22-24. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION

We now enter upon the last main division of the Gospel (22-24.), containing the narratives of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The first of these three subjects falls into three parts:—The Preparation (22:1-38); the Passion (22:39-23:49); and the Burial (23:50-56). In the first of these parts we may distinguish the following sections:—The Approach of the Passover and the Malice of the Hierarchy (22:1, 2); the Treachery of Judas (3-6); the Preparation for the Paschal Supper (7-13); the Institution of the Eucharist (14-23); the Strife about Priority (24-34); the New Conditions (35-38). In this part of the narrative the particulars which are wholly or mainly peculiar to Lk. are those contained in vv. 8, 15, 24, 28-30, 35-38.

22:1-38. The Preparation for the Passion. Comp. Matthew 26:1-29; Mark 14:1-25. For date see Hastings. D.B. i. p. 410.

1. Ἤγγιζεν. “Was drawing nigh.” Mt. and Mk. say more definitely μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας. Keim calls attention to the fidelity of this introductory section. vv. 1-13 (v. p. 305. n.).

ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων. The phrase is freq. in LXX (23:15, 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:16; 2 Chronicles 8:13, etc.), but occurs nowhere else in N.T. Comp. 2:41 Lk. is fond of these Hebraistic circumlocutions: ἡ ἡμέρα τ. ἀζ. (ver. 7), ἡ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων (4:16; Acts 13:14, Acts 16:13), ἡμεραι τ. ἀζ. (Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6); Βίβλος ψαλμῶν (20:42; Acts 1:20), Βίβλος τῶν προφητῶν (Acts 7:42), etc. See small print on 4:16.

ἡ λεγομένη Πάσχα. Strictly speaking the Passover on Nisan 14th was distinct from the F. of Unleavened Bread, which last from the 15th to the 21st (Leviticus 23:5, Leviticus 23:6; Numbers 28:16, Numbers 28:17; 2 Chronicles 30:15, 2 Chronicles 30:21; Ezra 6:19, Ezra 6:22; Ezr_1 Esdr. 1:10-19; comp Mark 14:1). But they were so closely connected, that it was common to treat them as one festival. Not only Lk. as “writing mainly for Gentiles” does so, but Mt. (26:17); and Josephus goes beyond either in saying ἑορτὴν ἄγομεν ἐφʼ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ, τὴν τῶν Ἀζύμων λεγομένην (Ant. ii. 15, 1). Comp. κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς τῶν Ἀζύμων ἑορτῆς ἣν φάσκα λέγομεν (xiv. 2, 1). Elsewhere he distinguishes them (Ant. iii. 10, 5, ix. 13, 3).

2. ἐζήτουν … τὸ πῶς. “They continued seeking as to the method”: comp. 19:47, 48, and for the τό see on 1:62. tells us that they held a meeting in the house of Caiaphas.

ἀνέλωσιν. Another of Lk.’s favourite words. Here, 23:32, and eighteen times in the Acts it has the special meaning of “remove, slay”: so also 2 Thessalonians 2:8, where the reading is doubtful. This meaning is common in LXX (Genesis 4:15; Exodus 2:14, Exodus 2:15, Exodus 2:21:29, etc.) and in class. Grk. Except Matthew 2:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:8, and Hebrews 10:9 (where see Wsctt.), it occurs only in Lk. With ἐφοβοῦντο comp. 20:19, 19:48, 21:38.

3. Εἰσῆλθεν δὲ Σατανᾶς. Comp. John 13:2, where this stage is represented as the devil making suggestions to Judas, while his entering and taking possession of the traitor is reserved for the moment before he left the upper room to carry out his treachery (13:27). See on 10:18 and comp. 4:13, to which this perhaps, looks back. Satan is renewing the attack. Neither Mt. nor Mk. mentions Satan here. But there is no hint that Judas is now like a demoniac, unable to control his own actions (Hahn). Judas opened the door to Satan. He did not resist him, and Satan did not flee from him. Jesus must suffer, but Judas need not become the traitor.

τὸν καλούμενον ἰσκαριώτην. All three give this distinctive sure (see on 6:16), and also the tragic fact that he was τῶν δώδεκα. Comp. 1:36, 6:15, 7:11, 8:2, 9:10, 10:39, 19:2, 29.

For καλούμενον (א B D L X) TR. has ἐπικαλούμενον (A C P R Γ Δ Λ Π), a from commonly used in Acts (1:23, 4:36, 10:5, 32, 12:25). In Acts 1:23 we have both verbs.

4. στρατηγοῖς. Lk. alone mentions these officials. They are the leaders of the corps of Levitas, which kept guard in and about the temple. The full title is στρατηγοὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (ver. 52). See Edersh. The Temple, 119; Jos. B. J. vi. 5, 3. These officers would be consulted, because they had to take part in carrying out the arrest. The chief of them was called ὀ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ (Acts 4:1, Acts 4:5:24, Acts 4:26). or “the man of the temple mount” or “the man of the mount of the house.” Comp. 2 Malachi 3:4. Here and ver. 52 the plur. has no art.

D, a b c d e ff2i l q Syr-Cur. Aeth. omit καὶ στρατηγοῖς, but all these, excepting D d, substitute καὶ τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν. C P retain both, adding τοῦ ἱεροῦ to στρατηγοῖς.

παραδῷ. In 6:16 Judas is called προδότης but elsewhere παραδιδόναι, not προδιδόναι, is the word used to describe his crime.

5. ἐχάρησαν. It was wholly unexpected, and it simplified at matters enormously.

συνέθεντο. Acts 23:20; John 9:22; and quite classical. Mk. has ἐπηγγείλαντο. The ἔστησαν of Mt. refers to the actual paying of the money. He alone states the amount,—thirty shekels.

6. ἄτερ ὄχλου. Either “without a crowd” or “without tumult.” Comp. Matthew 26:5. Contrast ματὰ ὄχλου, Acts 24:18. In bibl. Grk. the poetical word ἄτερ occurs only here, ver. 35, and 2 Mac. 12:15. Very possibly the priests had intended to wait the feast was over before arresting Jesus. The offer of Judas induced them to make the attempt before the feast began.

Keim rightly rejects with decision the theory that the betrayal by Judas is not history, but a Christian fiction personifying in Judas the Jewish people. That Christians should invent so appalling a crime for an Apostle is quite beyond belief. The crime of Judas is in all four Gospels and in the Acts, is emphasized by Christ’s foreknowledge of it. Speculations as to other causes of it besides the craving for money are not very helpful: but the motives may easily have been complex.

The well-known difficulty as to the time of the Last Supper and of our Lord’s death cannot be conclusively solved with our present knowledge. But the difficulty is confined to the day of the month. All four accounts agree with the generally accepted belief that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. In the Synoptists this Friday seems to be the 15th Nisan. Jn. (13:1, 29, 18:28, 19:14, 31) clearly intimates that it was the 14th. and we shall probably do rightly in abiding by his statements and seeing whether the others can be brought into harmony with it. This is perhaps most easily done by ding. in accordance with Jewish reckoning, the evening of the 13th as the beginning of the 14th. All, therefore, that is said to have taken place “on first day of unleavened bread” may have taken place after sunset on what we should call 13th. It seems improbable that the priests and their officials would go to a Jesus at the very time when the whole nation was celebrating the Paschal meal. It is more easy to believe that Jesus celebrated Paschal meal before the usual time, viz. on the Jewish 14th, but before midnight and some twenty hours before the usual time for slaughtering the lambs, at which time He was dying or dead upon the cross.

Professor D. Chwolson of Petersburg has made a new attempt at a solution in a recently published essay, Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes; Mémoire de l’ Académie Impériale des Sciences, 7c Serie, tome 41. No. 1. A criticism in the Guardian, June 28, 1893, tends to show that it leaves the crucial question just where it was. A later contribution is that of G. M. Sermeria. Le Jour de la Mort de Jésus; Rev. bibl. I, 1896.

7. ῏Ηλθεν δὲ ἡ ἡμ τ. ἀζ. The day itself arrived, as distinct from “was approaching” (ver. 1). This arriving would take place at sunset on the 13th. See Schanz, ad loc. Mt. and Mk. have τῇ πρώτῃ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων.

