coming on them.” — Macknight. Or
rather, these commands to arm themselves against dangers, are to be considered
merely as predictions and warnings given them of the dangers and trials they
were to meet with. For the predictions of the prophets are often announced
under the form of commands. Thus Isaiah, foretelling the destruction of the
family of the king of Babylon, Isaiah 14:21, says, Prepare slaughter for his
children, &c. And Jeremiah, foretelling in like manner the destruction of the
Jews, exhibits God as thus addressing them, Jeremiah 9:17-18, Call for the
mourning women, &c. And in the prophecy of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 39:17-19) and in
the Apocalypse (Revelation 19:17-18) this allegoric spirit is carried so far, that
orders are given to brute animals to do what the prophet means only to foretel
they would do. For this prophecy that is written, must yet be accomplished — As
all the other predictions of the prophets concerning me must also be: and he was
numbered with the transgressors — Prepare, therefore, to meet a most violent
persecution; for I, your Leader, am to be treated as a malefactor, and of course
you, my followers, will not escape suffering. Nor are these trials at a distance,
they are just at hand. For the things which are written concerning me have an
end — Are now drawing to a period, are upon the point of being accomplished.
And they said, Behold, here are two swords — Our Lord’s disciples, mistaking
his meaning about the swords, replied, they had two: the reason why they had
any at all, probably, was, that they might defend themselves against robbers in
their journey from Galilee and Perea; and from the beasts of prey, which in
those parts were very frequent, and dangerous in the night- time: And he said
unto them, It is enough — To show them their mistake, he told them that two
swords were sufficient, which it is evident they could not have been for so many
208

209. men, had he meant what he said in a literal sense. He only meant, This will be a
time of extreme danger; to meet which, it will be necessary to be prepared by
faith, fortitude, and patience.
BURKITT, "As if our Lord had said, "Hitherto I have been with you, and you
have had my special protection and careful provision, though you went without
purse, script, or sword: but the time is now at hand when I must leave you; when
your friends will be few, and your enemies many; therefore make such provision
for yourselves, as prudence shall direct. Indeed, my sufferings will be first; I
must be numbered with the transgressors, and all things that are written of me
must be accomplished, and will suddenly be fulfilled; and after me you will next
come upon the stage, therefore prepare and provide for it."
Learn, that Christ having forewarned his members, but especially his ministers,
of the dangers, distresses, and difficulties that they are to conflict and encounter
with; it is their duty, by faith and patience, with courage and Christian
resolution, to be well armed and prepared against them.
PETT, "Verse 35
‘And he said to them, “When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and
shoes, did you lack anything?” And they said, “Nothing.” ’
His first emphasis was to draw attention to how God had provided for them in
the past as they went forward in His service. Their sending forth in this way is
described in Luke 10:4 (of the seventy, which would include the twelve). So He
made them now admit that when they had gone forward without purse, or food
pouch or shoes, they had lacked for nothing.
Verses 35-38
The Urgency Of The Hour Is Such That It Requires Swords (22:35-38).
The dark outlook of Jesus’ words continues. He must suffer (Luke 22:15), He
must be betrayed (Luke 22:21), He has endured testings and temptations (Luke
22:28), Peter will deny Him (Luke 22:34), and now He warns them that in a short
time what they will require is not food and clothing but swords. It was not
intended to be taken literally. It was simply a warning of the dangers of the hour.
For He Himself was going forward to be reckoned with the transgressors, and as
His disciples they would need protection in order not to suffer the same fate. Let
them then be ready for the dangers that lay ahead.
Analysis.
a He said to them, “When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes,
did you lack anything?” And they said, “Nothing” (Luke 22:35).
b And He said to them, “But now, he who has a purse, let him take it, and
likewise a wallet, and he who has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword”
(Luke 22:36).
c “For I say to you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me (Luke 22:37
a).
209

210. d ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’ (Luke 22:37 b).
c For that which concerns Me has fulfilment (Luke 22:37 c).
b And they said, “Lord, behold, here are two swords” (Luke 22:38 a).
a And He said to them, “It is enough” (Luke 22:38 b).
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a
purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t
have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
BARNES, "But now - The Saviour says the times are changed. “Before,” he sent
them out only for a little time. They were in their own country. Their journeys would
be short, and there was no need that they should make preparation for a long
absence, or for encountering great dangers. But “now” they were to go into the wide
world, among strangers, trials, dangers, and wants. And as the time was near; as he
was about to die; as these dangers pressed on, it was proper that they should make
provision for what was before them.
A purse - See the notes at Mat_10:9. He intimates that they should “now” take
money, as it would be necessary to provide for their wants in traveling.
Scrip - See the notes at Mat_10:10.
And he that hath no sword - There has been much difficulty in understanding
why Jesus directed his disciples to arm themselves, as if it was his purpose to make a
defense. It is certain that the spirit of his religion is against the use of the sword, and
that it was not his purpose to defend himself against Judas. But it should be
remembered that these directions about the purse, the scrip, and the sword were not
made with reference to his “being taken” in the garden, but with reference “to their
future life.” The time of the trial in Gethsemane was just at hand; nor was there
“time” then, if no other reason existed, to go and make the purchase. It altogether
refers to their future life. They were going into the midst of dangers. The country was
infested with robbers and wild beasts. It was customary to go armed. He tells them of
those dangers - of the necessity of being prepared in the usual way to meet them.
This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive “command” to procure a
sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of
life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions “appropriate to that
kind of life.” The “common” preparation for that manner of life consisted in money,
provisions, and arms; and he foretells them of that manner of life by giving them
directions commonly understood to be appropriate to it. It amounts, then, to a
“prediction” that they would soon leave the places which they had been accustomed
to, and go into scenes of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the
necessity of money, provisions, and the means of defense. All, therefore, that the
passage justifies is:
1. That it is proper for people to provide beforehand for their wants, and for
ministers and missionaries as well as any others.
210

211. 2. That self-defense is lawful.
Men encompassed with danger may lawfully “defend” their lives. It does not prove
that it is lawful to make “offensive” war on a nation or an individual.
Let him sell his garment - His “mantle” or his outer garment. See the notes at
Mat_5:40. The meaning is, let him procure one at any expense, even if he is obliged
to sell his clothes for it intimating that the danger would be very great and pressing.
CLARKE, "He that hath no sword - Bishop Pearce supposes that the word
µαχαιραν, sword, has been inserted here from what is said in Luk_22:38, as it is
evident our Lord never intended to make any resistance, or to suffer a sword to be
used on the occasion; see Mat_26:52. The word stands rather oddly in the passage:
the verse, translated in the order in which it stands, is as follows: And he who hath
none, let him sell his garment and buy - a sword. Now it is plain that the verb
πωλησατω, let him buy, may be referred to πηραν a scrip, in the former part of the
verse: therefore if, according to the bishop’s opinion, the word sword be omitted, the
passage may be understood thus: “When I sent you out before, Luk_10:1, etc., I
intended you to continue itinerants only for a few days, and to preach the Gospel only
to your country-men; therefore you had but little need of a staff, purse, or scrip, as
your journey was neither long, nor expensive; but now I am about to send you into all
the world, to preach the Gospel to every creature; and, as ye shall be generally hated
and persecuted for my sake, ye shall have need to make every prudent provision for
your journey; and so necessary will it be for you to provide yourselves victuals, etc.,
for your passage through your inhospitable country, that, if any of you have no scrip
or wallet, he should sell even his upper garment to provide one.” Others, who are for
retaining the word sword, think that it was a proverbial expression, intimating a time
of great difficulty and danger, and that now the disciples had need to look to
themselves, for his murderers were at hand. The reader will observe that these words
were spoken to the disciples just before he went to the garden of Gethsemane, and
that the danger was now so very near that there could be no time for any of them to
go and sell his garment in order to purchase a sword to defend himself and his
Master from the attack of the Jewish mob.
Judea was at this time, as we have already noticed, much infested by robbers:
while our Lord was with his disciples, they were perfectly safe, being shielded by his
miraculous power. Shortly they must go into every part of the land, and will need
weapons to defend themselves against wild beasts, and to intimidate wicked men,
who, if they found them totally defenceless, would not hesitate to make them their
prey, or take away their life. However the matter may be understood, we may rest
satisfied that these swords were neither to be considered as offensive weapons, nor
instruments to propagate the truth. The genius and spirit of the Christian religion is
equally against both. Perhaps, in this counsel of our Lord, he refers to the contention
about supremacy: as if he had said, Instead of contending among yourselves about
who shall be the greatest, ye have more need to unite yourselves against the common
enemy, who are now at hand: this counsel was calculated to show them the necessity
of union among themselves, as their enemies were both numerous and powerful.
GILL, "Then said he unto them,.... That is, Jesus said unto them, as the Persic
version expresses it:
211

212. but now he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip;
signifying hereby, that from this time forward, immediately after his departure from
them, after his death, resurrection, and ascension, when they should be sent into all
the world to preach the Gospel, it would be otherwise with them than before; that
they should be reduced to great penury and distress, should neither have food, nor
money to buy any with; and that they should suffer hunger, and thirst, and
nakedness, and have no certain dwellingplace, as was their case; see 1Co_4:11 and
that they would not be received, and entertained in the manner they had been; and
therefore it would be advisable, if they had any provisions, to take them with them in
their scrips; or if they had any money, to carry it with them in their purses; for glad
would they be to provide themselves with necessaries at any rate:
and he that hath no sword; the word "sword" is not in this clause, but in the next;
it is only in the original, "he that hath not"; which, at first sight; looks as if the sense
was, he that hath not a purse, or a scrip, to sell, and buy a sword with, let him sell his
garment, and buy one: but, as De Dieu observes, the phrase, "he that hath not", is the
same with "he that has nothing"; who is a poor man, and has no money to buy a
sword with, let him part with his garment, which rich men, who had money, had no
need to do; though the Syriac, Persic, and Arabic versions put the word sword, in
both clauses;
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy a sword; that is, if
he could get one no other way. Christ here uses the common dialect of the nation, as
Dr. Lightfoot observes. So on the feast of dedication of the temple,
"if a man had not any thing to eat, but what he had by alms, he must beg, or ‫מוכר‬
‫,כסותו‬ "sell his garment", and take oil, and lamps, and light them (u).''
These words of Christ are not to be understood literally, that he would have his
disciples furnish themselves with swords at any rate, since he would never have said,
as he afterwards does, that two were sufficient; which could not be enough for eleven
men; or have forbid Peter the use of one, as he did in a very little time after this: but
his meaning is, that wherever they came, and a door was opened for the preaching of
the Gospel, they would have many adversaries, and these powerful, and would be
used with great violence, and be followed with rage and persecution; so that they
might seem to stand in need of swords to defend them: the phrase is expressive of the
danger they would be exposed to, and of their need of protection; and therefore it
was wrong in them to be disputing and quarrelling about superiority, or looking out
for, and expecting temporal pomp and grandeur, when this would be their forlorn,
destitute, and afflicted condition; and they would quickly see the affliction and
distress begin in himself. In "seven" ancient copies of Beza's, it is read in the future
tense, "he shall take, he shall sell, he shall buy".
SBC, “St. Luke alone records this saying. No other like it is to be found in any
Gospel. Once, indeed, in commissioning the Twelve, Christ used the startling
expression, "I came not to send peace, but a sword;" but there the whole context
shows that He speaks not of the purpose, but of the result of His coming; so that even
that saying hardly helps or illustrates this, where He Himself gives the command,
and is understood by them literally, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment
and buy one." This parable of the sword says this to us: "In the world you will have
conflict. You will want your sword. Better lack a garment than lack a sword."
212

213. Marvel not at the vehemence of the words: there are two reasons for it—
I. They contradict flesh and blood. It is painful to be always armed. It makes life a
painful effort. What should we think of living in a beleaguered house—of having an
enemy, secret or open, within the household? What food would nourish, what rest
would refresh, on these conditions? How, then, if life itself, how if this fair world,
how if this pleasant, converse, this delightful friendship, this seemingly innocent joy,
is, to the eye that reads it truly, one insidious snare, or one perilous battlefield? What
is existence worth on such terms? Nature speaks thus in her indolence and self-
sparing. Scarce two or three in a generation really rise at Christ’s call to sell the
garment for a sword. If He spoke one whit less vehemently, not one—not one—in a
generation would listen.
II. There is a second reason for this vehemence. Because in this field deception and
self-deception are ever busily working, and he who might gird himself for mere
difficulty is in danger of relaxing effort under illusion. It is the master art of the devil
to persuade us that there is no battle, that all are agreed. It is a mighty responsibility,
if Christ be true, for a Christian to be about in this world. In proportion to his
intermixture with it, in proportion to his place and his talent and his influence, is his
want of the sword. Better, for him at all events, no garment than no sword. For he
must fight either against the world or for it. He cannot be neutral. Weaker men may
pass through it and escape notice. But he is one of its constituents, for his day one of
its makers. Might he but desire to buy of Christ the indispensable sword.
C. J. Vaughan, Good Words, 1870, p. 612; see also Half Hours in the Temple Church.
CALVIN, "36.But now let him who hath a purse take it. In metaphorical
language he threatens that they will soon meet with great troubles and fierce
attacks; just as when a general, intending to lead the soldiers into the field of
battle, calls them to arms, and orders them to lay aside every other care, and
think of nothing else than fighting, not even to take any thought about procuring
food. For he shows them—as is usually done in cases of extreme danger—that
every thing must be sold, even to the scrip and the purse, in order to supply them
with arms. And yet he does not call them to an outward conflict, but only, under
the comparison of fighting, he warns them of the severe struggles of temptations
which they must undergo, and of the fierce attacks which they must sustain in
spiritual contests. That they might more willingly throw themselves on the
providence of God, he first reminded them, as I have said, that God took care to
supply them with what was necessary, even when they carried with them no
supplies of food and raiment. Having experienced so large and seasonable
supplies from God, they ought not, for the future, to entertain any doubt that he
would provide for every one of their necessities.
COFFMAN, "The absolute pacifist tradition among Christians of all ages and
the acceptance of it by many commentators make this verse "a real problem" for
many. Most commentators view the passage as figurative, as did Geldenhuys,
who said, "The Lord intended (these words) in a figurative sense."[19] But if the
sword is figurative, what about the purse, the wallet, and the cloak?
As Hobbs said, "It is impossible to tone down this statement; neither can we
dismiss it as not being a genuine saying of Jesus."[20] The clear meaning of the
213

214. passage is that "a sword" is the one thing needful, even surpassing in priority
such an important item as a cloak. The two errors to be avoided here are (1) the
supposition that the gospel should be spread by the sword, and (2) the notion
that a sword should ever be employed against lawful authority. Before the
evening was over, the Lord would have further occasion to demonstrate the
proper and improper uses of the sword. Barnes was certainly correct in his view
that "These directions (concerning the sword) were not made with reference to
his being taken in the garden but to their future lives."[21]
J. S. Lamar, an eminent Restoration scholar, expressed surprise "to find several
of the ablest Protestant expositors interpreting (this passage) as a warrant for
self-defense."[22] Nevertheless, the view maintained here is that self-defense is
exactly what Jesus taught. Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and
there is no lawful government on earth that denies it. Just why should it be
supposed that Jesus denied to Christians such a basic right has never been
explained. "Resist not evil ... go the second mile ... turn the other cheek... give thy
cloak also, etc." are not applicable to situations in which one's life is threatened,
or endangered.
[19] Ibid., p. 672.
[20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 307.
[21] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150.
[22] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio:
Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 260.
COKE, "Luke 22:36. But now he that hath a purse,— Our Lord, having finished
what he had to say to Peter in particular, turned to the other disciples, and put
them in mind how they had been prohibited when they were first sent out, to
make any provision for their journey, and directed to rely wholly on God; and
that though they had gone away without purse, scrip, and shoes, they had never
wanted any thing: but he told them that matters were now altered, they were to
be violently assaulted by their enemies; were to meet with the strongest
temptations, and to be so hotly persecuted bytheir countrymen, that they could
no longer expect anysuccour at their hands; for which reason, he ordered them,
in their future journeys, to provide money, and clothes, and a sword, for
themselves: that is to say, besides relying on the divine Providence as formerly,
they were to use prudent precautions in fortifying themselves against the trials
which were coming on them; and our Lord tells them they were thus to arm
themselves, because he was to be treated as a malefactor, condemned and
crucified, agreeably to the predictions of the prophets. See Isaiah 53:12. He
added too, that these misfortunes were not at a distance, but just at hand; for the
things concerning me have an end; "They are just ready to be accomplished,—
now you may easily guess at the reception you are likely to meet with, as my
messengers and ministers, when you come to preach in the name and authority
of one who has suffered as a malefactor, and yet demands faith and obedience as
214

215. an Almighty Saviour."
ELLICOTT, "(36) He that hath a purse, let him take it.—The word for “purse”
is the same as in Luke 10:4, where see Note. On “scrip,” see Note on Matthew
10:10. If the words had stopped short of the “sword,” we could have received
their literal meaning without difficulty. They would have seemed to counsel the
prudence which provides for want, instead of a simple trust, as before, in the
providence of God, and so would have sanctioned all equitable forms of Church
organisation and endowment. The mention of the “sword,” however, introduces
a new element of thought. Our Lord’s words to Peter (Matthew 26:52) show that
the disciples were not meant to use it in His defence. It is not likely that He would
teach them to use it in their own, as they preached the gospel of the Kingdom.
True teachers felt afterwards that the weapons of their warfare were not carnal
(2 Corinthians 10:4). What follows supplies a probable explanation. The Master
knew that two of the disciples (Peter and another) had brought swords with
them, and with that acceptance of the thoughts of others which we have so often
traced, He sadly, and yet, as it were, with the gentle sympathy with which a man
speaks to those who are children in age or character, conveyed His warnings in
the form which met their fears and hopes. If they meant to trust in swords, a
time was coming when they would sorely need them.
PETT, "But then He indicated that those days of going forward and confidently
trusting in God for provision were gone. The whole situation was now changing.
Their need now would not be money and food, but a sword, and to such an
extent that if they had no money or food with which to obtain one, they should
sell even their vital overgarment in order to do so. For above all their present
vital and overwhelming need was, as it were, a sword. Such were the dangers
that lay ahead.
The picture he is describing is of men stripped of everything, packs laid aside,
standing sword in hand ready to face all comers. The idea was thus that they
needed to recognise that they would soon be down to their last extremity. Let
them now waken up to the present situation. As He had continually warned them
of the violent end that awaited Him, now He was trying His best to prepare them
for what was to follow that night. He was trying to awaken them to a sense of the
hour. But He was finding it impossible. They just could not take it in. It was the
opposite of all that they were expecting of Him, and they were therefore
impervious to any danger..
That this need for a sword was not intended literally comes out, firstly in the fact
that it was clearly intended to be only a short term solution, for they could not go
on existing without food and clothing for long. And because, in the short term,
on Passover night, they would not be in any position to obtain a sword. And
secondly because He made no further effort to press them it on them once they
misunderstood. This was not a leader preparing men for a physical conflict,
which would have meant that he urged them until they acted. It was Someone
who was trying to awaken them to spiritual battles that lay ahead. Nor in view of
what He had taught them previously would He have encouraged armed
resistance (as what follows makes clear. See also John 18:36). For had He not
215

216. sent them forth as sheep in the midst of wolves? But what He did want them to
realise was that the pack of wolves were approaching, and were almost on them,
so that they needed to be prepared. Their cosy future was about to be shaken up,
and the fact is that He was simply trying by His startling words to awaken them
to the urgency of the situation, and make them realise what a dangerous position
they would now be in. He wanted them to be fully alert and ready for what was
coming.
This tendency of Jesus to use violent metaphors comes out again and again, but
they are clearly not to be taken literally. Compare Luke 12:58-59; Luke
14:26-27; Luke 16:16; Matthew 5:22-26; Matthew 5:29-30; Matthew 7:3-5;
Matthew 11:12.
37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the
transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must
be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me
is reaching its fulfillment.”
BARNES, "This that is written - See the notes at Isa_53:12.
Was reckoned among the transgressors - Not reckoned as a transgressor,
but “among or with” them - that is, he was treated as transgressors are. He was put to
death in their company, and as he “would have been” if he had been a transgressor.
He was innocent, holy, harmless, and undefiled, Heb_7:26. God knew this always,
and could not “think” of him, or make him “to be” otherwise than he was; yet it
pleased him to bruise him, and to give him into the hands of people who did reckon
him as a transgressor, and who treated him accordingly.
Have an end - This may either mean, “shall be surely accomplished,” or “they are
about to be fulfilled,” or “are now fulfilled.” The former is probably the meaning,
denoting that “every” prophecy in regard to him would certainly be accomplished.
CLARKE, "Must yet be accomplished - Probably meaning that, though this
prophecy did refer to some particular matter in the time of the prophet, yet it farther
(ετι) related to Christ, and could not have its complete accomplishment but in his
crucifixion as a criminal.
For the things concerning me have an end - As if he had said, My work is
now almost done; yours is only beginning; I am now about to be crucified and
numbered with the transgressors; think what will be done to you, and what ought to
be done by you; and then think if this be a time for you to be contending with each
other. Lightfoot.
216

217. GILL, "For I say unto you, that this that is written,.... In Isa 53:12
must yet be accomplished; it having not been as yet; at least not so perfectly
fulfilled:
and he was reckoned among the transgressors. The Syriac and Arabic
versions read in the first person, "and I shall be reckoned", &c. and so the Persic
version, "that I may be numbered", &c. and the Ethiopic renders it, "and the Lord
Jesus is numbered with sinners"; neither right: for the words are a proper citation
from Isa_53:12 which, as the whole prophecy belongs to the Messiah, was fulfilled in
Jesus; who, though he was no transgressor, yet being in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and dwelling among, and conversing with sinners, was traduced as one, and was
joined with Barabbas, a murderer, a thief, and a robber, and put up with him for the
people to choose which of the two they would have released; and was at last crucified
between two thieves; and more than this, being in the legal place, and stead of his
people, and having their sins laid upon him, and imputed to him, he was made and
accounted, by imputation, not only a sinner, but sin itself; and as such, was
considered in the eye of the law, and by the justice of God, and was treated
accordingly; See Gill on Mar_15:28.
for the things concerning me have an end. The Syriac version renders it, "all of
them"; or "the whole of it", as the Ethiopic version; all that were concerning him; all
the counsels, purposes, and decrees of God, relating to his sufferings and death; to
the manner in which his death was brought about, by one of his disciples betraying
him; to the several indignities he should be used with, by Herod, Pontius Pilate, the
Jews, and Roman soldiers; and to his death itself; all which were by the determinate
counsel, and foreknowledge of God, and now were about to have, and quickly had
their fulfilling end; as also all his own covenant engagements and agreements he
entered into with his Father, to bear the sins of many, to make his soul an offering for
sin, to be numbered with transgressors, and pour out his soul unto death; and
likewise all the types and shadows of the law, all sacrifices in general, and the daily
sacrifice in particular, with the passover, brazen serpent, and other things, even the
whole law, both moral and ceremonial, had their full and final accomplishment in
him; together with all the prophecies of the Old Testament relating to this matter,
particularly Gen_3:15.
HENRY, "2. He gives them notice of a very great change of their circumstances now
approaching. For, (1.) He that was their Master was now entering upon his
sufferings, which he had often foretold (Luk_22:37): “Now that which is written
must be fulfilled in me, and this among the rest, He was numbered among the
transgressors - he must suffer and die as a malefactor, and in company with some of
the vilest of malefactors. This is that which is yet to be accomplished, after all the
rest, and then the things concerning me, the things written concerning me, will have
an end; then I shall say, It is finished.” Note, It may be the comfort of suffering
Christians, as it was of a suffering Christ, that their sufferings were foretold, and
determined in the counsels of heaven, and will shortly determine in the joys of
heaven. They were written concerning them, and they will have an end, and will end
well, everlastingly well. (2.) They must therefore expect troubles, and must not think
now to have such an easy and comfortable life as they had had; no, the scene will
alter. They must now in some degree suffer with their Master; and, when he is gone,
they must expect to suffer like him. The servant is not better than his Lord. [1.] They
217

218. must not now expect that their friends would be so kind and generous to them as
they had been; and therefore, He that has a purse, let him take it, for he may have
occasion for it, and for all the good husbandry he can use. [2.] They must now expect
that their enemies would be more fierce upon them than they had been, and they
would need magazines as well as stores: He that has no sword wherewith to defend
himself against robbers and assassins (2Co_11:26) will find a great want of it, and
will be ready to wish, some time or other, that he had sold his garment and bought
one. This is intended only to show that the times would be very perilous, so that no
man would think himself safe if he had not a sword by his side. But the sword of the
Spirit is the sword which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves with. Christ
having suffered for us, we must arm ourselves with the same mind (1Pe_4:1), arm
ourselves with an expectation of trouble, that it may not be a surprise to us, and with
a holy resignation to the will of God in it, that there may be no opposition in us to it:
and then we are better prepared than if we had sold a coat to buy a sword.
JAMISON, "the things concerning me — decreed and written.
have an end — are rapidly drawing to a close.
CALVIN, "37.That this also which is written must be accomplished in me. This
adverb also is emphatic; for Christ means, that he had not yet discharged every
part of his office, till he had been ranked with ungodly and wicked men, as if he
had been one of their class. But that their minds might not be too much
disturbed by the baseness of such a transaction, he quotes a prediction of Isaiah,
(Isaiah 53:12) which, it is certain, cannot be explained but as referring to the
Messiah. Now since it is there said that he was to be reckoned among
transgressors, such a spectacle, however atrocious, ought not to alarm believers,
or to alienate them from Christ, who could not have been their Redeemer in any
other way than by taking upon himself the shame and disgrace of a wicked man.
For nothing is better adapted to remove grounds of offense, when we are
alarmed by any strange occurrence, than to acknowledge that it so pleases God,
and that whatever takes place by his appointment is not done rashly, or without
a good reason; more especially when that which is made evident by the event
itself was anciently predicted. Since, then, the disciples ought to expect a
Redeemer such as God had formerly promised, and since Isaiah had expressly
declared, that in order that he might deliver us from the guilt of offenses the
punishment must be laid on him, (Isaiah 53:5,) this ought to be sufficient for
abating the horror of the disciples, and for preventing them from entertaining
less esteem for Christ.
For those things which relate to me have an end. By these words, immediately
added, he means that the prophets spoke nothing in vain. For this Greek phrase,
τέλος ἔχει, have an end; means that they are accomplished, or put in effect. Now
when every thing that the prophets spoke is verified by the event, it ought rather
to contribute to strengthen our faith, than to strike us with alarm or anxiety. But
while Christ encourages and comforts the disciples by this single argument, that
all the predictions must be accomplished, the very procedure of the divine
purpose contains within itself no ordinary ground of confidence, which is, that
Christ was subjected to the condemnation which we deserved, and was
reconciled among transgressors, that we, who are transgressors, and loaded with
crimes, might be presented by him to the Father as righteous. For we are
218

219. reckoned pure and free from sins before God, because the Lamb, who was pure
and free fro
COFFMAN, "That which is written must be fulfilled ... The avowed intention of
the Pharisees was to kill Jesus by assassination (Matthew 26:1-5); and despite
their change of strategy due to the treachery of Judas, many of them doubtless
preferred the method of killing Jesus they had already agreed upon; and the
view here is that Christ would have ordered the apostles to resist any effort to
assassinate him. The sword in view here, therefore, was an assurance that his
purpose of witnessing his godhead before the Sanhedrin would not be thwarted
by an untimely assassination.
When the time came, of course, Jesus would submit to arrest by lawful
authority; and the possession by his apostles of swords, coupled with his
prohibition of their use against such lawful authority, emphatically dramatized
the willingness of his submission. Barnes' note that "the apostles followed the
customs of the country, and had with them some means of defense"[23] is
doubtless true.
It is enough ... It is customary to interpret this expression as an assertion that the
disciples were missing his point altogether, as if he had said, "Enough of this!"
But there is no valid reason for supposing that these words mean anything other
than "two swords are enough." As a matter of fact, the swords were a necessary
part of the drama of the Lords arrest. Jesus used the excision of Malchus' ear as
an occasion to command Peter to put up his sword into "its place," a powerful
endorsement of the premise that such a sword of self-defense HAS its place (see
my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:52). Significantly, even then, Jesus
neither commanded Peter to throw his sword away or surrender it.
ENDNOTE:
[23] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150.
ELLICOTT, "(37) And he was reckoned among the transgressors.—Literally,
the lawless ones, or, breakers of the law. The distinct reference to the words of
Isaiah 53:12 is remarkable as showing that the picture of the righteous sufferer
in that chapter had all along been present, if we may so speak, to our Lord’s
thoughts as that which He Himself had to realise. It was, as it were, a hint given
to the disciples before the Passion, that they might learn, when it came, that it
was part of the divine purpose that the Christ should so suffer; not singled out
for the honour of a martyr’s death, but hurried as a malefactor, with other
malefactors, to the death of the rebel or the robber.
PETT, "And this was because what the Scriptures had said about the Servant of
the Lord in Isaiah 53 must this night be fulfilled in Him. He must be reckoned
among the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12). He must go forward to an unjust death,
rejected by men and bruised by God. And there He must offer Himself up as a
guilt offering for the sins of men (Isaiah 53:7; Isaiah 53:10), bearing as a result
their transgressions and iniquities (Isaiah 53:8; Isaiah 53:11), and as a
219

220. consequence putting many in the right so that they could be accounted righteous
(Isaiah 53:11). Indeed this was the divine necessity, and it must have fulfilment,
and that fulfilment was about to take place in Him. Note the twofold stress on its
fulfilment. What was to happen was ordained by God.
Strictly speaking this quotation should have awakened them to what was
happening. They would know Isaiah 53 well enough, and we cannot doubt that
Jesus had drawn it to their attention (compare Acts 8:32-35). They must often
have wondered at the sufferings of the one described there. And He had
constantly warned them of what was to happen to Him. They should have put
the two together. But they were so unready to accept that such consequences
could come on Jesus that they just could not comprehend it.
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two
swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
BARNES, "Are two swords - The Galileans, it is said, often went armed. The
Essenes did so also. The reason was that the country was full of robbers and wild
beasts, and it was necessary to carry, in their travels, some means of defense. It
seems that the disciples followed the customs of the country, and had with them
some means of defense, though they had but two swords among the twelve.
It is enough - It is difficult to understand this. Some suppose that it is spoken
“ironically;” as if he had said, “You are bravely armed indeed, with two swords
among twelve men, and to meet such a host!” Others, that he meant to reprove them
for understanding him “literally,” as if he meant that they were then to procure
swords for “immediate” battle. As if he had said, “This is absurd, or a perversion of
my meaning. I did not intend this, but merely to foretell you of impending dangers
after my death.” It is to be observed that he did not say “the two swords are enough,”
but “it is enough;” perhaps meaning simply, enough has been said. Other matters
press on, and you will yet understand what I mean.
CLARKE, "Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them,
It is enough - These words cannot be well understood as being an answer to the
supposed command of Christ, for every one who had no sword to go and sell his
garment and buy one; for, in this case, they were not enough, or sufficient, as nine of
the disciples must be without any instrument of defense; but they may be understood
as pointing out the readiness and determination of Peter, and perhaps some others,
to defend our Lord: Thou shalt not be treated as a transgressor; here are two swords,
and we will fight for thee. In Luk_22:33, Peter had said, he was ready to go with
Christ either to prison or death; which showed his strong resolution to stand by and
defend his Master, even at the expense of his life. But, alas, he depended too much on
220

221. himself!
It is enough. The meaning probably is, there is enough said on the subject; as
immediately after this he entered into his agony.
I must here confess that the matter about the swords appear to me very obscure. I
am afraid I do not understand it, and I know of none who does. Schoettgen and
Lightfoot have said much on the subject; others have endeavored to get rid of the
difficulty by translating µαχαιραν a knife, which was necessary on long journeys for
providing forage and fuel; as they were to depend wholly on their own industry,
under God, for all the necessaries of life, while going through the nations of the earth,
preaching the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. I cannot say which sense the reader
should prefer.
GILL, "And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords,.... That is, the
disciples said so, as the Persic version expresses it; for they understood Christ's
words literally; and two swords being among them, and which they might bring with
them from Galilee, to defend themselves from thieves, and robbers, which infested
the roads between that country and Jerusalem; and one of these, as appears
afterwards, belonged to Peter; they mention them with a desire of knowing they were
sufficient, or whether they must provide themselves with more:
and he said unto them, it is enough; or, "they are sufficient", as the Syriac,
Arabic, and Ethiopic versions render it; which must be understood either ironically;
yes, two swords, to be sure, are sufficient for eleven men, and against many and
powerful enemies: or his meaning is, they were sufficient to answer his purpose, and
be an emblem of what he designed by the sword: or this was a short way of speaking,
suggesting their stupidity and ignorance: it is enough, it is very well, I perceive you
do not understand my meaning, and I shall say no more at present.
HENRY, "The disciples hereupon enquire what strength they had, and find they
had among them two swords (Luk_22:38), of which one was Peter's. The Galileans
generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his
disciples' wearing them. But he intimates how little he would have them depend
upon this when he saith, It is enough, which some think is spoken ironically: “Two
swords among twelve men! you are bravely armed indeed when our enemies are now
coming out against us in great multitudes, and every one with a sword!” Yet two
swords are sufficient for those who need none, having God himself to be the shield of
their help and the sword of their excellency, Deu_33:29.
JAMISON, "two swords ... enough — they thinking He referred to present
defense, while His answer showed He meant something else.
CALVIN, "38.Lord, lo, here are two swords. It was truly shameful and stupid
ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing
the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron. When they say that
they have two swords, it is uncertain whether they mean that they are well
prepared against their enemies, or complain that they are ill provided with arms.
It is evident, at least, that they were so stupid as not to think of a spiritual enemy.
As to the inference which the Doctors of Canon Law draw from these words —
that their mitered bishops have a double jurisdiction — it is not only an offensive
allegory, but a detestable mockery, by which they ridicule the word of God. And
221

222. it was necessary that the slaves of Antichrist should fall into such madness, of
openly trampling under feet, by sacrilegious contempt, the sacred oracles of God.
COKE, "Luke 22:38. Lord, behold, here are two swords.— Our Lord's disciples,
mistaking his meaning about the swords, replied, they had two: the reason why
they had any at all, probably, was, that they might defend themselves against
robbers in their journey from Galilee and Perea, and from the beasts of prey
which in those parts were very frequent and dangerous in the night time: it
afterwards appears, that one of these swords was Peter's. See John 18:10. Our
Lord replies to the disciples, "It is enough for weapons of this sort; my chief
intent is, to direct you to another kind of defence; even that which arises from
piety and faith." This is strongly intimated by our Lord's saying that two
swordswere sufficient; which, it is evident, they could not have been for so many
men, had our Lord meant what he said in a literal sense.
ELLICOTT, "(38) Behold, here are two swords.—Peter, we find, had one (John
18:10); we can only conjecture who had the other. Possibly, Andrew; possibly,
one of “the sons of thunder.”
It is enough.—Here again there is a touch of grave irony. The “two swords” were
enough, and more than enough, for Him who did not mean them to use the
swords at all. The word for “enough” may be noted as used far more often by St.
Luke than in the other Gospels. The mystical interpretation which sees in the two
swords the symbol of the spiritual and temporal authority committed to St.
Peter, and to the Pope as his successor, stands on a level with that which finds
the relations of the Church and the State foreshadowed in the “two great lights”
of Genesis 1:16. Both are simply the dreams of a diseased fancy, and find their fit
home at last in the limbo of vanities.
PETT, "So at His words the blinkered, and no doubt puzzled, disciples,
wondering why He had become so suddenly concerned about weapons, assured
Him that they already had two swords, confident that that should be sufficient to
deal with any passing footpads. They could not grasp what He was worried
about and saw any danger that might threaten them as being fairly innocuous.
For it is clear from their comment that they had not taken it as a suggestion that
they needed to get ready to establish God’s Kingly Rule by force. For even they
would have recognised that that would have required more than two swords.
So Jesus, saddened by their inability to understand, and to appreciate the true
situation, replied, ‘That is enough’. He was not saying that that was enough
swords. Rather it was now clear to Him that they did not, and would not,
comprehend what was happening, and that in the little time remaining there was
no way in which He could shake them out of their apathy. He realised that any
further attempts to awaken them could only end in failure. So He acknowledged
to Himself that He would have to leave them in His Father’s hands, and Himself
pray for them that their faith might not fail, and then let the question drop.
‘It is enough.’ Enough has been said, He is saying. Now let us forget the matter.
In other words He was resigned to their lack of response. Later when an attempt
222

223. will be made to use their swords Jesus will actually tell them to desist, which
demonstrates that His real intention was that His words should be interpreted
spiritually. For as the future would demonstrate the battle that was to be fought
would be fought with other swords than this, with swords provided by God such
as the Sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16;
Revelation 2:12; Revelation 2:16; Revelation 19:15; Revelation 19:21).
Others see ‘it is enough’ as indicating that two swords were enough because,
recognising their failure to understand His point, He did not want to discuss the
matter any more.
Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives
39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of
Olives, and his disciples followed him.
GILL, "And he came out,.... That is, "Christ", as the Persic version; or the "Lord
Jesus", as the Ethiopic version expresses; he came out of the guestchamber, or upper
room, and out of the house where he had been keeping the passover with his
disciples; and he came out of the city of Jerusalem, to begin his sorrows and
sufferings without the camp, where he was to end them:
and went, as he was wont, to the Mount of Olives. This had been his practice
and custom for several nights past, as appears from Luk_21:37. Hence Judas knew
the place he now went to, and could direct the soldiers and officers where to go, and
apprehend him; and this shows the willingness of Christ to be taken, in order to
suffer and die; otherwise he would have gone to another place, and not this. The
Ethiopic version adds, "to pray", as he did; and, as very likely he was used; for he
would sometimes continue a whole night in prayer on a mountain; see Luk_6:12
and his disciples also followed him; eleven of them, for Judas was now gone to
the chief priests to inform them where Christ was going, that they might seize him:
but the other disciples followed him, which was so ordered, that they might be
witnesses of his sorrows and agonies in the garden, and of his being betrayed by
Judas, and apprehended by the Jews; though upon this they forsook him and fled.
HENRY, "We have here the awful story of Christ's agony in the garden, just
before he was betrayed, which was largely related by the other evangelists. In it
Christ accommodated himself to that part of his undertaking which he was now
entering upon - the making of his soul an offering for sin. He afflicted his own soul
with grief for the sin he was to satisfy for, and an apprehension of the wrath of God to
which man had by sin made himself obnoxious, which he was pleased as a sacrifice to
admit the impressions of, the consuming of a sacrifice with fire from heaven being
223

224. the surest token of its acceptance. In it Christ entered the lists with the powers of
darkness, gave them all the advantages they could desire, and yet conquered them.
I. What we have in this passage which we had before is, 1. That when Christ went out,
though it was in the night, and a long walk, his disciples (eleven of them, for Judas
had given them the slip) followed him. Having continued with him hitherto in his
temptations, they would not leave him now. 2. That he went to the place where he
was wont to be private, which intimates that Christ accustomed himself to
retirement, was often alone, to teach us to be so, for freedom of converse with God
and our own hearts. Though Christ had no conveniency for retirement but a garden,
yet he retired. This should particularly be our practice after we have been at the
Lord's table; we have then work to do which requires us to be private.
JAMISON, "Luk_22:39-46. Agony in the garden.
as ... wont — (See Joh_18:2).
BARCLAY, "THY WILL BE DONE (Luke 22:39-46)
22:39-46 Jesus went out, and, as his custom was, made his way to the Mount of
Olives. The disciples, too, accompanied him. When he came to the place, he said
to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation." And he was withdrawn
from them, about a stone's throw, and he knelt and prayed. "Father," he said,
"if it is your will, take this cup from me; but not my will, but yours be done,"
And an angel from heaven appeared strengthening him. He was in an agony, and
he prayed still more intensely, and his sweat was as drops of blood failing upon
the ground. So he rose from prayer and came to his disciples, and found them
sleeping from grief. "Why are you sleeping?" he said to them. "Rise and pray
that you may not enter into temptation."
The space within Jerusalem was so limited that there was no room for gardens.
Many well-to-do people, therefore, had private gardens out on the Mount of
Olives. Some wealthy friend had given Jesus the privilege of using such a garden,
and it was there that Jesus went to fight his lonely battle. He was only thirty-
three; and no one wants to die at thirty-three. He knew what crucifixion was
like; he had seen it. He was in an agony; the Greek word is used of someone
fighting a battle with sheer fear. There is no scene like this in all history. This
was the very hinge and turning point in Jesus' life. He could have turned back
even yet. He could have refused the cross. The salvation of the world hung in the
balance as the Son of God literally sweated it out in Gethsemane; and he won.
A famous pianist said of Chopin's nocturne in C sharp minor, "I must tell you
about it. Chopin told Liszt, and Liszt told me. In this piece all is sorrow and
trouble. Oh such sorrow and trouble!--until he begins to speak to God, to pray;
then it is all right." That is the way it was with Jesus. He went into Gethsemane
in the dark; he came out in the light--because he had talked with God. He went
into Gethsemane in an agony; he came out with the victory won and with peace
in his soul--because he had talked with God.
It makes all the difference in what tone of voice a man says, "Thy will be done."
(i) He may say it in a tone of helpless submission, as one who is in the grip of a
224