ἔδει θύεσθαι. This in no way proves that the 14th, according to our reckoning, is intended. The day on which the lambs had to be killed began at sunset on the 13th, and ended at sunset on the 14th; and the lambs were killed about 2:30-5:30 P.M. on the 14th in the Court of the Priests. Each head of the company sharing the lamb slew the animal, whose blood was caught in a bowl by a priest and poured at the foot of the altar of burnt-offering (Edersh. The Temple. p. 190). It was on the evening of the 13th that the houses were carefully searched for leaven, in silence, and with a light: comp. 1 Corinthians 5:7; Zephaniah 1:12. The ἔδει refers to legal necessity: it was so prescribed.

8. ἀπέστειλεν. Both Mt. and Mk. omit this preliminary order and begin with the disciples’ question: and Lk. alone gives the names of the two who were sent. As this does not harmonize with the theory that Lk. shows animus against Peter, we are told that Peter and John are named by Lk. as the representatives of the old Judaism. The treason of Judas might lead Jesus to select two of His most trusted Apostles.

10. The care with which Jesus avoids an open statement to all the disciples as to the place ordained for the supper may be explained in the same way. Until His hour is come Judas must be prevented from executing his project: and no miracle is wrought, where ordinary precautions suffice. In what follows Lk. and Mk. are almost identical: Mt. is more brief.

Evidently the ἄνθρωπος is not the head of the household, but a servant or slave: the carrying of water was specially the work of slaves or of women (Deuteronomy 29:11; Joshua 9:21-27; Genesis 24:11; John 4:7). The head of the house is in the house (vv. 10, 11). The suggestion, therefore, that this is the master of the house drawing the water for making the bread, according to Custom, on the 13th of Nisan, falls to the ground. This incident gives no help in deciding between the 13th and the 14th., The water was more probably for washing the hands before the evening With κεράμιον ὕδατος comp. ἀλάβαστρον μύρου (7:37). As in the case of the colt (19:30), we are uncertain whether this is a case of supernatural knowledge, or of previous arrangement,, but in both cases prophetic prescience seems to be implied.

For amphoram aquæ portans (Vulg.) bajulans bascellum (vascellam) aquæ (d).

11. ἐρειτε. Fut. for imperat. This is more common in prohibitions than in commands (4:12; Acts 23:5; Matthew 6:5). In the Decalogue. only the positive τίμα τὸν πατέρα has the imperative: the negative commandments have οὐ with the fut. indic. Win. xliii. 5. c, p. 396.

τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς οἰκίας. A pleonasm marking a late stage in the language, in which the meaning of οἰκοδεσπότης has become indefinite: comp. ὐποόδιον τῶν ποδῶν (20:43), συῶν συβόσια, στρατηγὸν τῆς, the Daily Journal, etc. The cogn. accus. (πόλεμον πολεμεῖν, οἰκοδομεῖν οἶκον) is different.

ὁ διδάσκαλος. like ὁ κύριος (19:31), this implies that man knows Jesus. and is perhaps in some degree a disciple.

τὸ κατάλυμα. Not necessarily the same as the ἀνάγαιον (ver. 12). It is possible that Jesus only asked for the large general room on the ground floor (comp. 2:7), but that the man gave Him the best room, reserved for more private uses. above the κατάλυμα. It was a common thing for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to lend a room to pilgrims for the passover, the usual payment being the skin of the paschal lamb and the vessels used at the meal. Mt. alone gives the words ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστιν, which perhaps explains why Jesus is having the paschal meal before the time. Neither here. nor at the supper, is any mention of a lamb: and perhaps there was none. The time for slaughtering had not yet come; and, as Jesus was excommunicated, it is not likely that the priests would have helped His disciples to observe the ritual respecting it. Moreover, there would hardly be time for all this and for the roasting of the lamb. The Last Supper was the inauguration of a new order rather than the completion of an old one; and its significance is enhanced if the central symbol of the old dispensation was absent, when He whom it symbolized was instituting the commemoration of that which the old symbol prefigured. It was on the last great day of the F. of Tabernacles, when the water from Siloam was probably not poured out beside the altar, that Jesus cried, “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink” (John 7:37); and it was when the great lamps were not lit in the Court of the Women, that He said. “I am the Light of the World” (John 8:12). From vv. 15-19 it appears that τὸ πάσχα and φάγω refer to the eucharistic bread and wine.

12. ἀναγαιον. “Anything raised above the ground (ἀνά or ἄνω and γαῖα or γῆ) upper floor (Xen. Anab. v. 4, 29), upper room.” Only here and Mark 14:15. The MSS. vary between ἀνάγαιον, ἀνόγαιον, ἀνώγεων, ἀνώγεως, ἀνωγαιον, and ἀνώγεον. Most, including the best, have ἀνάγαιον. That this room is identical with the ὑπερῷον. Acts 1:13 is pure conjecture: the change of word is against it.

In both Passages Vulg. has cænaculum, for which Old Latin texts have here medianum (a), pede plano locum (b), superiorum locum (q), in superioribus locum (c e), and superiorem domum (d).

ἐστρωμένον. “Spread, furnished”—with what, depends upon the context, which here suggests couches or cushions: comp. Acts 9:34. Luther erroneously has gepflastert. Mk. adds ἔτοιμον, which some insert here.

13. καθώς “Even as” the correspondence was exact; comp. 19:32. The Evangelists seem to intimate that Christ’s knowledge was supernatural rather than the result of previous arrangement. But in any case the remaining ten, including Judas, were left in ignorance as to where the meal was to take place.

14-23. The Last Supper, with the Institution of the Eucharist as a new Passover: comp. Matthew 26:20-29; Mark 14:17-25. The declaration that one of them is a traitor is placed by Mt. and MK. at the beginning of the section, by Lk. at the end (ver. 21): comp. John 13:21 where the wording of the declaration agrees with Mt. and Mk. Lk. seems to have used an independent source: comp. 1 Corinthians 11:24, 1 Corinthians 11:25.

14. Lk.’s independence appears at once: nearly every word in the verse differs from Mt. and Mk.

ἀνέπεσεν. Mt. has ἀνέκειτο: the practice of standing (Exodus 17:11) had long been abandoned; first for sitting, and then for reclining. Mos servorum est, ut edant stantes; at nunc comendunt recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem, was the explanation given by the Rabbins. The choosing of the lamb ten days in advance had also been given up. Here, as elsewhere, ἀναπίπτω implies a change of position (11:37, 14:10, 17:7; John 13:12, John 13:25, etc.). Lft. On a Fresh Revision of N.T. p. 80.

οἱ ἀπόστολοι. This is the true reading. In some texts δώδεκα has been Inserted (A C P R) or substituted (LX) from Mt. and Mk. Ten to thirty was the number for a passover. Note that Lk. once more has σύν, where others have μετά or καὶ comp. 8:38, 51, 20:1, 22:56.

15. The whole of this verse and most of the next are peculiar to Lk. The combination of ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα with τοῦ με παθεῖν is remarkable. The knowledge of the intensity of the suffering does not cancel the intensity of the desire.

Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα. A Hebraism common in LXX. Comp. Acts 5:28, Acts 5:23:14; John 3:29; Matthew 13:14, Matthew 13:15:4; Jam 5:17; Genesis 31:30; Exodus 21:20; Deuteronomy 7:26, etc.

16. οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτό. After this present occasion. The αὐτο must refer to τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα (ver. 15), and shows that this need not imply a lamb. The Passover of which Christ will partake, after having fulfilled the type, is the Christian Eucharist, in which He joins with the faithful in the Kingdom of God on earth. Others suppose the reference to be to the spiritual banquet in the world to come. But if αὐτό means the paschal lamb, in what sense could Jesus partake of that in the future? The Mishna itself contemplates the possibility of a passover without a lamb, and rules that unleavened bread is the only essential thing. With an influx of many thousands of pilgrims, to provide a lamb might be in some cases impossible.

17. δεξάμενος. It was handed to Him: contrast λαβών, ver. 19 (schanz). It is usual to consider this as the first or second of the four cups that were handed round during the paschal meal; the eucharistic cup being identified with the third or fourth. But we are in doubt (1) as to what the paschal ritual was at this time; (2) as to the extent to which Jesus followed the paschal ritual in this highly exceptional celebration; (3) as to the text of this passage, especially as to whether Lk. records two cups or only one: so that identifications of this kind are very precarious. In any case, Lk. mentions a cup before the breaking of the bread, whether this be the eucharistic cup or not: and S. Paul twice mentions the cup first (1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 10:21), although in his account of the institution he follows the usual order (1 Corinthians 11:23). In the Διδαχή the cup is placed first (9:2: see Schaff’s 3rd ed. PP. 58-61, 191).

εὐχαριστήσας. This seems to imply the eucharistic cup. All three have εὐχαριστήσας of the cup. Lk. repeats it of the bread. where Mt. and Mk. have εὐλογήσας.

In the Jewish ritual the person who presided began by asking a blessing on the feast; then blessed, drank, and passed the first cup. Then Psa_113. and 114. were sung and the bitter herbs eaten, followed by the second cup. After which the president explained the meaning of the feast: and some think that for this explanation of the old rite Jesus substituted the institution of the new one. After eating of the lamb and unleavened cakes came the thanksgiving for the meal and the blessing and drinking of the third cup. Lastly, the singing of Ps. 115.-118. followed by the fourth cup: and there as sometimes a fifth.

διαμερίσατε. Comp. Acts 2:45; Jdg 5:30 Followed by εἰς ἑαυτούς, it expresses more strongly than the mid. (23:34; Matthew 27:35) the fact of mutual distribution. In some texts (AD etc.) εἰς ἑαυτούς has been altered into the more usual dat. (John 19:24; Acts 2:45). The distribution would be made by each drinking in turn, rather than by each pouring some into a cup of his own. The εἰς ἑαυτούς perhaps corresponds to the πάντες of Mt. and Mk. Πίετε (ἔπιον) ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες.

18. ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν. This at first sight appears to mean that Jesus did not partake of the cup. “I say, Divide it among yourselves, because henceforth I shall not drink,” etc. But this would be strange; for (1) according to Jewish practice it would be monstrous for the presiding person to abstain from partaking; (2) Jesus had just said that He earnestly desired to partake of this paschal meal; and (3) vv. 17, 18 seem to be parallel to 15, 16: He eats the paschal food, and then says that it is for the last time under these conditions; and He drinks of the paschal cup, and then says that it is for the last time under these conditions. There is nothing in any of the accounts to prevent us from supposing that Jesus drank before handing the cup to the others. The γάρ explains why they are to consume it among themselves, and not expect Him to take more than was ceremonially necessary; and the ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν will then be quite exact. “I have just drunk; but from this moment onwards I will drink no more”: Comp. οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω. It was possibly because ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν seemed to mean that Jesus refused to drink that some texts (A C etc.) omitted the words.

τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου. Some regard this as a reference to the Jewish benediction at the first cup: “Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hast created the fruit of the vine.” It is quite uncertain that this form was in use at the time. For γένημα see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 109, 184.

Latin variations in rendering are of interest: generatione vitis (Vulg.), fructu vineæ (a), creatura vineæ (d). gonimine vitis (δ). Comp. 3:7. Syr-Sin. omits “of the vine.” See Parch. Radb. on Matthew 26:29, Migne cxx. 895.

19, 20. In connexion with what follows we have these points to consider. (1) Are the words from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον to τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον Part of the original text? (2) If they are, is τὸ ποτήριον in ver. 20 the same as ποτήριον in ver. 17?

Assuming provisionally that the overwhelming external evidence of almost all MSS. and Versions in favour of the words in question is to be accepted, we may discuss the second point. As in the other case. neither view is free from Serious difficulty. If the cup of ver. 20 is not the same as that of ver. 17, then Lk. not only states that Jesus did not drink of the eucharistic cup (for οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν excludes the partaking of any subsequent cup), but he also records that Jesus charged the Apostles to partake of the earlier cup, while he is silent as to any charge to partake of the eucharistic cup. So far as this report of the Institution goes, therefore, we are expressly told that the Celebrant refused the cup Himself, and we are not told that He handed it to the disciples. If, on the other hand, we identify the two cups, and regard vv. 17, 18 as the premature mention of what should have been given in one piece a ver. 20, mean its severance into two portions, and the insertion of the distribution of the bread between the two portions. are inexplicable. Of the two difficulties, this seems to be the greater, and it is better not to identify the two cups. It is some confirmation of this that in ver. 17 ποτήριον is without the article, “a cup,” while in ver. 20 it is “the cup.” But τὸ ποτήριον need not mean more than “the cup just mentioned.” In Mt. and Mk. ποτήριον has no article: and in all three ἄρτον has no article: so that is absence in ver. 17 and presence in ver. 20 is not of much weight in deciding between the two difficulties. The only way to avoid both these difficulties is to surrender the passage as an interpolation.

D a d ff2, i l omit from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to ἐκχυννόμενον, and Syr-Cur. omits ver. 20, while b e Syr-Cur. and Syr-Sin.place ver. 19 before ver. 17, an arrangement which has been elaborately advocated by Dean Blakesley (Prælectio in Scholis. Feb. 14, 1850). The possibility of the whole being an importation from 1 Corinthians 11:24, 1 Corinthians 11:25 may be admitted on the evidence; but the probability of ver. 19 either to τὸ σῶμά μου (b e Syr-Cur.), or to the end (Syr-Sin.), having stood originally before ver. 17 is almost infinitesimal. In what way can we account for so simple an arrangement (harmonizing with Mt. and Mk.) becoming almost universally disturbed? “These difficulties, added to the suspicious coincidence with 1 Corinthians 11:24f., and the Transcriptional evidence given above, leave no moral doubt (see Introd. § 240) that the words in question were absent from the original text of Lc, notwithstanding the purely Western ancestry of the documents which omit them” (WH, ii. App. p. 64). For the other view see Scrivener; also R. A. Hoffmann, Abendmahlsgedanken Jesu Christi, 1896, Pp. 5-25.

19. λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐξαριστήσας ἔκλασεν. The taking bread (or a loaf), breaking, giving thanks. and the declaration. “This is My Body,” are in all four accounts. But for εὐχαριστήσας here and 1 Corinthians 11:24 Mt. and Mk. have εὐλογήσας and both here and 1 Cor. Λάβετε is omitted. Mt. alone has φάγετε with ΛάΒετε of the bread, and Lk. alone has Λάβετε of the cup (ver. 17); but perhaps this is not the eucharistic cup (see above).

τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. Not much is gained by pointing out that the ἐστιν would not be expressed in Aramaic. It must be understood; and the meaning of τοῦτο, and its relation to τὸ σῶμάμου must be discussed. The τοῦτο cannot mean the act of breaking and eating, nor anything else excepting “this bread.” For the meaning of ἐστι see ver. 20. where the ποτήριον is identified with ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη, and comp. εἰμι in John 8:12, John 8:9:5, John 8:14:6, John 8:15:1, John 8:5. In taking this bread they in some real sense take His Body. See Thirlwall’s Charges, vol. i. Charges v. and vi.; vol. ii. Charge x and esp. p. 25, e d. Perowne, 1877; also Gould on Mark 14:22.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον. Peculiar to this account: “which is being given for your advantage.” The κλώμενον which many texts add to τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν in 1 Corinthians 11:24, is not genuine.

τοῦτο ποιρῖτε. The proposal to give these words a sacrificial meaning, and translate them “Offer this, Sacrifice this, Offer this sacrifice,” cannot be maintained. It has against it (1) the ordinary meaning of ποιεῖν in N.T., in LXX, and in Greek literature generally; (2) the authority of all the Greek Fathers, 1 who knew their own language. knew the N.T. and the LXX, and understood the words as having the ordinary meaning, “Perform this action”; (3) the authority of the Early Liturgies. which do not use ποιεῖν or facere when the bread and wine are offered. but προσφέρειν or offerre, although the words of institution precede the oblation, and thus suggest ποιεῖν or facere; (4) the authority of a large majority of commentators, ancient and modern, of the most various schools. who either make no comment, as if the ordinary meaning were too obvious to need stating: or give the ordinary meaning without mentioning any other as worthy of consideration; or expressly reject the sacrificial meaning; (5) the testimony of the Septuagint, in which the various and frequent Hebrew words which mean “offer” or “Sacrifice” are translated, not by ποιεῖν, but by προσφέρειν or ἀναφέρειν or the like; (6) the fact that here and in 1 Corinthians 11:24 the writer might easily have made the sacrificial meaning clear by using προσφέρειν or ἀναφέρειν. He has not even suggested such a meaning, as he might have done by writing ποιεῖτε τοῦτον, i.e. τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον. He has given as a translation of Christ’s words neither “Offer this bread,” nor “Offer this,” nor “Do this bread” (which might have suggested “Offer this bread”), but “Do this thing.” See Expositor, 3rd series, vii. 441; T. K. Abbott, Essays on the Original Texts of O. & N.T., Longmans, 1893, p. 110; A Reply to Mr. Supple’s and other Criticisms, Longmans, 1893; Mason, Faith of the Gospel, Rivingtons, 1888, p. 309.