225. power against which it is hopeless to fight. The words may be the death-knell of
hope.
(ii) He may say it as one who has been battered into submission. The words may
be the admission of complete defeat.
(iii) He may say it as one who has been utterly frustrated and who sees that the
dream can never come true: The words may be those of a bleak regret or even of
a bitter anger which is all the more bitter because it cannot do anything about it.
(iv) He may say it with the accent of perfect trust. That is how Jesus said it. He
was speaking to one who was Father; he was speaking to a God whose
everlasting arms were underneath and about him even on the cross. He was
submitting, but he was submitting to the love that would never let him go. Life's
hardest task is to accept what we cannot understand; but we can do even that if
we are sure enough of the love of God.
God, thou art love! I build my faith on that ...
I know thee, who has kept my path, and made
Light for me in the darkness, tempering sorrow
So that it reached me like a solemn joy:
It were too strange that I should doubt thy love.
Jesus spoke like that; and when we can speak like that, we can look up and say
in perfect trust, "Thy will be done."
BENSON, "Luke 22:39-46. He went, as he was wont — As was his custom every
night; to the mount of Olives — See on Matthew 26:30-32. And when he was at
the place — When he had entered the garden of Gethsemane; he said, Pray that
ye enter not into temptation — Having forewarned them of the lamentable effect
which his sufferings would have upon them; that they would all stumble that
very night, according to the prophecy of Zechariah, he exhorted them to pray
that the temptation might not entirely prevail against them, and cause their faith
to fail altogether. And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast —
Namely, not only from the other disciples, whom he had left at the entrance into
the garden, but from Peter, James, and John, whom he had taken with him
farther into it: kneeled down — Matthew, fell on his face; Mark, fell on the
ground; and prayed, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup — The Greek
rather means, “O that thou wouldst remove this cup!” ει being evidently a
particle of wishing. Therefore, in Mark it is, He prayed, that if it were possible
the hour might pass from him; saying, Abba, Father, all things are possible to
thee; take away this cup from me. It seems, he first kneeled and prayed, as Luke
here says; then, in the vehemence of his earnestness, he fell on his face, and spake
the words recorded by Matthew and Mark. In the mean time, his prayer, though
most fervent, was accompanied with due expressions of resignation; for he
225

226. immediately added, (Matthew,) Nevertheless, not as (Mark, what) I will, but as
(Mark, what) thou wilt; or, as Luke here has it, not my will, but thine be done.
And there appeared an angel — Probably standing near him in a visible form;
strengthening him — Lest his body should sink and die before the time; and
perhaps suggesting such holy consolations as were most proper to animate his
soul in such a struggle. It is probable, that during this time of suffering the
divine nature had withdrawn its usual support. And being in an agony —
Probably now conflicting with the powers of darkness; feeling the weight of the
wrath of God, due to the sins of mankind, and at the same time surrounded with
a mighty host of devils, who exercised all their force, subtlety, and malice to
persecute, distract, and oppress his wounded spirit; he prayed more earnestly —
Than before, even with stronger cries and tears; and his sweat — Cold as the
weather was; was as it were great drops of blood — Which, by the vehement
distress of his soul, were forced out of the pores of his body, in so great a
quantity as afterward united in large, thick, grumous drops, and even fell to the
ground. Thus Jesus suffered unspeakable sorrows in his soul, as long as the
divine wisdom saw fit. At length he obtained relief, being heard in that which he
feared, (Hebrews 5:7,) or, on account of his piety, or perfect submission to the
will of his Father, as απο της ευλαβειας, may be translated.
BURKITT, "Our blessed Saviour being now come to the Mount of Olives, and
having entered with his disciples into the garden near it, whether he used to
retire and pray; in this place he falls into a bitter and bloody agony, in which he
prayed with wonderful fervor and importunity; his sufferings were now coming
on a great pace, and he mets them upon his knees, and would be found in a
praying posture.
Learn thence, that prayer is the best preparative for, as well as the most
powerful support under, the heaviest sufferings that can befall us.
As to this prayer of our Saviour, in his agony, many particulars are very
observable as, 1. The time when he prayed thus extraordinarily; it was the
evening before he suffered, just before Judas with his black guard came to
apprehend him; and when he did come, he found him in a praying posture; our
Lord teaching us by his example, that when imminent dangers are before us,
especially when death is apprehended by us, it is our duty to be very much in
prayer to God, and very fervent in our wrestlings with him.
Observe, 2. The subject matter of our Lord's prayer, That, if possible, the cup
might pass from him; that is, that he might escape the dreadful wrath, at which
he was so sore amazed.
But what did Christ now begin to repent of his undertaking for sinners? Did he
shrink and give back, when he came to the pinch?
No, nothing like this; but as he had two natures, being God and Man, so he had
two distinct wills; as Man he feared and shunned death, as God-man he willingly
submitted to it. The divine nature and the human spirit of Christ did now assault
each other with disagreeing interests.
226

227. Again, this prayer was not absolute, but conditional: "Father, if it may be, if
thou wilt, if it please thee, let the cup pass; if not, I will drink it." The cup of
sufferings we see is a very bitter and distasteful cup, a cup which human nature
abhors; yet does God oftentimes put this bitter cup of affliction into the hands of
whom he does sincerely love; and when he does so, it is their duty to drink it with
silence and submission, as here their Lord did before them.
Observe, 3. The manner of our Lord's prayer in this his agony: and here we may
remark,
1. It was a solitary prayer; he went by himself alone, out of the hearing of his
disciples. The company of our best and dearest friends is not always seasonable;
there are times and seasons when a Christian would not be willing that the most
intimate friend he has in the world should be with him, to hear what passes in
secret between him and his God.
2. It was an humble prayer; that appears by the postures in which he cast
himself, sometimes lying prostrate upon his face, he lies in the very dust, and
lower he could not lie, and his heart was as low as his body.
3. It was a vehement, fervent, and importunate prayer; such was the fervor of his
spirit, that he prayed himself into an agony. Oh let us blush to think how unlike
our praying frame of spirit is to Christ's.
Lord, what coldness, deadness, drowsiness, formality, and laziness, are found in
our prayers! How often do our lips move, when our hearts stand still!
Observe, 4. The posture which the disciples were found in; when our Lord was
praying in his agony, they were fast asleep. Good God! Could they possibly sleep
at such a time as this? When Christ's soul was exceedingly sorrowful, could their
eyes be heavy?
Learn thence, that the very best of Christ's disciples may be, and oftentimes are,
overtaken with great infirmities, when the most important duties are
performing; Then cometh he to his disciples, and findeth them sleeping.
Observe, 5. The mild, meek, and gentle rebuke which he gives to his disciples for
their sleeping; he said unto them, Why sleep ye? Could ye not watch with me one
hour? "What, not watch when your Master was in such danger! Could ye not
watch with me, when I was going to lay down my life for you: What, not an hour,
and that the parting hour, too?
Learn hence, that the holiest and best resolved Christians, who have willing
spirits for Christ and his service, yet in regard to the meekness of the flesh, and
the frailty of human nature, it is their duty to watch and pray, and thereby
guard themselves against temptation: Rise and pray, let ye enter into, etc.
PETT, "Verse 39-40
227

228. ‘And he came out, and went, as his custom was, to the mount of Olives, and the
disciples also followed him. And when he was at the place, he said to them, “Pray
that you enter not into temptation.” ’
Luke has learned from his sources that it was Jesus’ custom regularly to go to
the Mount of Olives (compare also Luke 21:37). This was why Judas was
confident that he knew where He would be (compare John 18:2). And yet Jesus,
knowing this, and knowing Judas’ intention, went there without a moment’s
hesitation. He was no longer trying to prevent Judas knowing of His
whereabouts. He knew that it was His hour.
And ‘the disciples also followed Him’. There is a poignancy to this last phrase,
for, although they did not realise it at the time, it was the last time that they
would be able to walk with Him and follow Him. For in what now lay ahead they
would be unable to follow Him. He would have to walk the coming path alone.
And after tonight He would no longer be present with them in the flesh. The days
of daily fellowship with Him were over.
‘The place.’ This might indicate their encampment, but we could equally argue
that it means ‘the place’ fixed in all Christian minds, the place of His final testing
before the end, the place where His mind and heart were steeled as He went
forward to face His destiny. The place is not named by Luke. He does not want
to divert attention from what will happen there, and from the fact that this was
the Mount of Destiny (Zechariah 14:4-5; Mark 13:3).
“Pray that you enter not into temptation.” Once they were at ‘the place’ Jesus
once more warned the disciples against the inevitable temptation and testing that
was coming, and exhorted them to pray so that they would not find themselves
enmeshed in it. His words should have been a danger signal to them, for He had
never addressed them in quite this way previously. His unusual warning should
therefore have brought home to them that they must pray as they had never
prayed before.
For He was aware, as they should have been had they heeded His earlier
warnings, that He and they were now involved on a spiritual battlefield such as
they had never previously experienced. He knew that His trials and temptations,
in which they had shared (Luke 22:28), were not only continuing but expanding.
This was why He was exhorting them to pray. And His very exhortation, for He
had never spoken in quite this way before, should have warned them that the
matter was serious.
However, had all depended on their prayer alone the battle would have been
totally lost, for after a while they could not keep awake, and slept. It is salutary
to consider the possibility that had Peter not slept instead of praying, he might
perhaps not have denied Jesus, and had the disciples not slept perhaps they
might not have fled so precipitously. But all did sleep, and therefore they were of
no help in what was to come, either to Jesus or to themselves.
Matthew and Mark have Jesus giving a similar exhortation to the three. In fact
228

229. we can hardly doubt that He urged it on both the twelve and the three. It was
that kind of situation.
The inference of His words here is that He too was facing up to severe
temptation. And when they saw Him go on ahead and sink to His knees in prayer
they could hardly have been in any doubt on the matter. Furthermore what they
heard of His prayer would have confirmed it. For it made clear that He was
facing the ‘temptation’, if only another way could be found that could conform
with the Father’s will, not to walk the road that appeared to have been appointed
by His Father. In His humanity what lay ahead appeared so awful that He
questioned whether there might be another way. And yet in the face of the
awfulness of what lay before Him there was not a moments hesitation about
doing His Father’s will (see Hebrews 10:7; Hebrews 10:9-10). His only query was
as to whether there might be another way.
Verses 39-46
The Agony On The Mount of Olives (22:39-46).
Jesus now went forward with His disciples to ‘the place’ (Luke does not mention
the Garden of Gethsemane) on the slopes of the Mount of Olives. Perhaps Luke
intended his readers to gather the implication that it was the place of the
olivepress where olives were crushed, as Jesus would now be crushed. Or
perhaps his thought was that it was the place from which He had declared
coming judgment on Jerusalem (Mark 13:3), and therefore the place where
God’s judgment on the sins of the world would first begin to be exacted on Him.
Or Luke’s mind might well have gone back to the promise that one day the Lord
Himself would act from the Mount of Olives, ‘and His feet shall stand in that day
on the Mount of Olives’ (Zechariah 14:4), just as He was about to act now, so
that the word of the Lord might go forth. That event too was linked with the
judgment on Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-2). The Mount of Olives was alive with
history.
And there, he tells us, on the Mount of Olives, Jesus pleaded to be spared from a
different cup than that which He had given to His disciples in the Upper Room.
This time it was the cup of suffering containing the full mixture of the antipathy
of God (the wrath of God) against sin. And there He would disdain the use of
earthly swords (Luke 22:49-51; Matthew 26:52), and even of heavenly ones
(Matthew 26:53). For it is made absolutely clear that His only desire was to do
His Father’s will. If His Father required it He would go forward alone to meet
His destiny, even though the whole of His righteous being did draw back in
horror at the very thought of what lay before Him.
Analysis.
a He came out, and went, as His custom was, to the mount of Olives, and the
disciples also followed Him. And when He was at the place, He said to them,
“Pray that you enter not into temptation” (Luke 22:39-40).
b And He was parted from them about a stone’s throw, and He kneeled down
and prayed (Luke 22:41).
229

230. c Saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from Me, nevertheless not
my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42).
d And there appeared to Him an angel from heaven, strengthening Him (Luke
22:43).
c And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat became as it
were great drops of blood falling down on the ground (Luke 22:44).
b And when He rose up from His prayer, He came to the disciples, and found
them sleeping for sorrow (Luke 22:45).
a And said to them, “Why do you sleep? Rise and pray, that you enter not into
temptation” (Luke 22:46).
Note that in ‘a’ He warns them to pray and not enter into temptation and in the
parallel He does the same. In ‘b’ He kneels down to pray, and in the parallel He
rises from praying. In ‘c’ He prays in clear urgency to His Father because of the
cost that lies ahead, and in the parallel the full measure of that earnestness and
cost is revealed. And centrally, and importantly, in ‘d’ He is strengthened by an
angel from Heaven. Satan is not the only spirit involved in this cosmic struggle.
(If Luke 22:43-44 are omitted (see below) then ‘c’ becomes the central thought,
which with its emphasis on doing the will of God may be seen as equally
appropriate).
MACLAREN, “GETHSEMANE
‘Put off thy shoes from off thy feet.’ Cold analysis is out of place here, where the
deepest depth of a Saviour’s sorrows is partly disclosed, and we see Him bowing His
head to the waves and billows that went over Him, for our sakes. Luke’s account is
much condensed, but contains some points peculiar to itself. It falls into two parts-
the solemn scene of the agony, and the circumstances of the arrest.
I. We look with reverent awe and thankfulness at that soul-subduing
picture of the agonising and submissive Christ which Luke briefly draws.
Think of the contrast between the joyous revelry of the festival-keeping city and the
sadness of the little company which crossed the Kedron and passed beneath the
shadow of the olive-trees into the moonlit garden. Jesus needed companions there;
but He needed solitude still more. So He is ‘parted from them’; but Luke alone tells
us how short the distance was-’as it were a stone’s throw,’ and near enough for the
disciples to see and hear something before they slept.
That clinging to and separation from His humble friends gives a wonderful glimpse
into Christ’s desolation then. And how beautiful is His care for them, even at that
supreme hour, which leads to the injunction twice spoken, at the beginning and end
of His own prayers, that they should pray, not for Him, but for themselves. He never
asks for men’s prayers, but He does for their love. He thinks of His sufferings as
temptation for the disciples, and for the moment forgets His own burden, in pointing
them the way to bear theirs. Did self-oblivious love ever shine more gloriously in the
darkness of sorrow?
Luke omits the threefold withdrawal and return, but notes three things-the prayer,
the angel appearance, and the physical effects of the agony. The essentials are all
preserved in his account. The prayer is truly ‘the Lord’s prayer,’ and the perfect
pattern for ours. Mark the grasp of God’s fatherhood, which is at once appeal and
230

231. submission. So should all prayer begin, with the thought, at all events, whether with
the word ‘Father’ or no. Mark the desire that ‘this cup’ should pass. The expression
shows how vividly the impending sufferings were pictured before Christ’s eye. The
keenest pains of anticipation, which make so large a part of so many sorrows, were
felt by Him. He shrank from His sufferings. Did He therefore falter in His desire and
resolve to endure the Cross? A thousand times, no! His will never wavered, but
maintained itself supreme over the natural recoil of His human nature from pain and
death. If He had not felt the Cross to be a dread, it had been no sacrifice. If He had
allowed the dread to penetrate to His will, He had been no Saviour. But now He goes
before us in the path which all have, in their degree, to travel, and accepts pain that
He may do His work.
That acceptance of the divine will is no mere ‘If it must be so, let it be so,’ much as
that would have been. But He receives in His prayer the true answer-for His will
completely coincides with the Father’s, and ‘mine’ is ‘thine.’ Such conformity of our
wills with God’s is the highest blessing of prayer and the true deliverance. The cup
accepted is sweet; and though flesh may shrink, the inner self consents, and in
consenting to the pain, conquers it.
Luke alone tells of the ministering angel; and, according to some authorities, the
forty-third and forty-fourth verses are spurious. But, accepting them as genuine,
what does the angelic appearance teach us? It suggests pathetically the utter physical
prostration of Jesus. Sensuous religion has dwelt on that offensively, but let us not
rush to the opposite extreme, and ignore it. It teaches us that the manhood of Jesus
needed the communication of divine help as truly as we do. The difficulty of
harmonising that truth with His divine nature was probably the reason for the
omission of this verse in some manuscripts. It teaches the true answer to His prayer,
as so often to ours; namely, the strength to bear the load, not the removal of it. It is
remarkable that the renewal of the solemn ‘agony’ and the intenser earnestness of
prayer follow the strengthening by the angel.
Increased strength increased the conflict of feeling, and the renewed and intensified
conflict increased the earnestness of the prayer. The calmness won was again
disturbed, and a new recourse to the source of it was needed. We stand reverently
afar off, and ask, not too curiously, what it is that falls so heavily to the ground, and
shines red and wet in the moonlight. But the question irresistibly rises, Why all this
agony of apprehension? If Jesus Christ was but facing death as it presents itself to all
men, His shrinking is far beneath the temper in which many a man has fronted the
scaffold and the fire. We can scarcely save His character for admiration, unless we
see in the agony of Gethsemane something much more than the shrinking from a
violent death, and understand how there the Lord made to meet on Him the iniquity
of us all. If the burden that crushed Him thus was but the common load laid on all
men’s shoulders, He shows unmanly terror. If it were the black mass of the world’s
sins, we can understand the agony, and rejoice to think that our sins were there.
II. The arrest.
Three points are made prominent-the betrayer’s token, the disciples’ resistance, the
reproof of the foes, and in each the centre of interest is our Lord’s words. The sudden
bursting in of the multitude is graphically represented. The tumult broke the stillness
of the garden, but it brought deeper peace to Christ’s heart; for while the anticipation
agitated, the reality was met with calmness. Blessed they who can unmoved front
evil, the foresight of which shook their souls! Only they who pray as Jesus did
beneath the olives, can go out from their shadow, as He did, to meet the foe.
The first of the three incidents of the arrest brings into strong prominence Christ’s
meek patience, dignity, calmness, and effort, even at that supreme moment, to rouse
231

232. dormant conscience, and save the traitor from himself. Judas probably had no
intention by his kiss of anything but showing the mob their prisoner; but he must
have been far gone in insensibility before he could fix on such a sign. It was the token
of friendship and discipleship, and no doubt was customary among the disciples,
though we never hear of any lips touching Jesus but the penitent woman’s, which
were laid on His feet, and the traitor’s. The worst hypocrisy is that which is
unconscious of its own baseness.
Every word of Christ’s answer to the shameful kiss is a sharp spear, struck with a
calm and not resentful hand right into the hardened conscience. There is wistful
tenderness and a remembrance of former confidences in calling Him by name. The
order of words in the original emphasises the kiss, as if Jesus had said, ‘Is that the
sign you have chosen? Could nothing else serve you? Are you so dead to all feeling
that you can kiss and betray?’ The Son of man flashes on Judas, for the last time, the
majesty and sacredness against which he was lifting his hand. ‘Betrayest thou?’ which
comes last in the Greek, seeks to startle by putting into plain words the guilt, and so
to rend the veil of sophistications in which the traitor was hiding his deed from
himself. Thus to the end Christ seeks to keep him from ruin, and with meek patience
resents not indignity, but with majestic calmness sets before the miserable man the
hideousness of his act. The patient Christ is the same now as then, and meets all our
treason with pleading, which would fain teach us how black it is, not because He is
angry, but because He would win us to turn from it. Alas that so often His
remonstrances fall on hearts as wedded to their sin as was Judas’s!
The rash resistance of the disciple is recorded chiefly for the sake of Christ’s words
and acts. The anonymous swordsman was Peter, and the anonymous victim was
Malchus, as John tells us. No doubt he had brought one of the two swords from the
upper room, and, in a sudden burst of anger and rashness, struck at the man nearest
him, not considering the fatal consequences for them all that might follow. Peter
could manage nets better than swords, and missed the head, in his flurry and in the
darkness, only managing to shear off a poor slave’s ear. When the Church takes
sword in hand, it usually shows that it does not know how to wield it, and as often as
not has struck the wrong man. Christ tells Peter and us, in His word here, what His
servants’ true weapons are, and rebukes all armed resistance of evil. ‘Suffer ye thus
far’ is a command to oppose violence only by meek endurance, which wins in the long
run, as surely as the patient sunshine melts the thick ice, which is ice still, when
pounded with a hammer.
If ‘thus far’ as to His own seizure and crucifying was to be ‘suffered,’ where can the
breaking-point of patience and non-resistance be fixed? Surely every other instance
of violence and wrong lies far on this side of that one. The prisoner heals the wound.
Wonderful testimony that not inability to deliver Himself, but willingness to be
taken, gave Him into the hands of His captors! Blessed proof that He lavishes
benefits on His foes, and that His delight is to heal all wounds and stanch every
bleeding heart!
The last incident here is Christ’s piercing rebuke, addressed, not to the poor, ignorant
tools, but to the prime movers of the conspiracy, who had come to gloat over its
success. He asserts His own innocence, and hints at the preposterous inadequacy of
‘swords and staves’ to take Him. He is no ‘robber,’ and their weapons are powerless,
unless He wills. He recalls His uninterrupted teaching in the Temple, as if to convict
them of cowardice, and perchance to bring to remembrance His words there. And
then, with that same sublime and strange majesty of calm submission which marks
all His last hours, He unveils to these furious persecutors the true character of their
deed. The sufferings of Jesus were the meeting-point of three worlds-earth, hell, and
heaven. ‘This is your hour.’ But it was also Satan’s hour, and it was Christ’s ‘hour,’
232

233. and God’s. Man’s passions, inflamed from beneath, were used to work out God’s
purpose; and the Cross is at once the product of human unbelief, of devilish hate, and
of divine mercy. His sufferings were ‘the power of darkness.’
Mark in that expression Christ’s consciousness that He is the light, and enmity to
Him darkness. Mark, too, His meek submission, as bowing His head to let the black
flood flow over Him. Note that Christ brands enmity to Him as the high-water mark
of sin, the crucial instance of man’s darkness, the worst thing ever done. Mark the
assurance that animated Him, that the eclipse was but for an ‘hour.’ The victory of
the darkness was brief, and it led to the eternal triumph of the Light. By dying He is
the death of death. This Jonah inflicts deadly wounds on the monster in whose maw
He lay for three days. The power of darkness was shivered to atoms in the moment of
its proudest triumph, like a wave which is beaten into spray as it rises in a towering
crest and flings itself against the rock.
BI 39-46, “The mount of Olives
The mount of Olives
The mountains are Nature’s monuments.
Like the islands that dwell apart, and like them that give asylum from a noisy and
irreverent world. Many a meditative spirit has found in their silence leisure for the
longest thought, and in their Patmos-like seclusion the brightest visions and largest
projects have evolved; whilst by a sort of overmastering attraction they have usually
drawn to themselves the most memorable incidents which variegate our human
history. And, as they are the natural haunts of the highest spirits, and the appropriate
scenes of the most signal occurrences, so they are the noblest cenotaphs.
I. OLIVET REMINDS US OF THE SAVIOUR’S PITY FOR SUCH AS PERISH (see
Luk_19:37-44). That tear fell from an eye which had looked into eternity, and knew
the worth of souls.
II. THE MOUNT OF OLIVES REMINDS US OF THE REDEEMER’S AGONY TO
SAVE.
III. The Mount of Olives is identified with the supplications and intercessions of
Immanuel, and so suggests to us the Lord Jesus as THE GREAT EXAMPLE IN
PRAYER.
1. Submission in prayer. In praying for His people, the Mediator’s prayer was
absolute: “Father, I will.” But in praying for Himself, how altered was the
language! “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as
I will, but as Thou wilt.”
2. Perseverance in prayer. The evangelist tells that there was one prayer which
Jesus offered three times, and from the Epistle to the Heb_5:7, we find that this
prayer prevailed.
3. The best preparation for trial is habitual prayer. Long before it became the
scene of His agony, Gethsemane had been the Saviour’s oratory. “He ofttimes
resorted thither.”
IV. The Mount of Olives recalls to us THE SAVIOUR’S AFFECTION FOR HIS OWN.
I fear that the love of Christ is little credited even by those who have some faith in His
finished work, and some attachment to His living person. (James Hamilton.)
233

234. Being in an agony
Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane
Jesus commenced His sacred Passion in the garden for these reasons:
I. BECAUSE HE INTENDED TO OBSERVE A PIOUS CUSTOM.
1. It was His custom, after He had preached and wrought miracles, to retire and
betake Himself to prayer.
2. It should be our custom, too, to recollect ourselves in prayer, especially when
the day’s work is over.
II. BECAUSE CHARITY AND OBEDIENCE URGED HIM.
1. Charity towards the master of the house, who, having left the supper-room at
His disposal, should not be molested by the seizure of Jesus.
2. Love and obedience to His heavenly Father.
III. IN ORDER TO FULFIL THE TYPE OF DAVID. When Absalom had revolted
against his father, David and the people went over the brook Kedron, and they all
wept with a loud voice. Christ went over the same brook now, accompanied by His
faithful friends.
IV. AS SECOND ADAM HE WOULD MAKE SATISFACTION IN A GARDEN FOR
THE SIN OF THE FIRST ADAM WHICH HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN A GARDEN.
(J. Marchant.)
Gethsemane
Now let us look at this scene of pain and agony in the lifo of Christ, and see what
lessons it supplies to us. And I remark—
I. IT WAS SOLITARY SUFFERING. “He was removed from them.” He was alone.
How weird and sombre the word! How it throbs with painful life I And does not your
experience substantiate the same thing? What a recital you could give of pain, and
sorrow, and heartache, and stern conflict you have borne and sustained in solitude
into which your dearest earthly friend must not enter. But I remark further that this
scene in the life of Jesus was one of—
II. INTENSE SUFFERING. It is an hour of supreme agony! The betrayer is at hand,
the judgment hall, the mockery, the ribald jeers of the populace, the desertion of His
friends, the false charges of His enemies, the shame and pain of the cross are just
before Him. The bitterness of death is upon Him.
III. EARNEST PRAYER. “He prayed the more earnestly.” What! Christ pray? Did He
need the help of this provision of the Infinite Father to meet the exigencies of sinful
dependent man? Yes, the Man Jesus needed to exercise this gift. It was the human
Christ that was suffering. Prayer is an arrangement in the economy of infinite
wisdom and goodness to meet the daily needs of Human lives. But see again, in this
time of great suffering there is—
IV. DEVOUT SUBMISSION TO THE DIVINE WILL. “Nevertheless not My will, but
Thine, be done.” Christ hero reveals a force and beauty of character of the highest
and most perfect kind. When a man can be thus brought to put himself into harmony
with the Divine plan and purpose, so as to say in true submission and surrender,
“Thy will be done,” he gets to the very heart of the saint’s “higher life” on earth; this is
about as fall a “sanctification” as can be attained this side heaven. This is one of the
234

235. grandest, the greatest, and hardest, yet the sweetest and most restful prayers I know.
“Thy will be done.” This prayer touches all things in human life and history from
centre to circumference, nothing is left outside its sweep and compass. It is the life of
heaven lived on earth—the soul entering into deep and abiding sympathy with the
character and will of God, and going out in harmony with the Divine plan to “do and
suffer” all His righteous will. What are some of the lessons suggested by this suffering
scene in the life of Christ?
1. Every true man has his Gethsemane. It may be an “olive garden,” where is
everything to minister to the senses, and meet the utmost cravings of the human
heart so far as outer things are concerned. Or, it may be out on the bleak
unsheltered moor, where the cutting winds and blinding storm of sickness and
poverty chill to the very core of his nature: or in any of the intermediate states of
life, but come it does.
2. To pass through Gethsemane is a Divine arrangement, a part of God’s plan for
perfecting human lives. Christ was there not merely because it was His “wont” or
habit, but as part of a Divine plan. He was drawn thither by unseen forces, and
for a set or definite purpose. It was just as much the will of God as was any other
act or scene of His life.
3. To pray for the cup to pass from us should always be subject to Christ’s
condition, “If it be Thy will.”
4. God ever answers true prayer, but not always in the way we ask. Of this we
may be sure, that He will either lift us from the Gethsemane of suffering, or
strengthen us to bear the trial
5. In great suffering, submission to the Divine will gains strength for the greater
trial beyond.
6. I learn, finally, this grand lesson, that I would by no means miss—that in all,
above, and beyond, and through all, the Lord God reigns. (J. T.Higgins.)
Jesus in Gethsemane
I. Upon the very threshold of our lesson lies the weighty truth: WOE’S BITTEREST
CUP SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN IT IS THE MEANS OF HIGHEST
USEFULNESS. Wasted suffering is the climax of tragedy. Many broken hearts would
have lived could it have been clear that the crushing woe was not fruitless.
Unspeakable the boon if earth’s army of sufferers could rest on the knowledge that
their pain was service.
II. FROM OUR LORD’S EXAMPLE WE LEARN THE HELPFULNESS IN SORROW
OF RELIANCE UPON HUMAN AND DIVINE COMPANIONSHIP COMBINED,
III. OUR LORD’S CRUCIAL OBEDIENCE IN THE GARDEN AGONY REFLECTS
THE MAJESTY OF THE HUMAN WILL AND ITS POSSIBLE MASTERY OF EVERY
TRIAL IN PERFECT OBEDIENCE TO THE DIVINE WILL. However superhuman
Jesus’ suffering, He was thoroughly human in it. He had all our faculties, and used
them as we may use ours. It is no small encouragement that the typical Man gives us
an example of perfect obedience, at a cost unknown before or since. In the mutual
relations of the human and Divine wills all merit is achieved and all character
constructed.
IV. JESUS’ SOUL COULD HAVE BEEN “SORROWFUL EVEN UNTO DEATH”
235

236. ONLY AS HIS SUFFERINGS WERE VICARIOUS.
V. GETHSEMANE’S DARKNESS PAINTS SIN’S GUILT AND RUIN IN FAITHFUL
AND ENDURING COLOUR. It is easy to think lightly of Sin.
VI. GETHSEMANE THROWS PORTENTOUS LIGHT UPON THE WOE OF LOST
SOULS.
VII. OUR LESSON GIVES TERRIBLE EMPHASIS TO THE FACT AND
SERIOUSNESS OF IMPOSSIBILITIES WITH GOD. Our Lord’s agonized words, “ If
it be possible,” establish the rigidity and absoluteness of governmental and spiritual
conditions. God’s will and plans are objective realities; they have definite and all-
important direction and demands. (S. L. B. Speare.)
The will of God the cure of self-will
Awful in its bliss, more awful yet is the will in its decay. Awful power it is, to be able
for ourselves to choose God; terrible to be able to refuse Him. We have felt, many of
us, the strangeness of the power of will in children; how neither present strength, nor
persuasion, nor love, nor hope, nor pain, nor punishment, nor dread of worse, nor
weight of authority, can, for a time, bend the determined will of a little child. We are
amazed to see a power so strong in a form so slight and a mind so childish. Yet they
are faint pictures of ourselves whenever we have sinned wilfully. We marvel at their
resisting our wisdom, knowledge, strength, counsel, authority, persuasiveness. What
is every sinful sin but a resistance of the wisdom, power, counsel, majesty, eloquent
pleadings of Almighty God in the sinner’s soul? What is it, but for the soul which He
hath made, to will to thwart His counsel who hath made it, to mar His work, to
accuse His wisdom of foolishness, His love of want of tenderness, to withdraw itself
from the dominion of God, to be another god to itself, a separate principle of wisdom
and source of happiness and providence to itself, to order things in its own way,
setting before itself and working out its own ends, making self-love, self-exaltation,
self-gratification, its object, as though it were, at its will, to shape its own lot as much
as if there were no God. Yea, and at last, it must will that there be no God. And in its
worst decay, it accomplishes what it wills, and (awful as it is to say) blots God out of
its creation, disbelieving that He is, or will do as He has said, or that He will avenge.
Whoever wills that God wills not, so far dethrones God, and sets up his own will to
dispute the almightiness and wisdom of the eternal God. He is a Deicide. It matters
not wherein the self-will is exerted, in the very least things or the greatest. Antichrist
will be but the full unhindered growth of self-will. Such was the deep disease of self-
will, to cure which our good Lord came, in our nature, to fulfil the leather’s will, to
will to suffer what the Father willed, to “empty Himself and become obedient unto
death, and that the death of the Cross.” And since pride was the chief source of
disease in our corrupted wills, to heal this, the eternal Son of God came as now from
His everlasting glory, and, as a little Child, fulfilled His Father’s will. And when He
entered on His ministry, the will of His Father was the full contentment,
refreshment, stay, reward, of His soul, as Man. And then, whereas the will of God is
done either by us, in active obedience, or on us and in us by passive obedience or
resignation in suffering, to suffer the will of God is the surest, deepest, safest, way to
learn to do it. For it has least of self. It needeth only to be still, and it reposeth at once
in the loving will of God. If we have crippled ourselves, and cannot do great things,
we can, at least, meekly bear chastening, hush our souls and be still. Yet since, in
trials of this soul, the soul is often perplexed by its very suffering, it may be for your
rest, when ye shall be called to God’s loving discipline of suffering, to have such
simple rules as these.
236

237. 1. It is not against the will of God even strongly to will if it should be His will,
what yet may prove not to be His will. Entire submission to the will of God
requireth absolutely these two things. Wholly will whatsoever thou knowest God
to will; wholly reject whatsoever thou knowest God willeth not. Beyond these two,
while the will of God is as yet not clear unto thee, thou art free. We must indeed,
in all our prayers, have written, at least in our hearts, those words spoken by our
dear Lord for us, “Not as I will, but as Thou.” We shall, in whatever degree God
hath conformed our will to His, hold our will in suspense, even while yet
uncertain, ready to follow the balance of His gracious will even while we
tremblingly watch its motions, and our dearest earthly hopes, laid therein, seem
ready gradually to sink, for the rest of this life, in dust (2Sa_16:10). And so thou,
too, whatever it be which thou willest, the health and life of those thou lovest as
thine own soul, the turning aside of any threatened scourge of God, the healing of
thine aching heart, the cleansing away of harassing thoughts or doubts entailed
upon thee by former sin, or coldness, or dryness, or distraction in prayer, or
deadness of soul, or absence of spiritual consolation, thou mayest without fear
ask it of God with thy whole heart, and will it wholly and earnestly, so that thou
will therein the glory of God, and, though with sinking heart, welcome the will of
God, when thou knowest assuredly what that will is.
2. Nor again is it against the will of God that thou art bowed down and grieved by
what is the will of God. And even when the heaviness is for our own private griefs,
yet, if it be patient, it, too, is according to the will of God. For God hath made us
such as to suffer. He willeth that suffering be the healthful chastisement of our
sins.
3. Then, whatever thy grief or trouble be, take every drop in thy cup from the
hand of Almighty God. Thou knowest well that all comes from God, ordered or
overruled by Him. How was the cup of thy Lord filled, which He drank for thee?
4. Again, no trouble is too small, wherein to see the will of God for thee. Great
troubles come but seldom. Daily fretting trials, that is, what of thyself would fret
thee, may often, in God’s hands, conform thee more to His gracious will. They are
the dally touches, whereby He traces on thee the likeness of His Divine will. There
is nothing too slight wherein to practise oneness with the will of God. Love or
hate are the strength of will; love, of the will of God; hate, of the will of devils. A
weak love is a weak will; a strong love is a strong will. Self-will is the antagonist of
the will of God; for thou weft formed for God. If thou wert made for thyself, be
self thy centre; if for God, repose thyself in the will of God. So shalt thou lose thy
self-will, to find thy better will in God, and thy self-love shall be absorbed in the
love of God. Yea, thou shalt love thyself, because God hath loved thee; take care
for thyself, because thou art not thine own, but God careth for thee; will thine
own good, because and as God willeth it.
“Father, nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou.” So hath our Lord sanctified all the
natural shrinkings of our lower will. He vouchsafed to allow the natural will of His
sacred Manhood to be “amazed and very heavy” at the mysterious sufferings of the
cross, to hallow the “mute shrinking” of ours, and guide us on to His all-holy
submission of His will. (E. B.Pusey, D. D.)
Christ’s preparation for death
1. The prayer of Christ. In a praying posture He will be found when the enemy
comes; He will be taken upon His knees. He was pleading hard with God in
prayer, for strength to carry Him through this heavy trial, when they came to take
237

238. Him. And this prayer was a very remarkable prayer, both for the solitariness of it,
“He withdrew about a stone’s cast” (Luk_22:41) from His dearest intimates—no
ear but His Father’s shall hear what He had now to say—and for the vehemency
and importunity of it; these were those strong cries that He poured out to God in
the days of His flesh Heb_5:7). And for the humility expressed in it: He fell upon
the ground, He rolled Himself as it were in dust, at His Father’s feet.
2. This Scripture gives you also an account of the agony of Christ, as well as of
His prayer, and that a most strange one; such as in all respects never was known
before in nature.
3. You have here His relief in this His agony, and that by an angel dispatched
post from heaven to comfort Him. The Lord of angels now needed the comfort of
an angel.
It was time to have a little refreshment, when His face and body too stood as full of
drops of blood as the drops of dew are upon the grass.
1. Did Christ pour out His soul to God so ardently in the garden, when the hour of
His trouble was at hand? Hence we infer that prayer is a singular preparative for,
and relief under, the greatest troubles.
2. Did Christ withdraw from the disciples to seek God by prayer? Thence it
follows that the company of the best men is not always seasonable. The society of
men is beautiful in its season, and no better than a burden out of season. I have
read of a good man, that when his stated time for closet-prayer was come, he
would say to the company that were with him, whatever they were, “Friends, I
must beg your excuse for a while, there is a Friend waits to speak with me.” The
company of a good man is good, but it ceases to be so, when it hinders the
enjoyment of better company. One hour with God is to be preferred to a thousand
days’ enjoyment of the best men on earth.
3. Did Christ go to God thrice upon the same account? Thence learn that
Christians should not be discouraged, though they have sought God once and
again, and no answer of Peace comes. If God deny you in the things you ask, He
deals no otherwise with you than He did with Christ.
4. Was Christ so earnest in prayer that He prayed Himself into a very agony? Let
the people of God blush to think how unlike their spirits are to Christ, as to their
prayer-frames. Oh, what lively, sensible, quick, deep, and tender apprehensions
and sense of those things about which He prayed, had Christ! Though He saw His
very blood starting out from His hands, and His clothes dyed in it, yet being in an
agony, He prayed the more earnestly. I do not say Christ is imitable in this; no,
but His fervour in prayer is a pattern for us, and serves severely to rebuke the
laziness, dulness, torpor, formality, and stupidity that is in our prayers. Oh, how
unlike Christ are we! His prayers were pleading prayers, full of mighty arguments
and fervent affections. Oh, that His people were in this more like Him!
5. Was Christ in such an agony before any hand of man was upon Him merely
from the apprehensions of the wrath of God with which He now contested? Then
surely it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, for our God is
a consuming fire.
6. Did Christ meet death with such a heavy heart? Let the hearts of Christians be
the lighter for this when they come to die. The bitterness of death was all
squeezed into Christ’s cup. He was made to drink up the very dregs of it, that so
our death might be the sweeter to us. (J. Flavel.)
238

239. The agony in Gethsemane
I. Meditating upon the agonizing scene in Gethsemane we are compelled to observe
that our Saviour there endured a grief unknown to any previous period of His life,
and therefore we will commence our discourse by raising the question, WHAT WAS
THE CAUSE OF THE PECULIAR GRIEF OF GETHSEMANE? Do you suppose it was
the fear of coming scorn or the dread of crucifixion? was it terror at the thought of
death? Is not such a supposition impossible? It does not make even such poor
cowards as we are sweat great drops of blood, why then should it work such terror in
Him? Read the stories of the martyrs, and you will frequently find them exultant in
the near approach of the most cruel sufferings. The joy of the Lord has given such
strength to them, that no coward thought has alarmed them for a single moment, but
they have gone to the stake, or to the block, with psalms of victory upon their lips.
Our master must not be thought of as inferior to His boldest servants, it cannot be
that He should tremble where they were brave. I cannot conceive that the pangs of
Gethsemane were occasioned by any extraordinary attack from Satan. It is possible
that Satan was there, and that his presence may have darkened the shade, but he was
not the most prominent cause of that hour of darkness. Thus much is quite clear, that
our Lord at the commencement of His ministry engaged in a very severe duel with
the prince of darkness, and yet we do not read concerning that temptation in the
wilderness a single syllable as to His soul’s being exceeding sorrowful, neither do we
find that He “was sore amazed and was very heavy,” nor is there a solitary hint at
anything approaching to bloody sweat. When the Lord of angels condescended to
stand foot to foot with the prince of the power of the air, he had no such dread of him
as to utter strong cries and tears and fall prostrate on the ground with threefold
appeals to the Great Father. What is it then, think you, that so peculiarly marks off
Gethsemane and the griefs thereof? We believe that now the Father put Him to grief
for us. It was now that our Lord had to take a certain cup from the Father’s hand.
This removes all doubt as to what it was, for we read, “It pleased the Lord to bruise
Him, He hath put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin.”
“The Lord hath made to meet on Him the iniquity of us all.” Yet would I exhort you to
consider these griefs awhile, that you may love the Sufferer. He now realized, perhaps
for the first time, what it was to be a sin bearer. It was the shadow of the coming
tempest, it was the prelude of the dread desertion which He had to endure, when He
stood where we ought to have stood, and paid to His Father’s justice the debt which
was due from us; it was this which laid Him low. To be treated as a sinner, to be
smitten as a sinner, though in Him was no sin—this it was which caused Him the
agony of which our text speaks.
II. Having thus spoken of the cause of His peculiar grief, I think we shall be able to
support our view of the matter, while we lead you to consider, WHAT WAS THE
CHARACTER OF THE GRIEF ITSELF? Trouble of spirit is worse than pain of body;
pain may bring trouble and be the incidental cause of sorrow, but if the mind is
perfectly untroubled, how well a man can bear pain, and when the soul is exhilarated
and lifted up with inward joy, pain of body is almost forgotten, the soul conquering
the body. On the other hand the soul’s sorrow will create bodily pain, the lower
nature sympathizing with the higher.
III. Our third question shall be, WHAT WAS OUR LORD’S SOLACE IN ALL THIS?
He resorted to prayer, and especially to prayer to God under the character of Father.
In conclusion: Learn—
1. The real humanity of our Lord.
239

240. 2. The matchless love of Jesus.
3. The excellence and completeness of the atonement.
4. Last of all, what must be the terror of the punishment which will fall upon
those men who reject the atoning blood, and who will have to stand before God in
their own proper persons to suffer for their sins. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Gethsemane
I. Come hither and behold THE SAVIOUR’S UNUTTERABLE WOE. We cannot do
more than look at the revealed causes of grief.
1. It partly arose from the horror of His soul when fully comprehending the
meaning of sin.
2. Another deep fountain of grief was found in the fact that Christ now assumed
more fully His official position with regard to sin.
3. We believe that at this time, our Lord had a very clear view of all the shame
and suffering of His crucifixion.
4. But possibly a yet more fruitful tree of bitterness was this—that now His
Father began to withdraw His presence from Him.
5. But in our judgment the fiercest heat of the Saviour’s suffering in the garden
lay in the temptations of Satan. “This is your hour and the power of darkness.”
“The prince of this world cometh.”
II. Turn we next to contemplate THE TEMPTATION OF OUR LORD.
1. A temptation to leave the work unfinished.
2. Scripture implies that our Lord was assailed by the fear that His strength
would not be sufficient. He was heard in that He feared. How, then, was He
heard? An angel was sent unto Him strengthening Him. His fear, then, was
probably produced by a sense of weakness.
3. Possibly, also, the temptation may have arisen from a suggestion that He was
utterly forsaken, I do not know—there may be sterner trials than this, but surely
this is one of the worst, to be utterly forsaken.
4. We think Satan also assaulted our Lord with a bitter taunt indeed. You know in
what guise the tempter can dress it, and how bitterly sarcastic he can make the
insinuation—“Ah! Thou wilt not be able to achieve the redemption of Thy people.
Thy grand benevolence will prove a mockery, and Thy beloved ones will perish.”
III. Behold, THE BLOODY SWEAT. This proves how tremendous must have been
the weight of sin when it was able so to crush the Saviour that He distilled drops of
blood I This proves, too, my brethren, the mighty power of His love. It is a very pretty
observation of old Isaac Ambrose that the gum which exudes from the tree without
cutting is always the best. This precious camphire-tree yielded most sweet spices
when it was wounded under the knotty whips, and when it was pierced by the nails
on the cross; but see, it giveth forth its best spice when there is no whip, no nail, no
wound. This sets forth the voluntariness of Christ’s sufferings, since without a lance
the blood flowed freely. No need to put on the leech, or apply the knife; it flows
spontaneously.
IV. THE SAVIOUR’S PRAYER.
240

241. 1. Lonely prayer.
2. Humble prayer.
3. Filial prayer.
4. Persevering prayer.
5. Earnest prayer.
6. The prayer of resignation.
V. THE SAVIOUR’S PREVALENCE. His prayers did speed, and therefore He is a
good Intercessor for us. “How was He heard?”
1. His mind was suddenly rendered calm.
2. God strengthened Him through an angel.
3. God heard Him in granting Him now, not simply strength, but a real victory
over Satan.
I do not know whether what Adam Clarke supposes is correct, that in the garden
Christ did pay more of the price than He did even on the cross; but I am quite
convinced that they are very foolish who get to such refinement that they think the
atonement was made on the cross, and nowhere else at all. We believe that it was
made in the garden as well as on the cross; and it strikes me that in the garden one
part of Christ’s work was finished, wholly finished, and that was His conflict with
Satan. I conceive that Christ had now rather to bear the absence of His Father’s
presence and the revilings of the people and the sons of men, than the temptations of
the devil. I do think that these were over when He rose from His knees in prayer,
when He lifted Himself from the ground where He marked His visage in the clay in
drops of blood. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The agony of Christ
I. THE PERSON OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS SUFFERER.
1. The dignified essential Son of God.
2. Truly and properly the Son of Man. Had our nature, body, soul.
II. THE AGONY WHICH HE ENDURED.
1. The agony itself.
(1) Deep, intense mental suffering.
(2) Overwhelming amazement and terror.
2. The cause of Christ’s agony. It arose—
(1) From the pressure of s world’s guilt upon Him.
(2) From the attacks of the powers of darkness.
(3) From the hiding of the Divine countenance.
3. The effects of the agony. He fell to the ground, overwhelmed, prostrated, and
sweat as it were, great drops of blood.
III. THE PRAYER WHICH HE OFFERED. “He prayed more earnestly.” Observe—
1. The matter of His prayer. It was for the removal of the cup (Luk_22:42). As
241

242. man, He had a natural aversion to pain and suffering.
2. The spirit of His prayer was that of holy submission, devout resignation.
3. The manner of His prayer.
4. The intensity of His prayer. The success of His prayer.
Application:
1. Learn the amazing evil of sin.
2. The expensiveness of our redemption.
3. The sympathy of Christ (Heb_4:15).
4. The necessity of resignation to the will of God. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The Saviour’s bloody sweat
I. THE CAUSES OF THE BLOODY SWEAT.
1. A vehement inward struggle.
(1) On the one hand He was seized by fear and horror of His passion and
death.
(2) On the other hand He was burning with zeal for the honour of God and
redemption of men.
(3) How great will be the anguish of the sinner at the sight of everlasting
death and the endless pains of hell!
2. The representation of all the sins of the past, present, and future.
3. The consideration that His passion would prove useless to so many.
II. THE MANNER OF HIS SWEATING BLOOD.
1. He sweat blood in the strict sense of the word.
(1) Natural blood.
(2) In a natural way.
2. He was full of sorrow.
3. He fell upon His face. (J. Marchant.)
The witness to the power of prayer
I. AN ACT OF REAL PRAYER IS GREAT, POWERFUL, AND BEAUTIFUL; a spirit
in an energy of pure, subdued, but confident desire, rising up and embracing, and
securing the aid of the mighty Spirit of God. If we can believe the power of prayer, we
may put forth the force of the soul and perform that act. How then can we learn that
power? My answer is, From Christ. Everywhere Christ is the Representative Man.
This in two senses.
1. He is human nature in sum and completeness as it ought to be. To see
humanity as God imaged and loved it, to see humanity at its best, we must see
our Master.
2. And Christ represents to us perfect human conduct. To see how to act in
242

243. critical situations we must study Christ. In critical situations? Yes! there is the
difficulty, there also the evidenced nobleness of a lofty human character. I need
hardly say (for you know who Christ was) the most critical moments in human
history were the moments of the Passion. Oh, perfect example! Oh, severe and
fearful trial! Christ knelt alone amidst the olives, in the quiet garden, in the lonely
night, and Dear, His weary, sleepy followers. It is a simple scene, but Christ’s
spirit was in action. What was the significance of the act? It was very awful. It was
an “agony,” a life-struggle, a contest. Much was involved in that moment of
apparent quietude, of real struggle; but one lesson at any rate is important.
Examine it. Here we have a witness to the power of prayer.
II. THE AGONY WAS LITERALLY A CONTEST. What was the nature of the
struggle? It was a contest with evil; of that we are certain, although the depth and
details are wrapped in mystery. Anyhow the struggle was with a force of which, alas!
we ourselves know something. No one can live to the ago of five-and-twenty, and
reflect with any degree of seriousness on himself or on the world around him,
without knowing that evil is a fact. We find its cruel records in the blood-stained
pages of history. We listen, and amidst whatever heavenly voices, still the wail of its
victims is echoing age after age down the “corridors of time.” Our own faults and
follies will not efface themselves from the records of memory; in the brightness of the
flaring day of life they may fade into dim and shadowy outline, but there are times of
silence—on a sick-bed, in the still house at midnight, in the open desolation of the
lonely sea—when they rise like living creatures, spectral threateners, or blaze their
unrelenting facts in characters of fire. Their force was not realized in the moment of
passion. But conscience bides its time, bears its stern, uncompromising witness when
passion is asleep or dead. Sin is a matter of experience. It has withered life, in fact, in
history, with the deathly chill and sadness of the grave. Somehow all feel it, but it is
prominent and stern before the Christian. He can never forget, nor is it well he
should, that we are in a world in which, when God appeared in human form, He was
subjected to insult and violence by His creatures. That is enough. That is, without
controversy, the measure of the power, the intensity of evil. If there is to be a contest
with evil, it is clearly a contest with a serious enemy.
III. HOW CAN WE THROW BACK SO FIERCE A POWER? THE ANSWER
BROADLY IS, RELIGION. Religion is a personal matter; it must hold a universal
empire over the being of each of us; it must rouse natural forces only by being in
possession of supernatural power. Brothers, to possess a religion which can conquer
sin we must follow our Master in the severity of principle, of conviction, of
unflinching struggle. The external scene of His trial was simple, but He fought, and
therefore conquered. Certainly He fought with evil, “being in an agony.”
IV. “FOUGHT WITH EVIL.” “What do you mean?” you ask. Evil! Is evil a thing, an
object, like the pyramids of Egypt, or the roaring ocean, or an advancing army? Evil
is the act of choice of a created will. It is the rejection by the creature of the laws of
life laid down, not as tyrannical rules, but as necessary truths, by the Creator. Evil
takes three active forms, so says Scripture, so we have learned in the Catechism: the
accumulated force of bad opinion, that is “the world”; or the uncertain revolt of our
own corrupt desires, that is “the flesh”; or a living being wholly surrendered to hatred
of the Creator, that is “the devil.” Think of the last. You realize the severity of the
contest in remembering that you fight with a fiend. Satan is a person. In this is he
like ourselves. Of man it is said “he has thoughts of himself.” This is true of Satan; he
can think of himself, he can purpose with relentless will, he can plan with
unparalleled audacity. There are three specific marks of his character—
1. He is inveterate in his hatred of truth, lie is a liar.
243

244. 2. He is obstinate in his abhorrence of charity, pure intention, and self-sacrificing
devotion. He is a murderer.
3. He shrinks from the open glory of goodness. He is a coward. To “abide in the
truth,” to “love good,” and “love one another with a pure heart fervently,” and to
have holy fearlessness in the power of God is to be in direct opposition to him.
From this it is evident that our contest is with a tremendous enemy, and that
against us he need never be victorious. My brothers, there are two shadows
projected over human life from two associated and mysterious facts—from sin,
from death. In that critical moment when the human will is subjected to the force
of temptation and yields to its sway, in that solemn moment when the human
spirit is wrenched away for a time from its physical organism, there is a special
power dangerously, not irresistibly, exercised by the being who is devoted to evil.
A hint of this is given in Scripture in the allusion to the spirit “that now worketh
in the children of disobedience,” a hint of this dark realm certainly in the prayer
by the grave-side that we may not “for any pains of death fall “ from God. There is
a shadow-land. How may we contemplate it without hopeless shuddering, how
think of entering it without despairing fear? Now here is a primary fact. Christ
our strength as well as our example boldly entered, and in the depths of its
deepest blackness conquered the fiend. “He was made sin”; “He became obedient
unto death”; and for all who will to follow Him, His love, His devotion is
victorious. “We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” Yes! In
union with Christ we can do what He did. O blessed and brave One! We may
follow His example and employ His power. His power! How may we be possessed
of it? In many ways. Certainly in this way. It is placed at the disposal of the soul
that prays. This is in effect the answer of Christ’s revelation to the question, Why
should we pray? Two facts let us remember and act upon with earnestness.
1. The value of a formed habit of prayer. Crises are sure to come and then we are
equally sure to act on habitual impulse. Christ learned in His humanity and
practised Himself in the effort of prayer, and when the struggle reached its
climax, the holy habit had its fulfilment. “Belong in an agony He prayed.” And—
2. It is in moments of contest that real prayer rises to its height and majesty.
“When my heart is hot within me,” says the Psalmist, “I will complain”; and of
Christ it is written, “Being in an agony He prayed more earnestly.” Prayer, too, as
the Christian knows, is not always answered now in the way he imagines most
desirable, but it is always answered. If the cup does not pass, at least there is an
angel strengthening the human spirit to drain it bravely to the dregs.
Subjectively, there is comfort; objectively, there is real help. What might have
been a tragedy becomes by prayer a blessing; desire which if misdirected might
have crushed and overwhelmed us, becomes when truly used with the Holy
Spirit’s assistance a raw material of sanctity. Certainly from prayer we gain three
things: a powerful stimulus, and strength for act or suffering; a deep and real
consolation; and the soothing and ennobling sense of duty done. (Canon Knox
Little.)
Our Lord’s bloody sweat
There are some who only suppose that by this phraseology the mere size of the drops
of perspiration is indicated. But the plain meaning of the language is that the sweat
was bloody in its nature; that the physical nature of our Lord was so deranged by the
violent pressure of mental agony that blood oozed from every pore. Such a result is
not uncommon in a sensitive constitution. The face reddens with blood both from
244

245. shame and anger. Were this continued with intensity, the blood would force its way
through the smaller vessels, and exude from the skin. Kannigiesser remarks, “If the
mind is seized with a sudden fear of death, the “sweat, owing to the excessive degree
of constriction, often becomes bloody.” The eminent French historian, De Thou,
mentions the case of an Italian officer who commanded at Monte-Mars, a fortress of
Piedmont, during the warfare in 1552 between Henry II. of France and the Emperor
Charles V. The officer, having been treacherously seized by order of the hostile
general, and threatened with public execution unless he surrendered the place, was
so agitated at the prospect of an ignominious death that he sweated blood from every
part of his body. The same writer relates a similar occurrence in the person of a
young Florentine at Rome, unjustly put to death by order of Pope Sixtus V., in the
beginning of his reign, and concludes the narrative as follows: “When the youth was
led forth to execution, he excited the commiseration of many, and, through excess of
grief, was observed to shed bloody tears, and to discharge blood instead of sweat
from his whole body.’” Medical experience does so far corroborate the testimony of
the Gospels, and shows that cutaneous hemorrhage is sometimes the result of
intense mental agitation. The awful anguish of Him who said, “My soul is exceeding
sorrowful, even unto death,” was sufficient cause to produce the bloody perspiration
on a cold night and in the open air. (J. Eadie, D. D.)
The angel who strengthened Jesus
On a certain occasion, when the Rev. J. Robertson had been preaching one of a series
of sermons, on “Angels in their revealed connection with the work of Christ,” Dr.
Duncan came into the vestry and said: “Will you be so kind as to let me know when
you are going to take up the case of my favourite angel?” “But who is he, Doctor?”
“Oh! guess that.” “Well, it would not be difficult to enumerate all those whose names
we have given us.” “But I can’t tell you his name, he is an anonymous angel. It is the
one who came down to Gethsemane, and there strengthened my Lord to go through
His agony for me, that He might go forward to the cross, and finish my redemption
there. I have an extraordinary love for that one, and I often wonder what I’ll say to
him when I meet him first.” This was a thought Dr. Duncan never wearied of
repeating, in varied forms, whenever the subject of angels turned up in conversation.
Succoured by an angel
In the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates there is mention made of one Theodorus, a
martyr put to extreme torments by Julian the Apostate, and dismissed again by him
when he saw him unconquerable. Rufinus, in his History, says that he met with this
martyr a long time after his trial, and asked him whether the pains he felt were not
insufferable. He answered that at first it was somewhat grievous, but after awhile
there seemed to stand by him a young man in white, who, with a soft and
comfortable handkerchief, wiped off the sweat from his body (which, through
extreme anguish, was little less than blood), and bade him be of good cheer,
insomuch that it was rather a punishment than a pleasure to him to be taken off the
rack. When the tormentors had done, the angel was gone.
Angelic ministry
The only child of a poor woman one day fell into the fire by accident, and was so
badly burned that he died after a few hours’ suffering. The clergyman, as soon as he
knew, went to see the mother, who was known to be dotingly fond of the child. To his
great surprise, he found her calm, patient, and resigned. After a little conversation
she told him how she had been weeping bitterly as she knelt beside her child’s cot,
when suddenly he exclaimed, “Mother, don’t you see the beautiful man who is
245

246. standing there and waiting for me?” Again and again the child persisted in saying
that “the beautiful man” was waiting for him, and seemed ready, and even anxious, to
go to him. And, as a natural consequence, the mother’s heart was strangely cheered.
(W. Baxendale.)
The safeguard against temptation
“Satan,” says Bishop Hall, “always rocks the cradle when we sleep at our devotions. If
we would prevail with God, we must wrestle first with our own dulness.” And if this
be needful, even in ordinary times, how much more so in the perilous days on which
we are entering? Whatever we come short in, let it not be in watchfulness. None like
to slumber who are expecting a friend or fearing a foe. Bunyan tells us “that when
Hopeful came to a certain country, he began to be very dull and heavy of sleep.
Wherefore he said, ‘Let us lie down here, and take one nap.’ ‘By no means,’ said the
other, ‘lest sleeping, we wake no more.’ ‘Why, my brother? Sleep is sweet to the
labouring man; we may be refreshed, if we take a nap.’ ‘Do you not remember,’ said
the other, ‘that one of.the shepherds bid us beware of the Enchanted Ground? He
meant by that, that we should beware of sleeping.’” “Therefore let us not sleep, as do
others; but let us watch and be sober.” Slumbering and backsliding are closely allied.
(R. Macdonald, D. D.)
40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray
that you will not fall into temptation.”
CLARKE, "When he was at the place - Viz. Gethsemane. On this agony of our
Lord see the notes on Mat_26:36-46 (note).
GILL, "And when he was at the place,.... In the garden, at Gethsemane, which
was at the foot of the Mount of Olives;
he said unto them; to the disciples, as the Persic version reads;
pray that ye enter not into temptation. This, according to the Evangelists
Matthew and Mark, was said to them after he had prayed the first time, and returned
to the disciples, and found them sleeping; See Gill on Mat_26:41.
HENRY, "That he exhorted his disciples to pray that, though the approaching trial
could not be avoided, yet they might not in it enter into temptation to sin; that, when
they were in the greatest fright and danger, yet they might not have any inclination to
desert Christ, nor take a step towards it: “Pray that you may be kept from sin.”
JAMISON, "the place — the Garden of Gethsemane, on the west or city side of
the mount. Comparing all the accounts of this mysterious scene, the facts appear to
246

247. be these: (1) He bade nine of the Twelve remain “here” while He went and prayed
“yonder.” (2) He “took the other three, Peter, James, and John, and began to be sore
amazed [appalled], sorrowful, and very heavy [oppressed], and said, My soul is
exceeding sorrowful even unto death” - “I feel as if nature would sink under this load,
as if life were ebbing out, and death coming before its time” - “tarry ye here, and
watch with Me”; not, “Witness for Me,” but, “Bear Me company.” It did Him good, it
seems, to have them beside Him. (3) But soon even they were too much for Him: He
must be alone. “He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s-cast” - though near
enough for them to be competent witnesses and kneeled down, uttering that most
affecting prayer (Mar_14:36), that if possible “the cup,” of His approaching death,
“might pass from Him, but if not, His Father’s will be done”: implying that in itself it
was so purely revolting that only its being the Father’s will would induce Him to taste
it, but that in that view of it He was perfectly prepared to drink it. It is no struggle
between a reluctant and a compliant will, but between two views of one event - an
abstract and a relative view of it, in the one of which it was revolting, in the other
welcome. By signifying how it felt in the one view, He shows His beautiful oneness
with ourselves in nature and feeling; by expressing how He regarded it in the other
light, He reveals His absolute obediential subjection to His Father. (4) On this,
having a momentary relief, for it came upon Him, we imagine, by surges, He returns
to the three, and finding them sleeping, He addresses them affectingly, particularly
Peter, as in Mar_14:37, Mar_14:38. He then (5) goes back, not now to kneel, but fell
on His face on the ground, saying the same words, but with this turn, “If this cup
may not pass,” etc. (Mat_26:42) - that is, ‘Yes, I understand this mysterious silence
(Psa_22:1-6); it may not pass; I am to drink it, and I will’ - “Thy will be done!” (6)
Again, for a moment relieved, He returns and finds them “sleeping for sorrow,”
warns them as before, but puts a loving construction upon it, separating between the
“willing spirit” and the “weak flesh.” (7) Once more, returning to His solitary spot,
the surges rise higher, beat more tempestuously, and seem ready to overwhelm Him.
To fortify Him for this, “there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven
strengthening Him” - not to minister light or comfort (He was to have none of that,
and they were not needed nor fitted to convey it), but purely to sustain and brace up
sinking nature for a yet hotter and fiercer struggle. And now, He is “in an agony, and
prays more earnestly” - even Christ’s prayer, it seems, admitted of and now
demanded such increase - “and His sweat was as it were great drops [literally, ‘clots’]
of blood falling down to the ground.” What was this? Not His proper sacrificial
offering, though essential to it. It was just the internal struggle, apparently hushing
itself before, but now swelling up again, convulsing His whole inner man, and this so
affecting His animal nature that the sweat oozed out from every pore in thick drops
of blood, falling to the ground. It was just shuddering nature and indomitable will
struggling together. But again the cry, If it must be, Thy will be done, issues from His
lips, and all is over. “The bitterness of death is past.” He has anticipated and
rehearsed His final conflict, and won the victory - now on the theater of an invincible
will, as then on the arena of the Cross. “I will suffer,” is the grand result of
Gethsemane: “It is finished” is the shout that bursts from the Cross. The Will without
the Deed had been all in vain; but His work was consummated when He carried the
now manifested Will into the palpable Deed, “by the which WILL we are sanctified
THROUGH THE OFFERING OF THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST ONCE FOR ALL”
(Heb_10:10). (8) At the close of the whole scene, finding them still sleeping (worn
out with continued sorrow and racking anxiety), He bids them, with an irony of deep
emotion, “sleep on now and take their rest, the hour is come, the Son of man is
betrayed into the hands of sinners, rise, let us be going, the traitor is at hand.” And
while He spoke, Judas approached with his armed band. Thus they proved
“miserable comforters,” broken reeds; and thus in His whole work He was alone, and
247

248. “of the people there was none with Him.”
41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond
them, knelt down and prayed,
GILL, "And he was withdrawn from them,.... That is, from the three disciples,
Peter, James, and John, whom he took along with him, leaving the rest at some
further distance; and from these he removed,
about a stone's cast; fifty, or sixty feet from the place where they were:
and kneeled down and prayed; the following prayer.
HENRY, "That he exhorted his disciples to pray that, though the approaching trial
could not be avoided, yet they might not in it enter into temptation to sin; that, when
they were in the greatest fright and danger, yet they might not have any inclination to
desert Christ, nor take a step towards it: “Pray that you may be kept from sin.”
JAMISON, "
COFFMAN, "The taking of Peter, James and John to a position nearer to
himself, the triple repetition of the prayer, and other important details were
omitted in Luke's account; and for a discussion of those things, reference is made
to the comments under the parallels in this series.
Remove this cup ... The ascendancy of our Lord's human nature is evident in this
scene. The utter repugnance of so horrible a death as Jesus confronted sent the
Saviour to his knees; and there, wrestling with God in prayer, he brought his
human nature into submissive compliance with the Father's will.
The implications here are profound. There was no way God could remove the
cup of suffering from Jesus without abandoning the purpose of human
redemption. Some have interpreted the "cup" as agony itself, so great that Jesus
was in imminent danger of dying before he ever came to the cross. Whether this
was truly the "cup" or not is uncertain, but the appearance of an angel to
strengthen the Lord in that agony surely suggests that it was at least an element
in it.
PETT, "Then He left them, (again exhorting them to prayer as we learn from
Mark 14:34 ) and moved a short distance from them and Himself kneeled in
prayer. As it was customary for Jewish men to pray standing, this attitude of
prayer indicated the weight of the burden on Jesus’ heart. Elsewhere such
praying on the knees takes place at times of great emotion (Acts 7:60; Acts 9:40;
Acts 20:36; Acts 21:5). Here then too was evidence of the urgency of the hour
and of His willing and dedicated submission.
248

249. While some have read into the verb a certain urgency, it can simply refer to
being separated from someone. The point is that He wanted to be alone, while at
the same time enjoying (He hoped) the support of His disciples.
42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from
me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
GILL, "Saying, Father, if thou be willing,.... If it be consistent with thy will of
saving sinners, and which thou hast declared to me, and I have undertook to
perform: the other evangelists say, "if it be possible"; See Gill on Mat_26:39.
remove this cup from me; meaning, either his present sorrows and distress, or
his approaching sufferings and death, which he had in view, or both:
nevertheless not my will; as man, for Christ had an human will distinct from,
though not contrary to his divine will:
but thine be done; which Christ undertook, and came into this world to do; and it
was his meat and drink to do it, and was the same with his own will, as the Son of
God; See Gill on Mat_26:39, and See Gill on Mat_26:42.
HENRY, "That he, knowing it to be his Father's will that he should suffer and die,
and that, as the matter was now settled, it was necessary for our redemption and
salvation, presently withdrew that petition, did not insist upon it, but resigned
himself to his heavenly Father's will: “Nevertheless not my will be done, not the will
of my human nature, but the will of God as it is written concerning me in the volume
of the book, which I delight to do, let that be done,” Psa_40:7, Psa_40:8.
JOHN MACDUFF, ""Not my will, but Yours be done."—Luk_22:42.
Where was there ever resignation like this? The life of Jesus was one long
martyrdom. From Bethlehem's manger to Calvary's cross, there was scarcely one
break in the clouds; these gathered more darkly and ominously around Him
until they burst over His devoted head as He uttered His expiring cry. Yet
throughout this pilgrimage of sorrow no murmuring accent escaped His lips. The
most suffering of all suffering lives was one of uncomplaining submission.
"Not my will, but Yours will," was the motto of this wondrous Being! When He
came into the world He thus announced His advent, "Lo, I come, I delight to do
Your will, O my God!" When He left it, we listen to the same prayer of blended
249

250. agony and acquiescence, "O my Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from
me! Nevertheless not as I will, but as You will."
Reader! is this mind also in you? Ah, what are your trials compared to His!
What the ripples in your tide of woe, compared to the waves and billows which
swept over Him! If He, the spotless Lamb of God, "murmured not," how can you
murmur? His were the sufferings of a bosom never once darkened with the
passing shadow of guilt or sin. Your severest sufferings are deserved, yes,
infinitely less than you deserve! Are you tempted to indulge in hard suspicions,
as to God's faithfulness and love, in appointing some peculiar trial? Ask yourself,
Would Jesus have done this? Should I seek to pry into "the deep things of God,"
when He, in the spirit of a weaned child, was satisfied with the solution, "Even
so, Father, for so it seems good in Your sight?"
"Even so, Father!" Afflicted one! "tossed with tempest, and not comforted, "take
that word on which Your Lord pillowed His suffering head, and make it, as He
did, the secret of your resignation.
The sick child will take the bitterest draught from a father's hand. "This cup
which You, O God, give me to drink, shall I not drink it?" Be it mine to lie
passive in the arms of Your chastening love, exulting in the assurance that all
Your appointments, though sovereign, are never arbitrary, but that there is a
gracious "need be" in them all. "My Father!" my covenant God! the God who
spared not Jesus! It may well hush every repining word.
Drinking deep of His sweet spirit of submission, you will be able thus to meet,
yes, even to welcome, your sorest cross, saying, "Yes, Lord, all is well, just
because it is Your blessed will. Take me, use me, chasten me, as seems good in
Your sight. My will is resolved into Yours. This trial is dark; I cannot see the
'why and the wherefore' of it—but not my will, but Your will!' The gourd is
withered; I cannot see the reason of so speedy a dissolution of the loved earthly
shelter; sense and sight ask in vain why these leaves of earthly refreshment have
been doomed so soon to droop in sadness and sorrow. But it is enough. "The
Lord prepared the worm;" "not my will, but Your will!"
Oh, how does the stricken soul honor God by thus being silent in the midst of
dark and perplexing dealings, recognizing in these, part of the needed discipline
and training for a sorrowless, sinless, deathless world; regarding every trial as a
link in the chain which draws it to heaven, where the whitest robes will be found
to be those here baptized with suffering, and bathed in tears!
"Arm yourselves likewise with the same mind."
PETT, "Jesus then addressed His ‘Father’. Writing to Gentiles Luke does not
use the Aramaic ‘Abba’ used by Mark, but only the Greek ‘pater’. But note that
He begins by subjecting His prayer to the will of the Father. The fact that He is
speaking to His Father does not lessen the importance of His Father’s will. It
rather enhances it. We too are permitted to approach Him as ‘Our Father in
Heaven. But with us also this does not lessen our responsibility to do His will. It
250

251. rather underlines it.
‘Remove this cup from me.’ Here Jesus had in mind the cup of the Lord’s
‘anger’, the cup of the righteous wrath (or antipathy) of God against sin, the cup
of which He had to drink to the full. Others had drunk of such a cup before, but
in the past such a cup had always been taken out of the hand of His people by
God, once He felt that they had drunk enough (Isaiah 51:22). And Jesus clearly
hoped that this might also be possible for Him. But while the awfulness of what
lay before Him made Him shrink from it, He immediately made His request
conditional on the Father’s will. For while He shrank from what was in the cup,
He would not shrink from the will of God, even if that involved, as it did, the
drinking of that cup to the full.
This prayer reminds us again that Jesus had come as one who was truly human,
for His words make clear the battle raging within Him. As One Who was holy,
and uniquely separated to, and aware of, His Father, and to Whom sin was
abhorrent, and to Whom death was a contradiction to all that He was as the
Lord of life, He saw before Him the cup of suffering, and forsakenness, and
death and His whole being cried out against it. For it not only contained within it
for Him an intensity of suffering such as no other man could ever have known,
(for they have been involved in sin and death all their lives), but also the personal
experience of the antipathy of God (wrath) against sin. This last especially must
have torn at the very depths of His righteous and obedient heart.
For these ideas as connected with drinking from a cup see Psalms 11:6; Psalms
75:8; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15; Jeremiah 25:17; Jeremiah 25:28;
Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:31-34; Habakkuk 2:16 see also Revelation 14:10;
Revelation 16:19; Revelation 18:6. Psalms 75:8 expresses it most vividly, ‘For in
the hand of YHWH there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture, and
He pours out of the same.’ It was the mixture of His terrible judgments on sin,
‘the wine of the wrath of God poured unmixed into the cup of His anger’
(Revelation 14:10) and Jesus would have to drink it to the last drop. A similar
cup had been the portion of Jerusalem in the midst of the passages about the
coming Servant of the Lord. It was a cup which they would truly drink again
around thirty or so years later (Isaiah 51:17).
If we support here the shorter text, and the probability is that we should, while
not necessarily doubting that the longer text is based on a valid tradition (or even
on a Lucan revision), then this prayer is central in the chiasmus. This is what the
agony on the Mount of Olives was all about. We can compare here the words in
Hebrews 5:7, ‘Who in the days of His flesh offered up prayers and supplications
with strong crying and tears to Him Who was able to save Him out of death, and
was heard for His godly fear’. He shrank from the cup of the antipathy of God
against sin, but in the end was willing to drink it to the full. No wonder that He
would later feel forsaken. But how then was His prayer heard? By the
sustenance given to Him in His manhood to carry it through. For in His godly
fear He was strengthened and sustained.
‘Nevertheless not my will, but yours be done.’ Even in His extremity Jesus was
251

252. concerned more than all else in the will of the Father being done. Jesus was here
perfectly exemplifying the prayer that He had taught to His disciples (Matthew
6:10; see also Matthew 26:42). Whatever it involved it was God’s will that was to
be the final arbiter. And it was through this obedience that He would prove
Himself to be a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world (Hebrews 10:5-10).
He went, not under the compulsion of another, not even of His Father, but as a
willing and voluntary sacrifice. The question had been asked long before, “But
where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” And the answer had been given, “God
will Himself provide the lamb for a burnt offering” (see Genesis 22:7-8). And
now here He was as the Father’s provision.
43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and
strengthened him.
BARNES, "Strengthening him - His human nature, to sustain the great burden
that was upon his soul. Some have supposed from this that he was not divine as well
as human; for if he was “God,” how could an angel give any strength or comfort? and
why did not the divine nature “alone” sustain the human? But the fact that he was
“divine” does not affect the case at all. It might be asked with the same propriety, If
he was, as all admit, the friend of God, and beloved of God, and holy, why, if he was a
mere man, did not “God” sustain him alone, without an angel’s intervening? But the
objection in neither case would have any force. The “man, Christ Jesus,” was
suffering. His human nature was in agony, and it is the “manner” of God to sustain
the afflicted by the intervention of others; nor was there any more “unfitness” in
sustaining the human nature of his Son in this manner than any other sufferer.
CLARKE, "There appeared an angel - from heaven - It was as necessary
that the fullest evidence should be given, not only of our Lord’s Divinity, but also of
his humanity: his miracles sufficiently attested the former; his hunger, weariness,
and agony in the garden, as well as his death and burial, were proofs of the latter. As
man, he needs the assistance of an angel to support his body, worn down by fatigue
and suffering. See at the end of Luk_22:44 (note).
GILL, "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven,.... Whether
this was Michael the archangel, as some have conjectured, or Gabriel, or what
particular angel, is not for us to know, nor is it of any importance: it is certain, it was
a good angel: "an angel of God", as the Ethiopic version reads; since he came from
heaven, and was one of the angels of heaven, sent by God on this occasion; and it is
clear also, that he was in a visible form, and was seen by Christ, since he is said to
appear to him:
strengthening him; under his present distress, against the terrors of Satan, and
the fears of death, by assuring him of the divine favour, as man, and of the fulfilment
of the promises to him to stand by him, assist, strengthen, and carry him through
252

253. what was before him; and by observing to him the glory and honour he should be
crowned with, after his sufferings and death, find the complete salvation of his
people, which would be obtained hereby, and which was the joy set before him; and
which animated him, as man, to bear the cross, and despise the shame with a brave
and heroic Spirit. Now, though God the Father could have strengthened the human
nature of Christ, without making use of an angel; and Christ could have strengthened
it himself, by his divine nature, to which it was united; but the human nature was to
be brought into so low a condition, and to be left to itself, as to stand in need of the
assistance of an angel: and this shows not only the ministration of angels to Christ, as
man, but that he was at this present time made a little lower than the angels, who was
the Creator and Lord of them; as he afterwards more apparently was, through the
sufferings of death.
HENRY, "II. There are three things in this passage which we had not in the other
evangelists: -
1. That, when Christ was in his agony, there appeared to him an angel from
heaven, strengthening him, Luk_22:43. (1.) It was an instance of the deep
humiliation of our Lord Jesus that he needed the assistance of an angel, and would
admit it. The influence of the divine nature withdrew for the present, and then, as to
his human nature, he was for a little while lower than the angels, and was capable of
receiving help from them. (2.) When he was not delivered from his sufferings, yet he
was strengthened and supported under them, and that was equivalent. If God
proportion the shoulders to the burden, we shall have no reason to complain,
whatever he is pleased to lay upon us. David owns this a sufficient answer to his
prayer, in the day of trouble, that God strengthened him with strength in his soul,
and so does the son of David, Psa_138:3. (3.) The angels ministered to the Lord
Jesus in his sufferings. He could have had legions of them to rescue him; nay, this
one could have done it, could have chased and conquered the whole band of men that
came to take him; but he made use of his ministration only to strengthen him; and
the very visit which this angel made him now in his grief, when his enemies were
awake and his friends asleep, was such a seasonable token of the divine favour as
would be a very great strengthening to him. Yet this was not all: he probably said
something to him to strengthen him; put him in mind that his sufferings were in
order to his Father's glory, to his own glory, and to the salvation of those that were
given him, represented to him the joy set before him, the seed he should see; with
these and the like suggestions he encouraged him to go on cheerfully; and what is
comforting is strengthening. Perhaps he did something to strengthen him, wiped
away his sweat and tears, perhaps ministered some cordial to him, as after his
temptation, or, it may be, took him by the arm, and helped him off the ground, or
bore him up when he was ready to faint away; and in these services of the angel the
Holy Spirit was enischuōn auton - putting strength into him; for so the word signifies.
It pleased the Lord to bruise him indeed; yet did he plead against him with his great
power? No, but he put strength in him (Job_23:6), as he had promised, Psa_89:21;
Isa_49:8; Isa_50:7.
COFFMAN, "This marvelous detail which explains so much which would be
otherwise unknown was supplied only by Luke. Commentators have attempted
to make a great point out of the contrast in Jesus' demeanor in the Johannine
account and that of the synoptics. In John, the Lord's majestic appearance
prostrated a whole company of soldiers on their faces; in the synoptics, he
appears in utter weakness, agony, and even fear. This verse harmonizes both
pictures of our Lord, the synoptics giving his state BEFORE the strengthening of
253

254. the angel, and John giving it AFTER the angel's mission was completed.
Strengthening him ... Hobbs noted that "this has primary reference to physical
strength."[24] Just as angels came and strengthened Jesus following his
temptation in the wilderness, an angel was ready here to provide that physical
strength without which Jesus might have died before the time. "A divine
refreshing pervaded him, body and soul; and thus he received strength to
continue to the last in the struggle."[25]
[24] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 312.
[25] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 203.
COKE, "Luke 22:43. And there appeared an angel, &c.— As the sins of the
world were laid upon Christ, and it pleased the Lord himself to bruise him, and
to awaken the sword of justice against him (see Isaiah 53:5-12. Zechariah 13:7.);
so, unless our great Lord had a present view and sensation of this, it is to me
unaccountable, that he should be in such terrible distress before his external
sufferings came upon him; especially considering, that, at this very time, an
angel was sent from heaven to strengthen him, and that so many martyrs have
thought of, and gone through as great corporal sufferings, with undaunted
bravery and triumph.
ELLICOTT, "(43) There appeared an angel unto him from heaven.—This and
the following verses are omitted by not a few of the best MSS., but the balance of
evidence is, on the whole, in their favour. Assuming their truth as part of the
Gospel, we ask—(1) How came the fact to be known to St. Luke, when St.
Matthew and St. Mark had made no mention of it? and (2) What is the precise
nature of the fact narrated? As regards (2), it may be noted that the angel is said
to have “appeared to him,” to our Lord only, and not to the disciples. He was
conscious of a new strength to endure even to the end. And that strength would
show itself to others, to disciples who watched Him afar off, in a new expression
and look, flashes of victorious strength and joy alternating with throbs and
spasms of anguish. Whence could that strength come but from the messengers of
His Father, in Whose presence, and in communion with Whom He habitually
lived (Matthew 4:11; John 1:51). The ministrations which had been with Him in
His first temptation were now with Him in the last (Matthew 4:11). As to (1) we
may think of one of the disciples who were present having reported to the
“devout women,” from whom St. Luke probably, as we have seen, derived so
much of the materials for his Gospel (see Introduction), that he had thus seen
what seemed to him to admit of no other explanation.
PETT, "Verse 43-44
‘And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him, and being
in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became as it were great
drops of blood falling down on the ground.’
The greatness of Jesus’ struggle against the horror that faced Him comes out in
these words. On the one hand was the need of an angel to strengthen Him bodily
254

255. in His humanness (compare Mark 1:13; Matthew 4:11; and see Matthew 26:53).
On the other was the physical effect caused by His struggle, His ‘agony’ caused
by His awareness of what He was facing, an agony in which He was aware of far
more suffering than the cross could ever bring. His prayers became more earnest
until He, as it were, sweated blood. What this last indicates it is futile for us to
consider in too much detail. Possibly Luke saw in the great drops of sweat the
blood that would shortly replace them. Possibly it is highly figurative. Or
perhaps, as it can in moments of great stress, blood did mingle with the sweat
that flowed from the pores of His skin. But all that we really need to recognise is
that the description was intended to bring out the torture of His soul. And it is
important that we do recognise that. It would have been so easy to think of Jesus
as sailing through all His trials without a problem had it not been for this
experience. We would have underestimated it. Here we learn that having been
made man, it was as a man that He faced His destiny. He was being tempted in
all points like as we are, and yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). In His inward
struggles He did not call on His supernatural powers, for it was as Man that He
had to overcome.
These two verses are lacking in a large number of good manuscripts and
witnesses (p75; B corrected Aleph; A T W f13; etc.). The early date and
widespread nature of these witnesses indicate that the words were quite possibly
not there in the original manuscript, although Epiphanius (4th century AD)
among others argues that in fact the verses were omitted for doctrinal reasons
early on, and we can certainly see why it might be so. They may well have been
seen as too ‘human’ for the glorified Jesus.
However, the widespread nature of the evidence for omitting them cannot be
seen as supporting this argument. Such a large scale decision to omit them would
hardly have been feasible once manuscripts were widely spread. Nevertheless
evidence for their inclusion is also fairly strong (Aleph; D L X Gamma; Delta;
Theta; Psai; f1 etc.), and even more so as the words were known to Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Tatian and Hippolytus. All this therefore emphasises that the
inclusion, if it be such, was very ancient and also widespread, and it suggests
therefore that the words were inserted very early on, because of well
remembered eyewitness testimony, even possibly having been added later by
Luke after the first copies of his manuscript had gone out, on someone who read
his Gospel informing him quietly of what had been omitted. They serve to bring
out the cosmic nature of the struggle which was taking place, and its resulting
intensity. And this intensity is especially brought out by the need for Him to be
strengthenedbeforehandin preparation for it, rather than at the end as in
Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13. Here then there is the reversal of the usual process (a
typical Lucan chiasmus?).
255

256. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more
earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood
falling to the ground.[c]
CLARKE, "Prayed more earnestly - With greater emphasis and earnestness
than usual, with strong crying and tears, Heb_5:7; the reason given for which is, that
he was in an agony. Kypke well observes, Vox αγωνια summum animi angorem et
dolorem indicat; et idem est, quod αδηµονειν, Mat_26:37; Mar_14:34. “The word
αγωνια (agony) points out the utmost anguish and grief of soul, and is of the same
import with αδηµονειν in Matthew and Mark.” See the note on Mat_26:37.
Drops of blood - See the note on Mat_26:38. Some have thought that the
meaning of the words is, that the sweat was so profuse that every drop was as large as
a drop of blood, not that the sweat was blood itself: but this does not appear likely.
There have been cases in which persons in a debilitated state of body, or through
horror of soul, have had their sweat tinged with blood. Dr. Mead from Galen
observes, Contingere interdum, poros ex multo aut fervido spiritu adeo dilatari, ut
etiam exeat sanguis per eos, fiatque sudor sanguineus. “Cases sometimes happen in
which, through mental pressure, the pores may be so dilated that the blood may issue
from them; so that there may be a bloody sweat.” And Bishop Pearce gives an
instance from Thuanus (De Thou) of an Italian gentleman being so distressed with
the fear of death that his body was covered with a bloody sweat. But it is fully evident
that the fear of death could have no place in the mind of our blessed Lord. He was in
the bloom of life, in perfect health, and had never suffered any thing from disease of
any kind; this sweat was most assuredly produced by a preternatural cause. See at the
end of the chapter.
GILL, "And being in an agony,.... Or in a conflict, and combat; that is, with thee
devil, who now appeared visibly to him, in an horrible form: after his temptations in
the wilderness Satan left him for a season, till another opportunity should offer; and
now it did; now the prince of this world came to him; see Luk_4:13 and attacked him
in a garden, where the first onset on human nature was made: and now began the
battle between the two combatants, the serpent, and the seed of the woman; which
issued in the destruction of Satan, and thee recovery of mankind. The Arabic version
leaves out this clause; and the Syriac version renders it, "being in fear"; and to the
same purpose are the Persic and Ethiopic versions; that is, of death; and must be
understood of a sinless fear of death in his human nature, to which death, being a
dissolution of it, must be disagreeable; though not death, barely considered, was the
cause of this fear, distress, and agony he was in; but as it was to be inflicted on him
for the sins of his people, which he bore, and as it was the curse of the law, and the
effect of divine wrath and displeasure:
he prayed more earnestly; repeating the words he had said before with great
eagerness and importunity, with intenseness of mind, and fervour of Spirit, with
256