εἰς τῆν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. “With a view to a calling to mind, a recollection, of Me.” The word means more than a mere record or memorial, and is in harmony with the pres. imperat. ποιεῖτε: “Continually do this in order to bring Me to mind,” i.e. “to remind yourselves and others of the redemption which I have won by My death.” The eucharist is to be a continual calling to mind of Him who redeemed men from the bondage of sin, as the Passover was an annual calling to mind of redemption from the bondage of Egypt (Exodus 12:24-27, Exodus 12:13:8, Exodus 12:14). In N.T. ἀνάμνησιν occurs only here, 1 Corinthians 11:24, 1 Corinthians 11:25, and Hebrews 10:3, where see Wsctt. Comp. 1 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Timothy 1:6. In LXX it occurs Leviticus 24:7; Numbers 10:10; Wisd. 16:6; the titles of Psa_37. and 69. T. K. Abbott has shown that a sacrificial meaning cannot be obtained from ἀνάμνησιν any more than from ποιεῖτε (Essays, etc. P 122; A Reply, etc. p. 34).

The εἰς corresponds to ἵνα, rather than to ὡς, and indicates the purport of the new institution. For the possessive pronoun used objectively comp. Romans 11:31; 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Corinthians 16:17.

The omission of this charge, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, κ.τ.λ., in Mt and Mk. has attracted attention. DR. C. A. Briggs says, “Jülicher (Zur Gesch. der Abendmahlsfeier in der ällesten Kirche, in the Theolog. Abhandlungen Weizsäcker gewidment, 1892, s. 238 seq.) and Spitta (Urchristenthum, i. S. 238 seq.) are doubtless correct in their opinion that the earliest Christian tradition. represented by Mark and Matthew. knew nothing of an institution of the Lord’s Supper by Jesus on the night of His betrayal, as a sacrament to be observed continuously in the future. But they admit that Paul and Luke are sustained by the earliest Christian usage in representing it as a permanent institution. It is easier to suppose that the risen Lord in connection with these manifestations commanded the perpetual observance of the holy supper. Just as He gave the Apostles their commission to preach and baptize, and explained the mystery of His life and death (Luke 24:25-49). Paul and Luke would then combine the words of Jesus on two different occasions” (The Messiah of the Gospels, T. & T. Clark, 1894, p. 123). See Schaefer, Das Herrenmahlnach Ursprung und Bedeutung, Gütersloh, 1897.

20. τὸ ποτήριον. The τό may mean the cup which all Christians know as part of the eucharist, or (if this passage be genuine) the cup mentioned before (ver. 17). Paul also has the article, Mt. and Mk. not. The other portions of this verse which are in 1 Cor., but not in Mt. and Mk., are ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι … τὸ ποτήριον … καινὴ … ἐν τῷ. On the other hand, Paul and Lk. omit Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες (Mt.) or ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες (Mk.). The ὡσαύτως means that He took it, gave thanks, and gave it to them. For καινή, which is opposed to παλαιά (2 Corinthians 3:6; comp. Romans 11:27), see on 5:38.

διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου. Mt. and Mk. have τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης, which is closer to LXX of Exodus 24:8, τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης. Comp. ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης (Zechariah 9:11). The testamentum sanguine suo obsignatum of Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. IV. 40) gives the sense fairly well. The ratification of a covenant was commonly associated with the shedding of blood; and what was written in blood was believed to be indelible. For διαθήκη see Wsctt. on Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 9:16, with the additional note. p. 298.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον. The ὑμῶν is peculiar to this passage. Mk. has ὑπὲρ πολλῶν, Mt. περὶ πολλῶν, and Paul omits. The ὑμῶν both here and in ver. 19 means the Apostles as representatives of all.

The part. is the Æolic form of the pres. part. pass. of ἐκχύνω = ἐκχέω (Comp. Acts 22:20); “being poured out,” like διδόμενον (ver. 19). In sense τὸ ἐκχ. agrees with αἵματι, but in grammar with ποτήριον: in Mt. and Mk., both in sense and grammar. with αἷμα. But see Win. lxvii. 3. p. 791.

21-23. The Declaration about the Traitor. Comp. Matthew 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; John 13:21-30.

If Lk. places this incident in its proper place, Judas did partake of the eucharist. But the question cannot be decided. See Schanz, ad loc. pp. 509, 510.

21. πλὴν ἰδοὺ ἡ χεὶρ … ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης. The expression is peculiar to Lk. The πλήν here indicates a transition; an expansion or change of subject. From the meaning of His death He passes to the manner of it. Others take it as a restriction of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν; others again as marking a contrast between Christ’s conduct and that of the traitor. See on 6:24, 35, 10:11, 14. The verse may be understood literally, but probably means no more than that the traitor was sharing the same meal with Him: comp. Matthew 26:23.

22. It is here that Lk. is almost verbatim the same as Mt. and Mk. Such solemn words would be likely to be remembered in one and the same form. Keim draws attention to their conspicuous originality. They are not adaptations of anything in O.T., although Obadiah 1:7 and Micah 7:6 might appropriately have been used (v. p. 309). He regards Lk. as most exact. In any case πορεύεται, for which Mt. and Mk. have ὑπάγει, is to be noticed. It is probably used in the LXX sense of “depart, die”: comp. Psalm 78:39.

ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς μέν. The “because” explains how such an amazing thing has come to pass. Failure to see the meaning of ὅτι (א B D L T, Sah. Boh.) has caused the substitution in many texts of καί (A X Γ Δ Λ Π b c e f ff2. Vulg. Syr-Sin. Arm. Aeth.), while others omit (a d, Orig.).

κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον. It is part of the Divine decree that the death of the Christ should be accompanied by betrayal: Mt. and Mk. have καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ: comp. Acts 2:23. Excepting Romans 1:4; Hebrews 4:7, ὁρίζειν is peculiar to Lk. (Acts 2:23, Acts 2:10:42, Acts 2:11:29, Acts 2:17:26, Acts 2:31).

πλήν οὐαί. Mt and Mk. have οὐαὶ δέ; but Lk. is fond of πλήν (ver. 21). Although God knows from all eternity that Judas is the betrayer of the Christ. yet this does not destroy the freedom or responsibility of Judas. The ἐκείνῳ marks him off as an alien: comp. John 13:26, John 13:27, John 13:30. Mt. and Mk. add καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος.

23. Here ἢρξαντο is the one word which is common to all three. Mt. and Mk. say that they each asked Jesus (and Mt. adds that Judas in particular asked) “Is it I ?” No one seems to have suspected Judas; and perhaps Christ’s Σὺ εἶπας was heard by Judas alone. Jesus may have had Judas next to Him on one side, S. John being on the other. For πράσσειν of doing evil comp. John 3:20, John 3:21; Romans 7:19; Thuc. iv. 89. 2.

24-30. The Strife as to Precedence.

Disputes of this kind had taken place before, and the frequent records of them are among the abundant proofs of the candour of the Evangelists. But a comparison of the records seems to indicate that the tradition respecting them had become somewhat confused; and it is possible that what was said on one occasion has in part been transferred to another. Comp. Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48; John 13:14: also Matthew 20:24-28; Mark 10:41-45; Luke 22:24-27. Of these last three passages, Mt. and Mk. clearly refer to the same incident, which took place considerably before the Last Supper. If Lk. merely knew what Jesus said on that occasion, but did not know the occasion, he would hardly have selected the Last Supper as a suitable place for the incident. He probably had good reason for believing that a dispute of this kind took place at the supper. Jesus may have repeated some of what He had said on a similar present occasion. But there is no note of time or sequence in ver. 24, where δὲ καί simply indicates that something of a different character (δέ) from what precedes also (καί) took place: and it is scarcely credible that this strife occured after Jesus had washed their feet and instituted the eucharist. More probably the dispute arose respecting the places at the paschal meal—who was to be nearest to the Master; and the feet-washing was a symbolical rebuke to this contention. Here ver. 27 appears to have direct reference to His having washed their feet.