257. strong crying, and tears to him that was able to save him from death, Heb_5:7
and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling to the ground.
This account of Christ's bloody sweat is only given by Luke, who being a physician, as
is thought, more diligently recorded things which belonged to his profession to take
cognizance of; nor should it be any objection to the truth and credibility of this fact,
that it is not mentioned by the other evangelists, since it is no unusual thing with
them for one to record that which is omitted by another; nor that this is wanting in
some Greek and Latin copies, as Jerom (w) and Hilary (x) observe; since it was
expunged, as is supposed, either by some orthodox persons, who weakly thought it
might seem to favour the Arians, who denied that Christ was of the same impassible
nature with the Father; or rather by the Armenians, or by a set of men called
"Aphthartodocetae", who asserted the human nature of Christ to be incorruptible:
but certain it is, that it is in the most ancient and approved copies, and in all the
Oriental versions, and therefore to be retained; to which may be added, that it is
taken notice of, not to mention others, by those two early writers, Justin Martyr (y),
and Irenaeus (z); nor should its being so strange and unusual a sweat at all discredit
the history of it, since there have been instances of this kind arising from various
causes; and if there had been none, since the case of our Lord was singular, it ought
to be credited. This bloody sweat did not arise from a cachexy, or ill state of body,
which has sometimes been the cause of it, as Aristotle observes, who says (a), that the
blood sometimes becomes sanious, and so serous, insomuch that some have been
covered with a "bloody sweat": and in another place he says (b), that through an ill
habit of body it has happened to some, that they have sweat a bloody excrement.
Bartholinus produces instances in plagues and fevers (c); but nothing of this kind
appears in Christ, whose body was hale and robust, free from distempers and
diseases, as it was proper it should, in order to do the work, and endure the
sufferings he did; nor did it arise from any external heat, or a fatiguing journey. The
above writer (d) a relates, from Actuarius, a story of a young man that had little
globes of blood upon his skin, by sweat, through the heat of the sun, and a laborious
journey. Christ's walk from Jerusalem to the garden was but a short one; and it was
in the night when he had this sweat, and a cold night too; see Joh_18:18, it rather
arose from the agony in which he was, before related: persons in an agony, or fit of
trembling, sweat much, as Aristotle observes (e); but to sweat blood is unusual. This
might be occasioned by his vehement striving and wrestling with God in prayer, since
the account follows immediately upon that; and might be owing to his strong cries, to
the intenseness and fervour of his mind, and the commotion of the animal spirits,
which was now very great, as some have thought; or, as others, to the fear of death,
as it was set before him in so dreadful a view, and attended with such horrible
circumstances. Thuanus (f), a very grave and credible historian, reports of a governor
of a certain garrison, who being, by a stratagem, decoyed from thence, and taken
captive, and threatened with an ignominious death, was so affected with it, that he
sweat a "bloody sweat" all over his body. And the same author (g) relates of a young
man of Florence, who being, by the order of Pope Sixtus the Fifth, condemned, as he
was led along to be executed, through the vehemence of his grief discharged blood
instead of sweat, all over his body: and Maldonate, upon this passage, reports, that
he had heard it from some who saw, or knew it, that at Paris, a man, robust, and in
good health, hearing that a capital sentence was pronounced upon him, was, at once,
all over in a bloody sweat: which instances show, that grief, surprise, and fear, have
sometimes had such an effect on men; but it was not mere fear of death, and trouble
of mind, concerning that, which thus wrought on our Lord, but the sense he had of
the sins of his people, which were imputed to him, and the curse of the righteous law
of God, which he endured, and especially the wrath of God, which was let into his
257

258. soul: though some have thought this was owing to the conflict Christ had with the old
serpent the devil; who, as before observed, now appeared to him in a frightful forth:
and very remarkable is the passage which Dr. Lightfoot, and others, have cited from
Diodorus Siculus, who reports of a certain country, that there are serpents in it, by
whose bites are procured very painful deaths; and that grievous pains seize the
person bitten, and also "a flow of sweat like blood". And other writers (h) make
mention of a kind of asp, or serpent, called "Haemorrhois"; which, when it bites a
man, causes him to sweat blood: and such a bloody sweat it should seem was
occasioned by the bite of the old serpent Satan, now nibbling at Christ's heel, which
was to be bruised by him: but of all the reasons and causes of this uncommon sweat,
that of Clotzius is the most strange, that it should arise from the angels comforting
and strengthening him, and from the cheerfulness and fortitude of his mind. This
writer observes, that as fear and sorrow congeal the blood, alacrity and fortitude
move it; and being moved, heat it, and drive it to the outward parts, and open a way
for it through the pores: and this he thinks may be confirmed from the fruit and
effect of Christ's prayer, which was very earnest, and was heard, as is said in Heb_5:7
when he was delivered from fear; which deliverance produced joy, and this joy issued
in the bloody sweat. Some think the words do not necessarily imply, that this sweat
was blood, or that there was blood in it; only that his sweat, as it came out of his
body, and fell on the ground, was so large, and thick, and viscous, that it looked like
drops, or clots of blood; but the case rather seems to be this, that the pores of Christ's
body were so opened, that along with sweat came out blood, which flowed from him
very largely; and as it fell on the ground, he being fallen on his face to the earth, it
was so congealed by the cold in the night season, that it became really, as the word
signifies, clots of blood upon the earth. The Persic version, different from all others,
reads, "his tears, like blood, fell by drops upon the ground". This agony, and bloody
sweat of Christ, prove the truth of his human nature; the sweat shows that he had a
true and real body, as other men; the anxiety of his mind, that he had a reasonable
soul capable of grief and sorrow, as human souls are; and they also prove his being
made sin and a curse for us, and his sustaining our sins, and the wrath of God: nor
could it be at all unsuitable to him, and unworthy of him, to sweat in this manner,
whose blood was to be shed for the sins of his people, and who came by blood and
water, and from whom both were to flow; signifying, that both sanctification and
justification are from him.
HENRY, "2. That, being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, Luk_22:44. As
his sorrow and trouble grew upon him, he grew more importunate in prayer; not that
there was before any coldness or indifferency in his prayers, but there was now a
greater vehemency in them, which was expressed in his voice and gesture. Note,
Prayer, though never out of season, is in a special manner seasonable when we are in
an agony; and the stronger our agonies are the more lively and frequent our prayers
should be. Now it was that Christ offered up prayers and supplications with strong
crying and tears, and was heard in that he feared (Heb_5:7), and in his fear
wrestled, as Jacob with the angel.
3. That, in this agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down
to the ground. Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse, Gen_3:19. And
therefore, when Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous
sweat, that in the sweat of his face we might eat bread, and that he might sanctify
and sweeten all our trials to us. There is some dispute among the critics whether this
sweat is only compared to drops of blood, being much thicker than drops of sweat
commonly are, the pores of the body being more than ordinarily opened, or whether
real blood out of the capillary veins mingled with it, so that it was in colour like
blood, and might truly be called a bloody sweat; the matter is not great. Some reckon
258

259. this one of the times when Christ shed his blood for us, for without the shedding of
blood there is no remission. Every pore was as it were a bleeding wound, and his
blood stained all his raiment. This showed the travail of his soul. He was now abroad
in the open air, in a cool season, upon the cold ground, far in the night, which, one
would think, had been enough to strike in a sweat; yet now he breaks out into a
sweat, which bespeaks the extremity of the agony he was in.
SBC, “I. The text expresses a deep mystery, of which we should try to give some
account. It is a mystery; for what reason can be assigned for this intensity of
suffering? Was the anticipation of that which awaited Him—desertion, ignominy, a
death of torture—enough to cause all the agony which He felt? Do we not degrade our
conception of the Lord Jesus Christ by admitting even the sufficiency, to say nothing
of the truth, of such an explanation? Many an ancient stoic, many a Christian martyr
would have met—has met—such a fate with a smile on his face. Shall we place Christ
below them in the moral scale? It is, I believe, for the purpose of avoiding this
difficulty that theories have been invented, in which some new and mysterious
element in the suffering of Christ has been introduced. Thus, for example, we are told
that the bitterness of Christ’s suffering in the garden of Gethsemane consisted in this:
That "in some mysterious way" he had to endure the wrath of God. Of this theory I
have no hesitation in saying that it is distinctly immoral, for it represents God, the
Judge of all the earth, as so far from doing right, that He is angry with an innocent
being.
II. While we may not presume to dogmatise on the feelings which passed through His
mind then, it is a fair subject for inquiry. Is there any unsurmountable difficulty in
ascribing the agony in the garden to a feeling that must have passed through His
mind. Anticipation of that which, as we know now, and He knew then, awaited Him.
Insensibility does, to some extent, the work of fortitude. But fortitude cannot do the
work of insensibility. Insensibility may make action easier. Fortitude cannot make
suffering less. Pain or sorrow cannot turn a brave man from his course; but unless he
is insensible as well as brave, feel them he must. It is to the sensitive, imaginative
nature that suffering, felt or anticipated, is most bitter. Such a man needs more
fortitude than one less finely organised. But to say that because he is more finely
organised he is less brave, is to assume that for which neither reason nor fact give the
slightest warrant. That it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to understand fully the
connection between the suffering of Christ and the fulfilment of sin is undeniable;
but if this connection be once admitted, I cannot see that there is any difficulty in
understanding why anticipated suffering should have caused a sharper pang to Him
than it would have done to many an ordinary man. It is a mistake to confound this
sensitiveness with a deficiency in fortitude, but the conclusion arrived at is quite
independent of the relative esteem in which you may choose to hold the stoical and
the sensitive nature. You may call the former the higher nature, if you like, but it
would not have been suited to the mission of Christ.
J. H. Jellett, The Elder Son and Other Sermons, p. 153.
COFFMAN, "The Greek word for "drops of blood" is [@thromboi], used only
here in the New Testament. "It means clots of blood"[26] and was used by the
physician Luke in the same manner as was common in ancient medical works.
The spiritual overtones of this were noted by Henry, thus:
Sweat came in with sin, and was a branch of the curse (Genesis 3:19). When
259

260. Christ was made sin and a curse for us, he underwent a grievous sweat, that in
the sweat of his face we might eat the bread of life.[27]
Regarding this blood-sweat, it is a mistake to suppose any exaggeration here.
Aristotle (Hist. Anita. said that in certain extraordinary states the blood becomes
very liquefied and flows in such a manner that some have perspired blood.[28]
Moreover, the phenomena is not unknown to modern physicians. Dummelow
said that "Great mental agony has been known to produce this
phenomenon."[29] The fact that death usually followed very quickly after such a
blood-sweat suggests the necessity of the angel's mission to strengthen Jesus, who
himself described his condition as being "exceedingly sorrowful, even unto
death" (Matthew 26:38).
[26] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 312.
[27] Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1960), p. 309.
[28] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 323.
[29] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 767.
COKE, "Luke 22:44. And his sweat was as it were great drops of blood— Some
commentators have taken this expression in the metaphorical sense; fancying
that as those who weep bitterly, are said to weep blood, so they may be said to
sweat blood, who sweat excessively by reason of hard labour or acute pain. They
explain it, "His drops of sweat were large and clammy, like drops of gore:" but
others more justly affirm, that our Lord's sweat was really mixed with blood to
such a degree, that its colour and consistency was as if it had been wholly blood;
for the Greek particle ωσει, rendered, as it were, does not always denote
similitude, but sometimes reality. See John 1:14. Matthew 14:5. Grotius espoused
the metaphorical meaning of this passage; but Bartholinus (De Cruce, p. 134.)
disputes against him, and gives examples of sweats which have actually been
mixed with blood. Dr. Whitby observes, that Aristotle and Diodorus Siculus both
mention bloody sweats, as attending some extraordinary agony of mind; and
Leti, in his life of Pope Sixtus V. p. 200 and Sir John Chardin, in his history of
Persia, vol. 1: p. 126 mention a like phenomenon: to which Dr. Jackson in his
works, vol. 2: p. 819 adds another from Thuanus, lib. 10. However, that which
puts this matter beyond all doubt, is a fact well known in history; namely, that
Charles the IXth of France died of a malady, in which his blood gushed out of all
the pores of his body. Voltaire describes it thus, in his Universal History, chap.
142. "Charles the IXth died in his five-and-twentieth year; the malady that he
died of was very extraordinary; the blood gushed out of all his pores. This
accident, of which there are some instances, was owing either to excessive fear, to
violent passion, or to a warm and melancholy constitution." Many learned
writers are of opinion, that our Saviour, during this extreme agony, struggled in
a peculiar manner with the spirits of darkness; and that hence an angel appeared
to strengthen hi
260

261. ELLICOTT, "(44) And being in an agony.—The Greek noun primarily
describes a “conflict” or “struggle,” rather than mere physical pain. The
phenomenon described is obviously one which would have a special interest for
one of St. Luke’s calling, and the four words which he uses for “agony,” “drops,”
“sweat,” “more earnestly” (literally, more intensely), though not exclusively
technical, are yet such as a medical writer would naturally use. They do not
occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The form of the expression, “as it were,
great drops (better, clots) of blood,” leaves us uncertain, as the same Greek word
does in “descending like a dove,” in Matthew 3:16, whether it applies to manner
or to visible appearance. On the latter, and generally received view, the
phenomenon is not unparalleled, both in ancient and modern times. (Comp. the
very term, “bloody sweat,” noted as a symptom of extreme exhaustion in
Aristotle, Hist. Anim. iii.19, and Medical Gazette for December, 1848, quoted by
Alford.) If we ask who were St. Luke’s informants, we may think either, as
before, of one of the disciples, or, possibly, one of the women from whom, as
above, he manifestly derived so much that he records. That “bloody sweat” must
have left its traces upon the tunic that our Lord wore, and when the soldiers cast
lots for it (Matthew 27:35; John 19:24), Mary Magdalene, who stood by the
cross, may have seen and noticed the fact (John 19:25), nor could it well have
escaped the notice of Nicodemus and Joseph when they embalmed the body
(John 19:40).
45 When he rose from prayer and went back to
the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted
from sorrow.
GILL, "And when he rose from prayer,.... The Syriac version reads, "from his
prayer", having finished it; and the Persic and Ethiopic versions read, "from the place
of prayer", or where he prayed:
and was come to his disciples; to the three, which he had left about the distance
of a stone's cast:
he found them sleeping for sorrow; on his account; for he had signified unto
them, how exceeding sorrowful he was; and they might perceive by his looks and
gestures, the anxiety and distress of mind he was in, which must needs affect them;
and besides, he had given them some intimations of his being to be betrayed by one
of them, and of his sufferings and death, and speedy departure from them; and
because of these things, sorrow had filled their hearts, and this had induced
heaviness and sleep upon them; See Gill on Mat_26:40.
HENRY, " That his disciples were asleep when he was at prayer, and when they
should have been themselves praying, Luk_22:45. When he rose from prayer, he
261

262. found them sleeping, unconcerned in his sorrows; but see what a favourable
construction is here put upon it, which we had not in the other evangelists - they
were sleeping for sorrow. The great sorrow they were in upon the mournful farewells
their Master had been this evening giving them had exhausted their spirits, and made
them very dull and heavy, which (it being now late) disposed them to sleep. This
teaches us to make the best of our brethren's infirmities, and, if there be one cause
better than another, charitably impute them to that.
BENSON, "Luke 22:45-46. And when he rose up from prayer — After this
dreadful conflict; and was come to his disciples — Namely, the third time;
notwithstanding the repeated admonitions he had given them, he again found
them sleeping — And that, as the evangelist says, for sorrow — The sensations of
grief which they felt at the sight of their Master’s distress so overpowering them,
that they sunk into sleep; a circumstance which shows how much they were
affected with his sufferings. And said unto them, Why sleep ye — Why do you
still persist to sleep at such a season as this? I call upon you yet once more, to rise
and pray, lest ye enter into and fall by the approaching most dangerous
temptation. See the various circumstances attending this dreadful scene of our
Lord’s sufferings in the garden more fully elucidated in the notes on Matthew
26:36-46; and Mark 14:32, &c.
COFFMAN, "Mortal men are incapable of knowing fully the nature and extent
of the saviour's awful agony; but it was there in Gethsemane that our Lord made
the final, irrevocable decision to bear our sins on the tree. Morgan said:
All I can say is that as I ponder it, through the darkened window there is a
mystic light shining, showing me the terrors of the cross more clearly than I see
them even when I come to Calvary.[30]
Sleeping for sorrow ... Only Luke the physician connected the sorrows of the
apostles with their sleeping contrary to Jesus instructions; but surely that was a
very important element in it.
Regarding this event in the garden, Geldenhuys quoted the Jewish scholar,
Montifiore, as saying:
One cannot help but marvel at the wonderful grace and beauty, the exquisite tact
and discretion, which the narrative displays. There is not a word too little; there
is not a word too much.[31]
[30] G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel of Luke (Old Tappan, New Jersey:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1931), en loco.
[31] Norval Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 578.
PETT, "On returning to His disciples after His bitter struggle He discovered that
they had failed to maintain their watch. Once again He suffered the bitterness of
seeing and experiencing the failure of His friends. No wonder that He had some
doubts as to whether they were yet ready for the task that lay ahead. But the
contrast with their forward going outlook in Acts is deliberate. Without the
dynamic and impetus of the Holy Spirit they could but fail when such mighty
forces were at work. Fortunately for them, however, they were in the hand of
262

263. God, and were being prayed for by the Great Intercessor, and so their failure
was ameliorated.
‘Sleeping for sorrow.’ Possibly being overcome by having watched His agony
and unable to bear it any longer, and because they were bewildered at what was
happening, something which was beyond their ability to comprehend. Possibly
they had been discussing His words about His coming betrayal among
themselves and had become very apprehensive as they recognised that Jesus
must have some reason for being here, a reason which they may well have seen as
linked with the dark hints that He had been dropping previously, and especially
on that very night. And perhaps their thoughts had been too much for them after
the strenuous week that they had had (even though it was no more strenuous
than His). For the idea of the sorrow that was afflicting the disciples, even in
their partial ignorance, see John 16:6; John 16:20-22; Mark 14:19. It had been
enough to drive them to exhaustion.
46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them.
“Get up and pray so that you will not fall into
temptation.”
GILL, "And said unto them, why sleep ye?.... The Arabic version prefaces this
with these words, "and he awaked them"; and then rebuked them for sleeping,
adding,
rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation; together with words recorded in
Mat_26:45.
HENRY, "That when he awoke them, then he exhorted them to pray (Luk_
22:46): “Why sleep ye? Why do you allow yourselves to sleep? Rise and pray. Shake
off your drowsiness, that you may be fit to pray, and pray for grace, that you may be
able to shake off your drowsiness.” This was like the ship-master's call to Jonah in a
storm (Jon_1:6): Arise, call upon thy God. When we find ourselves either by our
outward circumstances or our inward dispositions entering into temptation, it
concerns us to rise and pray, Lord, help me in this time of need. But,
PETT, "How conscious Jesus was of the problems of the hour, and how
unconscious they were of the same, otherwise they would have remained awake
as He did. So Jesus now stirred them again to rise and pray in order to fortify
them against temptation. He knew how much they were going to need it. For only
through prayer would they come through what lay ahead.
263

264. While Luke does not previously give us the full detail of the disciples’ failure, (he
wanted our concentration to be on Jesus’ submission to the will of God), these
very words bring out that their failure has been deeper than at first appears
here. For this last injunction would otherwise have had little point now that their
time to pray seemed to have passed, (although they would certainly shortly need
much prayer). The words rather look back to what they should have been doing
while He prayed. And they are no doubt also intended by Luke to be seen as His
words to us, and to all men. We too must not sleep, but must rise and pray, for
testing lies ahead for us all.
Jesus Arrested
47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up,
and the man who was called Judas, one of the
Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus
to kiss him,
GILL, "And while he yet spake,.... The above words to his disciples,
behold a multitude. The Persic version adds, "of Jews, with arrows, swords, and
spears"; but the multitude consisted partly of Roman soldiers, and partly of the
officers of the chief priests:
and he that was called Judas: and sometimes Iscariot, to distinguish him from
another Judas, who also was of the number of the apostles:
one of the twelve; disciples of Christ, whom he had chosen, called, and ordained:
went before them; as their guide, to show them where Jesus was, and to point him
out unto them; see Act_1:16
and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him; that being the signal he had given them,
by which they should know him. The Syriac version here adds, "for this sign he had
given to them, whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he": and so likewise the Persic
and Ethiopic versions, adding also this, "lay hold upon him"; but the whole seems to
be transcribed from Mat_26:48.
264

265. HENRY, "Satan, finding himself baffled in his attempts to terrify our Lord Jesus,
and so to put him out of the possession of his own soul, betakes himself (according to
his usual method) to force and arms, and brings a party into the field to seize him,
and Satan was in them. Here is,
I. The marking of him by Judas. Here a numerous party appears, and Judas at the
head of them, for he was guide to them that took Jesus; they knew not where to find
him, but he brought them to the place: when they were there, they knew not which
was he, but Judas told them that whomsoever he should kiss, that same was he; so he
drew near to him to kiss him, according to the wonted freedom and familiarity to
which our Lord Jesus admitted his disciples
BARCLAY, "THE TRAITOR'S KISS (Luke 22:47-53)
22:47-53 While Jesus was still speaking--look you--there came a crowd, and the
man called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He came up to Jesus to
kiss him; but Jesus said to him, "Judas, is it with a kiss that you would betray
the Son of Man?" When those who were around him saw what was going to
happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them
struck the servant of the High Priest and cut off his ear. Jesus answered, "Let it
come even to this!" Jesus said to the chief priests and the Temple captains, and
to the elders who had come to him, "Have you come out with swords and cudgels
as against a brigand? When I was daily with you in the Temple you did not lift
your hand against me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness is here."
Judas had found a way to betray Jesus in such a way that the authorities could
come upon him when the crowd were not there. He knew that Jesus was in the
habit of going at nights to the garden on the hill, and there he led the emissaries
of the Sanhedrin. The captain of the Temple, or the Sagan, as he was called, was
the official who was responsible for the good order of the Temple; the captains of
the Temple here referred to were his lieutenants who were responsible for
carrying out the actual arrest of Jesus. When a disciple met a beloved Rabbi, he
laid his right hand on the Rabbi's left shoulder and his left hand on the right
shoulder and kissed him. It was the kiss of a disciple to a beloved master that
Judas used as a sign of betrayal.
There were four different parties involved in this arrest, and their actions and
reactions are very significant.
(i) There was Judas the traitor. He was the man who had abandoned God and
entered into a league with Satan. It is only when a man has put God out of his
life and taken Satan in, that he can sink to selling Christ.
(ii) There were the Jews who had come to arrest Jesus. They were the men who
were blind to God. When God incarnate came to this earth, all that they could
think of was how to hustle him to a cross. They had so long chosen their own way
and shut their ears to the voice of God and their eyes to his guidance that in the
end they could not recognise him when he came. It is a terrible thing to be blind
and deaf to God. As Mrs. Browning wrote,
"I too have strength--
265

266. Strength to behold him and not worship him,
Strength to fall from him and not to cry to him."
God save us from a strength like that!
(iii) There were the disciples. They were the men who for the moment had
forgotten God. Their world had fallen in and they were sure the end had come.
The last thing they remembered at that moment was God; the only thing they
thought of was the terrible situation into which they had come. Two things
happen to the man who forgets God and leaves him out of the situation. He
becomes utterly terrified and completely disorganized. He loses the power to face
life and to cope with it. In the time of trial, life is unlivable without God.
(iv) There was Jesus. And Jesus was the one person in the whole scene who
remembered God. The amazing thing about him in the last days was his absolute
serenity once Gethsemane was over. In those days, even at his arrest, it was he
who seemed to be in control; and even at his trial, it was he who was the judge.
The man who walks with God can cope with any situation and look any foe in
the eyes, unbowed and unafraid. It is he, and he alone, who can ultimately say,
"In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbow'd.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul."
It is only when a man has bowed to God that he can talk and act like a
conqueror.
BENSON, "Luke 22:47-48. And while he yet spake, behold, a multitude had
entered the garden, consisting of persons of very different stations and offices in
life; and Judas went before them — To lead them to the place, and show them
the man they wanted, by kissing him. See on Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-49.
Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? — Dost thou make my condescending
kindness the occasion of thy base treachery, and use that as the signal of it,
which, among men, is the usual token either of love or homage? And dost thou
thus betray him who is thy Lord and Master, and whom thou canst not but know
266

267. to be the Messiah, entitled in the Scriptures, the Son of man? And dost thou
think that he can be imposed upon by this poor artifice? or that God, who has
promised him so glorious and triumphant a kingdom, will not punish such
baseness and cruelty to him? “There is great reason to believe,” says Dr.
Doddridge, “that our Lord uses this phrase of the Son of man to Judas on this
occasion, (as he had done the same evening at supper, twice in a breath,) in the
sense here given. And it adds a spirit to these words that has not often been
observed, which the attentive reader will discern to be attended with much
greater strength and beauty, than if our Lord had only said, Dost thou betray me
with a kiss?”
BURKITT, "It was the lot and portion of our blessed Saviour here, we find, to be
betrayed into the hands of his mortal enemies, by the treachery of a false and
dissembling friend.
And in this sad relation before us we have observable, the traitor, the treason,
the manner how, and the time when, this treasonable design was executed.
Observe, 1. The traitor, Judeas: all the evangelists carefully describe him by his
name, Judeas, Judas Iscariot, lest he should be mistaken for Jude, the brother of
James; and by his office, one of the twelve. Lord, now ought the greatest
professors to look well to themselves, and to the grounds and principles of their
profession: for a profession begun in hupocrisy will certainly end in apostasy.
Observe, 2. The occasion of the treason, covetousness, or the inordinate love of
worldly wealth; and accordingly the devil lays a temptation before him exactly
suited to his temper and inclination, and it instantly overcame him.
Learn hence, that persons are never in such imminent danger of falling into sin,
as when they meet with temptations exactly suited to their master lust. Oh pray
we, that God would keep us from temptations suited to our predominant lust and
corruption.
Observe, 3. The treason of Judas, he led on an armed multitude to the place
where Christ was, gave them a signal to discover him by, and bids them lay
hands upon him and hold him fast; which treason of Judas was attended with
these black and hellish aggravations: he had been a witness of our Saviour's
miracles, and hearer of our Lord's doctrine; what he did was not by solicitation;
the chief priests did not send to him, but he went to them.
Lord, how dangerous it is to allow ourselves in any secret sin! None can say how
far one sin may in time lead us. Should any one have told Judas that his
covetousness would at last make him deny his Lord, and sell his Saviour, he
would have said with Hazael, Is thy servant a dog, that I should do this thing?
Observe, 4. The endeavor made by his disciples for their Master's rescue. One of
them (St. Matthew says it was Peter) drew a sword, and cut off the ear of
Malchus. But why not the ear of Judas rather? Because, though Judas was most
faulty, yet Malchus might be most forward to arrest and carry off our Saviour.
267

268. Oh how does a pious breast boil iwth indignation at the sight of an open affront
offered to its Saviour!
Yet, though St. Peter's heart was sincere, his hand was too rash; good intentions
are no warrant for irregular actions; and accordingly, Christ, who accepted the
affection, reproved the action. To resist authority, even in Christ's own defence,
is rash zeal, and discountenanced by the gospel. Peter did well to ak his master,
If he should smite with the sword? but he ought to have stayed his hand till
Christ had given him his answer. However, Peter's sin occasioned a miracle from
our Saviour; Christ heals that ear miraculously, which Peter cut off
unwarrantably; yet the sight of this miracle converted none.
Oh how insufficient are all outward means of conversion, without the Spirit's
inward operation!
PETT, "Verse 47
‘While he yet spoke, behold, a crowd, and he who was called Judas, one of the
twelve, went before them, and he drew near to Jesus to kiss him.’
Note how Luke brings out the idea of suddenness, and the unexpectedness of
such a crowd (‘behold, a crowd’). One moment Jesus was quietly speaking to His
disciples in the darkness about their need to pray, and the next thing that
happened was that out of the darkness came this great crowd of people carrying
torches. And the torches revealed that amongst them was Judas, leading the way
and coming to carry out his mission. As he advanced on them it was no surprise
to Jesus. He had been expecting it. But the disciples were no doubt both
bewildered and confused. What was Judas doing bringing such a crowd here at
night?
‘He who was called Judas.’ The reference brings out that at the time of writing
he was a has-been. He was now long forgotten, a distant memory, for the twelve
had been made up by the inclusion of Matthias.
‘One of the twelve.’ The phrase has a foreboding sound. This man had been one
of the chosen few. Jesus’ own familiar friend was lifting up his heel against Him.
And by his action he was forfeiting his destiny.
What happened next may possibly have even surprised Jesus. For Judas had had
to find some way of indicating which man they should arrest in the darkness.
And the way he had chosen brought out just how hardened he had become.
Indeed we cannot even feel pity for a man like this, for it indicates that he must
have been callous through and through. For he betrayed Jesus with a kiss of
friendship, a kiss which may well have been given deliberately in order to disarm
Jesus’ companions, and which he had given from other motives in better days.
To believe Judas guilty of betrayal would have been almost unbelievable. But to
think that he would do it with a kiss of seeming friendship would have been seen
as absolutely impossible.
‘He drew near to Jesus to kiss him.’ As his intention to kiss Him would not have
268

269. been known had he not actually made the attempt, (he would hardly have
walked up with his lips pursed), the assumption must be that he did kiss him.
Thus the suggestion that he did not go through with it is not tenable. He drew
near with the aim of kissing Him, and he did. A parallel example of betrayal and
hypocrisy is found in 2 Samuel 20:9. For other examples of non-genuine kisses
compare Genesis 27:26-27; 2 Samuel 15:5; Proverbs 7:13. The kiss was usually
an attempt to show friendliness or win favour. In betrayal it was infamous, and
accentuated the betrayal.
The purpose of the kiss was undoubtedly identification. All knew how dangerous
it would be if they arrested the wrong person in the darkness with the result that
the information of what they had intended to do then filtered through to the
Galileans present in Jerusalem with Jesus still free. The consequences were
unthinkable. And such a mistake would have been so easy to make. In the
darkness one beard is much like another.
Verses 47-53
The Approach Of Judas. Physical Swords Are Not Enough (22:47-53).
Having finally satisfied Himself that the way ahead was in accordance with His
Father’s will Jesus awaited His fate with equanimity. The battle having been
fought and won in His mind and heart from this time on He goes forward
without a moment’s hesitation. And in all His suffering we are made aware that
He was in control. This passage deals very briefly with what happened in the
Garden on the Mount of Olives. He was not taken by surprise to see Judas
leading a party of Temple police towards Him, accompanied to the rear by a
Roman cohort, who had presumably been warned of how dangerous this man
was, with His band of bloodthirsty insurrectionists, whom they were coming to
seize. The Roman cohort was therefore no doubt surprised when Judas stepped
forward and kissed Him. It would not quite tie in with what they had almost
certainly been told about this fearsome desperado.
But the disciples must have watched, unbelievingly. They could understand the
arrival of Judas, but why with this great crowd of people? And then the kiss and
what followed betrayed all. It especially emphasised Judas’ hardness of heart.
How many men could have carried such a thing through, or even have
considered arranging it? And most significantly it revealed to all who saw it that
Jesus really was no threat, and that Judas knew that Jesus would not respond
violently.
But it was different with ever impulsive Peter, and when he woke up to what was
happening, he drew his sword ready to defend his Master with his life. It was a
foolhardy act, for even though he was probably not yet aware of the composition
of the approaching crowd, they only had two swords between them. And what
were they against so many? But Peter, ever precipitate, did not consider the
consequences, and striking out wildly, took off the ear of a servant of the High
Priest, who no doubt saw the blow coming and dodged, but not quickly enough.
Peter was no doubt still feeling rankled about Jesus’ warning that he would deny
Him. But Jesus immediately told him to put his sword away, and restored to the
269

270. man his ear. He did not want the disciples arrested as well. Nor did He want His
own case to be marred by accusations of violence, and ‘resisting arrest’.
Then He rebuked His opponents for their hypocrisy, and for this great show
which He knew was only in order to impress the Romans and convince them that
He really was a political danger. For all knew what He was. They had seen Him
daily preaching in the Temple.
a While He yet spoke, behold, a large group, and He who was called Judas, one
of the twelve, went before them, and he drew near to Jesus to kiss Him (Luke
22:47).
b But Jesus said to him, “Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a kiss?”
(Luke 22:48).
c And when those who were about Him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord,
shall we smite with the sword?” (Luke 22:49).
d And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off
his right ear (Luke 22:50).
c But Jesus answered and said, “Allow them to go thus far.” And He touched his
ear, and healed him (Luke 22:51).
b And Jesus said to the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, who
were come against him, “Are you come out, as against a robber, with swords and
staves?” (Luke 22:52).
a “When I was daily with you in the temple, you did not stretch forth your hands
against me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53).
Note that in ‘a’ treachery is revealed against Him, and in the parallel there is
similar treachery. In ‘b’ the treacherous one is questioned, and in the parallel the
other treacherous ones are questioned. In ‘c’ His disciples asks what they should
do, and in the parallel Jesus tells them. And centrally in ‘d’ one of His disciples
cuts off the High Priest’s ear. Was this seen by Luke as symbolic of the deafness
of the Jewish leaders to His message?
EBC, "Luke 22:47-23:56
THE PASSION.
WHILE Jesus kept His sad watch in Gethsemane, treading the winepress alone, His
enemies kept theirs in the city. The step of Judas, as he passed out into the night,
went verberating within the house of the high priest, and onwards into the palace of
Pilate himself, awaking a thousand echoes, as swift messengers flew hither and
thither, bearing the hurried summons, calling the rulers and elders from their
repose, and marshalling the Roman cohort. Hitherto the powers of darkness have
been restrained, and though they have, again and again, attempted the life of Jesus,
as if some occult spell were upon them, they could not accomplish their purpose. Far
back in the Infancy Herod had sought to kill Him; but though his cold steel reaped a
bloody swath in Ramah, it could not touch the Divine Child. The men of Nazareth
had sought to hurl Him down the sheer precipice, but He escaped; Jesus had not
come into the world to die at Nazareth, thrown off, as by an accident, from a Galilean
cliff. He had come to "accomplish His decease," as the celestials put it upon the
mount, "at Jerusalem," and that too, as He indicated plainly and frequently in His
speech, upon a cross. Now, however, the hour of darkness has struck, and the
fullness of the time has come. The cross and the Victim both are ready, and Heaven
270

271. itself consents to the great sacrifice.
Strangely enough the first overture of the "Passion music" is by one of the twelve-as
our Evangelist names him, "Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of
the twelve". (Luk_22:3) It will be observed that St. Luke puts a parenthesis of forty
verses between the actual betrayal and its preliminary stages, so throwing the
conception of the plot back to an earlier date than the eve of the Last Supper, and the
subsequent narrative is best read in the light of its program. At first sight it would
appear as if the part of the betrayer were superfluous, seeing that Jesus came almost
daily into the Temple, where He spoke openly, without either reserve or fear. What
need could there be for any intermediary to come between the chief priests and the
Victim of their hate? Was not His Person familiar to all the Temple officials? And
could they not apprehend Him almost at any hour? Yes, but one thing stood in the
way, and that was "the fear of the people." Jesus evidently had an influential
following; the popular sympathies were on His side; and had the attack been made
upon His during the day, in the thronged streets of the city or in the Temple courts,
there would have been, almost to a certainty, a popular rising in His behalf. The
arrest must be made "in the absence of the multitude," (Luk_22:6) which means that
they must fall upon Him in one of His quiet hours, and in one of His quiet retreats; it
must be a night attack, when the multitudes are asleep. Here, then, is room for the
betrayer, who comes at the opportune moment, and offers himself for the despicable
task, a task which has made the name of "Judas" a synonym for all that is treacherous
and vile. How the base thought could ever have come into the mind of Judas it were
hard to tell, but it certainly was not sprung upon him as a surprise. But men lean in
the direction of their weakness, and when they fall it is generally on their weakest
side, the side on which temptation is the strongest. It was so here. St. John writes
him down in a single sentence: "He was a thief, and having the bag, took away what
was put therein". (Joh_12:6) His ruling passion was the love of money, and in the
delirium of this fever his hot hands dashed to the ground and broke in pieces the
tables of law and equity alike, striking at all the moralities. And between robbing his
Master and betraying Him there was no great distance to traverse, especially when
conscience lay in a numb stupor, drugged by opiates, these tinctures of silver.
Here, then, is a betrayer ready to their hand. He knows what hour is best, and how to
conduct them to His secret retreats. And so Judas "communed" with the chief priests
and captains, or he "talked it over with them" as the word means, the secret
conference ending in a bargain, as they "covenanted" to give him money. (Luk_22:5)
It was a hard and fast bargain; for the word "covenanted" has about it a metallic ring,
and opening it out, it lets us see the wordy chaffering, as Judas abates his price to the
offer of the high priests, the thirty pieces of silver, which was the market price of an
ordinary slave. Not that Judas intended to be a participator in His death, as the
sequel of his remorse shows. He probably thought and hoped that his Master would
escape, slipping through the meshes they so cunningly had thrown about Him; but
having done his part of the covenant, his reward would be sure, for the thirty pieces
were already in his possession. Ah, he little dreamed how far-reaching his action
would be! That silver key of his would set in motion the ponderous wheel which
would not stop until his Master was its Victim, lying all crushed and bleeding
beneath it! He only discovered his mistake when, alas! it was too late for remedy.
Gladly would he have given back his thirty pieces, aye, and thirty times thirty, to have
called back his treacherous "Hail," but he could not. That "Hail, Master," had gone
beyond his recall, reverberating down the ages and up among the stars, while even its
echoes, as they came back to him in painful memories, threw him out of the world an
unloved and guilty suicide!
What with the cunning of the high priests and the cold calculations of Judas, whose
271

272. mind was practiced in weighing chances and providing for contingencies, the plot is
laid deeply and well. No detail is omitted: the band of soldiers, who shall put the
stamp of officialism upon the procedure, while at the same time they cower the
populace and repress any attempt at rescue; the swords and staves, should they have
to resort to force; the lanterns and torches, with which to light up the dark hiding-
places of the garden; the cords or chains, with which to bind their Prisoner; the kiss,
which should be at once the sign of recognition and the signal for the arrest, all are
prearranged and provided; while back of these the high priests are keeping their
midnight watch, ready for the mock trial, for which the suborned witnesses are even
now rehearsing their, parts. Could worldly prudence or malicious skill go farther?
Stealthily as the leopard approaches its victim, the motley crowd enter the garden,
coming with muffled steps to take and lead away the Lamb of God. Only the glimmer
of their torches gave notice of their approach, and even these burned dull in the
intense moonlight. But Jesus needed no audible or visible warning, for He Himself
knew just how events were drifting, reading the near future as plainly as the near
past; and before they have come in sight He has awoke the three sleeping sentinels
with a word which will effectually drive slumber from their eyelids: "Arise, let us be
going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth Me". (Mat_26:46)
It will be seen from this that Jesus could easily have eluded His pursuers had He
cared to do so. Even without any appeal to His supernatural powers, He could have
withdrawn Himself under cover of the night, and have left the human sleuth-hounds
foiled of their prey and vainly baying at the moon. But instead of this, He makes no
attempt at flight. He even seeks the glades of Gethsemane, when by simply going
elsewhere He might have disconcerted their plot and brought their counsel to
naught. And now He yields Himself up to His death, not passively merely, but with
the entire and active concurrence of His will. He "offered Himself," as the writer of
the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, (Heb_9:14) a free-will Offering, a voluntary
Sacrifice. He could, as He Himself said, have called legions of angels to His help; but
He would not give the signal, though it were no more than one uplifted, look and so
He does not refuse even the kiss of treachery; He suffers the hot lips of the traitor to
burn His cheeks; and when others would have shaken off the viper into the fire, or
have crushed it with the heel of a righteous indignation, Jesus receives patiently the
stamp of infamy, His only word being a question of surprise, not at the treachery
itself, but at its mode: "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" And when for the
moment, as St. John tells us, a strange awe fell upon the multitude, and they "went
backward and fell to the ground," Jesus, as it were, called in the outshining glories,
masking them with the tired and blood-stained humanity that He wore, so stilling the
tremor that was upon His enemies, as He nerved the very hands that should take
Him. And again, when they do bind Him, He offers no resistance; but when Peter’s
quick sword flashes from its scabbard, and takes off the right ear of Malchus, the
servant of the high priest, and so one of the leaders in the arrest, Jesus asks for the
use of His manacled hand-for so we read the "Suffer ye thus far"-and touching the
ear, heals it at once. He Himself is willing to be wounded even unto death, but His
alone must be the wounds. His enemies must not share His pain, nor must His
disciples pass with Him into this temple of His sufferings; and He even stays to ask
for them a free parole: "Let these go their way."
But while for the disciples Jesus has but words of tender rebuke or of prayer, while
for Malchus He has a word and a touch of mercy, and while even for Judas He has an
endearing epithet, "friend," for the chief priests, captains, and elders He has severer
words. They are the ringleaders, the plotters. All this commotion, this needless
parade of hostile strength, these superfluous insults are but the foaming of their
rabid frenzy, the blossoming of their malicious hate; and turning to them as they
272