24. Ἐγένετο δὲ καί. “But there arose also”: see small print on 3:9. The δέ perhaps contrasts this discussion with that as to which of them was the traitor. But we are not sure that the one discussion came closely after the other.

φιλονεικία. “Contentiousness.” Here only in N.T., but quite classical. It is sometimes coupled with βασκανία (4 Mac. 1:26; M. Antonin. iii. 4), and easily comes to mean “contention” (2 Malachi 4:4; Jos. Ant. vii. 8. 4).

δοκεῖ εἶναι. “Is accounted, allowed to be”—omnium suffragiis; implying who ought to be so accounted. See Lft. on Galatians 2:6.

μείζων. Not quite equivalent to the superlative, which would have indicated several gradations from lowest to highest. The comparative implies only two,—a superior and all the rest as equals: 9:46; Mark 9:34. Win. 35:4, p. 305.

25. Almost verbatim as the account of the earlier strife provoked by James and John (Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42). For κυριεύουσιν comp. Romans 14:9; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 1 Timothy 6:15. Mt. and Mk. use the compounds, κατακυρ. and κατεξουσιαζ.

εὐεργέται καλοῦνται Peculiar to Lk. The phrase εὐεργέτης βασιλέος ἀνεγράφη (Hdt. viii. 85, 4: comp. Thuc. i. 129. 2; Esther 2:23, Esther 6:1) is not parallel. There persons who have done special service to the sovereign are formally credited with it. Here it is the sovereign who receives the title of Benefactor (i.e. of his country, or of mankind) as a perpetual epithet; e.g. some of the Greek kings of Egypt. Comp. Σωτήρ, Pater patriæ, Servus servorum. For less formal instances of the title see McClellan and Wetstein.

It is better to take καλοῦνται as middle: “claim the title,” hunc titulum sibi vindicant (Beng.). This is what the disciples were doing.

26. ὁ μείζων. He who is really above the rest. True greatness involves service to others: noblesse oblige. For γινέσθω, “let him prove himself to be,” comp. 10:36, 12:40, 16:11, 19:17. We have an echo of this 1 Peter 5:3. For νεώτερος as διακονῶν comp. Acts 5:6, Acts 5:10: νεώτερον δὲ λέγει τὸν ἔσχατον (Euthym.), the lowest in rank.

The Latin Versions have junior (e f Vulg.), minor (a c ff2 i), minus (d, μεικρότερος D), juvenis (r), adulescentior (b q).

For ὁ ἡγούμενος we have qui præest (a b f q), qui princeps est (r). qui primes est (l) qui præsens est (e), qui ducatum agit (d), qui præcessor est (Vulg.). In N.T. ἡγέομαι means “lead” only in pres. part., and most often in Lk. It is used of any leader. ecclesiasticat of civil (Acts 7:10, Acts 7:14:12. Acts 7:15:22; Matthew 2:6; Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17, Hebrews 13:24). In LXX it is freq.

27. ἐγώ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. This need not be confined to the feet-washing (Euthym. De W. Godet, Hahn), nor to the fact that the person who presided at the paschal meal served the others (Hofm.): and the reference to either is uncertain. The whole of Christ’s ministry was one of service to His disciples (Nösg. Weiss). For ἐν μέσῳ, see on 8:7.

Strauss, Keim, and others regard the feet-washing recorded in Jn. as a mere fictitious illustration of Luke 12:37 and 22:27 (L. J. § 86, p. 542, ed. 1864; Jes. of Naz. v. p. 341 n).

28-30. Nearly the whole of this is peculiar to Lk. But comp. Matthew 19:28. Having rebuked them for raising the question of precedence among themselves, Jesus shows them wherein the privileges which they all enjoy consist, viz. in their standing by Him in His service to others. He gives preference to none.

28. οἱ διαμεμενηκότες μετʼ ἐμοῦ. The idea of persistent loyalty is enforced by the compound verb, by the perfect tense, and by the preposition (Lft. on Galatians 2:5): “who have perseveringly remained with Me and continue to do so” (1:22; Hebrews 1:11; 2 Peter 3:4).

ἐν τοῖς πειρασμοῖς μου. The trials to which He had been subjected during His ministry, and especially the latter portion of it. These, even to Him, were temptations to abandon His work. Comp. ἄχρι καιροῦ (4:13).

κἀγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν. “And I on My part, in return for your loyalty, hereby appoint to you dominion, even as My Father appointed to Me dominion.” As in 1:33, βασιλεία is here “dominion” rather than “a kingdom”: comp. 23:42; Revelation 17:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:12. See on 11:2. Comp. τὴν βασιλείαν εἰς τὴν Ἀλεξάνδραν διέθετο (Jos. Ant. xiii. 16. 1).

A connexion with διαθήκη (ver. 20) is doubtful. The καινὴ διαθήκη is with all the faithful; this διατίθεμαι seems to be confined to the Apostles. The verb does not necessarily mean “covenant to give” or “assign assign by bequest,” which would not fit διέθετο here, but may be used of any formal arrangement or disposition (Hdt. i. 194, 6; Xen. Anab. vii. 3, 10; Mem. i. 6, 13; Cyr. v. 2. 7, 9).

30. ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε. This is the purpose of,conferring regal power upon them. Some make from καθώς to βασιλείαν a parenthesis and render, “I also (even as My Father appointed to Me dominion) appoint to you that ye may eat and drink,” etc. So Theophyl. Nösg. Hahn. But βασιλείαν belongs to both διατίθεμαι and διέθετο. So Buthym. De W. Mey. Weiss, Schanz, Godet.

ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου. The Jews commonly regarded the Messianic Kingdom as a banquet: Comp. 13:29, 14:15. Cibus potusque, ille de quo alias dicitur. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt justitiam (Bede).

καθῆσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων. The meaning of the promise is parallel to what precedes. As they have shared the trials, so they shall share the joy; and as they have proclaimed the Kingdom to Israel, so they shall exercise royal power over Israel, judging them according as they have accepted or rejected what was proclaimed. Comp. 1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3; Revelation 20:4.

As to the verb, the readings are very various: καθίζεσθε (A F K M S U V X Γ Δ), καθίσησε (H), καθέζησθε (D). But the choice lies between καθῆσθε (B* T D), which must depend upon ἵνα, and καθήσεσθε (א A B3 G L Q), which rather gives this as an independent promise. In Matthew 19:28 καθήσεσθε is right, and may have been transferred to this passage, as δώδεκα has been in some authorities (א D Xm a b c d f1 q) with ωρόνων.

31-34. The Prediction of Peter’s Denial.

Both the prediction and the fulfilment are given in all four Gospels. A comparison of them shows that Lk. and Jn. are quite independent of one an other and of the other two. We have three separate narratives. Lk. agrees with Jn. (13:36-38) in placing the prediction in the supper-room. Mt. (26:30-35) and Mk. (14:26-30) place it on the way from the room to Gethsemane. It is not likely that it was repeated; and the arrangement of Lk and Jn. is to be preferred. But some make three predictions; two in the room (Lk. being different from Jn.), and one during the walk to Gethsemane. Godet regards a repetition of such a prophecy impossible de supposer (2. p. 476).

31. Lk. makes no break in Christ’s words, but it is possible that a remark of Peter’s, such as Jn. records, is omitted. The apparent want of connexion between vv. 30 and 31 has led to the insertion εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος (א A D X, Latt.), as if to mark the beginning of a new subject. B L T, Sah. Boh. Syr-Sin. omit. Bede suggests by way of connexion, Ne gloriarentur undecim apostoli, suisve viribus tribuerent, quod soli pæne inter tot millia Judæorum dicerentur in tentationibus permansisse cum Domino, ostendit et eos si non juvantis se Domini assent opitulatione protecti, eadem procella cum cæteris potuisse conteri.

Σίμων Σίμων. The repetition of the name is impressive: see on 10:41. Contrast Πέτρε ver. 34. The whole of this address (31, 32) is peculiar to Lk. It tends to mitigate Peter’s guilt, by showing how sorely he was tried. Lk. “ever spares the Twelve.” See pp. 146,, 172, 511,.

ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς “Satan obtained you by asking” (RV. marg.); “procured your being surrendered to him,” as in the case of Job (1:12, 2:6): exoravit vos. Neither postulavit (Tert. Cypr.), nor quæsivit (c), nor expetivit (f Vulg.) is adequate. The aorist of the compound verb necessarily implies success in the petition. In class. Grk. the mid. would generally have a good sense: “obtained your release by entreaty.” See instances in Wetst. and Field. As in 10:18 Jesus is here communicating a portion of His divine knowledge. See notes there and on 8:12. Note the plur. ὑμᾶς, which covers both σύ and τοὺς ἀδελφούς σου. Satan was allowed to try them all (Matthew 26:31, Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:27, Mark 14:50); Judâ non contentus (Beng.). Comp. Apost. Const, vi. 5, 4: Test. XII. Patr. Benj. iii.

τοῦ σινιάσαι. See on 1:74: “in order to sift.” Neither verb nor substantive (σινίον, “a sieve, winnowing riddle”) is classical. They are probably colloquial for κόσκινον and κοσκινεύειν which survives in modern Greek. In Amos 9:9 we have λικμᾷν. See Suicer, s.v.

Ut ventilet (e f ff2 i l q r, Ambr.), ut vexaret (Cypr. Aug.). ut cerneret (d, Tert. Hil.), ad cernendum (c), ut cribraret (Vulg.).

32. ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην. See on 5:12. The ἐγὼ δέ and the aor. are in marked contrast to Satan and his request. We may regard ἐξῃτήσατο and ἐδεήθή as contemporaneous.

περὶ σοῦ As being the leader on whom so much depended, and as being in special need of help, as his fall proved. Jesus prayed for all (John 17:2, John 17:9, John 17:15, John 17:17). The interpolator of Ignatius understands this as a prayer for all: ὁ δεηθεὶς μὴ ἐκλείπειν τὴν πίστιν τῶν ἀποστόλων (Smyrn. 7.) For ἵνα after δέομας comp. 9:40, 21:36.

μὴ ἐκλίπῃ. “Fail not utterly, once for all.” Defectt in Petro ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς πίστεως ad tempus: at ἕξιν labefactavit, non extinxit (Grotius).

καὶ σύ. Answering to ἐγὼ δέ. Christ has helped him: he must do what he can for others.

ποτε ἐπιστρέψας στήρισον. “When once thou hast turned again, stablish” (RV.). It is unnatural to take ποτε with στήρισον (Mey. Weiss); and it is a mistake to make ἐπιστρέψας a sort of Hebraism (Psalm 85:7, ἐπιστρέψας ζωώσεις ἡμᾶς), meaning “in turn” (Grot. Maldon. Beng.), a use which perhaps does not occur in N.T. See Schanz. On the other hand, “when thou art converted” is too strong. It means turning again after a temporary aberration. Yet it is not turning to the brethren, but turning from the fault that is meant. It is not likely that the transitive sense is meant: “convert thy brethren and strengthen them”. comp. 1:16, 17; Jam 5:19, and contrast Acts 3:19, 28:27; Matthew 13:15; Mark 4:12. See Expos. Times, Oct 1899, p. 6.

This metaphorical sense of στηρίζειν is not classical: comp. Acts 18:23; Romans 1:11, Romans 1:16:25; Jam 5:8, etc. The form στήρισον for στήριξον is late.

Some Latin texts add. without any Greek authority, et rogate nen iniretis in temptationem (a b c e ff2 i q).

33. μετὰ σοῦ. First. with enthusiastic emphasis: “With Thee I am ready.” The impulsive reply is thoroughly characteristic. As at the feet-washing (John 13:6, John 13:8) he has more confidence in his own feelings than in Christ’s word; but this version of the utterance is less boastful than that in Matthew 26:33 and Mark 14:29.

34. Λέγω σοι, Πέτρε. For the first and last time in the Gospels Jesus addresses him by the significant name which He had given him. Rock-like strength is not to be found in self-confidence, but in humble trust in Him. Mt. and Mk. have Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι: Jn. Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λ. σοι. The solemn earnestness with which this definite prediction was uttered made a deep impression upon all.

σήμερον. Mt. his ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί. Mk. has both. The new day began after sunset. See 4:40, 13, and 23:38 for similar cases in which Mt. and Lk. have different parts of an expression, of which Mk. has the whole.

οὐ φωνήσει … ἀλέκτωρ. The third of the four Roman watches was called ἀλεκτοροφωνία, gallicinium (Mark 13:35; Apost. Const. viii. 34, 1; Strabo, vii. 35; Geopon. 1153). The expression here is equivalent to “Before this night is past.” Mk. alone mentions the double cock-crowing, and the fact that Peter, so far from being silenced, kept on protesting with increased vehemence.

ἕως τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ εἰδέναι. This is the true reading (א B L M Q X T), The τρίς is in all four Gospels: the εἰδέναι in Lk. alone.

35-38. § The New Conditions; the Saying about the Sword. The opening words mark the beginning of a new subject; and there is no indication of any connexion with what precedes. It is one more proof of His care for them. Precautions and equipments, which would have hindered them in more peaceful times, have become necessary now. What He formerly forbade, He now enjoins. Dominus non eâdem vivendi regulâ persecutionis quam pacis tempore discipulas informat (Bede).

35. Ὅτε ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς ἄτερ β. The wording suggests a direct reference to 10:4. which is addressed to the Seventy. In 9:3, where similar directions are given to the Twelve, the wording is different. In the source which Lk. is here using the words given in 10:4 would seem to have been addressed to the Apostles. There may have been some confusion in the tradition respecting two similar incidents, or in the use which Lk. makes of it.

This use of ὑστερεῖν occurs here only in N.T. Comp. Jos. Ant. ii.2, 1. The pass. is thus used 15:14; Romans 3:23; Hebrews 11:37.

36. ὁ μὴ ἔχων. This is ambiguous. It may look back to ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον: “He that hath no purse, let him sell his garment and buy a sword” (Cov. Gen. Rhem. RV.). Or it may anticipate μάχαιραν: “He that path no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Tyn. Cran. AV.). The former is far the more probable. Only he who has no money or wallet, would sell the most necessary of garments (ἱμάτιον, 6:29), to buy anything. But even the ἱμάτιον is less indispensable than a sword; so dangerous are their surroundings. “For henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives” (Cyril Adex. Syr. Com. ad loc., Payne Smith. p. 680) Christ implies that His Apostles will have to rely upon their own resources and to confront deadly hostility. Comp. John 15:18-21. Christ does no mmean that they are to repel force by force; still less that they are to use force in spreading the Gospel. But in a figure likely to be remembered He warns them of the changed circumstances for which they must now be prepared.

37. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν. The γάρ introduces the explanation of the change from ὅτε ἀπέστειλα to νῦν.

τὸ γεγραμμένον. Comp. 20:17; 2 Corinthians 4:13, More often we have τά γεγραμμένα: 18:31, 21:22; Acts 13:29; Revelation 20:12, Revelation 22:19.

The ἔτι before τοῦτο (G Δ Λ Π, Vulg. Arm.) is spurious. It is the kind of insertion which versions are apt to make for the sake of completeness: “must yet be fulfilled.” For δεῖ see on 4:43 and 9:22.

ἐν ἐμοί. Therefore the disciples must expect no better treatment than the Master receives (Matthew 10:24; John 15:20, John 13:16: see on 6:40).

Καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων. The καί is part of the quotation: καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις ἐλογίσθη (Isaiah 53:12): “even with the transgressors” is incorrect. In AV. ἄνομος is translated in five different ways: “transgressor” (Mark 15:28); “wicked” (Acts 2:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:8), “without law” (1 Corinthians 9:21), “lawless” (1 Timothy 1:9), “unlawful” (2 Peter 2:8).

καὶ γάρ. An extension of the argument: “and what is more.” This fulfilment is not only necessary,—it is reaching its conclusion, “is having an end” (Mark 3:26). The phrase τέλος ἕχειν is used of oracles and predictions being accomplished. See Field, Ot. Norvic. iii., and comp. τετέλεσται (John 19:30).

Om. γάρ D, a d e ff2 i l Syr-Sin. Failure to see the point of the γάρ would cause the omission.

τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ This form of expression is found in no other Gospel; but the plur. τὰ περὶ ἐμουῦ, occurs 24:19, 27 and is freq. in Acts (1:3, 18:25, 23:11, 15, 24:10, 22, 28:15, 31: in 8:12, 19:8, 28:23 the τά is probably spurious). Some text (A X Γ Δ etc.) have τά here for τό: ea quæ sunt de me (Vulg.); ea quæ de me scribta sunt (Cod. Brix.). But τό (א B D L Q) has been altered to the more usual expression. perhaps to avoid the possible combination of τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος. There is no need to understand γεγραμμένον. Much which concerned the Christ had never been written.

38. μάαιραι. Chrysostom has supposed that these were two knives, prepared for the slaughtering (ver. 8) or carving of the paschal lamb. In itself this is not improbable: but nowhere else in N.T. does μάχαιρα mean a knife. Assuming that swords are meant, these weapons may have been provided against robbers on the journey to Jerusalem, or against attack in the city. Peter had one of them, and may have been the speaker here. It is one more instance of the Apostles’ want of insight, and of the Evangelistbs candour: comp. Mark 8:17. Schleiermacher points out that the obscurity of the passage is evidence of its genuineiess and originality (p. 299, Eng. tr.).

Ἱκανόν ἐστιν. Satis est (c ff2 q Vulg.), sat est (a i), sufficit (b d f l r), which law perhaps represents ἀρκεῖ (D). The reply is probably the equivalent for a Hebrew formula for dismissing the subject (Deuteronomy 3:26), not with impatience, but with satiety or sorrow. Comp. ἕως τοῦ νῦν [ἱκανόν] (1 Mac. 2:33). But even if it means that two swords are a sufficient quantity (“They are enough for you,” SyrSin.), it intimates that the subject is dismissed. Bede is hardly right in his view: duo gladii sufficiunt ad testimonium sponte passi salvatoris, i.e. to prove that he could have resisted. had He pleased. If the words apply to the swords, they are spoken with a sad irony (μονουχὶ διαγελᾷ, Cyril Alex.). as meaning, not that the two weapons will be sufficient for the protection of the company, but that none at all are required: they have grievously misunderstood Him.1 Es gilt nith: mehr mit dem leiblichen Schwerdt fechten, sondern as gilt hinfort leiden um des Evangelii willen und Kreuz tragen: denn man kann wider den Teufel nicht mit Eisten fechten; darum ist Noth Alles dran zu setzen, und nur das geistliche Schwerdt, das Wort Gottes, zu fassen (Luth.).

22:39-23:49. The Passion. In this part of the narrative of the Passion proper, i.e. from the Agony to the Death, the particulars which are wholly or mainly peculiar to Lk. are 22:51, 23:6-12, 27-32 [34]. 40-43, 46: and these particulars are among the most precious details in the history of the Passion.

39-46. The Agony in the Garden. With regard to the omission of nearly the whole of the last discourses (Jn. 14-17.) Godet remarks that the oral tradition was not a suitable vehicle for transmitting such things: c’étaient den trésors qu’un cæur d’élite Pouvait seul garder et reproduire. On the other hand Jn. omits the whole of this scene, although there is a clear reference to it 18:11. Lk.’s narrative once more differs considerably from that of Mt. (26:30-41) and of Mk. (14:26-38), which are almost verbatim the same; and it is very much shorter. It is in vv. 39, 42, 46 that Lk. comes most closely to the other two.

39. ἐξελθών. From the house.

κατὰ τὸ ἔθος Peculiar to Lk. (1:9, 2:42): Comp. πολλάκις συνήχθη Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖ (John 18:2). It was no longer necessary to keep Judas ignorant of His movements; so He follows His usual practice. Lk. omits the ὑμνήσαντες which records the chanting of the second part of the Hallel. Jn. alone mentions the passing of the gloomy ravine of the Kidron (18:1).

40. τοῦ τόπου. Lk. and Jn. call it “the place,” Mt. and Mk. χωρίον and add the name Γεθσημανεί = “oil-press.” The traditional Gethsemane is a questionable site. Both Robinson and Thomson would place the garden higher up the Mount of Olives. The tradition is continuous from the age of Constantine, but cannot be traced to any earlier source. Stanley inclines to accept it as correct (Sin & Pal. p. 455). See D. B.2 art. “Gethsemane.”

Προσεύχεσθε. This first command to pray (comp. ver. 46) is recorded by Lk. alone. It is given to the eleven; the second is to the chosen three. whom Lk. does not notice particularly.

41. ἀπεσπάσθη. Avulsus est (Vulg.). “He was drawn away” by the violence of His emotion. which was too strong to tolerate the sympathy of even the closest friends: comp. Acts 21:1. It seems to be too strong a word to use of mere separation: but comp. 2 Mac. 12:10, 17; 4 Mac. 13:18; Isaiah 28:9.

ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν. Mt. and Mk. have μικρόν Comp. ὡσεὶ τόξου βολήν (Genesis 21:16): λείπετο δουρὸς ἐρωήν (Hom. Il. xxiii. 529). The acc. in John 6:19 is not quite parallel.

θεὶς τὰ γόνατα. Lk. alone mentions this. Standing was the more common attitude (18:11; Matthew 6:5; Mark 11:25; 1 Samuel 1:26): but on occasions of special earnestness or humiliation kneeling was more natural (1 Kings 8:54; Ezra 9:5; Daniel 6:10). In N. T. kneeling is the only attitude mentioned; perhaps in imitation of Christ’s example here: Acts 7:60, Acts 7:9:40, Acts 7:20:36, Acts 7:21:5; Ephesians 3:14. The phrase τιθέναι τὰ γόνατα is not classical, but comp. genua ponere. See on 3:21: the imperf. προσηύχετο implies continued prayer.

42. Πάτερ, εἰ βούλει, παρένεγκε. We might have expected εἰ θέλεις (comp. ἐὰν θέλῃς, 5:12), because of τὸ θέλημα in the next sentence. But this is one of the passages which tend to show that in N.T. θέλω indicates mere choice, while βούλομαι implies deliberate selection (Matthew 1:19). The latter is far less common in N.T. In LXX there is not much difference.

This is the only passage in which the Attic βούλει for βούλῃ is well supported. Such forms are found in some texts Matthew 27:4; John 11:40; Acts 16:31, Acts 24:8.

In D a c d e ff2 μὴ τὸ θέλημα … γενέσθω precedes εἰ βούλει … ἐμοῦ, πλήν being omitted. Several of the same authorities have a similar inversion 9:62.

The reading παρενεγκεῖν (A Q X Γ Δ Λ) turns the prayer into an unfinished pleading: “Father, if Thou be willing to remove this cup from Me.”—Comp. Exodus 32:32. B D T Versions, and Orig. support παρένεγκε. Vulg. transfer calicem istum; Tert. transfer poculum istud; but he may be quoting Mark 14:36 (De Orat. 4.). Boh. Sah. Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. have “let this cup pass.”

παρέενεγκε τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ. “This cup” and the address “Father” are in all three accounts. In O.T. the metaphor of “cup” for a person’s fortune, whether good or bad, is very common (Psalm 11:6, Psalm 16:5, Psalm 23:5, Psalm 75:8, etc.). In N.T. specially of the sufferings of Christ (Mark 14:36; John 18:11; Matthew 20:22, Matthew 20:23; Mark 10:38, Mark 10:39): comp. Revelation 14:10, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 18:6. In class. Grk. παραφέρειν ποτήριον would mean to place a cup at the side of a person. put it on the table near him (Hdt. 1:119, 5, 133, 3; Plat. Rep. 1. p. 354). But in Plutarch παραφέρειν is used in the sense of “lay aside, remove” (Camill. 41.). Elsewhere in N.T. it is used of leading astray (Hebrews 13:9; Judges 1:12).

τὸ θέλημά μου. Either βούλημα or βουλή might have been used of the Father’s will. but less suitably of Christ’s (Ephesians 1:11). The γινέσθω is peculiar to Lk. It recalls γέηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου (Matthew 6:10), which Lk. omits (11:2). For πλήν comp. 10:11, 14, 20.