273. stand gloating in their supercilious scorn, He asks, "Are ye come out, as against a
robber, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the Temple, ye
stretched not forth your hands against Me; but this is your hour, and the power of
darkness." True words, for they who should have been priests of Heaven are in league
with hell, willing ministers of the powers of darkness. And this was indeed their hour,
but the hour of their victory would prove the hour of their doom.
St. Luke, as do the other Synoptists, omits the preliminary trial before Annas, the ex-
high priest, (Joh_18:13) and leads us direct to the palace of Caiaphas, whither they
conduct Jesus bound. Instead, however, of pursuing the main narrative, he lingers to
gather up the side-lights of the palace-yard, as they cast a lurid light upon the
character of Simon. Some time before, Jesus had forewarned him of a coming ordeal,
and which He called a Satanic sifting; while only a few hours ago He had prophesied
that this night, before the cock should crow twice, Peter would thrice deny Him - a
singular prediction, and one which at the time seemed most unlikely, but which
proved true to the very letter. After the encounter in the garden, Peter retires from
our sight for awhile; but his flight was neither far nor long, for as the procession
moves up towards the city, Peter and John follow it as a rear-guard, on to the house
of Annas, and now to the house of Caiaphas. We need not repeat the details of the
story-how John passed him through the door into the inner court, and how he sat, or
"stood," as St. John puts it, by the charcoal fire, warming himself with the officers
and servants. The differing verbs only show the restlessness of the man, which was a
life-long characteristic of Peter, but which would be doubly accentuated here, with
suspecting eyes focused upon him. Indeed, in the whole scene of the courtyard, as
sketched for us in the varying but not discordant narratives of the Evangelists, we
may detect the vibrations of constant movement and the ripple-marks of intense
excitement.
When challenged the first time, by the maid who kept the door, Peter answered with
a sharp, blunt negative: he was not a disciple; he did not even know Him. At the
second challenge, by another maid, he replied with an absolute denial, but added to
his denial the confirmation of an oath. At the third challenge, by one of the men
standing near, he denied as before, but added to his denial both an oath and an
anathema. It is rather unfortunate that our version renders it, (Mat_26:74, Mar_
14:71) "He began to curse and to swear"; for these words have a peculiarly ill savor, a
taste of Billingsgate, which the original words have not. To our ear, "to curse and to
swear" are the accomplishments of a loose and a foul tongue, which throws out its
fires of passion in profanity, or in coarse obscenities, as it revels in immoralities of
speech. The words in the New Testament, however, have meaning altogether
different. Here "to swear" means to take an oath, as in our courts of law, or rather to
make an affirmation. Even God Himself is spoken of as swearing, as in the song of
Zacharias, (Luk_1:73) where He is said to have remembered His holy covenant, "the
oath which He sware unto Abraham our father." Indeed, this form of speech, the oath
or affirmation, had come into too general use, as we may see from the paragraph
upon oaths in the Sermon on the Mount. (Mat_5:33-37) Jesus here condemned it, it
is true, for to Him who was Truth itself our word should be as our bond; but His
reference to it shows how prevalent the custom was, even amongst strict legalists and
moralists. When, then, Peter "swore," it does not mean that he suddenly became
profane, but simply that he backed up his denial with a solemn affirmation. So, too,
with the word "curse"; it has not our modern meaning. Literally rendered, it would
be, "He put himself under an anathema," which "anathema" was the bond or penalty
he was willing to pay if his words should not be true. In Act_23:12 we have the
cognate word, where the "anathema" was, "They would neither eat nor drink till they
had killed Paul." The "curse" thus was nothing immoral in itself; it was a form of
273

274. speech even the purest might use, a sort of underlined affirmation.
But though the language of Peter was neither profane nor foul, though in his "oath"
and in his "curse" there is nothing for which the purest taste need apologize, yet here
was his sin, his grievous sin: he made use of the oath and the curse to back up a
deliberate and cowardly lie, even as men today will kiss the book to make God’s Word
of truth a cover for perjury. How shall we explain the sad fall of this captain-disciple,
who was first and foremost of the Twelve? Were these denials but the "wild and
wandering cries" of some delirium? We find that Peter’s lips did sometimes throw off
unreasoning and untimely words, speaking like one in a dream, as he proposed the
three tabernacles on the mount, "not knowing what he said." But this is no delirium,
no ecstasy; his mind is clear as the sky overhead, his thought bright and sharp as was
his sword just now. No, it was not a failure in the reason; it was a sadder failure in
the heart. Of physical courage Simon had an abundance, but he was somewhat
deficient in moral courage. His surname "Peter" was as yet but a fore-name, a
prophecy; for the "rock" granite was yet in a state of flux, pliant, somewhat wavering,
and too easily impressed. It must "be dipped in baths of hissing tears" ere it hardens
into the foundation-rock for the new temple. In the garden he was too ready, too
brave. "Shall we smite with the sword?" he asked, matching the "we," which
numbered two swords, against a whole Roman cohort; but that was in the presence
of his Master, and in the consciousness of strength which that Presence gave. It is
different now. His Master is Himself a bound and helpless Prisoner. His own sword
is taken from him, or, which is the same thing, it is ordered to its sheath. The bright
dream of temporal sovereignty, which like a beautiful mirage had played on the
horizon of his thought, had suddenly faded, withdrawing itself into the darkness.
Simon is disappointed, perplexed, bewildered, and with hopes shattered, faith
stunned, and love itself in a momentary conflict with self-love, he loses heart and
becomes demoralized, his better nature falling to pieces like a routed army.
Such were the conditions of Peter’s denial, the strain and pressure under which his
courage and his faith gave way, and almost before he knew it he had thrice denied his
Lord, tossing away the Christ he would die for on his bold, impetuous words, as, with
a tinge of disrespect in his tone and word, he called Him "the Man." But hardly had
the denial been made and the anathema been said when suddenly the cock crew. It
was but the familiar call of an unwitting bird, but it smote upon Peter’s ear like a near
clap of thunder; it brought to his mind those words of his Master, which he had
thought were uncertain parable, but which he finds now were certain prophecy, and
thus let in a rush of sweet, old-time memories. Conscience-stricken, and with a load
of terrible guilt pressing upon his soul, he looks up timidly towards the Lord he has
forsworn. Will He deny him, on one of His bitter "woes" casting him down to the
Gehenna he deserves? No; Jesus looks upon Peter; nay, He even "turns" round
toward him, that He may look; and as Peter saw that look, the face all streaked with
blood and lined with an unutterable anguish, when he felt that glance fixed upon him
of an upbraiding, but a pitying and forgiving love, that look of Jesus pierced the
inmost soul of the denying, agnostic disciple, breaking up the fountains of his heart,
and sending him out to weep "bitterly." That look was the supreme moment in
Peter’s life. It forgave, while it rebuked him; it passed through his nature like refining
fire, burning out what was weak, and selfish, and sordid, and transforming Simon,
the boaster, the man of words, into Peter, the man of deeds, the man of "rock."
But if in the outer court truth is thrown to the winds, within the palace justice herself
is parodied. It would seem as if the first interview of Caiaphas with Jesus were
private, or in the presence at most of a few personal attendants. But at this meeting,
as the High Priest of the New was arraigned before the high priest of the Old
Dispensation, nothing was elicited. Questioned as to His disciples and as to His
274

275. doctrine, Jesus maintained a dignified silence, only speaking to remind His pseudo-
judge that there were certain rules of procedure with which he himself was bound to
comply. He would not enlighten him; what He had said He had said openly, in the
Temple; and if he wished to know he must appeal to those who heard Him, he must
call his witnesses; an answer which brought Him a sharp and cruel blow from one of
the officers, the first of a sad rain of blows which bruised His flesh and made His
visage marred more than any man’s.
The private interview ended, the doors were thrown open to the mixed company of
chief priests, elders, and scribes, probably the same as had witnessed the arrest, with
others of the council who had been hastily summoned, and who were known to be
avowedly hostile to Jesus. It certainly was not a properly constituted tribunal, a
council of the Sanhedrim, which alone had the power to adjudicate on questions
purely religious. It was rather a packed jury, a Star Chamber of self-appointed
assessors. With the exception that witnesses were called (and even these were "false,"
with discrepant stories which neutralized their testimony and made it valueless), the
whole proceedings were a hurried travesty of justice, unconstitutional, and so illegal.
But such was the virulent hate of the hierarchy of the Temple, they were prepared to
break through all legalities to gain their end; yea, they would even have broken the
tables of the law themselves, if they might only have stoned the Nazarene with the
fragments, and then have buried Him under the rude cairn. The only testimony they
could find was that He had said He would destroy the temple made with hands, and
in three days build another made without; (Mar_14:58) and even in this the
statements of the two witnesses did not agree, while both were garbled
misrepresentations of the truth.
Hitherto Jesus had remained silent, and when Caiaphas sprang from his seat, asking,
"Answerest Thou nothing?" seeking to extract some broken speech by the pressure of
an imperious mien and browbeating words, Jesus answered by a majestic silence.
Why should He cast His pearls before these swine, who were even now turning upon
Him to rend Him? But when the high priest asked, "Art Thou the Christ?" Jesus
replied, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from
henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God";
thus anticipating His enthronement far above all principalities and powers, in His
eternal reign. The words "Son of man" struck with loud vibrations upon the ears of
His enraged jurors, suggesting the antithesis, and immediately all speak at once, as
they clamor, "Art Thou, then, the Son of God?" a question which Caiaphas repeats as
an adjuration, and which Jesus answers with a brief, calm, "Ye say that I am." It was
a Divine confession, at once the confession of His Messiah-ship and a confession of
His Divinity. It was all that His enemies wanted; there was no need of further
witnesses, and Caiaphas rent his clothes and asked his echoes of what the
blasphemer was worthy? And opening their clenched teeth, his echoes shouted,
"Death!"
The lingering dawn had not broken when the high priest and his barking hounds had
run their Prey down to death-that is, as far as they were allowed to go; and as the
meeting of the full council could not be held till the broad daylight, the men who have
Jesus in charge extemporize a little interlude of their own. Setting Jesus in the midst,
they mock Him, and make sport of Him, heaping upon that Face, still streaked with
its sweat of blood, all the indignities a malign ingenuity can suggest. Now they "cover
His face," (Mar_14:65) throwing around it one of their loose robes; now they
"blindfold" Him, and then strike "Him on the face," (Luk_22:64) as they derisively
ask that He will prophecy who smote Him; while, again, they "spit in His face,"
(Mat_26:67) besmearing it with the venom of unclean, hissing lips! And amid it all
the patient Sufferer answers not a word; He is silent, dumb, the Lamb before His
275

276. shearers.
Soon as the day had fairly broke, the Sanhedrists, with the chief priests, meet in full
council, to give effect to the decision of the earlier conclave; and since it is not in their
power to do morel they determine to hand Jesus over to the secular power, going to
Pilate in a body, thus giving their informal endorsement to the demand for His death.
So now the scene shifts from the palace of Caiaphas to the Praetorium, a short
distance as measured by the linear scale, but a far remove if we gauge thought or if
we consider climatic influences. The palace of Caiaphas lay toward the Orient; the
Praetorium was a growth of the Occident, a bit of Western life transplanted to the
once fruitful, but now sterile East. Within the palace the air was close and moldy;
thought could not breathe, and religion was little more than a mummy, tightly bound
by the grave-clothes of tradition, and all scented with old-time cosmetics. Within the
Praetorium the atmosphere was at least freer; there was more room to breathe: for
Rome was a sort of libertine in religion, finding room within her Pantheon for all the
deities of this and almost any other world. In matters of religion the Roman power
was perfectly indifferent, her only policy the policy of laissez faire; and when Pilate
first saw Jesus and His crowd of accusers he sought to dismiss them at once,
remitting Him to be judged "according to your law," putting, doubtless, an inflection
of contempt upon the "your." It was not until they had shifted the charge altogether,
making it one of sedition instead of blasphemy, as they accuse Jesus of "perverting
our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar," that Pilate took the case
seriously in hand. But from the first his sympathies evidently were with the strange
and lonely Prophet.
Left comparatively alone with Pilate-for the crowd would not risk the defilement of
the Praetorium-Jesus still maintained a dignified reserve and silence, not even
speaking to Pilate’s question of surprise, "Answerest Thou nothing?" Jesus would
speak no word in self-defense, not even to take out the twist His accusers had put
into His words, as they distorted their meaning. When, however, He was questioned
as to His mission and Royalty He spoke directly, as He had spoken before to
Caiaphas, not, however, claiming to be King of the Jews, as His enemies asserted, but
Lord of a kingdom which was not of this world; that is, not like earthly empires,
whose bounds are mountains and seas, and whose thrones rest upon pillars of steel,
the carnal weapons which first upbuild, and then support them. He was a King
indeed; but His realm was the wide realm of mind and heart; His was a kingdom in
which love was law, and love was force, a kingdom which had no limitations of
speech, and no bounds, either of time or space.
Pilate was perplexed and awed. Governor though he was, he mentally did homage
before the strange Imperator whose nature was imperial, whatever His realm might
be. "I find no fault in this Man," he said, attesting the innocence he had discovered in
the mien and tones of his Prisoner; but his attestation only awoke a fiercer cry from
the chief priests, "that He was a seditious person, stirring up the people, and
preparing insurrection even from Galilee to Jerusalem." The word Galilee caught
Pilate’s ear, and at once suggested a plan that would shift the responsibility from
himself. He would change the venue from Judaea to Galilee; and since the Prisoner
was a Galilean, he would send Him to the Tetrarch of Galilee, Herod, who happened
to be in Jerusalem at the time. It was the stratagem of a wavering mind, of a man
whose courage was not equal to his convictions, of a man with a double purpose. He
would like to save his Prisoner, but he must save himself; and when the two purposes
came into collision, as they did soon, the "might" of a timid desire had to give way to
the "must" of a prudential necessity; the Christ was pushed aside and nailed to a
cross, that Self might survive and reign. And so "Pilate sent Him to Herod."
Herod was proud to have this deference shown him in Jerusalem, and by his rival,
276

277. too, and "exceeding glad" that, by a caprice of fortune, his long-cherished desire,
which had been baffled hitherto, of seeing the Prophet of Galilee, should be realized.
He found it, however, a disappointing and barren interview; for Jesus would work no
miracle, as he had hoped; He would not even speak. To all the questions and threats
of Herod, Jesus maintained a rigid and almost scornful silence; and though to Pilate
He had spoken at some length, Jesus would have no intercourse with the murderer of
the Baptist. Herod had silenced the Voice of the wilderness; he should not hear the
Incarnate Word. Jesus thus set Herod at naught, counting him as a nothing, ignoring
him purposely and utterly; and stung with rage that his authority should be thus
contemned before the chief priests and scribes, Herod set his Victim "at naught,"
mocking Him in coarse banter; and as if the whole proceeding were but a farce, a bit
of comedy, he invests Him with one of his glittering robes, and sends the Prophet-
King back to Pilate.
For a brief space Jesus finds shelter by the judgment-seat, removed from the
presence of His accusers, though still within hearing of their cries, as Pilate himself
keeps the wolves at bay. Intensely desirous of acquitting his Prisoner, he leaves the
seat of judgment to become His advocate. He appeals to their sense of justice; that
Jesus is entirely innocent of any crime or fault. They reply that according to their law
He ought to die, because He called Himself the "Son of God." He appeals to their
custom of having some prisoner released at this feast, and he suggests that it would
be a personal favor if they would permit him to release Jesus. They answer, "Not this
man, but Barabbas." He offers to meet them half-way, in a sort of compromise, and
out of deference to their wishes he will chastise Jesus if they will consent to let Him
go; but it is not chastisement they want-they themselves could have done that-but
death. He appeals to their pity, leading Jesus forth, wearing the purple robe, as if to
ask, "Is it not enough already?" but they cry even more fiercely for His death. Then he
yields so far to their clamor as to deliver up Jesus to be mocked and scourged, as the
soldiers play at "royalty," arrayed Him in the purple robe, putting a reed in His hand
as a mock scepter, and a crown of thorns upon His head, then turning to smite Him
on the head, to spit in His face, and to kneel before Him in mock homage, saluting
Him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And Pilate allows all this, himself leading Jesus forth
in this mock array, as he bids the crowd, "Behold your King!" And why? Has He
experienced such a revulsion of feeling towards his Prisoner that he can now vie with
the chief priests in his coarse insult of Jesus? Not so; but it is Pilate’s last appeal. It is
a sop thrown out to the mob, in hopes that it may slake their terrible blood-thirst, a
sacrifice of pain and shame which may perhaps prevent the greater sacrifice of life;
while at the same time it is an ocular demonstration of the incongruity of their
charge; for His Kingship, whatever it might be, was nothing the Roman power had to
fear; it was not even to be taken in a serious way; it was a matter for ridicule, and not
for revenge, something they could easily afford to play with. But this last appeal was
futile as the others had been, and the crowd only became more fierce as they saw in
Pilate traces of weakening and wavering. At last the courage of Pilate breaks down
utterly before the threat that he will not be Caesar’s friend if he let this man go, and
he delivers up Jesus to their will, not, however, before he has called for water, and by
a symbolic washing of his hands has thrown back, or tried to throw back, upon his
accusers, the crime of shedding innocent blood. Weak, wavering Pilate-
"Making his high place the lawless perch Of winged ambitions";
overriden by his fears; governor, but governed by his subjects; sitting on the
judgment-seat, and then abdicating his position of judge; the personification of law,
and condemning the Innocent contrary to the law; giving up to the extremest penalty
and punishment One whom he has thrice proclaimed as guiltless, without fault, and
that too, in the face of a Heaven-sent warning dreamt In the wild inrush of his fears,
277

278. which swept over him like an in-breaking sea, his own weak will was borne down,
and reason, right, conscience, all were drowned. Verily Pilate washes his hands in
vain; he cannot wipe off his responsibility or wipe out the deep stains of blood.
And now we come to the last act of the strange drama, which the four Evangelists
give from their different stand-points, and so with varying but not differing details.
We will read it mainly from the narrative of St. Luke. The shadow of the cross has
long been a vivid conception of His mind, and again and again we can see its
reflection in the current of His clear speech; now, however, it is present to His sight,
close at hand, a grim and terrible reality. It is laid upon the shoulder of the Sufferer,
and the Victim carries His altar through the streets of the city and up towards the
Mount of Sacrifice, until He faints beneath the burden, when the precious load is laid
upon Simon the Cyrenian, who, coming out of the country, met the procession as it
issued from the gate. It was probably during this halt by the way that the incident
occurred, related only by our Evangelist, when the women who followed with the
multitude broke out into loud lamentation and weeping, the first expression of
human sympathy Jesus has received through all the agonies of the long morning.
And even this sympathy He gave back to those who proffered it, bidding these
"daughters of Jerusalem" weep not for Him, but for themselves and for their
children, because of the day of doom which was fast coming upon their city and on
them. Thus Jesus pushes from Him the cup of human sympathy, as afterwards He
refused the cup of mingled wine and myrrh: He would drink the bitter draught
unsweetened; alone and all unaided He would wrestle with death, and conquer.
It is somewhat singular that none of the Evangelists have left us a clue by which we
can recognize, with any certainty, the scene of the Crucifixion. In our thoughts and in
our songs Calvary is a mount, towering high among the mounts of God, higher than
Sinai itself. And such it is, potentially; for it has the sweep of all the earth, and
touches heaven. But the Scriptures do not call it a "mount," but only a "place."
Indeed, the name of "Calvary" does not appear in Scripture, except as the Latin
translation of the Greek "Kranion," or the Hebrew "Golgotha," both of which mean
"the place of the skull." All that we can safely say is that it was probably some
rounded eminence, as the name would indicate, and as modern explorations would
suggest, on the north of the city, near the tomb of Jeremiah.
But if the site of the cross is only given us in a casual way, its position is noted by all
the Evangelists with exactness. It was between the crosses of two malefactors or
bandits; as St. John puts it, in an emphatic, Divine tautology, "On either side one,
and Jesus in the midst." Possibly they intended it as their last insult, heaping shame
upon shame; but unwittingly they only fulfilled the Scripture, Which had prophesied
that He would be "numbered among the transgressors," and that He would make His
grave "with the wicked" in His death.
St. Luke omits several details, which St. John, who was an eye-witness, could give
more fully; but he stays to speak of the parting of His raiment, and he adds, what the
others omit, the prayer for His executioners, "Father, forgive them; for they know not
what they do," an incident he probably had heard from one of the band of crucifiers,
perhaps the centurion himself.
With a true artistic skill, however, and with brief touches, he draws for us the scene
on which all ages will reverently gaze. In the foreground is the cross of Jesus, with its
trilingual superscription, "This is the King of the Jews"; while close beside it are the
crosses of the thieves, whose very faces St. Luke lights up with life and character.
Standing near are the soldiers, relieving the ennui with cruel sport, as they rail at the
Christ, offering Him vinegar, and bidding Him come down. Then we have the rulers,
crowding up near the cross, scoffing, and pelting their Victim with ribald jests, the
278

279. "people" standing back, beholding; while "afar off," in the distance, are His
acquaintance and the women from Galilee. But if our Evangelist touches these
incidents lightly, he lingers to give us one scene of the cross in full, which the other
Evangelists omit. Has Jesus found an advocate in Pilate? Has He found a cross-
bearer in the Cyrenian, and sympathizers in the lamenting women? He finds now
upon His cross a testimony to His Messiahship more clear and more eloquent than
the hieroglyphs of Pilate; for when one of the thieves railed upon Him, shouting out
"Christ" in mockery, Jesus made no reply. The other answered for Him, rebuking his
fellow, while attesting the innocence of Jesus. Then, with a prayer in which penitence
and faith were strangely blended, he turned to the Divine Victim and said, "Jesus,
remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom." Rare faith! Through the tears of
his penitence, as through lenses of light, he sees the new Dawn to which this fearful
night will give birth, the kingdom, which is sure to come, and which, coming, will
abide, and he salutes the dying One as Christ, the King! Jesus did not reply to the
railer; He received in silence his barbed taunts; but to this cry for mercy Jesus had a
quick response - "Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise," so admitting the
penitent into His kingdom at once, and, ere the day is spent, passing him up to the
abodes of the Blessed, even to Paradise itself.
And now there comes the hush of a great silence and the awe of a strange darkness.
From the sixth to the ninth hour, over the cross, and the city, and the land, hung the
shadow of an untimely night, when the "sun’s light failed," as our Evangelist puts it;
while in the Temple was another portent, the veil, which was suspended between the
Holy Place and the Most Holy, being rent in the midst! The mysterious darkness was
but the pall for a mysterious death; for Jesus cried with a loud voice into the gloom,
"Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit," and then, as it reads in language
which is not applied to mortal man, "He gave up the ghost." He dismissed His spirit,
a perfectly voluntary Sacrifice, laying down the life which no man was able to take
from Him.
And why? What meant this death, which was at once the end and the crown of His
life? What meant the cross, which thus draws to itself all the lines of His earthly life,
while it throws its shadow back into the Old Dispensation, over all its altars and its
passovers? To other mortals death is but an appendix to the life, a negation, a
something we could dispense with, were it possible thus to be exempt from the bond
we all must pay to Nature. But not so was it with Jesus. He was born that He might
die; He lived that He might die; it was for this hour on Calvary that He came into the
world, the Word being made flesh, that the sacred flesh might be transfixed to a
cross, and buried in an earthly grave. Surely, then, it was not as man that Jesus died;
He died for man; He died as the Son of God! And when upon the cross the horror of a
great darkness fell upon His soul, and He who had borne every torture that earth
could inflict without one murmur of impatience or cry of pain, cried, with a terrible
anguish in His voice, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" we can
interpret the great horror and the strange cry but in one way: the Lamb of God was
bearing away the sin of the world; He was tasting for man the bitter pains of the
second death; and as He drinks the cup of the wrath of God against sin He feels
passing over Him the awful loneliness of a soul bereft of God, the chill of the "outer
darkness" itself. Jesus lived as our Example; He died as our Atonement, opening by
His blood the Holiest of all, even His highest heaven.
And so the cross of Jesus must ever remain "in the midst," the one bright center of all
our hopes and all our songs; it must be "in the midst" of our toil, at once our pattern
of service and our inspiration. Nay, the cross of Jesus will be "in the midst" of heaven
itself, the center towards which the circles of redeemed saints will bow, and round
which the ceaseless "Alleluia" will roll; for what is "the Lamb in the midst of the
279

280. throne" (Rev_7:17) but the cross transfigured, and the Lamb eternally enthroned?
BI 47-53, “
Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss
The traitor’s kiss
I.
A TRAITOR AMONG THE DISCIPLES. Many of them were weak in faith and carnal
in apprehension, but only one a traitor.
II. THE CHARACTERISTIC OF HIS TREASON. Betrayed Lord into cruel hands of
foes. Professed followers of Christ may betray Him to the scorn of the world, giving
the sceptic arguments for his infidelity, and the worldly excuses for rejection of
Christ.
III. THE MANNER OF THE BETRAYAL. A kiss.
1. It was the accepted token of affection.
2. It was here prostituted to the basest of uses.
3. It was received with lamblike meekness by Him who knew it meant treachery.
IV. THEY BETRAY THE SON OF MAN WITH A KISS WHO—
1. Compliment and deny Him with the same lips,
2. Profess to be united with Him at His table, and then act as lovers and servants
of the world.
3. Exalt His humanity to the skies, and deny His rightful divinity and the efficacy
of the atonement. (Homiletic Review.)
Christ betrayed by Judas
I. BY WHOM CHRIST WAS BETRAYED. “Judas, one of the twelve.” Not an
occasional disciple who had fastened himself upon the Lord’s company, not one of
the seventy who had been sent forth by two and two; one of the called, the chosen;
one singled out from the great mass of mankind for the office of a foundation-stone
in the Church of God.
II. Let us consider SOME OF THE AGGRAVATIONS OF THIS PERFIDIOUS
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF JUDAS. Judas was not only equal with the rest of the
apostles, but he was allowed to carry the bag, which would certainly appear to invest
him with a sort of official superiority.
III. THE ENDS FOR WHICH CHRIST’S BETRAYAL WAS PERMITTED. That it was
of mere permission we know. God has abundance of snares for taking the wise in
their own craftiness; He has ten thousand accidents at command by which to mar a
well-concerted plot. Yea, even after the capture had been effected, twelve legions of
angels waited the bidding of Christ to rescue Him from the traitor’s power. But God
will not avail Himself of these means.
IV. Let us now consider some of the MORAL LESSONS which seem to be conveyed
to us by this history.
1. We see how needful it is that we, each one of us, look well to the state of our
280

281. own hearts. Here is a man who knew the truth, who had preached the truth, who
had wrought miracles for the sake of the truth; and yet became a castaway. Now,
why was this? He “held the truth in unrighteousness.” The man who has been a
hypocrite in religion is very rarely recovered; he deceives others, but yet more
fatally does he deceive himself.
2. Again: the history teaches us how little security against our falling away, there
is in the possession of eminent spiritual advantages. “Judas Iscariot, one of the
twelve.”
3. Again: we learn from this history how insensible and unperceived is the
progress of the downward course in sin. When a man once enters on the way of
transgression, he can never tell where he shall stop. Neither wickedness nor
holiness attain to their full stature all at once. We cannot suppose that Judas had
the remotest thought of his treachery when he first accepted the invitation to
become one of the apostles.
4. The enslaving power of the love of this present world. (D. Moore, M. A.)
The treason of Judas
1. Hence in the first place we learn, that the greatest professors had need be
jealous of their own hearts, and look well to the grounds and principles of their
professions.
2. Learn hence also, that eminent knowledge and profession puts a special and
eminent aggravation upon sin. To sin against clear light is to sin with a high
hand. It is that which makes a sad waste of the conscience.
3. Learn hence, in the third place, that unprincipled professors will sooner or
later become shameful apostates.
4. Moreover in this example of Judas you may read this truth—that men and
women are never in more imminent danger than when they meet with
temptations exactly suited to their master-lusts, to their own iniquity. O pray,
pray, that ye may be kept from a violent suitable temptation. Satan knows that
when a man is tried here, he falls by the root.
5. Hence, in like manner, we are instructed, that no man knows where he shall
stop when he first engages himself in a way of sin.
6. Did Judas sell Christ for money? What a potent conqueror is the love of this
world! How many hath it cast down wounded? What great professors have been
dragged at its chariot-wheels as its captives? Pliny tells us that the mermaids
delight to be in green meadows, into which they draw men by their enchanting
voices; but saith he, there always lie heaps of dead men’s bones by them. A lively
emblem of a bewitching world! Good had it been for many professors of religion
if they had never known what the riches, and honours, and pleasures of this
world meant.
7. Did Judas fancy so much happiness in a little money, that he would sell Christ
to get it? Learn, then, that which men promise themselves much pleasure and
contentment in, in the way of sin, may prove the greatest curse and misery to
thorn that ever befel them in the world.
8. Was there one, and but one, of the twelve that proved a Judas, a traitor to
Christ? Learn thence, that it is a most unreasonable thing to be prejudiced at
religion, and the sincere professors of it, because some that profess it prove
281

282. naught and vile.
9. Did Judas, one of the twelve, do so? Learn thence, that a drop of grace is better
than a sea of gifts. Gifts have some excellency in them, but the way of grace is the
more excellent way (1Co_12:31). Gifts, as one saith, are dead graces, but graces
are living gifts. There is many a learned head in hell. These are not the things that
accompany salvation. It is better for thee to feel one Divine impression from God
upon thy heart than to have ten thousand fine notions floating in thy head. Judas
was a man of parts, but what good did they do him?
10. Did the devil win the consent of Judas to such a design as this? Could he get
no other but the hand of an apostle to assist him? Learn hence, that the policy of
Satan lies much in the choice of his instruments he works by.
No bird, saith one, like a living bird to tempt others into the net. Austin told an
ingenious young scholar the devil coveted him for an ornament. He knows he hath a
foul cause to manage, and therefore will get the fairest hand he can to manage it with
the less suspicion.
11. Did Judas, one of the twelve, do this? Then, certainly, Christians may approve
and join with such men on earth whose faces they shall never see in heaven.
12. Did Judas, one of the twelve, a man so obliged, raised, and honoured by
Christ, do this? Cease then from man, be not too confident, but beware of men.
“Trust ye not in a friend, put no confidence in a guide, keep the door of thy lips
from her that lieth in thy bosom” (Mic_7:5). (J. Flavel.)
The betrayal
I. LET US TARRY AWHILE, AND SEE OUR LORD UNGRATEFULLY AND
DASTARDLY BETRAYED.
1. It is appointed that He must die, but how shall He fall into the hands of His
adversaries? Shall they capture Him in conflict? It must not be, lest He appear an
unwilling victim. Shall He flee before His foes until He can hide no longer? It is
not meet that a sacrifice should be hunted to death. Shall He offer Himself to the
foe? That were to excuse His murderers, or be a party to their crime. Shall He be
taken accidentally or unawares? That would withdraw from His cup the necessary
bitterness which made it wormwood mingled with gall.
(1) One reason for the appointment of the betrayal lay in the fact that it was
ordained that man’s sin should reach its culminating point in His death.
(2) Beyond a doubt, however, the main reason for this was that Christ might
offer a perfect atonement for sin. We may usually read the sin in the
punishment. Man betrayed his God. Therefore must Jesus find man a traitor
to Him. There must be the counterpart of the sin in the suffering which He
endured. You and I have often betrayed Christ. It seemed most fitting, then,
that He who bore the chastisement of sin should be reminded of its
ingratitude and treachery by the things which He suffered.
(3) Besides, brethren, that cup must be bitter to the last degree which is to be
the equivalent for the wrath of God.
(4) Moreover, we feel persuaded that by thus suffering at the hand of a traitor
the Lord became a faithful High Priest, able to sympathize with us when we
fall under the like affliction.
282

283. 2. Now let us look at the treason itself. You perceive how black it was.
(1) Judas was Christ’s servant, what if I call him His confidential servant.
(2) Judas was more than this: he was a friend, a trusted friend.
(3) The world looked upon Judas as a colleague of our Lord’s.
(4) Our Lord would look upon Judas as a representative man, the portraiture
of many thousands who in after ages have imitated his crime.
3. Observe the manner in which Christ met this affliction.
(1) His calmness.
(2) His gentleness.
II. Grant me your attention while we make an estimate of the man by whom the Son
of Man was betrayed—JUDAS THE BETRAYER.
1. I would call your attention, dear friends, to his position and public character.
(1) Judas was a preacher; nay, he was a foremost preacher, “he obtained part
of this ministry,” said the Apostle Peter.
(2) Judas took a very high degree officially. He had the distinguished honour
of being entrusted with the Master’s financial concerns, and this, after all, was
no small degree to which to attain. The Lord, who knows how to use all sorts
of gifts, perceived what gift the man had.
(3) You will observe that the character of Judas was openly an admirable one.
I find not that he committed himself in any way. Not the slightest speck
defiled his moral character so far as others could perceive. He was no boaster,
like Peter.
2. But I call your attention to his real nature and sin. Judas was a man with a
conscience. He could not afford to do without it. He was no Sadducee who could
fling religion overboard; he had strong religious tendencies. But then it was a
conscience that did not sit regularly on the throne; it reigned by fits and starts.
Conscience was not the leading element. Avarice predominated over conscience.
3. The warning which Judas received, and the way in which he persevered.
4. The act itself. He sought out his own temptation. He did not wait for the devil
to come to him; he went after the devil. He went to the chief priests and said,
“ What will ye give me?” Alas! some people’s religion is grounded on that one
question.
5. We conclude with the repentance of Judas. He did repent; but it was the
repentance that worketh death. The man who repents of consequences does not
repent. The ruffian repents of the gallows but not of the murders and that is no
repentance at all. Human law, of course, must measure sin by consequences, but
God’s law does not. There is a pointsman on a railway who neglects his duty;
there is a collision on the line, and people are killed; well, it is manslaughter to
this man through his carelessness. But that pointsman, perhaps, many times
before had neglected his duty, but no accident came of it, and then he walked
home and said, “Well, I have done no wrong.” Now the wrong, mark you, is never
to be measured by the accident, but by the thing itself, and if you have committed
an offence and you have escaped undetected it is lust as vile in God’s eye; if you
have done wrong and Providence has prevented the natural result of the wrong,
the honour of that is with God, but you are as guilty as if your sin had been
carried out to its fullest consequences, and the whole world set ablaze. Never
283

284. measure sin by consequences, but repent of them as they are in themselves. (C.
H. Spurgeon.)
Treachery to Christ
I. Observe, THE PERSON ADDRESSED—Judas. One on whom the Saviour had
conferred many benefits, and who had made an open profession of His name.
Betrayest thou!
II. Observe, the PERSON SPEAKING—Jesus. The title which Jesus here assumes, in
calling Himself the Son of Man, may teach us the following things—
1. That He is really and properly Man, as well as truly Divine.
2. The phrase, Son of Man, seems intended to denote the meanness of Christ’s
origin, and the poverty of His outward condition.
3. Christ’s assumption of this character may teach us to consider Him as the
Saviour of all nations; or of all that ever will be saved, out of every kindred,
tongue, and people: He is not the Son of this or that particular people, but the
Son of Man, and the Saviour of all them that believe, by whatever name they may
be distinguished.
4. The term Son of Man seems to have been prefigured and foretold as a title
which belonged to the expected Messiah.
III. THE QUESTION WHICH JESUS PUTS TO THE TRAITOR: “Betrayest thou the
Son of Man with a kiss?” Improvement:
1. We have here a loud call to be jealous of our own hearts, and to exercise a holy
watchfulness over them. More especially, if we regard our immortal interests, let
us carefully avoid the following things—
(1) Self-confidence. The fear of falling is a good security against it.
(2) The secret indulgence of any sin: this was the ruin of Judas.
(3) Beware of a profession without principle, the form of godliness without
the power. Those who have no root in themselves will soon wither away.
2. We see how far a person may go in the way to heaven, and yet fall short of it.
3. Let us admire and adore the infinite wisdom of God, who brought so much real
good out of so much aggravated evil. (B. Beddome, M. A.)
He touched his ear, and healed him
Jesus the Restorer
Jesus wrought a miracle to repair the mischief which Peter had done. Thus, by one
act, in one moment, Christ made Himself the repairer of the breach. The evil, which
His follower had done, was cancelled; and, through the kind interposition of a special
act, the injured man was none the worse—but rather the better—and the harm, of
which a Christian had been the occasion, was neutralized by his Master. I do not
know what we should any of us do if we might not hope that this is still one of the
blessed offices of Christ. We go through life meaning to do good; but oh! how often—
through some ignorance, or indiscretion, or self-will-doing exactly the reverse!
Happy is it for us if we might believe that Christ comes after us to undo the harm—
nay, that by one of His gracious transformations, He comes afterwards to turn to
benefit the very thing which we have done hurtingly. In the retrospect of life there
284

285. was, it may be, a long period before you knew God—when your influence was all on
the wrong side; your example and your words were always for the world, and
sometimes for what was positively sinful! How many a bad and well-nigh deadly
“wound” must you have been making during those years upon the minds of those
among whom your remarks and your actions were being flung about with such utter
carelessness! How many a young companion, years back, may have learnt then to
carry with him a life-long scar through some idle word of yours. Through the infinite
patience, and the abounding grace of our God and Saviour, you have become a
Christian; and you now love the Lord Jesus Christ as you love nothing else in earth or
heaven; and, at this moment, you could not have a bitterer thought than to think that
you had ever done anything to keep a soul from Jesus; or to give a moment’s pain to
one of His little ones. Now, may you take it as one of the wonderful provisions of your
new state—as one of the blessings into which you have been admitted—that the
Christ, whom you now call yours, will prevent the consequences of what you did in
those days of sinful blindness—that He will restore what you destroyed, that fins
bloom to that delicate conscience, it may be, of one of your early friends; that He will
rectify the ill—that He will “touch” with His own virtue the afflicted part, and that He
will “heal” all that “wound.” Why may we not believe all this? Was not that the spirit
of the Man, that night, when He stood upon the Mount of Olives? And is He not the
same Restorer now? Do not think because man made your trouble, therefore God will
not deal with the trouble. It rests with you. If you bring a sin to Christ believingly, He
will take away that sin. If you bring a sorrow to Christ believingly, He will take away
that sorrow. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)
48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you
betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
BARNES, "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? - By the “Son of
man” was evidently meant “the Messiah.” Judas had had the most satisfactory
evidence of that, and did not doubt it. A kiss was the sign of affection. By that slight
artifice Judas thought to conceal his base purpose. Jesus with severity reproaches
him for it. Every word is emphatic. “Betrayest” thou - dost thou violate all thy
obligations of fidelity, and deliver thy Master up to death? Betrayest “thou” - thou, so
long with him, so much favored, so sure that this is the Messiah? Betrayest thou “the
Son of man” - the Messiah, the hope of the nations, the desire of all people, the
world’s Redeemer? Betrayest thou the Son of man “with a kiss” - the sign of
friendship and affection employed in a base and wicked purpose, intending to add
deceit, disguise, and the prostitution of a mark of affection to the “crime of treason?”
Every word of this must have gone to the very soul of Judas. Perhaps few reproofs of
crime more resemble the awful searchings of the souls of the wicked in the day of
judgment.
CLARKE, "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? - Dost thou attempt
to kiss me as a friend, while thou art delivering me up into the hands of my enemies?
285

286. We need not wonder at all this, as Satan himself had entered into the heart of this
traitor, see Luk_22:3; consequently we can expect nothing from him but what is fell,
deceitful, and cruel.
GILL, "But Jesus said unto him, Judas,.... Calling him by his name, that he
might know he knew him, and to aggravate his sin; what, Judas, my apostle, my
friend, my familiar friend, in whom I trusted, or with whom I trusted all my worldly
affairs,
betrayest thou the son of man with a kiss! who assumed human nature for the
good of mankind, who is the Messiah spoken of by the prophets, under the character
of the son of man, and who is holy, harmless, and never did any mortal man any hurt
or injury; and what, betray such an one into the hands of his most implacable
adversaries, and in such an hypocritical and deceitful way! all which Christ said, to
show he was no stranger to what he was about to do.
HENRY, "Satan, finding himself baffled in his attempts to terrify our Lord Jesus,
and so to put him out of the possession of his own soul, betakes himself (according to
his usual method) to force and arms, and brings a party into the field to seize him,
and Satan was in them. Here is,
I. The marking of him by Judas. Here a numerous party appears, and Judas at the
head of them, for he was guide to them that took Jesus; they knew not where to find
him, but he brought them to the place: when they were there, they knew not which
was he, but Judas told them that whomsoever he should kiss, that same was he; so he
drew near to him to kiss him, according to the wonted freedom and familiarity to
which our Lord Jesus admitted his disciples. Luke takes notice of the question Christ
asked him, which we have not in the other evangelists: Judas, betrayest thou the Son
of man with a kiss? What! Is this the signal? Luk_22:48. Must the Son of man be
betrayed, as if any thing could be concealed from him, and a plot carried on against
him unknown to him? Must one of his own disciples betray him, as if he had been a
hard Master to them, or deserved ill at their hands? Must he be betrayed with a kiss?
Must the badge of friendship be the instrument of treachery? Was ever a love-token
so desecrated and abused? Note, Nothing can be a greater affront or grief to the Lord
Jesus than to be betrayed, and betrayed with a kiss, by those that profess relation to
him and an affection for him. Those do so who, under pretence of zeal for his honour,
persecute his servants, who, under the cloak of a seeming affection for the honour of
free grace, give a blow to the root of holiness and strictness of conversation. Many
instances there are of Christ's being betrayed with a kiss, by those who, under the
form of godliness, fight against the power of it. It were well if their own consciences
would put this question to them, which Christ here puts to Judas, Betrayest thou the
Son of man with a kiss? And will he not resent it? Will he not revenge it?
COFFMAN, "There is no vocabulary sufficiently extensive to describe the
dastardly act of Judas Iscariot. The rationalistic devices of some who would
extenuate his treachery, the "explanations" of those who exhibit some diabolical
affinity with the traitor himself, together with all the brilliant and clever
imaginations set to work out some justification of the traitor's deed - all of these
have utterly failed to redeem Judas in the thinking of upright men from the
shame of this betrayal.
286

287. Son of man ... By such a word, Jesus reminded Judas that it was no mere human
teacher that he was betraying. The divine Messiah was the one whom he
betrayed with a kiss; and such an act was so unbelievable that it called forth the
Saviour's exclamation here. There is a further glimpse of the Lord's omniscience
here. Before Judas profaned the Lord's cheek with his kiss, Jesus exposed his
intention.
COKE, "Luke 22:48. Judeas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?— "Dost
thou betray him, whom thou canst not but know to be the Son of man,—'the
Messiah,' by that which all men use as the symbol either of love or homage,—
making it a signal of thy treachery? And dost thou think that he can be imposed
upon by this poor artifice, or that such baseness and cruelty will not be
punished?"—There is great reason to believe that our Lord uses this phrase of
the Son of man to Judas on this occasion, as he had done the same evening at
supper twice in a breath, in the sense here given; see Matthew 26:24 and it adds
a great spirit to these words; which the reader will discern to be attended with
much greater strength and beauty, than if our Lord had only said Dost thou
betray ME with a kiss?
PETT, "Jesus, however, knew better what was happening, and He responded by
looking Judas firmly in the eye and asking him whether he really felt that such
infamy could be justified. Surely even he must recognise that any other way
would have been better than this? Did he not think that it portrayed a
callousness which was extreme, even for him?
For while, once we think about it, his perfidy went along with Judas’ presence,
seemingly without a qualm, at Jesus’ own Table , and with his ability to partake
in the bread and wine, and receive the sop of friendship, as though he was one
with them all. And it went along with his pretended surprise in the Upper Room
that anyone should betray Jesus, (which he no doubt must have expressed in
order to cover himself). Nevertheless the utter heartlessness that lay behind it
cannot be overlooked. This was the mark of a man without a speck of decency,
and it revealed, as little else could have done, what kind of a man he really was.
It removes from our minds any suggestion that there was anything perversely
noble about what he was doing. He was demonstrating that he was rotten to the
core.
“Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a kiss?” The mention of Judas’ name
as though he were a friend stresses that Jesus was both hurt and at the same time
seeking to somehow reach his heart, even though it was now a little too late. It
was both a reproach and a plea. And His reference again to ‘the Son of Man’ in
this context (see Luke 22:22) emphasises that the use of the title is deliberate. In
Daniel 7 also ‘the son of man’ had been betrayed. But there at least it had been
by the beasts, although no doubt with the assistance of traitors, but surely not by
a friend? Was he aware that thereby he was betraying the whole suffering
nation, and to all outward appearances removing their hope? It was a desperate
attempt by Jesus at offering him a kind of redemption.
287

288. 49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to
happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with
our swords?”
GILL, "When they which were about him,.... That is, the eleven disciples that
were about Christ, and with him in the garden:
saw what would follow; that their Lord and master was about to be betrayed by
Judas, and would be seized, and carried away by the multitude, that were with him:
they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? or "swords", as the
Syriac and Persic versions read; with the two swords which they had along with
them. This they said, not being thoroughly acquainted with the mind of Christ in this
matter, whether they should use the temporal sword or not; and might choose to
show this forwardness to stand by him, and defend him, remembering how lately
they had said, that though they died with him, they would not deny him: and might,
no doubt, be thoroughly exasperated and provoked to see Judas at the head of such a
mob, with swords and staves, and burned with true zeal for their Lord and master;
and might be the more spirited up to this, by observing, that the men fell backwards
to the ground, upon Christ's saying that he was the person they sought; at least their
dependence was upon the exertion of his almighty power; for they could never
otherwise imagine that eleven men, with two swords only, would be able to defend
him, and rescue him out of the hands of such a multitude.
HENRY, "II. The effort which his disciples made for his protection (Luk_22:49):
When they saw what would follow, that those armed men were come to seize him,
they said, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword? Thou didst allow us to have two
swords, shall we now make use of them? Never was there more occasion; and to what
purpose should we have them if we do not use them?” They asked the question as if
they would not have drawn the sword without commission from their Master, but
they were in too much haste and too much heat to stay for an answer. But Peter,
aiming at the head of one of the servants of the high priest, missed his blow, and cut
off his right ear. As Christ, by throwing them to the ground that came to take him,
showed what he could have done, so Peter, by this exploit, showed what he could
have done too in so good a cause if he had had leave. The other evangelists tell us
what was the check Christ gave to Peter for it. Luke here tells us, 1. How Christ
excused the blow: Suffer ye thus far, v. 51. Dr. Whitby thinks he said this to his
enemies who came to take him, to pacify them, that they might not be provoked by it
to fall upon the disciples, whom he had undertaken the preservation of: “Pass by this
injury and affront; it was without warrant from me, and there shall not be another
blow struck.” Though Christ had power to have struck them down, and struck them
dead, yet he speaks them fair, and, as it were, begs their pardon for an assault made
upon them by one of his followers, to teach us to give good words even to our
288

289. enemies. 2. How he cured the wound, which was more than amends sufficient for the
injury: He touched his ear, and healed him; fastened his ear on again, that he might
not so much as go away stigmatized, though he well deserved it. Christ hereby gave
them a proof, (1.) Of his power. He that could heal could destroy if he pleased, which
should have obliged them in interest to submit to him. Had they returned the blow
upon Peter, he would immediately have healed him; and what could not a small
regiment do that had such a surgeon to it, immediately to help the sick and
wounded? (2.) Of his mercy and goodness. Christ here gave an illustrious example to
his own rule of doing good to them that hate us, as afterwards he did of praying for
them that despitefully use us. Those who render good for evil do as Christ did. One
would have thought that this generous piece of kindness should have overcome them,
that such coals, heaped on their heads, should have melted them, that they could not
have bound him as a malefactor who had approved himself such a benefactor; but
their hearts were hardened.
BENSON, "Luke 22:49-51. When they which were about him saw what would
follow — That the band was just going to seize Jesus, or had already seized him,
and were about to lead him away; they said, Lord, shall we smite with the
sword? — Thou didst allow us to have two swords, shall we now make use of
them? Surely never can there be a greater occasion for doing it: and we doubt
not but, few as we are, thou canst render us victorious over this armed
multitude. They did not wait for an answer from Jesus, but one of them —
Namely, Peter, immediately smote the servant of the high-priest — One who, it is
probable, was the forwardest, and seemed peculiarly officious in seizing Christ.
Peter struck full at his head, intending to cleave him down, but the stroke
glanced a little on one side, so that he only cut off his right ear. Jesus said, Suffer
ye thus far — Let me go to the wounded man, and have my hands at liberty,
while I do one more act of mercy. And he touched his ear, and healed him —
Putting the ear on again, which was cut off, or creating a new one in the place of
it. It may not be improper to observe, that two other interpretations are given of
the clause, Suffer ye thus far. “All antiquity,” says Dr. Campbell, “seems agreed
in understanding our Lord’s expression as a check to his disciples, by intimating
that they were not to proceed further in the way of resistance, as it was not to
such methods of defence that he chose to recur: and what is recorded by the
other evangelists, as likewise said on the occasion, strongly confirms this
explanation.” Dr. Whitby thinks that Christ spake thus to the soldiers, desiring
them thus far to suffer the rash opposition of his disciples, and not to proceed to
violence against them, on account of the assault made, and injury done by one of
them, which he would immediately repair; for it follows, and he healed him.
“And this,” adds the doctor, “he said and did partly to show, that he, who had
such power to heal, and (John 18:6) to throw down his enemies, was taken
willingly, and not for want of power to preserve himself: and partly to preserve
his apostles from their assaults.” It must be acknowledged that all these
interpretations are plausible; but the first, which is adopted by Elsner,
Doddridge, Macknight, Wesley, and many others, seems as probable as either of
the others, and certainly exhibits the mercy and benevolence of our Lord in the
most amiable and striking point of view. And one would have thought, that such
a generous piece of kindness to his enemies would have so overcome them, that
they would have proceeded no further against him. But, alas! their hearts were
hardened! How illustriously did our Lord now exemplify his own rule of doing
289

290. good to them that hate us, as he afterward did that which enjoins us to pray for
them that despitefully use us and persecute us.
COFFMAN, "The apostles had misunderstood the Lord's mention of the sword,
and that misunderstanding led to the incident here. The sword was a proper
weapon of self-defense against brigands, but not against the lawful authority.
Such was the Saviour's respect for the legal government that he willingly
submitted to it, even when it was controlled by evil men engaged in an illegal and
shameful project.
And a certain one of them smote ... Peter was not named here as the one who
used the sword; and from this it must be assumed that when Luke wrote this
gospel, Peter was still alive, discretion demanding that his name be withheld.
Tertullian stated that Peter was crucified by Nero (37-68 A.D.); and here is a
telling argument for the early date of the gospel of Luke. Whether or not
Tertullian's statement is received as true, there is no reasonable way to date
Peter's death after the reign of Nero. John, writing long afterward, did not
hesitate to name Peter, and from this is it certain that considerations of Peter's
safety required the omission of his name here.
PETT, "After a few moments of total bewilderment those who were with Jesus
caught on to what was about to happen, and turning to Jesus they asked whether
they should act to defend Him, so that He could slip away while they engaged His
opponents. Were they to use what swords they had? The question was really
rhetorical. It expressed their intention rather than a suggestion, for speed was of
the essence, although it deferred to the fact that Jesus was their leader. In the
darkness it is quite possible that they did not realise immediately that this was an
official arresting party, headed by the Temple police and supported by a Roman
cohort, and thought that it was a band of thugs and would be assassins (which, of
course, it actually was).
50 And one of them struck the servant of the
high priest, cutting off his right ear.
GILL, "And one of them smote the servant of the high priest,.... The person
that drew his sword, and performed this daring action, not waiting for an answer
from Christ, was Peter, and the high priest's servant, that he smote, was Malchus;
both which we learn from Joh_18:10
and cut off his right ear; he aimed, no doubt, at his head, but missing his blow,
took off his right ear. It is very likely, that this servant was very busy and forward to
lay hold on Christ, and showed much virulence, and great malignity; and therefore
290

291. Peter singled him out, and levelled his blow at him.
HENRY, "But Peter, aiming at the head of one of the servants of the high priest,
missed his blow, and cut off his right ear. As Christ, by throwing them to the ground
that came to take him, showed what he could have done, so Peter, by this exploit,
showed what he could have done too in so good a cause if he had had leave.
PETT, "So one more impulsive than the rest did show the way, and immediately
drawing his sword, and lashing out in the amateurish fashion of a man not used
to swords, cut the right ear off the servant of the High Priest (the man clearly
dodged to the left in order to avoid a swinging amateurish blow by the right
handed Peter). It is a suggestion that gives such an absurd picture that it must be
true. An inventor would have suggested something much more effective,
especially as a healing was to follow. We learn later from John that it was
impetuous Peter who did it, and no one would have wanted to make a fool of
Peter like that.
But no one who knew the disciples would ever have doubted that such an action
was that of Peter. With Peter present who else could it have been? It was typical
of the man. The anonymity preserved in the first three Gospels was probably in
order to safeguard Peter while he was alive. It would not have done him any
good for it to be known to the authorities what he had done in the face of an
arrest party supported by Rome.
To lose an ear like that would have been a huge blow to a servant of the High
Priest. The man would now be classed as mutilated and would no longer be able
to take part officially in Temple worship. And furthermore, to disable the official
representative of the High Priest was equivalent to treason. So matters had
suddenly become very tricky. The truth is that the whole group could well have
been arrested as a result. For a moment all was tension.
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And
he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
CLARKE, "Suffer ye thus far - Or, Suffer me to go thus far. As they had now a
firm hold of Christ, Mat_26:50, he wished them to permit him to go as far as
Malchus, whose ear was cut off, that he might heal it. See the objections brought
against this interpretation answered by Kypke; and see the examples he produces.
However, the words may be understood as an address to his disciples: Let them
291

292. proceed; make no resistance; for in this way only are the Scriptures to be fulfilled.
GILL, "And Jesus answered and said,.... Not to the question of the disciples,
but either to Peter, who had done this rash action; and so the Persic and Ethiopic
versions add, "to him"; or else to the multitude,
suffer ye thus far; or to them both, to Peter to stop his hand, to proceed no
further, but put up his sword; and so the Arabic version reads, "refrain thyself"; and
to the multitude to be easy, and not revenge the affront that was given them: and in
order to pacify them, "he went to the wounded man", as the Persic version inserts,
and he touched his ear and healed him; which shows, that though the human
nature of Christ was in a very low condition, yet he still retained the power of doing
miracles; and also his great humanity, by which example be confirmed his precept of
doing good to enemies; and likewise hereby gave full proof of his willingness to be
apprehended by them; for otherwise, he that wrought such a miracle as this, could
easily have delivered himself out of their hands; and one would have thought this
would have put a stop to them, and have convinced them of the truth of his being a
divine person, and the Messiah.
HENRY, "The other evangelists tell us what was the check Christ gave to Peter for it.
Luke here tells us, 1. How Christ excused the blow: Suffer ye thus far, v. 51. Dr.
Whitby thinks he said this to his enemies who came to take him, to pacify them, that
they might not be provoked by it to fall upon the disciples, whom he had undertaken
the preservation of: “Pass by this injury and affront; it was without warrant from me,
and there shall not be another blow struck.” Though Christ had power to have struck
them down, and struck them dead, yet he speaks them fair, and, as it were, begs their
pardon for an assault made upon them by one of his followers, to teach us to give
good words even to our enemies. 2. How he cured the wound, which was more than
amends sufficient for the injury: He touched his ear, and healed him; fastened his
ear on again, that he might not so much as go away stigmatized, though he well
deserved it. Christ hereby gave them a proof, (1.) Of his power. He that could heal
could destroy if he pleased, which should have obliged them in interest to submit to
him. Had they returned the blow upon Peter, he would immediately have healed him;
and what could not a small regiment do that had such a surgeon to it, immediately to
help the sick and wounded?
SBC, “I. By one act, in a moment, Christ made Himself the repairer of the breach.
The evil which His follower had done was cancelled; and through the kind
interposition of a special act, the injured man was none the worse, but rather the
better; and the harm, of which a Christian had been the occasion, was neutralised by
his Master. Ill would it be for any of us, if there were not that refuge of thought to fall
back upon, from all the foolish things and all the wrong things said and done, which
we have afterwards so much regretted. It would be tremendous to think of all the
trail of harm which we were dragging after us, if there were not a Christ—a Canceller
and a Rectifier.
II. There is a great difference between those troubles which come straight from God,
and those which pass to us from the hand of man. There are a dignity and sacredness
about the one and an almost defilement about the other. But it would, be a mistake to
infer that any one kind of trial comes more under the remedial power of the Lord
Jesus Christ than another. It does not matter where the root and spring of the
292

293. trouble lie, as soon as they are brought to Him they are all alike. Take it, in all its
breadth, whatever the wound be, and whoever was the wounder—equally Christ is
the Healer.
III. Malchus, as we have seen, had been one of the foremost against Christ. In his
opposition to Christ he got his hurt. Christ cures the hurt which was the consequence
of opposition to Himself. The worst hurts we get in life are those which we incur by
taking the side against light, against conviction, against truth, i.e. against God. We all
of us have borne, and perhaps some of us are bearing now, some of those hurts. Our
only remedy lies with Him, whom we were, at that moment, in the act of making our
enemy, when we got that hurt. And the marvel is, how He heals us; not a word of
reproach, not a shadow of retaliation; it is enough we are wounded, and we cannot do
without Him—therefore He does it. There is no healer of wounds but the Lord Jesus
Christ.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 4th series, p. 239.
CALVIN, "Luke 22:51.And having touched his ear, he healed him. By his foolish
zeal Peter had brought grievous reproach on his Master and his doctrine; and
there can be no doubt, that this was a contrivance by which Satan attempted to
involve the Gospel in eternal disgrace, as if Christ had kept company with
assassins and seditious persons for revolutionary purposes. This, I think, was the
reason why Christ healed the wound which Peter had inflicted. But a fearful and
amazing stupidity must have seized his adversaries, who were not at all affected
by having seen such a miracle. And yet there is the less reason to wonder that
they did not see the power of Christ displayed in the person of another, when,
after having themselves been laid prostrate by his voice, they still continued to
rage, (John 18:6.) Such is the spirit of giddiness by which Satan maddens the
reprobate, when the Lord has given them over to blindness. Above all, in the
person himself who was healed, there is a striking instance of ingratitude; for
neither did the divine power of Christ subdue him to repentance for his
hardness, nor was he overcome by kindness so as to be changed from an enemy
into a disciple. For it is a foolish imagination of the monks that he was also
healed in his soul, that the work of Christ might not be left incomplete; as if the
goodness of God were not every day poured out on those who are unworthy.
COFFMAN, "Verse 51
But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear,
and healed him.
The servant who lost his ear was Malchus (John 18:10); and Luke, with a
physician's characteristic observance, noted that it was his right ear.
Suffer ye them thus far ... The word THEM is not in the Greek, and some
question exists as to the exact meaning. Geldenhuys understood it as "Let events
take their course, even to my arrest,"[33] thus seeing the remark as addressed to
the Lord's disciples with the meaning that they should not interfere any further
with the arrest.
And healed him ... Like all of the miracles of Jesus, this one had definite and
necessary utility. One great purpose of the Lord in the arrest was to procure the
293

294. exemption of the apostles from custody, as particularly evident in John; but,
with Peter's rash act, such would have been far more difficult except for the
timely healing of the excised ear.
ENDNOTE:
[33] Norvel Geldenhuys, op. cit., p. 582.
COKE, "Luke 22:51. Suffer ye thus far.— The sense which has been affixed to
this passage is various. Some have understood it as a request from Jesus, that the
persons who had apprehended him, would oblige him so far as to let him go to
the wounded man; and the context seems to countenance this opinion,
representing him as immediately touching the ear, and healing it. Others, and
among them the Syriac, suppose it to be spoken to the disciples, and to contain a
prohibition against their offering any more violence; in which sense they
paraphrase the words, "It is enough that you have opposed their violence so far;
go no farther, but stop here." The circumstance of our Lord's healing Malchus's
ear by touching it, seems to imply, that he created a new part in the room of that
which was cut off; or if he performed the cure any other way, he equally
demonstrated both his goodness and power. No wound or distemper whatever
was incurable in the hand of Jesus, neither was any injury so great that he could
not forgive it; and as this was an act of great compassion and forgiveness, so
likewise was it an act of singular wisdom; for it would effectually prevent those
reflections and censures on Jesus, which the rashness of Peter's attack might
otherwise have occasioned. See the Inferences on Mark 14.
PETT, "But Jesus stepped in on the side of the law and commanded that there
be no interference with His arrest. It was after all something that they had a
right to do if only they had gone about it in the correct manner. This far they
must be allowed to go. And He reached out and touched the man’s ear, which
was probably hanging there limply, possibly on a sliver of flesh. The result was
complete healing. This would ease the situation as the sight of a wounded and
bleeding man must probably have caused the Roman chiliarch to take more
widespread action if he had seen it when he came up. It would have made the
situation appear more immediately serious.
52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the
officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who
had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion,
that you have come with swords and clubs?
294

295. GILL, "Then Jesus said unto the chief priests,.... After he had wrought this
miracle, and had quieted the mob, and restrained them from falling upon the
apostles, and cutting them to pieces, which in all likelihood they would otherwise
have done; he addressed himself to "the chief priests", who were members of the
Jewish sanhedrim, and
the captains of the temple; See Gill on Luk_22:4.
And the elders which were come to him; which came along with Judas and the
multitude, in order to see things done to their mind, and to animate both Judas and
the soldiers and their officers, by their presence, lest they should come without him,
as they had before done, Joh_7:45.
Be ye come out as against a thief, with swords and staves? See Gill on Mat_
26:55.
HENRY, "III. Christ's expostulation with the officers of the detachment that came
to apprehend him, to show what an absurd thing it was for them to make all this rout
and noise, v. 52, 53. Matthew relates it as said to the multitude. Luke tells us that it
was said to the chief priests and captains of the temple the latter commanded the
several orders of the priests, and therefore are here put between the chief priests and
the elders, so that they were all ecclesiastics, retainers to the temple, who were
employed in this odious piece of service; and some of the first rank too disparaged
themselves so far as to be seen in it. Now see here,
1. How Christ reasons with them concerning their proceedings. What occasion was
there for them to come out in the dead of the night, and with swords and staves? (1.)
They knew that he was one that would not resist, nor raise the mob against them; he
never had done any thing like this. Why then are ye come out as against a thief? (2.)
They knew he was one that would not abscond, for he was daily with them in the
temple, in the midst of them, and never sought to conceal himself, nor did they offer
to lay hands on him. Before his hour was come, it was folly for them to think to take
him; and when his hour was come it was folly for them to make all this ado to take
him.
2. How he reconciles himself to their proceedings; and this we had not before: “But
this is your hour, and the power of darkness. How hard soever it may seem that I
should be thus exposed, I submit, for so it is determined. This is the hour allowed
you to have your will against me. There is an hour appointed me to reckon for it.
Now the power of darkness, Satan, the ruler of the darkness of this world, is
permitted to do his worst, to bruise the heel of the seed of the woman, and I resolve
to acquiesce; let him do his worst. The Lord shall laugh at him, for he sees that his
day, his hour, is coming.” Psa_37:13. Let this quiet us under the prevalency of the
church's enemies; let it quiet us in a dying hour, that, (1.) It is but an hour that is
permitted for the triumph of our adversary, a short time, a limited time. (2.) It is
their hour, which is appointed them, and in which they are permitted to try their
strength, that omnipotence may be the more glorified in their fall. (3.) It is the power
of darkness that rides master, and darkness must give way to light, and the power of
darkness be made to truckle to the prince of light. Christ was willing to wait for his
triumphs till his warfare was accomplished, and we must be so too.
BENSON, "Luke 22:52-53. Jesus said unto the chief priests, captains, &c. — The
soldiers and servants were sent to apprehend Jesus, but these chief priests, &c.
came of their own accord; and, it seems, kept at a distance during the scuffle, but
295

296. drew near when they understood that Jesus was taken. Be ye come out as against
a thief? — See on Matthew 26:55-56. This is your hour — Before which you
could not take me; and the power of darkness — The time when Satan has
power.
COFFMAN, "Verse 52
And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, that
were come out against him, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords
and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched not forth your
hand against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
As Hobbs said, "swords and staves" indicate that "both Roman soldiers and
temple police"[34] were used in the arrest. Only Luke, however, spelled out the
presence of the chief priests who had come along to make sure the mission
succeeded.
Daily in the temple ... This is a reference to the extensive ministry of Christ in
Jerusalem in the final weeks following the long "journey" to the Holy City
emphasized throughout by Luke. Also, this is another bit of evidence that
Wednesday of this final week was not a day of retirement.
The power of darkness ... This is another echo of the great truth so strongly
stressed in John, further evidence that the Christ of the synoptics is one with the
Christ of John.
It has been frequently observed that if this night arrest of Jesus had truly been
the Passover, none of the chief priests, nor the temple guards, would have been
permitted to bear arms after sundown of Nisan 14. It was therefore the night
before, on Nisan 13 (technically the 14th) that this arrest occurred. Had it been
Nisan 14th after sundown, it would have been technically Nisan 15th, the night of
the Passover meal. See chronology under Luke 22:2.
ENDNOTE:
[34] Herschel H. Hobbs, op. cit., p. 315.
PETT, "The party in front seemingly consisted of the leaders of the Jews and the
Temple police led by the Temple captains, and Jesus now spoke to them sternly.
He pointed out that they were clearly in the wrong in what they were doing. As
they well knew there was absolutely no reason why they had needed to come out
against Him in this kind of armed force, as though He was a violent brigand,
when He had never tried to avoid them and had daily preached openly in the
Temple. It simply revealed their guilt and hypocrisy.
Some have expressed surprise at the presence of the chief priests, but it is
probable that the chief priests had had to accompany the party in order to
ensure the support of the Roman cohort (John 18:8). To justify the use of the
latter the situation had to be revealed as very important. Roman cohorts did not
just turn out for anyone. They would not have wanted to accompany what was
296

297. simply an attachment of Temple police carrying out a simple arrest, and would
have left them to do their own dirty work. But the chief priests and the lay
aristocrats, knowing what they had in mind for Jesus, had constrained Pilate by
their very presence that the matter was very important. It would have required
such an impressive party to make him act. If the chief priests involved
themselves it must have been important (not that he had much opinion of them).
Mark tells us that Scribes were also there, but they were here not pushing
themselves forward. They wanted to be in at the death but they did not want the
blame to redound on them, and it was the Temple authorities who had power of
arrest. But all without exception were acting disgracefully.
53 Every day I was with you in the temple
courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But
this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”
CLARKE, "I was daily with you in the temple - Alluding to the four
preceding days, during the whole of which he taught in the temple, see Luk_21:37,
and Mat_21:17.
This is your hour, and the power of darkness - That is, the time in which
you are permitted to unrein your malice; which ye could not do before, because God
did not permit you; and so perfectly are ye under his control that neither you nor the
prince of darkness can proceed a hair’s breadth against me but through this
permission: see at the end of the chapter. What a comfortable thought is it to the
followers of Christ, that neither men nor demons can act against them but by the
permission of their heavenly Father, and that he will not suffer any of those who trust
in him to be tried above what they are able to bear, and will make the trial issue in
their greater salvation, and in his glory!
GILL, "When I was daily with you in the temple,.... As he had been for some
days past, teaching the people, and disputing with them, the chief priests, &c.
ye stretched forth no hands against me; to lay hold upon him, and kill him; the
reason was, because his time was not come, and they had no licence or permission to
hurt him, or any power given them against him from above:
but this is your hour; the time was now come for the betraying of him by Judas;
for the seizing and apprehending him by the Roman soldiers and officers; and for the
delivery of him into the hands of the "chief" priests and elders; and for them to
insult, mock, buffet, scourge him, and spit upon him: and for the crucifixion of him,
and putting him to death: the hour fixed for this was now come; it was now, and not
before, and therefore they could not lay hold on him, and do to him what they listed,
but now they might; yet this was but an hour, a short time that they had to triumph
297

298. over him, in Caiaphas's palace, and Pilate's hall, upon the cross, and in the grave; for
on the third day he arose again, notwithstanding all the precautions they took, and is
ascended to heaven, and is received there, and is out of their reach: and since then, it
has been his hour to take vengeance on them; on their nation, city, and temple, for
their disbelief, rejection, and ill usage of him; and it will be likewise his hour at the
day of judgment, when they shall look on him whom they have pierced, and mourn;
and hide their faces from him, and call to the mountains to cover them, and when
they will be punished with everlasting destruction from his presence: he adds,
and the power of darkness. The Persic version reads, "the power of your
darkness"; that is, either the power granted to them, who were darkness itself, born
and brought up in darkness; were walking in darkness, and in the ignorance of their
minds; and did works of darkness, and shunned the light, because their deeds were
evil; and for which reason they now chose the night, to execute their black designs
upon Christ: or rather, the power of the prince of darkness is here meant; that power
which he usurped, and was now permitted him to exercise against Christ: and so the
Ethiopic version renders it, "the power of the lord of darkness"; who was, once an
angel of light, but now full of darkness, and who darkens the minds of men, and for
whom blackness of darkness is reserved: the Jews were used to call the evil angels by
this name; for so they say (i),
"the destroying angels are called, ‫ואפלה‬ ‫,חשך‬ "darkness, and thick darkness".''
The sense of the whole passage is, that now was the time come, that Christ should be
delivered up into the hands of wicked men and devils; that the former should have
him in their power, and triumph over him for a season; and that hell was now let
loose, and all the infernal powers were about him, throwing their poisoned arrows
and fiery darts at him; all which Christ endured, to deliver his people from the
present evil world, from the wrath of God, the curses of the law, and from the power
of darkness.
HENRY, " How he reconciles himself to their proceedings; and this we had not
before: “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. How hard soever it may
seem that I should be thus exposed, I submit, for so it is determined. This is the hour
allowed you to have your will against me. There is an hour appointed me to reckon
for it. Now the power of darkness, Satan, the ruler of the darkness of this world, is
permitted to do his worst, to bruise the heel of the seed of the woman, and I resolve
to acquiesce; let him do his worst. The Lord shall laugh at him, for he sees that his
day, his hour, is coming.” Psa_37:13. Let this quiet us under the prevalency of the
church's enemies; let it quiet us in a dying hour, that, (1.) It is but an hour that is
permitted for the triumph of our adversary, a short time, a limited time. (2.) It is
their hour, which is appointed them, and in which they are permitted to try their
strength, that omnipotence may be the more glorified in their fall. (3.) It is the power
of darkness that rides master, and darkness must give way to light, and the power of
darkness be made to truckle to the prince of light. Christ was willing to wait for his
triumphs till his warfare was accomplished, and we must be so too.
COKE, "Luke 22:53. When I was daily with you in the temple,— This was a
proof of our Saviour's innocence; for had he been conscious of any crime which
could render him obnoxious to punishment, he would not have exposed himself
in this public manner; and had the Jews either thought him guilty, or been able
to bring any accusation against him, it is evident that they wanted neither
298

299. willnor power to have apprehended him. But the reason why they continued so
long inactive, is intimated in the close of the verse. They were kept under
restraint, till the time predicted for his sufferings was accomplished; and that
being now come, power was allowed to the prince of darkness to instigate them
to this crime, and opportunity was permitted them to perpetrate it. See on
Matthew 26:56.
PETT, "Verse 53
“When I was daily with you in the temple, you did not stretch forth your hands
against me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” ’
Jesus then turned to them and asked them why, if they had wanted so badly to
arrest Him, they had they not done it openly while He was preaching in the
Temple? They were responsible for the Temple, were they not? And yet they had
made no attempt to stretch forth their hands against Him there. It made it quite
clear then that they were behaving surreptitiously, and that they were afraid of
what people would have said if they knew of it. Indeed the very hour that they
had chosen revealed their villainous intent, and demonstrated that they were in
league with ‘the power of darkness’. But it was not surprising. It was ‘their
hour’ because that is the kind of people they were, dishonest and unscrupulous.
No other types of people would have operated at such an hour. By it they were
revealing the truth about themselves.
For the phrase ‘the power of darkness’ compare Colossians 1:13. It represented
the Tyranny of Darkness in contrast with the Kingly Rule of God. He was thus
pointing out that they were behaving like men of darkness, slaves of darkness,
men who operated away from the light because their deeds were evil (John
3:19-20), men who avoided the light of God. They were doing the work of the
Evil One (compare Acts 26:18) under whose rule they were proving themselves
to be. They were demonstrating under whose kingly rule they were.
The point that Jesus was making was in fact very important and probably partly
intended to make clear to the Roman chiliarch that all this talk about Him being
a dangerous insurrectionist was a lot or nonsense. Dangerous insurrectionists do
not attend the Temple every day preaching, unless they are teaching subversion,
and if He had been doing that they would have arrested Him themselves. Let him
judge then who were the dangerous subversives. Jesus was probably also
defending the actions of His disciples. He wanted it to be realised that had the
arrest been carried out properly there would have been no violence. We must
remember that He was concerned that His disciples should not be arrested with
Him (John 18:8).
Peter Disowns Jesus
299

300. 54 Then seizing him, they led him away and
took him into the house of the high priest. Peter
followed at a distance.
GILL, "Then took they him, and led him,.... The band of soldiers, the captain,
and the officers of the Jews, laid hold on Jesus, and bound him, Joh_18:12 and led
him out of the garden; notwithstanding the miracle he had wrought, and the
humanity he had shown in healing the servant's ear; and notwithstanding his moving
address to the chiefs of them; and indeed, this was a confirmation of his last words;
for by this it appeared, that now was their time, and power was given to them, as the
emissaries of Satan, to act against him:
and brought him into the high priest's house; where the sanhedrim were
assembled; but this was not in the temple where they used to sit: it is true, indeed,
that the chamber in the temple, called the chamber "Parhedrin", or "Palhedrin", was,
‫דירה‬ ‫,בית‬ "the dwelling house" of the high priest, seven days before the day of
atonement (k); and this was also called the "chamber of the counsellors" (l); so that
had the time of year agreed, it might have been thought that this was the place that
Jesus was led to; but here the high priest did not usually dwell, and it is manifestly
distinguished from his own house: for it is said (m),
"seven days before the day of atonement, they separate, or remove the high priest,
‫,מביתו‬ "from his house", to the chamber of "Palhedrin";''
See Gill on Mat_26:3.
And Peter followed afar off; See Gill on Mat_26:58.
HENRY, "We have here the melancholy story of Peter's denying his Master, at the
time when he was arraigned before the high priest, and those that were of the cabal,
that were ready to receive the prey, and to prepare the evidence for his arraignment,
as soon as it was day, before the great sanhedrim, Luk_22:66. But notice is not
taken here, as was in the other evangelists, of Christ's being now upon his
examination before the high priest, only of his being brought into the high priest's
house, Luk_22:54. But the manner of expression is observable. They took him, and
led him, and brought him, which methinks is like that concerning Saul (1Sa_15:12):
He is gone about, and passed on, and gone down; and intimates that, even when
they had seized their prey, they were in confusion, and, for fear of the people, or
rather struck with inward terror upon what they had seen and heard, they took him
the furthest way about, or, rather, knew not which way they hurried him, such a
hurry were they in in their own bosoms.0
JAMISON, "Luk_22:47-54. Betrayal and apprehension of Jesus - Flight of His
disciples.
300

301. BENSON, "Luke 22:54-62. Then took they him, and brought him into the high-
priest’s house — See on Matthew 26:57; and Mark 14:53; Mark 14:51. When
they had kindled a fire, Peter sat down among them — See the story of Peter’s
three-fold denial of Christ elucidated at large in the notes on Matthew 26:69-75;
and Mark 14:66-72. Another saw him, and said — Observe here, in order to
reconcile the four evangelists, that divers persons concurred in charging Peter
with belonging to Christ. 1st, The maid that let him in, afterward seeing him at
the fire, first put the question to him, and then positively affirmed that he was
with Christ. 2d, Another maid accused him to the standers by, and gave occasion
to the man here mentioned to renew the charge against him, which caused the
second denial. 3d, Others of the company took notice of his being a Galilean, and
were seconded by the kinsman of Malchus, who affirmed he had seen him in the
garden. And this drew on the third denial. And about an hour after — So he did
not recollect himself in all that time.
COFFMAN, "Verse 54
And they seized him, and led him away, and brought him into the high priest's
house. But Peter followed afar off.
The legal high priest was Caiaphas, but Annas his father-in-law was held to be
the rightful high priest deposed by Rome; both of them occupied the same
palace; and Peter's denial occurred in the courtyard where both Annas and
Caiaphas lived. Luke very briefly mentioned the two arraignments, or trials,
before Annas and Caiaphas. For article on the "Six Trials of Jesus," see my
Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57ff.
Peter followed afar off ... Peter's failure was partially due to some things he did,
such as following "afar off," warming himself at the fire kindled by Jesus'
enemies, his rash resort to carnal weapons, his boastful promise to go to prison
and death with Jesus, etc. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew
26:58,70-75.
COKE, "Luke 22:54. And Peter followed afar off.— His love to his Master was
not extinguished, yet it was exceedingly weakened; he followed, but afar off: he
was here beginning to stagger; he had said that he would follow Christ, and he
persuades himself that he is fulfilling his promise by thus following him afar off.
St. John informs us with his usual modesty, that another disciple followed Jesus,
John 18:15 who appears to have been himself; whence we may infer, that Peter
and John returned quickly after their flight, or else they could not have followed
at some distance, and yet be so near as to be ready to go into Caiaphas's house
with him.
BURKITT, "This paragraph of the chapter gives us an account of the fall and
rising of Peter: of his sin in denying his Master, and of his recovery by
repentance; both must be considered distinctly.
First, touching his sin and fall; there are four particulars observable relating
thereunto; namely, the sin itself, the occasion of that sin, the reiteration and
repetition of it, and the aggravating circumstances attending it.
301

302. Observe, 1. The sin itself, the denial of Christ Jesus his Lord and Master, I know
not the man; and this backed with an oath, he sware that he knew him not. Lord,
how may the slavish fear of suffering drive the holiest and best of men to commit
the foulest and worst of sins!
Observe, 2. The occasions leading to this sin, and they were these:
1. His following Christ afar off. To follow Christ was the effect of Peter's faith;
but to follow him afar off at this time, was the fruit of fear, and the effect of
frailty. Woe unto us when temptation comes, if we be far from Christ's gracious
presence and assistance.
2. His being in bad company, amongst Christ's enemies: would we escape
temptations to sin, we must then decline such company as would allure and draw
us into sin. Peter had better have been acold by himself alone, than warming
himself at a fire which was encompassed in with the blasphemies of the
multitude; where his conscience, though not seared, was yet made hard.
Another grand occasion of Peter's falling was, a presumptous confidence of his
own strength and standing: Though all men forsake thee, yet will not I. Oh Lord,
to presume upon ourselves, is the ready way to provoke thee to leave us to
ourselves; if ever we stand in the day of trial, it is the fear of falling must enable
us to stand. We soon fall, if we believe it impossible to fall.
Observe, 3. The reiteration and repetition of this sin, he denied Christ again and
again; he denies him first with a lie, then with an oath, and next with a curse.
Lord, how dangerous is it not to resist the first beginnings of sin! If we yield to
one temptation, Satan will assault us with more and stronger. Peter proceeded
from a denial to a lie; from a lie to an oath; from an oath to an imprecation or
curse. It is our wisdom vigorously to resist sin at the beginning; for then we have
most power, and sin has least.
Observe, 4. The heinous and aggravating circumstances of St. Peter's sin; and
they are these:
1. The character of his person; a disciple, an apostle, a chief apostle, a special
favorite, who with James and John had the special honor to be with Christ at his
transfiguration: yet he denies Christ.
2. The person whom he denies; his Master, his Saviour, and Redeemer. He, that
in great humility had washed Peter's feet, had eaten the passover with Peter, had
given but just before the holy sacrament to Peter; yet is this kind and
condescending Saviour denied by Peter.
3. Consider the persons before whom he denied Christ; the chief priest's
servants. Oh how surprising, and yet very pleasing was it to them, to see one
disciple betray and sell his Master, and another disown and deny him!
302

303. 4. Consider the time when he denied him; it was but a few hours after he had
received the holy sacrament from Christ's own hands. How unreasonable then is
their objection against coming to the Lord's table, that some who go to it
dishonor Christ as soon as they come from it: such examples ought not to
discourage us from coming to the ordinance, but should excite and increase our
watchfulness, after we have been there, that our after deportment may be
suitable to the solemnmity of a sacramental table.
Observe, 5. What a small temptation he lay under thus shamefully to deny his
Lord and Master: a damsel only at first spake to him. Had a band of armed
soldiers appeared to him, and apprehended him: had he been bound and led
away to the judgment hall, and there threatened with the sentence of an
ignominious death, some excuse might have been made better for him: but to
disown his relation to Christ upon a word spoken by a sorry maid that kept the
door; the smallness of the temptation was an high aggravation of the crime. Ah
Peter: how little did thou answer thy name at this time! Thou art not now a rock,
but a reed, a pillar blown down by a woman's breath. Oh frail humanity, whose
strength is weakness and infirmity.
Note here, that in most of the saints' falls recorded in scripture, the first enticers
to sin, or the accidental occasions of it, were women; witness (besides the first
fall, that of Adam's, where the woman was first in the transgression) the fall of
Lot, Samson, David, Solomon, and Peter; these are sad instances of the truth of
what I speak.
A weak creature may be a strong tempter; nothing is to impotent or useless for
the devil's service; it was a great aggravation of Peter's sin, that the voice of a
poor maid that kept the door should be of more force to overcome him, than his
faith in Jesus to sustain him. But what shall we say? Small things are sufficient to
cast us down, if God does not help us up: we sink under any burden, if God
sustain us not; and yield to the least temptation, if he leaves us to ourselves; a
damsel shall then make a disciple shrink, and a door-keeper shall be able to
drive an apostle before her. This is the account, in short, of St. Peter's fall,
considered in itself, and with the circumstances relating to it.
Now follows his recovery and rising again by repentance; and here we have
observable, the suddenness of St. Peter's repentance, the means of his
repentance, and the manner of his repentance.
Observe, 1. The suddenness of St. Peter's repentance: as his sin was sad, so was
his repentance speedy; sin committed by surprise, and through the prevalency of
a temptation that suddenly assaults us, is much sooner repented of, than where
the sin is presumptuous and deliberate. David's murder and adultery lay almost
twelve months, without any solemn repentance for them. St. Peter's denial was
hasty and sudden, under a violent pang and passion of fear, and he takes the
warning of the cock's crowing, to go forth speedily and weep for his
transgressions.
Observe, 2. The means of his repentance, which was two-fold: the less principal
303

304. means was the crowing of the cock: the more principal means were Christ's
looking upon Peter, and Peter remembering the words of Christ.
1. The less principal means of St. Peter's rising and recovery by repentance, was
the crowing of the cock: as the voice of the maid occasioned him to sin, so the
voice of the cock occasioned him to reflect. That God who always can work
without means, can ever, when he pleases, work by weak and contemptible
means, and open the mouth of a bird or a beast for the conversion of a man. But
why does our Lord make use of the crowing of a cock, as a means of bringing St.
Peter to repentance? There is ever some mystery in Christ's institutions and
instruments; the cock was a preacher, to call St. Peter to his duty, there being
something of emblem between a cock and a preacher; the preacher ought to have
the wings of the cock, to rouse himself from drowsiness and security, and to
awaken others to a sense of their duty; he must have the watchfulness of the
cock, to be ever ready to discover and forewarn danger; he must have the voice
of the cock, terrify the roaring lion of hell, and make him tremble, as they say the
natural lion does; in a word, he must observe the hours of the cock, to crow at at
all seasons; to preach the word in season and out of season.
Again, 2. The more principal means of St. Peter's recovery were Christ's looking
upon Peter, and Peter's remembering the words of Christ.
1. Christ's looking upon Peter; our Saviour looked upon Peter, before either
Peter looked upon our Saviour or upon himself. Oh wonderful act of love and
grace towards this fallen disciple. Christ was now upon his trial for his life, (a
time when our thoughts would have been wholly taken up about ourselves,) but
even then did Christ find leisure to think upon Peter, to remember his
disconsolate disciples, to turn himself about and give him a pitiful but piercing
look, even a look that melted and dissolved him into tears. We never begin to
lament our sins till we are first lamented by our Saviour; Jesus looked upon
Peter, that was the first more principal means of his repentance.
But, 2. The other means was Peter's remembering the words of the Lord, Before
the cock crow thou shalt deny me. Now this remembrance was an applicative and
feeling remembrance; he remembered the prediction of Christ, and applied it
sensibly to himslf; teaching us, that the efficacy of Christ's words, in order to
sound repentance, depends not upon the historical remembrance of it, but upon
the close application of it to everyman's conscience.
Observe, 3. The manner of St. Peter's repentance; it was secret, it was sincere, it
was lasting, and abiding.
1. It was secret; he went out and wept; he sought a place of retirement, where he
might mourn in secret; solitariness is most agreeable to an afflicted spirit; yet I
must add, that as St. Peter's sorrow, so probably his shame, might cause him to
go forth and weep. Christ looked upon him, and how ashamed must he be to look
upon Christ, seeing he had so lately denied that he had ever seen him!
2. St. Peter's repentance was sincere; he wept bitterly: his grief was
304

305. extraordinary, and his tears abundant; there is always a weeping that must
follow sin; sin must cost the soul sorrow, either here or in hell; we must now
either mourn awhile, or lament forever. Doubtless St. Peter's tears were joined
with hearty confessions of sin to God, and smart reflections on himself, after this
manner: "Lord! What have I done? I a disciple, I an apostle, I that did so lately
acknowledge my Master to be Christ the Lord, I that spoke with so much
assurance, Though all men deny thee, yet will not I I that promised to lay down
my life for his sake; yet have I denied him, yet have I, with oaths and
imprecations, disowned him, and this at the voice of a damsel, not at the sight of
a drawn sword presented at my breast. Lord! What weakness, what wickedness,
what unfaithfulness, have I been guilty of! Oh that my head were waters, and
mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep all my days for the fault of this
one night!" Thus may we suppose our lapsed apostle to have bemoaned himself;
and happy was it for them, that he did so; for blessed are the tears of a converted
revolter, and happy is the misery of a mourning offender.
Observe, 3. St. Peter's repentance was not only secret and sincere, but lasting
and abiding; he retained a very quick sense, and lively remembrance, of this sin,
upon his mind all his life after.
Ecclesiastical history reports, that ever after, when St. Peter heard the crowing
of the cock, he fell upon his knees and wept.
Others say, that he was wont to rise at midnight, and spent his time in prayer
and humiliation, between cock-crowing and daylight: and the papists, who
delight to turn every thing into folly and superstition, first began that practice of
setting up, what we call weather-cocks upon towers and steeples, to put people in
mind of St. Peter's fall and repentance by that signal.
Lastly, St. Peter's repentance was an extraordinary zeal and forwardness for the
service of Christ to the end of his days. He had a burning love towards the holy
Jesus ever after, which is now improved into a seraphic flame; Lord, thou
knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee, says he himself, John 21:17
And as an evidence of it, he fed Christ's sheep; for, in the Acts of the apostles, we
read of his extraordinary diligence to spread the gospel, and his travels in order
thereunto, are computed by some to be nine hundred and fifty miles.
To end all, have any of us fallen with Peter, though not with a formal abjuration,
yet by a practical denying of him? Let us go forth and weep with him; let us be
more vigilant and watchful over ourselves for the time to come; let us express
more fervent love and zeal for Christ, more diligence in his service, more
concernedness for his honor and glory: this would be an happy improvement of
his example: God grant it may have that blessed effect!
PETT, "Verse 54
‘And they seized him, and led him away, and brought him into the high priest’s
house. But Peter followed afar off.’
So Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives and led away, and was brought to
305

306. the house of the High Priest. The disciples meanwhile had scattered. Jesus had
forbidden resistance and they wanted to avoid arrest. But Peter, determined not
to let Jesus down, and so that he could prove his loyalty, did not go far, and
when the arresting party moved off, he followed them at a distance
(accompanied, we learn in John 18:15, by another disciple, which was probably
John himself).
‘Peter followed afar off.’ It would not have been wise to do anything else, but
Luke’s words may well be intended to include the thought that Peter’s heart was
not as it should have been. They are a warning to his readers lest they too ‘follow
afar off’.
Verses 54-62
Jesus Is Brought To The High Priest’s House Where Peter Denies Him Three
Times (22:54-62).
Jesus’ actual arrest had been by the Temple guard, and He was now taken to the
High Priest’s house, (which would have been a very large house built around a
central courtyard), in order to prepare the case against Him. His being taken
there demonstrates that the Romans (only mentioned by John) had only been
present in case of trouble, although their presence would be necessary for an
arrest of this nature, for they wanted to accuse Him of capital crimes. They
wanted His sentence to be political.
Both Annas (the ‘retired’ High Priest, but still acknowledged by the people as
High Priest. Scripturally High Priests were High Priests for life) and Caiaphas,
his son-in-law, the current High Priest appointed by the Romans, would each
have a suite of apartments there, for it was the family residence. The pattern that
would now follow would be complicated, and it is quite clear that for any writer
to seek to include all that happened would have unnecessarily used up valuable
writing space that could be better used for other purposes, and would have
meant needless repetition. For much of what went on during the night had to be
repeated again before the full Sanhedrin, who had to be convinced that Jesus
was getting a reasonably fair trial. Luke especially at this stage must have been
conscious of running out of space, for there were limits as to how long a scroll
could reasonably be, and how much could be recorded on it. And he chose
therefore only to record brief but essential details of the official hearing. Possibly
this was partly because he was aware of what Mark had already dealt with.
Fortunately for the historian, however, Matthew and Mark were more
concerned with the hearing before Caiaphas, and John, aware of the gaps, tells
us about Annas, so that we can build up a fairly full picture.
The approaches of the writers actually brings out an interesting point from our
point of view. Each of them selects from the material and describes three
hearings. To each of them three would be seen as indicating to the readers the
completeness of the what He underwent. More than three would simply be to
overload the narrative.
The night, however, appears to have gone as follows:
306

307. · First Jesus would be interviewed in private by a small group led by the
wily old Annas, former High Priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas the present
High Priest, so as to question him and work out what charges to lay against Him
(John 18:13; John 18:19-24). Annas was both astute and experienced, and it was
probably hoped that he would be able to get some damaging admissions from
Him and work out some charges that could be successfully laid against Him
before the Sanhedrin. He reveals something of what he was when he allowed
Jesus to be smitten without protest. But in the end, recognising that he had failed
to achieve his object, he then sent him to Caiaphas to see whether with the help
of the influential people he had gathered they could either overawe Jesus, or in
some way trip Him up.
· While this preliminary hearing was going on an inner group of influential
illwishers connected with the Sanhedrin were being gathered together by
Caiaphas at his house in order to prepare for the trial in the morning, and if
necessary, to iron out the case against Him. These would then examine Him
further (Mark 14:53-65; Matthew 26:57-68), and this would clarify in their own
minds what tack they should take before the Sanhedrin in the morning. It was
important that they build up a case which would stand examination. Thus they
sought to discover reliable witnesses, and find a charge that would stick. All
knew that legally no sentence of death could officially be passed at night. If the
matter was to stand up to examination afterwards, the full Sanhedrin would
have to be brought together in its official meeting place in the morning in order
to pass sentence. But it was necessary for the case to be cut and dried before then
so that once morning came there would be no delay.
· When light did come there was then a meeting of the full official
Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71; Mark 15:1; Matthew 27:1) at their official meeting
place. Only they could actually come to an official conclusion on a serious matter
like the condemnation of a false prophet. And all knew that some of the members
of the Sanhedrin might be difficult to convince. They were not all enemies of
Jesus. So the case had to be as cast iron as the accusers could make it. Indeed we
learn later that the vote was not unanimous (Luke 23:51).
· Once their ‘verdict’ had been reached He would then be handed over to
Pilate, because they wanted Him condemned by the Romans for a political crime
so that they themselves would not become even more unpopular with the people.
In the end Pilate was the only one who could sentence Him to death for political
crimes. Luke also includes within this hearing the consultation before Herod. But
that was in no sense a trial. Indeed the only real trial that resulted in the passing
of a sentence was that before Pilate.
Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke only deals with the final and most important
Jewish tribunal. This was the one recognised by the Romans which passed the
official verdict, and which would provide the basis of the charge brought before
Pilate. And that particular hearing occurred after the incident that follows.
For meanwhile, along with another disciple, Peter had followed the arresting
party and now found himself in the courtyard of the house warming himself at a
fire while the first of the above examinations was going on. In one chiasmus (see
the opening of Section 8) this passage parallels that of Jesus’ earlier warning to
him about his denial, in another it parallels and contrasts with Judas’ betrayal.
307

308. But it appears that Peter himself had temporarily forgotten Jesus’ warning in
the face of the urgency of the situation in which he found himself. This account
will highlight four things, firstly Peter’s own weaknesses, secondly the supreme
courage, confidence, openness and strength of Jesus which is in stark contrast
with them (He had steadfastly prayed and Peter had not), thirdly the amazing
foresight of Jesus concerning what Peter would do, and fourthly the way in
which God sometimes allows His own to fail, so that He might finally make them
strong.
Analysis.
a They seized Him, and led Him away, and brought Him into the high priest’s
house. But Peter followed afar off (Luke 22:54).
b And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down
together, Peter sat in the midst of them (Luke 22:55).
c And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking
steadfastly at him, said, “This man also was with Him” (Luke 22:56).
d But he denied, saying, “Woman, I know Him not” (Luke 22:57).
c And after a little while another saw him, and said, “You also are one of them”
(Luke 22:58 a).
d But Peter said, “Man, I am not” (Luke 22:58 b)’
c And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying,
“Of a truth this man also was with Him, for he is a Galilean” (Luke 22:59).
d But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are saying.” And immediately,
while he yet spoke, the cock crew’ (Luke 22:60).
b And the Lord turned, and looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of
the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the cock crow this day you will deny
Me three times” (Luke 22:61).
a And he went out, and wept bitterly (Luke 22:62).
Note that in ‘a’ Peter followed afar off, and in the parallel he went out and wept
bitterly. In ‘b’ he settled down together with Jesus’ enemies, and in the parallel
Jesus turned and looked on Peter. In each of ‘c’ there comes an accusation, and
in each ‘d’ we have Peter’s reply. These threesomes are the central part in the
passage (The three questions and answers could thus be seen as one central item.
The pattern is paralleled elsewhere in Scripture, see especially our commentary
on Numbers 22-24 for examples).
MACLAREN, “IN THE HIGH PRIEST'S PALACE
The present passage deals with three incidents, each of which may be regarded either
as an element in our Lord’s sufferings or as a revelation of man’s sin. He is denied,
mocked, and formally rejected and condemned. A trusted friend proves faithless, the
underlings of the rulers brutally ridicule His prophetic claims, and their masters vote
Him a blasphemer for assenting His divinity and Messiahship.
I. We have the failure of loyalty and love in Peter’s denials.
I may observe that Luke puts all Peter’s denials before the hearing by the council,
from which it is clear that the latter was later than the hearing recorded by Matthew
and John. The first denial probably took place in the great hall of the high priest’s
official residence, at the upper end of which the prisoner was being examined, while
308

309. the hangers-on huddled round the fire, idly waiting the event.
The morning air bit sharply, and Peter, exhausted, sleepy, sad, and shivering, was
glad to creep near the blaze. Its glinting on his face betrayed him to a woman’s sharp
eye, and her gossiping tongue could not help blurting out her discovery. Curiosity,
not malice, moved her; and there is no reason to suppose that any harm would have
come to Peter, if he had said, as he should have done, ‘Yes, I am His disciple.’ The day
for persecuting the servants was not yet come, but for the present it was Jesus only
who was aimed at.
No doubt, cowardice had a share in the denials, but there was more than that in
them. Peter was worn out with fatigue, excitement, and sorrow. His susceptible
nature would be strongly affected by the trying scenes of the last day, and all the
springs of life would be low. He was always easily influenced by surroundings, and
just as, at a later date, he was ‘carried away’ by the presence at Antioch of the
Judaisers, and turned his back on the liberal principles which he had professed, so
now he could not resist the current of opinion, and dreaded being unlike even the
pack of menials among whom he sat. He was ashamed of his Master and hid his
colours, not so much for fear of bodily harm as of ridicule. Was there not a deeper
depth still in his denials, even the beginnings of doubt whether, after all, Jesus was
what he had thought Him? Christ prayed that Peter’s ‘faith’ should not ‘fail’ or be
totally eclipsed, and that may indicate that the assault was made on his ‘faith’ and
that it wavered, though it recovered steadfastness.
If he had been as sure of Christ’s work and nature as when he made his great
confession, he could not have denied Him. But the sight of Jesus bound, unresisting,
and evidently at the mercy of the rulers, might well make a firmer faith stagger. We
have not to steel ourselves to bear bodily harm if we confess Christ; but many of us
have to run counter to a strong current flowing around us, and to be alone in the
midst of unsympathising companions ready to laugh and gibe, and some of us are
tempted to waver in our convictions of Christ’s divinity and redeeming power,
because He still seems to stand at the bar of the wise men and leaders of opinion, and
to be treated by them as a pretender. It is a wretched thing to be persecuted out of
one’s Christianity in the old-fashioned fire and sword style; but it is worse to be
laughed out of it or to lose it, because we breathe an atmosphere of unbelief. Let the
doctors at the top of the hall and the lackeys round the fire who take their opinions
from them say what they like, but let them not make us ashamed of Jesus.
Peter slipped away to the gateway, and there, apparently, was again attacked, first by
the porteress and then by others, which occasioned the second denial, while the third
took place in the same place, about an hour afterwards. One sin makes many. The
devil’s hounds hunt in packs. Consistency requires the denier to stick to his lie. Once
the tiniest wing tip is in the spider’s web, before long the whole body will be wrapped
round by its filthy, sticky threads.
If Peter had been less confident, he would have been more safe. If he had said less
about going to prison and death, he would have had more reserve fidelity for the time
of trial. What business had he thrusting himself into the palace? Over-reliance on self
leads us to put ourselves in the way of temptations which it were wiser to avoid. Had
he forgotten Christ’s warnings? Apparently so. Christ predicts the fall that it may not
happen, and if we listen to Him, we shall not fall.
The moment of recovery seems to have been while our Lord was passing from the
earlier to the later examination before the rulers. In the very floodtide of Peter’s
oaths, the shrill cock-crow is heard, and at the sound the half-finished denial sticks in
his throat. At the same moment he sees Jesus led past him, and that look, so full of
love, reproof, and pardon, brought him back to loyalty, and saved him from despair.
309

310. The assurance of Christ’s knowledge of our sins against Him melts the heart, when
the assurance of His forgiveness and tender love comes with it. Then tears, which are
wholly humble but not wholly grief, flow. They do not wash away the sin, but they
come from the assurance that Christ’s love, like a flood, has swept it away. They save
from remorse, which has no healing in it.
II. We have the rude taunts of the servants.
The mockery here comes from Jews, and is directed against Christ’s prophetic
character, while the later jeers of the Roman soldiers make a jest of His kingship.
Each set lays hold of what seems to it most ludicrous in His pretensions, and these
servants ape their masters on the judgment seat, in laughing to scorn this Galilean
peasant who claimed to be the Teacher of them all. Rude natures have to take rude
ways of expression, and the vulgar mockery meant precisely the same as more polite
and covert scorn means from more polished people; namely, rooted disbelief in Him.
These mockers were contented to take their opinions on trust from priests and
rabbis. How often, since then, have Christ’s servants been objects of popular odium
at the suggestion of the same classes, and how often have the ignorant people been
misled by their trust in their teachers to hate and persecute their true Master!
Jesus is silent under all the mockery, but then, as now, He knows who strikes Him.
His eyes are open behind the bandage, and see the lifted hands and mocking lips. He
will speak one day, and His speech will be detection and condemnation. Then He was
silent, as patiently enduring shame and spitting for our sakes. Now He is silent, as
long-suffering and wooing us to repentance; but He keeps count and record of men’s
revilings, and the day comes when He whose eyes are as a flame of fire will say to
every foe, ‘I know thy works.’
III. We have the formal rejection and condemnation by the council.
The hearing recorded in verses 66 to 71 took place ‘as soon as it was day,’ and was
apparently a more formal official ratification of the proceedings of the earlier
examination described by Matthew and John. The ruler’s question was put simply in
order to obtain material for the condemnation already resolved on. Our Lord’s
answer falls into two parts, in the first of which He in effect declines to recognise the
bona fides of His judges and the competency of the tribunal, and in the second goes
beyond their question, and claims participation in divine glory and power. ‘If I tell
you, ye will not believe’; therefore He will not tell them.
Jesus will not unfold His claims to those who only seek to hear them in order to
reject, not to examine, them. Silence is His answer to ingrained prejudice
masquerading as honest inquiry. It is ever so. There is small chance of truth at the
goal if there be foregone conclusions or biased questions at the starting-point. ‘If I
ask you, ye will not answer.’ They had taken refuge in judicious but self-condemning
silence when He had asked them the origin of John’s mission and the meaning of the
One Hundred and Tenth Psalm, and thereby showed that they were not seeking light.
Jesus will gladly speak with any who will be frank with Him, and let Him search their
hearts; but He will not unfold His mission to such as refuse to answer His questions.
But while thus He declines to submit Himself to that tribunal, and in effect accuses
them of obstinate blindness and a fixed conclusion to reject the claims which they
were pretending to examine, He will not leave them without once more asserting an
even higher dignity than that of Messiah. As a prisoner at their bar, He has nothing
to say to them; but as their King and future Judge, He has something. They desire to
find materials for sentence of death, and though He will not give these in the
character of a criminal before His judges, He also desires that the sentence should
pass, and He will declare His divine prerogatives and fall possession of divine power
310

311. in the hearing of the highest court of the nation.
It was fitting that the representatives of Israel, however prejudiced, should hear at
that supreme moment the full assertion of full deity. It was fitting that Israel should
condemn itself, by treating that claim as blasphemy. It was fitting that Jesus should
bring about His death by His twofold claim-that made to the Sanhedrim, of being the
Son of God, and that before Pilate, of being the King of the Jews.
The whole scene teaches us the voluntary character of Christ’s Death, which is the
direct result of this tremendous assertion. It carries our thoughts forward to the time
when the criminal of that morning shall be the Judge, and the judges and we shall
stand at His bar. It raises the solemn question, Did Jesus claim truly when He
claimed divine power? If truly, do we worship Him? If falsely, what was He? It
mirrors the principles on which He deals with men universally, answering ‘him that
cometh, according to the multitude of his idols,’ and meeting hypocritical pretences
of seeking the truth about Him with silence, but ever ready to open His heart and the
witness to His claims to the honest and docile spirits who are ready to accept His
words, and glad to open their inmost secrets to Him.
55 And when some there had kindled a fire in
the middle of the courtyard and had sat down
together, Peter sat down with them.
GILL, "And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall,.... It
being cold in the night time, though it was at the passover, and the beginning of
harvest, the servants and officers of the high priest made a fire in the middle of the
hall, whilst Jesus was examining before the sanhedrim, at the other end of it:
and were sat down together; about it, as the Syriac version adds, to warm
themselves:
Peter sat down among them; for the same purpose, and as if he was one of them;
and which he might do, not only to warm himself, but to prevent his being taken
notice of, and suspected; as he might have been, had he been loitering about.
HENRY, "I. Peter's falling. 1. It began in sneaking. He followed Christ when he was
had away prisoner; this was well, and showed a concern for his Master. But he
followed afar off, that he might be out of danger. He thought to trim the matter, to
follow Christ, and so to satisfy his conscience, but to follow afar off, and so to save
his reputation, and sleep in a whole skin. 2. It proceeded in keeping his distance still,
and associating himself with the high priest's servants, when he should have been at
his master's elbow. The servants kindled a fire in the midst of the hall and sat down
together, to talk over their night-expedition. Probably Malchus was among them, and
Peter sat down among them, as if he had been one of them, at least would be thought
to be so. His fall itself was disclaiming all acquaintance with Christ, and relation to
him, disowning him because he was now in distress and danger. He was charged by a
311

312. sorry simple maid, that belonged to the house, with being a retainer to this Jesus,
about whom there was now so much noise. She looked wistfully upon him as he at by
the fire, only because he was a stranger, and one whom she had not seen before; and
concluding that at this time of night there were no neuters there, and knowing him
not to be any of the retinue of the high priest, she concludes him to be one of the
retinue of this Jesus, or perhaps she had been some time or other looking about her
in the temple, and had seen Jesus there and Peter with him, officious about him, and
remembered him; and this man was with him, saith she. And Peter, as he had not
the courage to own the charge, so he had not the wit and presence of mind to turn it
off, as he might have done many ways, and therefore flatly and plainly denies it:
Woman, I know him not.
JAMISON, "Luk_22:55-62. Jesus before Caiaphas - Fall of Peter.
The particulars of these two sections require a combination of all the narratives,
for which see on Joh_18:1-27.
COFFMAN, "Verse 55
And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down
together, Peter sat in the midst of them.
Psychologically, Peter placed himself at a disadvantage by "warming himself by
the devil's fire." Accepting favors of enemies of the truth is just as dangerous
now as it was when Peter sat in the firelight so long ago.
It is refreshing indeed to recall that, a few days later, there was another fire by
the seaside, kindled by the Lord himself, and like this one blazing forth at a very
early hour in the morning: and by that other fire Peter confessed three times that
he loved the Lord! (John 21:9).
PETT, "Introduced into the courtyard of the house by the other disciple, who
was known in those circles, Peter found himself surrounded by people who were
no doubt discussing the arrest, and who were also no doubt mainly
unsympathetic. Few, if any, would be Galileans.
Now up to this point in time, while there was still some action to take, Peter’s
courage had remained relatively firm. For his impulsive courage, the kind that
wins medals of honour, was well up to such situations. But now as he looked
around him in the semi-darkness, and realised that any one of those who were
gathered there would be only too pleased to betray him to the guards if they
knew who he was, a deep apprehension began to take hold of him. He was not so
good at patient endurance.
And yet he felt that he had to remain quietly there and wait to see what would
happen next, for he would not totally desert his Master. Thus he also had the
courage for a decision like that. But the problem was that he was not a man who
liked inaction, and the result was that the situation began to chafe him so that he
became very uneasy, and then even frightened. And it was now, with nothing else
taking up his thoughts, that the truth about the whole situation was beginning to
come home to him. It was enough to try the strongest of men. Thus the longer he
waited the more apprehensive he became. Every shadow began to appear like an
312

313. arresting soldier, every voice a potential accuser, and he soon realised that if he
was to escape with his liberty he would have to avoid being noticed. He was
discovering what Jesus had meant when He had said, ‘You are those who have
accompanied me in my temptations’ (Luke 22:28, compare Luke 22:46). And at
that stage he was not happy about it.
And behind it all we must remember the sinister figure of Satan, ‘sifting him as
wheat’ (Luke 22:31). So in the darkness he was also experiencing the power of
darkness. And he did not have the resilience and strength of his Master. Nor was
he fortified, as he should have been, by the prayer in which he should previously
have engaged.
BI 55-62, Peter followed afar off
Decision of character enforced
I.
WHAT IS IMPLIED IN FOLLOWING THE LORD AFAR OFF. Not giving the whole
heart’s affection to Him.
II. WHAT USUALLY INDUCES ANY PERSONS TO DO SO.
1. The fear of man.
2. The love of the world.
III. WHY WE SHOULD DETERMINE TO FOLLOW HIM FULLY.
1. It is dishonourable to God to follow Him afar off.
2. It is ruinous to our peace to be undecided in religion.
3. To follow the Lord afar off is injurious to the general interests of religion.
Allow me, in closing, to inquire—
1. Do you follow the Lord at all?
2. If you are following the Lord, how are you following Him? Is your heart in your
professed subjection to Jesus Christ.? What motive influences your conduct? (W.
Mudge.)
Peter
I. THE MAN. A man of great natural audacity and force; coarse, homely, rugged,
stout, tenacious, powerful, of that class of men, not large, who break down old wails,
and bring in new ages. And yet a man of variable impulses, and of changeful moods.
Under strong excitement, he stood firm as a granite rock. Hence his surname,
“Peter.” But the quick heat might be quickly chilled. And then the granite crumbled.
The rock became a sand-heap. His judgment could not always be trusted. His
greatest strength was sometimes his greatest weakness. His large, warm heart over
mastered him. It was hard for him to be parted from his friends. It was hard for him
to go against the wishes and opinions of his associates. Even those with whom he
might be casually in contact, had undue power over him; not from lack of positive
convictions of his own, but because his great, hungry heart craved sympathy and
fellowship. He wanted men to think well of him, and feel kindly towards him. An
over-weening love of approbation was his one great weakness. And so he lay, as such
313

314. men always do, very much at the mercy of his companions and his circumstances.
II. THE SIN OF PETER. There was really no excuse for it. Its was in no personal
danger. All he had to fear was a momentary contempt from servants and soldiers. Yet
the paltry desire of standing well in the estimation of those who happened to be
about him, menials as they were, caused him to prove false to his Lord. Miserable
man! It makes us blush to think of him; so brave in meeting swords and clubs, so
cowardly in meeting sneers.
III. HIS REPENTANCE. The reproving look of Christ, standing meek among His
buffeters, and soon to start for Cavalry, was too much for the false and recreant
disciple. “He wept bitterly,” they tell us; and we may well believe it, for he was at
heart a good, true, brave man, and when he came to himself he despised and
abhorred himself for the momentary weakness which had allowed him so basely to
deny his Lord … And so his character stands before us in proportions that do not
appal and mock us as something quite miraculous and above our reach. While we
stand in awe of him as an apostle, we are able to embrace him as a man, and walk on
after him towards heaven. Nay, our interest in him is altogether peculiar. Majestic in
his original endowments, we admire him. Inexcusable in his fall, we pity him. Elastic
and fearless in his subsequent career, we accept it as a full and glorious atonement
for every slip and every error of his life. If he was cowardly in the courtyard of
Caiaphas, he made up for it by being a hero at his crucifixion, when he asked his
tormentors to nail him to the cross with his feet turned upwards into heaven.
IV. THE PRACTICAL BEARING OF OUR SUBJECT is direct and obvious. It might
not be quite right theologically, to thank God for Peter’s sin. But since he did sin, we
certainly ought to be very thankful for the record of it. Had Judas alone offended,
afterwards perishing by his own hands, and sinking to his own place, Christians, once
sinning, might well grow desperate. Had Peter stood, as John did, unshaken and
unsullied, our hard struggle with manifold infirmities would be far harder than it is.
But now we have a sinning Peter before us; an apostle grievously sinning, but grandly
recovered. And while we blush to look upon him, there is comfort in the sight. Be
encouraged, my feeble, imperfect, wavering brother, not indeed to sin, nor yet to
think lightly of sin; but if you have sinned, to go and sin no more. Remorse belongs
to Judas. Penitence to Peter. Penitence, and a better life. (R. D. Hitchcock, D. D.)
The Lord turned and looked up in Peter
Peter’s sin and restoration
I. A grievous sin.
1. Its elements.
(1) Falsehood.
(2) Cowardice.
(3) Profanity.
(4) Persistence.
2. Its aggravations.
(1) His close connection with Christ.
(2) His recent special privileges.
(3) The repeated warnings given him.
314

315. (4) His strong professions of devotion
(5) The urgent demands of the time and place.
3. Its instigations.
(1) The failure was surprisingly sudden;
(2) of brief duration;
(3) never repeated.
4. Its chief causes.
(1) Self-confidence.
(2) Blindness to near danger.
(3) Neglect of precautions.
(4) The fear of derision.
II. A GRACIOUS RESTORATION.
1. How was it brought about?
(1) By a predicted coincidence (Luk_22:60).
(2) By the Saviour’s penetrating glance (Luk_22:61).
(3) By the action of memory.
2. What proof have we of its genuineness?
(1) His contrite sorrow.
(2) His amended life.
Learn:
1. The weakness of the strongest.
2. The sufficiency of Christ’s grace. (M. Braithwaite.)
The repentance of St. Peter
First we learn the possibility of perfect repentance after grace has been forfeited; of a
return to God from sin committed after special favours and gifts of love. Further,
there was a wonderful mercy overruling St. Peter’s fall, bringing out of it even greater
good. It was made to teach him what otherwise he seemed unable to learn. He
needed to learn distrust of self. And thou who despondest at some past fall, hast thou
no similar lesson to learn of deeper humility, of closer dependence on God? Hast
thou had no self-trust? Has thy strength always been in prayer and watching? And
the key-note of his Epistles is—“Be clothed with humility.” “Be sober, and watch unto
prayer.” May not this be thy case—that the foundations of thy life need to be laid
lower, in a more perfect self-abasement; a deeper humility: a more entire leaning
upon God, a more complete abandonment of all high thoughts, independence of will,
self glorying, vanity, spirit of contradiction, and such-like; that beginning afresh,
these hindrances being removed, thou mayest hide thyself from thyself, hide thyself
in a perpetual recollection of the Divine presence and support, as the only stay and
safeguard of thy frail, ever-falling humanity? Moreover, St. Peter is not merely the
assurance to us of the possibility of a perfect restoration after falling from God, he is
also the model of all true penitents. The first main element of St. Peter’s recovery was
315

316. a spirit of self-accusation, a ready acknowledgment of sin and error. Here, then, is
one essential element of true repentance—self-accusation at the feet of Jesus. And
how needful a lesson to learn well. The saddest part of our sin is, that we are so slow
to confess it. Sin ever gathers round it an array of self-defences. Subtleties and
evasions, special pleadings, shrinkings from humiliation, lingerings of pride, all
gather round the consciousness of sin, and rise up instantly to hinder the only
remedy of guilt, the only hope of restoration. Again, from St. Peter we learn that faith
is a main element of restoration, preserved to him through the intercession of his
Lord—“I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” Now faith is not the belief of
any particular dogma, nor is it the same as a spirit of assurance, neither is it any
peculiar feeling appropriating some special promise; but it is the bent, the aim of the
whole soul. It is the prevailing direction of all the powers of man toward God; it is the
apprehension of the inner man embracing, grasping the invisible; living in things
which are unseen and eternal, and raising him out of the sphere of sight which lives
in things that are temporal. Faith may lay hold of one particular promise at one time,
of another at another. And thus he had learnt to regard sin in the light of another
world—sin abstractedly in itself, as a loss of spiritual life, as a thing abhorrent to God,
as an utter contrariety to all that his soul was aspiring after. To rise thus above all the
worldly consequences of sin, all its mere temporal effects, to read one’s sin in the
light of God’s countenance, to view it as we shall view it on our death-bed, stripped of
all accidents, with its awful consequences, as we pass into eternity—this is the
attribute of faith; and through the preservation of his faith, as our Lord assures us,
St. Peter arose from his fall. Oh! how much need have we to pray, “Lord, increase our
faith”; that we may see our sins in their true form and colour. The sense of sin
depends on our view of sanctity. As we grow better, we see sin clearer. As we have
more of God, we realize evil more vividly. The greatest saints are therefore the
deepest penitents. The bright light of purity in which they live sets off more vividly
the darkness of the spots which stain the field of their souls’ life. The more they
advance, the more truly they repent. As, e.g., we see more the power of truth, the
more we are ashamed of our deceits. As we perceive love and largeness of heart, so
we despise our selfishness. The more God shines into us, the more we loathe our own
vileness. We judge by the contrast. There is one more feature of a true repentance
which is exhibited in St. Peter. His repentance turned upon his love of the person of
Christ. This had been long the moving principle of his life. His indignation at the idea
of his Master’s suffering: his refusing to be washed before the administration of the
blessed Sacrament; his taking the sword, and then striking with it; his entering the
judgment-hall—were all impulses of a fervent, though unchastened, love—a love to
our Lord’s person. And this was the secret power of that look which our Lord, when
He turned, cast upon him. It may seem as though St. Peter’s love to our Lord were
too human, too much that of a man toward his fellow. It did indeed need chastening,
increased reverence, more of that deep, adoring awe which St. John earlier learnt;
and which St. Peter learnt at last in the shame and humiliations of his fall. But love to
our Lord must needs be human—human in its purest, highest form. The Incarnation
of God has made an essential change in the relations between God and man, and so
in the love that binds us. He took our nature, and abideth in that nature. He is Man
eternal, as He is God eternal. He loves, and will evermore love us, in that nature, and
through its sensations, and He draws us to love Him through the same nature, with
the impulse of which humanity is capable. He loved with a human love, and He is to
be loved in return with a human love. He consecrated the human affections to
Himself in His human form as their proper end, so that through His humanity they
might centre upon the eternal Godhead. Love is of the very essence of repentance,
and love is ever associated with a person, and the true movement of the deepening
and enduring love of penitents circles around the Person of Jesus Christ and Him
316

317. crucified. In conclusion, I would briefly point out two habits of devotion necessary to
be cherished, in order that the grace of such a repentance as we have been
contemplating may be the more worked in us. One is the habit of meditation on the
Person of Jesus Christ. Again, love can be cherished only by habitual intercourse, or
ever-renewed inward feeding on the beloved object. If there be no converse, or
communion of thought, love must decline and die. And how can an invisible person
become the object of love, except by inward contemplation? But it is not in the nature
of the human heart to love another, unless that other become a constant companion,
or unless his beauty and amiableness become strongly impressed on the soul, and be
borne always in remembrance. The grace of God moves and operates according to the
laws of humanity. Grace is above nature, but it is according to nature. It acts on
nature, and raises nature up to tile level of God, but is human still. What, then, would
stir the heart to love according to nature, the same will stir the heart to love above
nature. And what is this but the contemplation of the object, followed by an habitual
feeding upon it? The second point is this: we must learn to measure the guilt of our
sins by the sorrows of God in the flesh. We have no proper rule of our own by which
to measure the guilt or sin. Sin has ruined this lower creation of God. Sin brought the
flood and the fire of Sodom, and it has in its train disease, and famine, and war. It
has created death, and made death eternal. All these are as certain rules and
proportions by which we can form some estimate of the guilt of sin. But they are
partial and imperfect measures, after all. The only true and adequate measure is the
blood of God Incarnate and the sorrows of His sacred heart. Learn, then, to look at
sin in this connection—not sin in the aggregate, but individual sins. Measure by this
price the special besetting sin of thy nature. Weigh it in the scale against the weight
of the sacrifice which bowed to the cross the Incarnate God. (Canon T. T. Carter)
Peter’s presumptuous sin and sorrowful repentance
I. CONFIDENCE AND PRESUMPTION ARE VERY UNPROMISING SIGNS OF
STEDFASTNESS AND PERSEVERANCE IN RELIGION. Trust in God is one thing,
and trust in ourselves is another; and there is reason to think that they will differ as
much in the success that attends them as they do in the powers upon which they are
founded. It is in vain for you to promise yourselves a superiority under trials and
temptations, unless you lay the right foundation, by imploring the aid and assistance
of God’s Holy Spirit, whose province only it is to confirm the faithful to the end.
II. From this example of St. Peter we may learn also WHAT LITTLE REASON
THERE IS TO PROMISE OURSELVES SUCCESS AGAINST TEMPTATIONS
WHICH ARE OF OUR OWN SEEKING. St. Peter had warning given him, and was
told by One whose word he might have taken, that he was not able to undergo the
trial, which he seemed so much to despise. But try he would, and learnt to know his
own weakness in his miscarriage. God knows our strength better than we ourselves
do; and therefore, when He has warned us to avoid the occasions of sin, and to fly
from the presence of the enemy, it is presumption to think ourselves able to stand the
attack, and our preparations to meet the danger must be vain and ineffectual. When
we strive not lawfully, even victory is dis-honourable, and no success can justify
disobedience to orders.
III. From the example of St. Peter we may learn now GREAT THE ADVANTAGES
OF REGULAR AND HABITUAL HOLINESS ARE. Good Christians, though they may
fall like other men through passion, or presumption, or other infirmities, yet the way
to their repentance is more open and easy; their minds, not being hardened by sin,
are awakened by the gentlest calls, and the sense of virtue revives upon the first
motion and suggestions of conscience. St. Peter fell, and his fall was very shameful;
317

318. but his repentance was as surprising and remarkable as his fall.
IV. You may observe that THE SINS OF THE BEST MEN ARE EXPIATED WITH
THE GREATEST SENSE OF SORROW AND AFFLICTION. It is impossible to have a
sense of religion, to think of God and ourselves as we ought to do, without being
affected with the deepest sorrow for our offences. When men are truly concerned,
they do not consider what they are to get by their tears, or what profit their sorrow
will yield. The soul must vent its grief; and godly sorrow is as truly the natural
expression of an inward pain as worldly sorrow, however they differ in their causes
and objects. (Bishop Sherlock.)
Peter’s sin, and Peter’s repentance
I. PETER’S SIN.
1. The sin itself. It was the denial of his Lord. He denied that he knew Jesus. He
was ashamed to own his connection with Jesus. And he yielded to the impulse of
his shame and base fear.
2. But, secondly, let us attend to the circumstances of Peter’s sin. We cannot take
the measure of it, or see it in a just light, till these are considered. The
circumstances are of two sorts.
(1) In the first place, there are the aggravating circumstances—
(a) The first circumstance of an aggravating nature was the rank he held
among the followers of Jesus. Peter was more than an ordinary disciple.
He was one of the twelve. He was an apostle. Moreover, he was one of the
three nearest to the Lord in intercourse and love.
(b) The second circumstance of aggravation was, that Peter had been
warned of his danger.
(c) It was also an aggravating circumstance in the case, that Peter had
made great professions. When we read the sad story of his threefold
denial, we are disposed to exclaim, What can this mean? Is this the bold
confessor who was the first to avow his faith in the Messiahship of Jesus?
(d) Fourthly, Peter’s sin took aa aggravation from the circumstance that it
was committed in the presence of Jesus.
(e) Peter denied his Lord at a time of love. He had just received the Holy
Communion. And now the Passion of the Saviour was begun:
(2) The extenuating circumstances in Peter’s case. It is no less important to
mark these, than to consider, as has been done, such as were of an
aggravating nature.
(a) First, then, it was an extenuating circumstance that he was surprised
into the commission of his sin. The denial of his Lord was not deliberate.
(b) Secondly, an important circumstance of extenuation was, that the sin
was contrary to the tenor of Peter’s life.
(c) It should not be overlooked, that it seems to have been Peter’s love for
Christ that exposed him to the temptation by which he was overcome.
(d) Fourthly, Peter was comparatively ignorant. Some allowance must be
made, in the case of our apostle, for the prejudices which affected the
universal Jewish mind. We must not judge him as if he had understood,
318

319. as we do, or as he himself did afterwards, by what means it was that the
peculiar work of Jesus, as the Messiah, was to be accomplished.
(e) It is fit we should remember that the hour and the power of darkness
were come.
II. PETER’S REPENTANCE.
1. Its origin.
(1) Christ’s prayer was the procuring cause of it.
(2) The instrumental cause.
(a) Christ’s look.
(b) Christ’s word.
(3) The influence of the Spirit of God was the efficient cause.
2. The signs, tokens, and manifestation of Peter’s repentance.
(1) He went out. A change came over his feelings, and he could remain no
longer in the society of the irreligious servants and officers.
(2) He deeply mourned for his sin.
(3) He sought the society of Christ’s disciples.
(4) His love to the Lord revived.
3. The acceptance of Peter’s repentance.
(1) A message sent through the holy women.
(2) Christ’s interview with him alone.
(3) The more public interview in Galilee.
4. Peter’s repentance thus graciously accepted, what were the issues of it? He was
the boldest of the bold, from that time forward, in confessing Christ. There was
less boasting than there had been before; but he never flinched again. There were
no more denials. (A. Gray.)
Peter’s restoration
I. First, LET US LOOK AT THE LORD, WHO LOOKED UPON PETER.
1. I see in that look, first, that which makes me exclaim—What thoughtful love!
Jesus is bound, He is accused, He has just been smitten on the face, but His
thought is of wandering Peter. He looked to others, but He never looked to
Himself. I see, then, in our Lord’s looking upon Peter, a wondrously thoughtful
love.
2. I exclaim next, what a boundless condescension! He had acted most
shamefully and cruelly, and yet the Master’s eye sought him out in boundless
pity!
3. But then, again, What tender wisdom do I see here! “The Lord turned, and
looked upon Peter.” He knew best what to do; He did not speak to him, but
looked upon him.
4. As I think of that look again, I am compelled to cry out, “What Divine power is
here! This lock worked wonders. I sometimes preach with all my soul to Peter,
319

320. and, alas! he likes my sermon and forgets it. I have known Peter read a good book
full of most powerful pleading, and when he has read it through, he has shut it up
and gone to sleep. I remember my Peter when he lost his wife, and one would
have thought it would have touched him, and it did, with some natural feeling;
yet he did not return to the Lord, whom he had forsaken, but continued in his
backsliding. See, then, how our Lord can do with a look what we cannot do with a
sermon, what the most powerful writer cannot do with hundreds of pages, and
what affliction cannot do with even its heaviest stroke.
II. LET US LOOK INTO THE LOOK WHICH THE LORD GIVE TO PETER. Help us
again, most gracious Spirit!
1. That look was, first of all, a marvellous refreshment to Peter’s memory, “The
Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.” He saw the Man whom he loved as he had
never seen Him before. This was He who called him, when he was fishing, to
become a fisher of men; this was He who bade him spread the net, and caused
him to take an incredible quantity of fishes, insomuch that the boat began to sink,
and he cried out, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord”; this was He
who had made him walk on the water, and at other times had rebuked the winds,
and raised the dead. This was He with whom Peter had been upon the Mount of
Transfiguration!
2. Next, that turning of the Master was a special reminder of His warning words.
Jesus did not say it in words, but He did more than say it by His look. “Ah, Peter!
did not I tell you it would be so?”
3. Surely it was, also, a moving appeal to Peter’s heart.
4. What do you think that look chiefly said? My thought about it, as I turned it
over, was this: When the Lord looked upon Peter, though He did refresh his
memory, and make an appeal to his conscience, yet there was still more evidently
a glorious manifestation of love. If I may be permitted humbly and reverently to
read what was written on my Master’s face, I think it was this—“And yet I love
thee, Peter, I love thee still! Thou hast denied Me, but I look upon thee still as
Mine. I cannot give thee up.”
5. Again, this look penetrated Peter’s inmost heart. It is not every look that we
receive that goes very deep.
6. One fact may not escape our notice: our Lord’s look at Peter was a revival of all
Peter’s looking unto Jesus. The Lord’s look upon Peter took effect because Peter
was looking to the Lord. Do you catch it? If the Lord had turned and looked on
Peter, and Peter’s back had been turned on the Lord, that look would not have
reached Peter, nor affected him. The eyes met to produce the desired result.
7. This look was altogether between the Lord and Peter. Nobody knew that the
Lord looked on Peter, except Peter and his Lord. That grace which saves a soul is
not a noisy thing; neither is it visible to any but the receiver.
III. Now I must go to my third point: LET US LOOK AT PETER AFTER THE LORD
HAD LOOKED AT HIM. What is Peter doing?
1. When the Lord looked on Peter the first thing Peter did was to feel awakened.
Peter’s mind bad been sleeping.
2. The next effect was, it took away all Peter’s foolhardiness from him. Peter had
made his way into the high priest’s hall, but now he made his way out of it.
3. The look of Christ severed Peter from the crowd. He was no longer among the
fellows around the fire. He had not another word to say to them; he quitted their
320

321. company in haste. It is well for believers to feel that they are not of the world. Oh,
that the arrows of the great Lord would this morning pierce some soul even as a
huntsman wounds a stag! Oh, that the wounded soul, like Peter, would seek
solitude! The stag seeks the thicket to bleed and die alone; but the Lord will come
in secret to the wounded heart, and draw out the arrow.
4. That look of Christ also opened the sluices of Peter’s heart; he went out, and
wept bitterly. There was gall in the tears he wept, for they were the washings of
his hitter sorrow.
5. Yet I want you to notice that that look of Christ gave him relief. It is a good
thing to be able to weep. Those who cannot weep are the people that suffer most.
A pent-up sorrow is a terrible sorrow. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Condemned by a look
When Sapores, King of Persia, raised a violent persecution against the Christians,
Usthezanes, aa old nobleman, a courtier, that had served in Sapores’ government in
his minority, being a Christian, was so terrified that he left off his profession. But he,
sitting at the court-gate when Simon, an aged holy bishop, was leading to prison, and
rising up to salute him, the good bishop frowned upon him and turned away his face
with indignation, as being loth to look upon a man that had denied the faith:
Usthezanes fell a weeping, went into his chamber, put off his courtly attire, and broke
out into these words: “Ah, how shall I appear before the great God of heaven whom I
have denied, when Simon, but a man, will not endure to look upon me; if he frown,
how will God behold me when I come before his tribunal?” The thought of God’s
judgment-seat wrought so strongly upon him, that he recovered his spiritual
strength, and died a glorious martyr. (Spencer.)
Peter’s penitence
Dr. Moody Stewart was once praising some preacher to Dr. Duncan, who said, “He’s
too unbroken for me; plenty of learning and talents, but too unbroken yet.” You
speak about being broken in business, do you know anything of being broken in
heart? The man who has been broken himself will he tender to other broken men.
There is a story told in the Early Church how, if the cock crowed when Peter was
preaching and the echoes came into the Church, he could go no further. The sermon
was cut short; but when he began again there would be an unction and tenderness in
it which would satisfy the most broken sinner in the congregation. (J. Whyte.)
God connects His moral commands with natural objects
Instead of giving His moral command as a mere abstract announcement addressed
only to the ear, which would then be in danger of being forgotten, He linked His
words with objects which appealed to the eye, and were fitted to call up, when the eye
rested upon them, the moral ideas connected with them. Though driven out of Eden,
God has pursued the same plan in educating and disciplining man out of the
consequences of the fall, as He pursued in Eden to keep him from falling. He
connected his whole moral history as closely as before with the objects around him.
Everything with which he deals preaches to him. The thorns and thistles coming up
in his cultivated fields remind him of the curse; and the difficulties and disabilities
which he finds in earning his daily bread are proofs and punishments to him of his
321

322. sin. As truly as God made the tree of life to be a sacrament, as it were, in the midst of
Eden, to keep alive in Adam’s heart perpetually the conditions of life; as truly as
Jesus associated the moral lesson to Peter with the crowing of the cock, so truly does
God still make nature one of the great powers by which dead consciences and
sluggish memories are awakened. Our moral experiences and actions are thus as
closely linked with the trees and flowers as they were in Paradise. In our progress
through life we are continually impressing our own moral history upon the objects
around us; and these objects possess the power of recalling it, and setting it before us
in all its vividness, even after the lapse of many years. Our feelings and actions pass
from ourselves and become a part of the constitution of nature, become subtle
powers pervading the scenes in which we felt and performed them. They endow the
inanimate earth itself with a kind of consciousness, a kind of moral testimony which
may afterwards witness for or against us. We cannot live in any place, or go through
any scene, without leaving traces of ourselves behind in it; without mixing up our
own experiences with its features, taking its inanimate things into our confidence,
unbosoming ourselves to them, colouring them with our own nature, and placing
ourselves completely in their power. They keep a silent record of what we are and do
in the associations connected with our thoughts and actions; and that record they
unfold for us to read when at any time we come into contact with them. And hence
the significance of God’s own words, “He shall call to the heavens from above, and to
the earth, that He may judge His people.” There is a moral purpose, as I have said, in
all this. It is not for the mere vivifying of our feelings of pleasure or pain that the
objects of nature are endowed with this strange power of association. God meant it to
perform a most important part in our moral training. He meant it to remind us of
sins which we should otherwise have forgotten, and to awaken our consciences that
would otherwise have slumbered. By associating our sinful thoughts and actions with
outward objects, He designed that they should be brought and kept before us in all
their reality in order to produce the proper impression upon us, instead of allowing
them to sink into the vague, ghostly abstractions which past sins are apt to become in
the mind. And not seldom has this silent power of witness-bearing, which lurks in the
scenes and objects of nature, been felt by guilty men, bringing them to a sense of
their guilt. (H. Macmillan, LL. D.)
The effect of an external agency, in order to quicken a dead conscience
and reuse a torpid memory
George MacDonald, in his story of “Robert Falconer,” relates a well-authenticated
incident of a notorious convict in one of our colonies having been led to reform his
ways, through going one day into a church, where the matting along the aisle
happened to be of the same pattern as that in the little English church where he
worshipped with his mother when a boy. That old familiar matting vividly recalled
the memories of childhood, “the mysteries of the kingdom of innocence,” which had
long been hid and overpowered by the sins and sufferings of later years. An
unfortunate outcast, sunk in misery and vice, wandering in the streets of a large city,
meets suddenly a child carrying a bunch of some common wild flowers—hawthorn,
cowslips, or violets. A chord is touched which has long slumbered in the outcast’s
bosom. The innocent past comes back; the little child sitting on the fond mother’s
knee; the long, happy wanderings in the summer woods and hawthorn-shaded lanes;
the cottage home, with all its old-fashioned ways and dear delights; all this sweeps
over her like a blissful dream at the sight or smell of these humble wild flowers.
Overpowered by the recollections of the past, and the awful contrast between what
she was and might have been and what she is now, she turns away and weeps bitterly,
322

323. perhaps to see at that moment the tender, reproachful eye of Him whom she has long
denied, fixed upon her, and to hear His words of pity, “Go in peace, and sin no more.”
Two young men are spending their last evening together amid the rural scenes in
which they have been bred. They are going up to the great city on the morrow to push
their fortunes, and are talking over their plans. While they are conversing, one of
those little Italian boys who penetrate to the remotest nooks with their hurdy-
gurdies, comes up and plays several tunes, which attract their attention, and draw
from them a few coins. The young men part. One prospers by industry and talent; the
other gives himself up to dissipation, is sent adrift, and becomes a wreck. Worn out
with debauchery, and in the last stage of disease, he sends for his former friend. They
meet; and at that moment the sound of a hurdy-gurdy is heard in the street. It is the
little Italian boy playing the same tunes which he played on that well-remembered
evening when the friends bade farewell to the country. It wanted but this to fill up the
cup of the dying man’s shame and sorrow. All that he has hazarded for the pleasures
of the city comes rushing upon his memory. He has lost his money, his health, his
character, his peace of mind, and his hope of heaven; and he has gained in exchange
sorrow, pain, privation, an insupportable weariness of life, and a dread of death. That
sound of the Italian hurdy-gurdy comes to him like the crowing of the cock to Peter.
It is the turning point of his life. It awakens within him “the late remorse of love”;
and he dies in the peace of Divine pardon and acceptance. All these are not mere
fancy pictures; they are true to life; they have often happened, and the number of
them might be indefinitely increased. Such examples impress upon our minds the
solemn truth that there is nothing really forgotten in this world. (H. Macmillan, LL.
D.)
Lessons from the fall of St. Peter
1. Mark and admire the honesty and impartiality of the sacred historians. All four
state this blot on Peter’s character; and their combined account presents it fully
and with many dreadful aggravations.
2. Let the example of Christ, in this case, teach us to pity and to seek to restore
the fallen.
3. Let us consider Peter’s denial of his Lord as a warning to us all. We may soon
become very guilty, and be exposed to shame in an unguarded moment; and there
is hardly any sin we may not be guilty of, if left to ourselves.
4. Let us be on our guard against the particular causes that led more immediately
to Peter’s fall.
(1) Self-confidence.
(2) Indecision.
(3) Fear of man.
(4) False shame.
(5) Bad company.
5. Let those who, like Peter, have fallen, imitate Peter in his repentance. (James
Foote, M. A.)
The repentance of Peter
323

324. I. PETER’S REPENTANCE.
1. The repentance of Peter is ascribed, in the first instance, to a circumstance
apparently unimportant. The crowing of a cock. How observant then ought we to
be o! all which surrounds or befals us; and how anxious to obtain from it
instruction in righteousness!
2. The text ascribes it also to the interposition of Christ. Without this, the
warning voice of the cock would have been heard in vain.
3. But what followed the look which the compassionate Saviour directed towards
His fallen apostle? It was a look of the mildest reproof and the tenderest pity, but
the lightning’s flash could not have done more. Piercing his heart, it produced
there that serious reflection from which his contrition sprung.
II. PETER’S SORROW.
1. His sorrow was of a softening nature. “He wept.” It was not that horror of soul,
which has its origin solely in fear, and leaves the heart as hard as it finds it. It was
the sorrow which springs from love, and fill the breast with the tenderest
emotions, while it disquiets and humbles it.
2. But the sorrow of Peter was acute, as well as softening. He not only wept, but
he wept” bitterly.” And bitterly does every sinner weep, who really bewails his
transgressions.
3. The sorrow of Peter was, further, a secret sorrow; a grief which sought
retirement. “He went out” when he wept. Not that he was now afraid to
acknowledge Christ, or unwilling to condemn himself for the crime which he had
committed; but like penitent Ephraim, “he was ashamed, yea, even confounded”;
and he sought where to give vent to his sorrow unseen, and to implore
undisturbed that mercy which he so greatly needed. And every real penitent is
often “sitting alone.” Flying from scenes of vanity which he once loved, and from
society which his folly once enlivened, he retires to his closet, and there, when he
has shut his door, he communes with his heart, prays to his offended Father, and
weeps.
III. WHAT EFFECTS PETER’S REPENTANCE AFTERWARDS PRODUCED.
1. An increasing love for his Lord.
2. Greater zeal and boldness in the service of Christ. (C. Bradley, M. A.)
Peter’s repentance
I. THE LOOK OF JESUS. We cannot picture to ourselves the countenance he
exhibited, or the point and pungency of the sentiment it conveyed; but I observe it
was doubtless the look of offended dignity; it was the look of insulted friendship; it
was the look of betrayed confidence; it was the look of keen and humiliating reproof,
and such reproof the whole of Peter’s conduct justly merited. I observe, further, that
the look of Jesus was a look which conveyed conviction. And, once more, it was a
look of compassion. What a conflict of feeling must have been produced by the
emotions displayed on this deeply interesting occasion. Humbled by reproof,
pursued by conviction, melted by love, what tongue can describe his grief, or what
artist give a hue sufficiently deep to the manifestation of his contrition I These are
the feelings—a knowledge of which must be acquired in the most impressive and
affecting school in the world. These are feelings—a knowledge of which must be
acquired on Mount Calvary. The man who has been brought to look on Him whom he
324

325. has pierced has an idea more clear, a conception more strong of the feelings of Peter
than the art of eloquence, or the line of the pencil can convey.
II. THE RECOLLECTIONS WHICH THE LOOK OF JESUS REVIVED.
1. The recollection of previous obligation.
2. The recollection of oft-repeated and solemn protestations of fidelity and
affection.
3. The recollection of the scene at the Last Supper.
III. THE EFFECTS PRODUCED.
1. The retirement he sought. True repentance flies to solitude, and shrinks even
from sympathy.
2. The depth of his sorrow.
Concluding lessons:
1. Consolation to those who, like Peter, weep bitterly in secret. Special news of
Christ’s resurrection sent to Peter: “Seek him in his solitude, and tell him that the
Lord waits with open arms to receive him.”
2. But remember that the great moral of the whole is caution. Learn, therefore,
by way of application in the first place, the necessity of guarding vigilantly against
the approaches of temptation. Learn, secondly, from this subject, the necessity of
prudence in making a profession, but of integrity in acting up to it when it is
made. Learn, then, in the last place, the necessity of decision of character in
matters of religion. (J. Thorp.)
The Saviour’s look upon Peter
Doubtless it was a look of blended significance. There must have been in the
Saviour’s countenance an expression of mingled emotions. At a single glance there
may have been conveyed to Peter what would have required many words to express.
I. It doubtless spoke to him REPROOF. An impressive reminder of the great wrong
he had done.
II. It was, too, a GRIEVED LOOK. Such a look as a kind mother turns upon a
wayward son who has wronged her.
III. It was, at the same time, A PITYING LOOK. The Saviour felt for Peter in his
wretched condition. Forgetting His own great impending sorrows, He had it in His
heart to sympathize with poor, unhappy Peter. He knew that, notwithstanding all he
had done, he was a genuine disciple, and that the time of reflection would soon come,
when he would be overwhelmed with grief.
IV. And, still further, it was a FORGIVING LOOK. The Lord knew how deep would
be Peter’s self-reproach and anguish of soul when he came to himself, and that he
would be tempted to despair of forgiveness. So by this look he would inspire him
with hope. (Christian at Work.)
Knowledge of self through Christ
He remembered. He realized under the eye of Jesus what he had been doing. A
glance of God into his soul revealed his loss of himself. Beholding his Lord, as he
325

326. stood in the calm triumph of His Divine manhood looking into his timid soul, he
could not help knowing himself in his weakness and shame. Not a word was spoken.
God does not need to speak to judge us. He will only need to look upon us. One look
of divinity is enough to convince of sin. Peter the denier, under the eye of the Son of
God, became at once Peter the penitent. And we know how afterwards Peter the
penitent became Peter the man—firm as the rock—the true Peter, hero of faith, and
made worthy at last of meeting and returning with joy the look of the risen and
ascended Lord among the sons of God on high. These effects of Jesus’ flashings of
God upon Peter show very simply and plainly Jesus’ method of convincing men of
sin, and of lifting them up through repentance to real and everlasting manliness. No
man ever felt Jesus’ eye upon him, and went away without a look into his own heart
which he had never had so clearly before. Some men went away from Christ to the
judgment. The thoughts of many hearts, as Simeon foresaw, were revealed by him.
Jesus’ gospel, therefore, being thus intensely personal, real, and revealing, is the
most honest thing in this whole world. It is no form, no fiction of life, no
exaggeration of feeling, no mere speech about God and the world to come; it is the
one essentially and perfectly honest thing in this world of words and forms and
fictions of life. Now let me specify two or three particulars which are brought out in
Jesus’ revelation of men to themselves. He made men, whom His divinity searched,
understand that they were personally responsible for their own real characters. He
did not allow His disciples to condemn men for their misery, or their misfortunes, or
the consequences of their circumstances, or any of those influences which meet from
beyond their own wills in men’s lives. But He made every soul of man realize that
within life’s circumstances there is a living centre of personal responsibility. Jesus
made men understand, also, that in their sinning they have to do with personal
beings. We do not sin against abstractions, or against a system of commandments
only; we are persons in a society of persons of which God is the centre and the
source. All sin is against the realities of a most personal universe. Sin strikes against
beings. Peter sinned against the Lord who had chosen him, and who was about to die
for him. The sinfulness of sin is not that it is simply a transgression of a law; but it
beats against love. All sin is against love, against all love; for it is sin against the
living, personal being of God. Again, as Jesus Christ showed men themselves in their
sins, he showed them also that those sins of theirs are something which God cannot
endure for ever. They must not be. They shall not be. God cannot always endure
them, and be the God He is. Jesus said He did not come to judge the world; and yet
again He said, “Now is the judgment of this world.” God on high cannot suffer us to
go on in this way for ever. He must redeem us and make us like Himself, or He must
do something else worthy of Himself with us. This is morally certain. And one thing
more is clear as a star in the mystery of Godliness. There is one thing more which we
need to know which Jesus makes as bright as day in His gospel of God to man. When
Peter was at Jesus’ knees saying in the first honest instinct of a man who saw himself,
“I am a sinful man,” Jesus stood over him radiant like a God, and said, “Fear not.”
Such is God’s lovely attitude towards every penitent at the feet of His Almightiness!
Fear not! Sin is forgiven and all its darkness made bright in the love which reveals it.
The cloud of our sky becomes a glory at the touch of the sun. If we will not come to
the light to be made known and to be forgiven, then we remain in tile darkness.
Penitence is holding ourselves up in God’s pure and infinite light, and letting Him
shine our darkness away. Fear not; sin is vouchsafed forgiveness in the same love
which it shows to sin, and condemns it. (Newman Smyth, D. D.)
Peter went out, and wept bitterly
326

327. Peter’s repentance
I. OBSERVE HOW NEAR THE SIN OF PETER COMES TO THAT OF JUDAS.
1. Peter, like Judas, surrenders his Lord to His foes.
2. The sin of Peter, like that of Judas, was the act of an intimate and confidential
friend.
3. This denial by Peter occurred immediately after the Supper, and after
witnessing the agony of Christ in the garden.
4. Peter’s denial was in the face of his own protestations to the contrary, and of
Christ’s recent and explicit warning.
5. Peter’s denial was aggravated by repetition, and at each repetition he
contracted deeper guilt.
6. This sin of Peter was committed in the very presence and hearing of the Lord.
II. YET, WITH ALL THESE AGGRAVATIONS, THE SIN OF PETER MUST BE
DISCRIMINATED FROM THAT OF JUDAS.
1. For instance, Peter’s sin was sudden, under strong temptation; while the sin of
Judas was deliberate and long-premeditated.
2. Then, too, the motives by which the two were prompted—Peter, by a natural
fear and the instinctive love of life; Judas, by the most sordid of all the passions
that move the human heart—the base love of gold.
3. In Peter’s case there was no heart-denial of his Lord; it was only of the lips.
4. In Peter there was only the suppression of his discipleship.
III. CONSIDER THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TWO MEN AFTER THEY ARE
BROUGHT TO A RECOGNITION OF THEIR GUILT.
1. Judas is judicially abandoned; Peter, only temporarily deserted.
2. In the case of Judas there was only remorse; in that of Peter, sincere
repentance.
3. In Judas there was a total and final rejection of Christ; in Peter, a loving return
to Him.
4. Judas sealed his guilt by his suicide; Peter sealed his repentance by a life of
consecration to his Master’s service.
Concluding reflections:
1. You have the plainest evidence, in all the actions of Judas and of Peter, that
they were flee and responsible, acting under the power of motives.
2. We see in Peter’s fall the wonderful discipline by which he was graciously
prepared for his work, revealing to us that paradox of the gospel, how grace, in its
power, brings evil out of good, and transmutes the poor, fallen, erring sinner into
the accepted messenger of God.
3. These two, Judas and Peter, are the types, respectively, of the only two classes
of sinners. The difference between sinner and saint is found in the behaviour of
the two in respect to their sins—the one persisting in it, the other weeping
bitterly. (B. M. Palmer, D. D.).
327

328. 56 A servant girl saw him seated there in the
firelight. She looked closely at him and said,
“This man was with him.”
CLARKE, "A certain maid beheld him - Or, Attentively beholding him,
ατενισασα. And this she did by the help of the light of the fire at which Peter sat.
GILL, "But a certain maid beheld him,.... Looked upon him, and took notice of
him, and observed his countenance and gesture: as he sat by the fire; or light; See Gill
on Mar_14:54. And both by the light of the fire, and other lights, which were
doubtless in the hall, she discovered something in him, which made her look at him
again with some earnestness;
and earnestly looked upon him, and said, this man was also with him;
that fellow, that vile and contemptible wretch, now examining before the high priest;
thus in a contemptuous manner, as was the custom and style of that nation, she
disdained to mention the name of Jesus; though the Persic version here expresses it;
and her sense was, that Peter was one of that clan, a disciple of his, and was only
come hither as a spy.
COFFMAN, "Verse 56
And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking
stedfastly upon him, said, This man also was with him. But he denied, saying,
Woman, I know him not. And after a little while another saw him, and said,
Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not, And after the space of
about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man also
was with him; for he is a Galilean. But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou
sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned
and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that
he said unto him, Before the cock crow this day thou shalt deny me thrice. And
he went out and wept bitterly.
PETER'S DENIAL
One of those who accosted Peter was a kinsman of Malchus whose ear Peter had
cut off; and, if Peter recognized the connection, this would have increased his
apprehension (John 18:26).
This incident has been thoroughly commented upon in all of the parallels. See
under Luke 22:40 for a list of these.
Luke omitted any reference to Peter's cursing and swearing, but like all the
gospel writers, did not fail to spell out completely the act of denial itself. Is this
328

329. not another example of the prophetic power of Jesus, or his omniscience? Of
course it is. No one but God could spell out exactly what will happen by three
o'clock tomorrow morning, as Jesus did here. There is a weariness in the
continual carping of critics that the omniscience of Jesus is found principally in
John.
Cock crow ... "The cock crow was a Roman division of time, marking the close of
the third watch, about three o'clock in the morning."[35]
Wept bitterly ... One's heart cannot fail to be touched by the grief of this robust
outdoorsman sobbing out his remorse for his impulsive denial of the Lord whom
he loved. Sin had taken him unawares, when his defenses were down, when the
powers of darkness were ascendant; but none of the extenuating circumstances
removed the sting from his heart, nor could a flood of tears wash it away.
And Peter remembered ... The only trouble with this was that it came a bit late to
prevent Peter's denial. If only he could have remembered what Jesus had
prophesied somewhat earlier, he might have found in that remembrance some
means of averting failure.
ENDNOTE:
[35] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 266.
57 But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know
him,” he said.
GILL, "And he denied him, saying, woman, I know him not. Startled at the
maid's positive assertion, and knowing not how to clear himself any other way,
roundly, and at once, denied that Jesus was his master; or that he was a disciple of
his; or that he knew any thing of him, or had any acquaintance with him: and thus he
that had said he would die with him, rather than deny him, is frighten at a servant
maid, and denies him upon the first attack upon him.
58 A little later someone else saw him and said,
“You also are one of them.”
“Man, I am not!” Peter replied.
329

330. GILL, "And after a little while,.... A quarter, or half an hour after, within an hour
at least:
another saw him; not another maid, but another man, as appears from the
answer; though the Syriac and Persic versions leave out the word man, it may be
because Matthew and Mark represent the person, on account of whose words Peter
denied Christ a second time, to be another maid; but then it is to be observed, that
that maid did not speak directly to Peter, as this person did, but to those that were
present, or that stood by: and one of these taking the hint from her, looked at him,
and said,
thou art also of them; of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth; thou belongest to that
company; thou art certainly one of his followers;
and Peter said, man, I am not. This was after he had been out into the porch,
and had mused upon it, and was come in again, but had not courage enough to
withstand the temptation, and especially now, being attacked by a man; and so a
second time denies that Christ was his master, or that he was a disciple of his.
HENRY, " His fall was repeated a second time (Luk_22:58): After a little while,
before he had time to recollect himself, another saw him, and said, “Even thou art
one of them, as slyly as thou sittest here among the high priest's servants.” Not I,
saith Peter; Man, I am not. And a third time, about the space of an hour after (for,
saith the tempter, “When he is down, down with him; let us follow the blow, till we
get him past recovery”), another confidently affirms, strenuously asserts it, “Of a
truth this fellow also was with him, let him deny it if he can, for you may all perceive
he is a Galilean.” But he that has once told a lie is strongly tempted to persist in it;
the beginning of that sin is as the letting forth of water. Peter now not only denies
that he is a disciple of Christ, but that he knows any thing of him (Luk_22:60):
“Man, I know not what thou sayest; I never heard of this Jesus.”
II. Peter's getting up again. See how happily he recovered himself, or, rather, the
grace of God recovered him. See how it was brought about: -
PETT, "A short time later a man looked at him and said, “You are one of them.”
His panic then grew worse and he said fiercely, “Man, I am not.” How he wished
then that he was anywhere but where he was. And yet he was still brave enough
to remain there. He probably argued to himself that his reaction had been
justified.
(Mark tells us that it was the maid who had again insisted to those who stood by
that Peter was a follower of Jesus. Thus this man, who spoke directly to Peter,
must clearly have been one who took her up on her words and actually made the
accusation to him. Here Luke is following his other source, whether oral or
written. In a crowded courtyard, where there was much interest in the subject,
any comments would naturally be taken up by others, and she had already
challenged him once. In the face of his vehement denial she would hesitate about
doing it again.).
330

331. 59 About an hour later another asserted,
“Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a
Galilean.”
GILL, "And about the space of one hour after,.... After the first assault, or
rather after the second:
another confidently affirmed; who was one of them that stood by the fireside,
and heard what had passed; and not only so, but was a kinsman to him, whose ear
Peter had cut off, and who had seen him in the garden with Christ, and therefore with
all assurance asserted it, as a matter of fact, as an unquestionable truth, and beyond
all doubt:
saying of a truth, this fellow also was with him; a disciple and follower of
Jesus, and was with him when he was apprehended; I saw him there, and it may be
depended on as a truth; and then added this reason,
for he is a Galilean; you may be assured of this yourselves, his speech betrays him;
you may know him by his language, and which confirms my assertion.
HENRY, "After a little while, before he had time to recollect himself, another saw
him, and said, “Even thou art one of them, as slyly as thou sittest here among the
high priest's servants.” Not I, saith Peter; Man, I am not. And a third time, about the
space of an hour after (for, saith the tempter, “When he is down, down with him; let
us follow the blow, till we get him past recovery”), another confidently affirms,
strenuously asserts it, “Of a truth this fellow also was with him, let him deny it if he
can, for you may all perceive he is a Galilean.”
JAMISON, "
CALVIN, "
60 Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what
you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking,
the rooster crowed.
331

332. GILL, "And Peter said, man, I know not what thou sayest,.... Suggesting,
that he was so far from being a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of his, and from having
any personal acquaintance with him, that he did not know what he was talking of, or
at least could not understand what he meant by this harangue, or by talking after this
manner about him; and then began to curse and swear, and wish the most dreadful
things to befall him, if he knew any thing of Jesus of Nazareth:
and immediately while he yet spake: in this shocking manner, with his mouth
full of oaths, curses, and imprecations:
the cock crew; the second time, Mar_14:72.
HENRY, "“Of a truth this fellow also was with him, let him deny it if he can, for
you may all perceive he is a Galilean.” But he that has once told a lie is strongly
tempted to persist in it; the beginning of that sin is as the letting forth of water.
Peter now not only denies that he is a disciple of Christ, but that he knows any thing
of him (Luk_22:60): “Man, I know not what thou sayest; I never heard of this
Jesus.”
61 The Lord turned and looked straight at
Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the
Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster
crows today, you will disown me three times.”
CLARKE, "The Lord turned, and looked upon Peter - See the note on
Mat_26:75, where this delicate reproof is particularly noted.
GILL, "And the Lord turned,.... Himself, his back being to Peter, whilst he was
examining before the high priest; but he knew full well what was doing, what had
been said to Peter, and how often he had denied him:
and looked upon Peter; with his bodily eyes, with great earnestness, expressing in
his looks concern and pity for him; for it was a look, not of wrath and resentment,
but of love and mercy, and power went along with it; it was not only a signal to Peter,
to put him in remembrance of what he had said, but it was a melting look to him, and
a means of convincing and humbling him, and of bringing him to repentance:
and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him,
before the cock crow, thou shall deny me thrice; See Gill on Mat_26:75.
332

333. HENRY, "1. The cock crew just as he was the third time denying that he knew
Christ, and this startled him and put him upon thinking. Note, Small accidents may
involve great consequences.
2. The Lord turned and looked upon him. This circumstance we had not in the
other evangelists, but it is a very remarkable one. Christ is here called the Lord, for
there was much of divine knowledge, power, and grace, appearing in this. Observe,
Though Christ had now his back upon Peter, and was upon his trial (when, one
would think, he had something else to mind), yet he knew all that Peter said. Note,
Christ takes more notice of what we say and do than we think he does. When Peter
disowned Christ, yet Christ did not disown him, though he might justly have cast him
off, and never looked upon him more, but have denied him before his Father. It is
well for us that Christ does not deal with us as we deal with him. Christ looked upon
Peter, not doubting but that Peter would soon be aware of it; for he knew that,
though he had denied him with his lips, yet his eye would still be towards him.
Observe, Though Peter had now been guilty of a very great offence, and which was
very provoking, yet Christ would not call to him, lest he should shame him or expose
him; he only gave him a look which none but Peter would understand the meaning
of, and it had a great deal in it. (1.) It was a convincing look. Peter said that he did
not know Christ. Christ turned, and looked upon him, as if he should say, “Dost thou
not know me, Peter? Look me in the face, and tell me so.” (2.) It was a chiding look.
We may suppose that he looked upon him and frowned, or some way signified his
displeasure. Let us think with what an angry countenance Christ justly looks upon us
when we have sinned. (3.) It was an expostulating upbraiding look: “What, Peter, art
thou he that disownest me now, when thou shouldest come and witness for me?
What thou a disciple? Thou that wast the most forward to confess me to be the Son of
God, and didst solemnly promise thou wouldest never disown me?” (4.) It was a
compassionate look; he looked upon him with tenderness. “Poor Peter, how weak is
thine heart! How art thou fallen and undone if I do not help thee!” (5.) It was a
directing look. Christ guided him with his eye, gave him a wink to go out from that
sorry company, to retire, and bethink himself a little, and then he would soon see
what he had to do. (6.) It was a significant look: it signified the conveying of grace to
Peter's heart, to enable him to repent; the crowing of the cock would not have
brought him to repentance without this look, nor will the external means without
special efficacious grace. Power went along with this look, to change the heart of
Peter, and to bring him to himself, to his right mind.
3. Peter remembered the words of the Lord. Note, The grace of God works in and
by the word of God, brings that to mind, and sets that home upon the conscience,
and so gives the soul a happy turn. Tolle et lege - Take it up, and read.
JAMISON, "And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter — (Also see on
Mar_14:72.)
SBC, "Peter’s Repentance a Type of True Sorrow.
Observe:—
I. That Peter’s sorrow did not arise from the fact that his guilt was known.
II. It was not simply the suffering of remorse.
III. The Divine power of Peter’s sorrow is shown by three facts. (1) It rose from the
sense of Christ’s love; (2) it was manifested in the conquest of self-trust; (3) it
became the element of spiritual strength.
333

334. E. L. Hull, Sermons, 3rd series, p. 191.
Although the failings and sins of God’s eminent servants are faithfully recorded in
Holy Scripture, we can never fail to cherish an affectionate and reverential
remembrance of those chosen saints of God. Let us never forget how Jesus Himself
valued and loved them, and was cheered and encouraged by their affection, their
sympathy and their obedience. The faults and sins of God’s people are recorded in
Scripture, not that we may love and esteem them less, but that we may honour and
love and esteem God more, and that we may be more thoroughly convinced of our
own inability to serve and please our God.
I. Peter sinned against Light; against bright and fully revealed Light. The Father
Himself had revealed unto him that Christ was the Son of God; and he not only
sinned against Light, but in the actual presence of Light. Jesus was before him while
he denied Him. And so do we all sin—against Light and in the presence of Light. The
very eyes of Jesus are resting upon us, and the very truth of the words of Jesus is
within our hearts, whilst we forget Him and deny Him.
II. Remember how Christ had forewarned Peter, even when He had before Him His
own sorrow and coming agony. So wonderful was His faithfulness and His love that
He never for a moment forgot the sorrows of His disciples. The Lord looked upon
Peter, and that brought back to Peter his individual relationship to Jesus.
III. Peter’s weeping was a life-long weeping. Repentance which is born out of love
lasts all our life. Repentance which exists chiefly out of fear may end in despondency,
or may be banished altogether, as the morning cloud. Then this weeping, although it
was bitter, was also sweet. Repentance is not bitter in the sense of that bitterness
which the world’s sorrow is, but is full of sweetness. In God’s Word we have the
blessedness of the poor in spirit, of those that mourn, of those that are weak, of those
that hunger and thirst after righteousness, nay, more wonderful than all, we have the
blessedness of the pure in heart. And when we repent and sorrow over our sins, it is
because the voice of Jesus is heard saying, "Thy sins are forgiven thee."
A. Saphir, Penny Pulpit, new series, No. 673.
JOHN MACDUFF, ""The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter."—Luk_
22:61.
Jesus never spoke one unnecessarily harsh or severe word. He had a divine
sympathy for the frailties and infirmities of a tried, and suffering, and tempted
nature in others. He was forbearing to the ignorant, encouraging to the weak,
tender to the penitent, loving to all—yet how faithful was He as "the Reprover of
sin!" Silent under His own wrongs, with what burning invective did He lay bare
the Pharisees' masked corruption and hypocrisy! When His Father's name and
temple were profaned, how did He sweep, with an avenging hand, the mammon-
crowd away, replacing the superscription, "Holiness to the Lord," over the
defiled altars!
Nor was it different with his own disciples. With what fidelity, when rebuke was
needed, did He administer it: the withering reprimand conveyed, sometimes by
334

335. an impressive word (Mat_16:23); sometimes by a silent look (Luk_22:61).
"Faithful always were the wounds of this Friend."
Reader! are you equally faithful with your Lord in rebuking evil; not with "the
wrath of man, which works not the righteousness of God," but with a holy
jealousy of His glory, feeling, with the sensitive honor of "the good soldier of
Jesus Christ," that an affront offered to Him is offered to yourself? The giving of
a wise reproof requires much Christian prudence and delicate discretion. It is
not by a rash and inconsiderate exposure of failings, that we must attempt to
reclaim an erring brother. But neither, for the sake of a false peace, must we
compromise fidelity; even friendship is too dearly purchased by winking at sin.
Perhaps, when Peter was led to call the Apostle who honestly reproved him,
"Our beloved brother Paul," in nothing did he love his rebuker more, than for
the honest boldness of his Christian reproof. If Paul had, in that crisis of the
Church, with a timidity unworthy of him, evaded the ungracious task, what,
humanly speaking, might have been the result?
How often does a seasonable reprimand, a faithful caution, save a lifetime of sin
and sorrow! How many a deathbed has made the disclosure, "That kind warning
of my friend put an arrest on my career of guilt; it altered my whole being; it
brought me to the cross; touched my heart, and, by God's grace, saved my soul!"
On the other hand, how many have felt, when death has put his impressive seal
on some close earthly intimacy, "This friend, or that friend—I might have
spoken a solemn word to him; but now he is no more, the opportunity is lost,
never to be recalled!"
Reader! see that you act not the spiritual coward. When tempted to sit silent
when the name of God is slighted or dishonored, think, would Jesus have done
so?—would He have allowed the oath to go unrebuked—the lie to be uttered
unchallenged—the Sabbath with impunity to be profaned? Where there is a
natural diffidence which makes you shrink from a more bold and open reproof,
remember much may be done to discountenance sin, by the silent holiness of
demeanor, which refuses to smile at the unholy allusion or ribald jest. "A word
spoken in due season, how good is it!" "Speak gently," yet speak faithfully: "be
pitiful—be courteous:" yet "be men of courage, be strong!"
ELLICOTT, "(61) And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter.—The glance
which was thus the turning point of Peter’s life, is mentioned only by St. Luke.
As he was sitting in the porch, our Lord must have looked on the disciple as He
was being led from Annas to the more public trial before the Sanhedrin. The
form in which the fact is narrated, “the Lord turned,” points, probably, as in
other instances, to its having been gathered by St. Luke from his informants at a
time when that mode of naming Him had become habitual; and possibly in
answer to inquiries, natural in one who sought to analyse the motives that led to
action, as to what had brought about the change that led Peter, as in a moment,
from the curses of denial to the tears of penitence.
PETT, "And at that moment he became aware of Jesus, possibly at this point
being led through the courtyard from one trial to another. And as his eyes
335

336. lighted on Him, the Lord turned and looked at him. It was immediately clear to
Peter that He knew exactly what had happened. And he remembered the words
of Jesus and recognised the truth about what he had done. Within the aura of the
Light of the world all his excuses collapsed. The truth was that instead of bearing
witness to Jesus’ innocence he had not only sat by and done nothing, he had
denied him vehemently. Jesus’ words had been fulfilled to the letter. He had
denied his Lord three times.
62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.
CLARKE, "And Peter went out - The word Peter is omitted by BDKLM, and
many other good MSS., with some of the ancient versions. Griesbach leaves it out of
the text.
GILL, "And Peter went out and wept bitterly. See Gill on Mat_26:75.
HENRY, "4. Then Peter went out, and wept bitterly. One look from Christ melted
him into tears of godly sorrow for sin. The candle was newly put out, and then a little
thing lighted it again. Christ looked upon the chief priests, and made no impression
upon them as he did on Peter, who had the divine seed remaining in him to work
upon. It was not the look from Christ, but the grace of God with it, that recovered
Peter, and brought him to-rights.
PETT, "Broken at heart he staggered from the courtyard and found a quiet
place and there he wept as though his heart would break. He knew that he had
betrayed the One Whom he loved more than life itself, and that that would be
Jesus’ final memory of him. He would find it hard to forgive himself for that.
The story is one of the few told in one way or another in all four Gospels, which
brings out how important it was seen to be. For all knew that in the end it was
not the story of Peter but the story of God. By the time it was written Peter was
one of the most admired men on earth. But he retained his humility to the end.
And all knew that one of the reasons why he was able to do so was because of
what had happened here. It was all part of God’s preparation for his future.
Luke 22:62 is missing in one Greek manuscript and a few versions. But for it to
be in all the other Greek manuscripts must indicate that it is original, otherwise
it could not possibly have got into them all. The omission was probably a careless
copying error, which was then passed on. Compare Matthew 26:75.
Notes. The problem of reporting briefly in few words on the rather complicated
behaviour of Peter as a result of his agitation while he was in the courtyard, and
the comments that he had to face from people there, comes out in the apparent
336

337. differences in the accounts. We must after all reckon both on the fact that Peter
was on tenterhooks and could not sit still for long, so that to pinpoint where he
was at any point in time would be complicated, and on the fact that the
conversations and situations are both translations and abbreviations for the sake
of the readers. A number of people may well have made a number of comments
about him, as well as to him, especially when he spoke in his ‘foreign accent’.
Such things happen when people are gathered together with nothing better to do.
And they possibly did not really care what he was one way or the other. They
may indeed have been secretly amused to think that he was there, rather than
vindictive. No writer would want to record them all.
And we should be able to understand Peter’s own problem. The fire beckoned
because it was chilly, but he found that it drew unwelcome attention to him,
while the porch beckoned because it was outside the direct fire light, and would
enable a quick escape if there was a move to arrest him, and also because he was
constantly not sure whether to stay or go. Furthermore the porch was clearly not
far from that particular fire because the girl who watched over the porch could
also be found near the fire. Thus being near the fire and by the porch were not
all that different.
It is probable therefore that in his agitation and fear Peter nervously went
between the two more than once (he would never be one to sit still under stress),
and this may possibly well have been what drew the girl’s attention to him. At
his first denial he was by the fire, but clearly in his embarrassment soon moved
to the porch, possibly waiting for what happened next. When the serving girl
again pointed him out to her companions a second time he was by the porch so
that nothing may have been said to him directly that time, until he returned to
the fire and found himself directly challenged. Thus both accusation were
responsible for his denial. He was possibly also keen to get away from girl, who
would perforce be moving between the two, which might further have kept him
on the move. The third incident is given no background. Thus we obtain from all
this some idea of his agitated movements. We also gain the impression of some
talking about him, and some addressing him directly. This again should not
surprise us. Crowds with nothing to do, gathered at night when they would
rather be at home enjoying a feast or a sleep, would be only too pleased to have
something spicy to talk about in order to pass the time, while to serving girls a
companion to a known criminal would be especially exciting. It had probably
taken her a great deal of courage to challenge him in the first place. The general
comments overheard by him would then arouse his fears, while the comments
made to him would then demand an answer. Both could therefore be seen as
responsible for his denials. And the content of them would clearly be varied, so
that each writer could choose what appealed to him.
With regard to the crowing of the cocks Mark alone refers to this occurring
twice. But he probably lived in Jerusalem and recognised the fact of life in
Jerusalem that the actual crowing of cocks occurred more than once, possibly
because they first echoed over the mountains from outside Jerusalem, before
finally affecting Jerusalem itself. Alternately he may have had in mind the
regular times during the night when cocks did crow in eastern countries, or of a
337

338. special crowing that took place because of unusual weather connected with that
night. Compare with regard to the weather the hours of darkness that occurred
on the following day. The other three, who had little experience of all this,
possibly had their minds more on the official cock crow which ended the third
watch of the night (Mark 13:35), which would be known to all their readers, and
would not want to cause confusion. They wanted cockcrowing to be the focal
point of the narrative.
Some have argued that as the cock was seen in the Talmud as ‘unclean’ because
it scratched in dunghills it would not be found in the High Priest’s house at
night. But quite apart from the fact that Pilate would certainly have cockerels
available while he was in Jerusalem, whose crowing no doubt reached a long
way, there are also no grounds for assuming that the Sadducees felt bound by
Pharisaic niceties. There was nothing about hens in the Law of Moses (they were
probably introduced by the Romans). So the cock could have been either Roman
or Jewish.
The Guards Mock Jesus
63 The men who were guarding Jesus began
mocking and beating him.
CLARKE, "Mocked him, and smote him - This and the following verses are
placed by Matthew and Mark before the relation of Peter’s denial. For their
explanation, see on Mat_26:67, Mat_26:68 (note).
GILL, "And the men that held Jesus,.... Whilst he was before the sanhedrim;
and were either the Roman soldiers, or the servants of the high priest, who kept hold
of him all the while, lest he should get away; though there was no reason for it; his
time was come, nor would he escape out of their hands, though he could easily have
rescued himself:
mocked him; insulted him, and gave him very opprobrious language, and used him
in a very scurrilous way, and even spit upon him;
and smote him. This clause is left out in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions; the
word used, signifies plucking off the skin; they pinched him, and tore off his flesh
with their nails; they plucked the hairs of his beard, and the skin of his cheeks along
with them, and so fulfilled Isa_50:6.
HENRY, "We are here told, as before in the other gospels,
I. How our Lord Jesus was abused by the servants of the high priest. The abjects,
338

339. the rude and barbarous servants, gathered themselves together against him. They
that held Jesus, that had him in custody till the court sat, they mocked him, a