43, 44. As in the case of vv. 19, 20, we have to consider whether this passage is part of the original text. For be evidence see be additional note at the end of ch. 23. One thing is certain. “It would be impossible to regard these verses as a product of the inventiveness of the scribes. They can only be a fragment from the traditions, written or oral, which were, for a time at least, locally current beside the canonical Gospels, and which doubtless included matter of every degree of authenticity and intrinsic value. These verses and the first sentence of 22:34 may be safely called the most precious among the remains of this evangelic tradition which were rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century” (WH. 2. App. p. 67). It matters little whether Lk. included them in his narrative, so long as their authenticity as evangelic tradition is acknowledged. In this respect the passage is like that respecting the Woman taken in Adultery.

43. ὤφθη. “Was visible” to the bodily eye is obviously meant. It is against the context and the use of the expression in other places to suppose that internal perception of an invisible spiritual presence is intended. Lk. is fond of the expression (1:11, 9:31, 24:34; Acts 2:3, Acts 2:7:2, Acts 2:26, Acts 2:30, Acts 2:35, Acts 2:9:17, Acts 2:13:31, Acts 2:16:9, Acts 2:26:16; comp. 1 Corinthians 15:5-8), which Mt. and Mk. use once each (17:3. 9:4), and Jn. thrice (Revelation 11:19, Revelation 11:12:1, Revelation 11:3), but not in his Gospel. The ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ would not have been added if the presence of the Angel was invisible.

ἐνισχύων. Elsewhere in N.T. only Acts 9:19, of bodily strengthening: comp. 2 Samuel 22:40; Ecclus. 50:4; and this may well be the meaning here, but without excluding the strengthening of soul and spirit. Either would tend to produce the other; and the sight of His Father’s messenger would strengthen both body and spirit. Commentators have speculated as to what the Angel said (see Corn. à Lap. ad l.). There is nothing to indicate that he spoke. Hobart remarks of ἐνισχύειν that, outside the LXX “its use in the transitive sense, ‘to strengthen,’ is confined to Hippocrates and St. Luke” (p. 80). In Acts 9:19 the true reading is probably ἐνισχύθη.1

ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ. Here only in N.T. Field contends that fear is the radical notion of the word. The passages in which it occurs in LXX confirm this view: 2 Malachi 3:14, Malachi 3:16, Malachi 3:15:19; comp. ἀγωνιᾷν Esth. 15:8 [5:1]; Daniel 1:10; Dan_2 Mac. 3:21. It is frequently coupled with such words as φόβος, δέος, φρίκη, etc. For examples see Field, Ot. Norv. 3. p. 56. It is, therefore, an agony of fear that is apparently to be understood. Mk. has ἀδημονεῖν with ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, Mt. with λυπεῖσθαι.—ἐκτενέστερον. “More extendedly,” and hence “more persistently.” This seems to be parallel to the πίπτειν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ (Mt.) and ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Mk.). Heb. v. 7 probably refers specially to this. Comp. ἐκτενῶς of prayer, and ἐκτένεια of worship and service. Acts 12:5, Acts 26:7.

44. ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνμοντες. Even if καταβαίνοντος (א V X, Vulg. Boh.) be right, the words do not necessarily mean more than that the drops of sweat in some way resembled drops of blood, e.g. by their size and frequency. But it is not likely that no more than this is intended, or that the words are a metaphorical expression. like our “tears of blood.” That Justin in referring to the statement omits αἵματος—ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο (Try. 103.)—does not prove that he did not understand actual blood to be meant. Rather it shows that he considered that θρόμβοι, “clots,” sufficiently expressed “drops of blood.”2

The expression “bloody sweat” is probably a correct interpretation: and the possibility of blood exuding through the pores seems to be established by examples. Comp. Arist. Hist. Anim. 3:19. De Mezeray states of Charles 9. of France that “During the last two weeks of his life (May 1574) his constitution made strange efforts … blood gushed from all the outlets of his body, even from the pores of his skin; so that on, one occasion he was found bathed in a bloody sweat.” See W. Stroud, The Physical Cause the Death of Christ, 1847, pp. 85-88, 379-389. Schanz cites Lönarz, De sudore sanguinis, Bonn, 1850, and Langen, Die letzten Lebenstage, p. 214. Why is αἵματος added, if no αἶμα accompanied the ἱδρώς? It would be visible in the moonlight, when Jesus returned to the disciples: ubi quidem non solis oculis, sed quasi membris omnibus flevisse videtur (Bernard, In Dom. Palm. Serm. 3:4). Diatess-Tat. has “like a stream of blood.”

45. Lk. is much more brief than Mt. and Mk., but adds ἀναστὰς ἀπὸ τῆς προσευχῆς and also ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης. Prolonged sorrow produces sleep, and in mentioning this cause of their slumber Lk. once more “spares the Twelve.” For ἀναστάς see on 1:39, and for ἀπό of the cause see on 19:3, 21:26, 24:41.

46. Τί καθεύδετε ; The special address to Peter is omitted.

προσεύχεσθε ἵνα μή . All three assign this to the first return from prayer. No words are recorded of the second, and Lk. omits both it and the third. These movements are some evidence as to Christ’s human knowledge. Would He have come to the disciples, without waking them (as seems on the second occasion to have been the case), had He known beforehand that they were asleep? And does not εὑρίσκεν, which is in all three, almost imply that until He came He did not know, as in the case of the barren fig tree (Mark 11:13)?

ἵνα μή . “That … not” (Wic. RV.) rather than “lest” (Tyn. Gen. Rhem. AV.). Comp. ver. 40, where the constr. is equivalent, although not identical. In both places we have the pres. imperat. of continuous prayer.

47-53. The Traitor’s Kiss and the Arrest of Jesus. Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; John 18:2-11. It would have been possible for Jesus to have evaded Judas by not going to the usual place (ver. 40) or by leaving it before he arrived. The sneer of Celsus, that Jesus went to the garden “to make His escape by disgracefully hiding Himself,” is out of place. By going and remaining where Judas must find Him, He surrendered Himself voluntarily. As Origen says, “At the fitting time He did not prevent Himself from falling into the hands of men” (Cels. 2:10).

47. Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος … ὄχλος καὶ … Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα. These nine words are in all three accounts. He was still addressing the disciples when He was interrupted by a hostile multitude led by one of the Twelve. See Blass on Acts 10:44.

φιλῆσαι αὐτόν. Lk. omits that it was a prearranged sign; also the χαῖρε Ῥαββεί and the fact that an ostentatiously affectionate kiss (κατεφίλησεν) was given. Jn. does not mention the kiss. His narrative shows how unnecessary the treacherous signal was, for Jesus came forward and declared Himself.1

48. φιλήματι . First, with great emphasis. “Is it with a kiss thou betrayest?” Osculo Filium hominis tradis? hoc est amoris pignore vulnus infligis, et caritatis officio sanguinem fundis, et pacis instrumento mortem irrogas, servus Dominum, discipulus prodis magistrum, electus Auctorem (Bede). Jesus does not say, “betrayest thou Me?” but “betrayest thou the Son of Man?” He reminds Judas that it is the Messiah whom he is treating with this amazing form of treachery. Mt. words Christ’s rebuke very differently: Ἑταῖρε, ἐφʼ ὃ πάρει. Mk. omits the rebuke.

49. Κύριε, εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ; Lk. alone records this question. It is said that “since it was illegal to carry swords on a feast-day, we have here another sign that the Last Supper had not been the Passover.” But if the μάχαιρα was a large knife used for killing the lamb, this would not hold: see on ver. 38.

For the constr. see on 13:23 and Burton., § 70, 169: and for the form μαχαίρῃ see on 21:24.

50. εἷς. All three use this indefinite expression: Jn. alone tells us that it was the impetuous Peter, who acted without waiting for Christ’s reply. When Jn. wrote it was not dangerous to disclose the name of me Apostle who had attacked the high priest’s servant. And John alone gives the servant’s name. As a friend of the high priest (18:15) he would be likely to know the name Malchus. Malchus was probably taking a prominent part in the arrest, and Peter aimed at his head.

τὸ ουἶς αὐτοῦ τὸ δεξιόν. Mt. has ὡτίον, Mk. and Jn. ὠτάριον. Jn. also specifies the right ear. Mt. records the rebuke to Peter, “Put up again thy sword,” etc.

51. Ἐαʼτε ἕως τούτου . The obscurity of the saying is evidence that it was uttered: an invented utterance would have been plainer. If addressed to the disciples (as ἀποκριθείς implies, for He is answering either their question or Peter’s act), it probably means, “Suffer My assailants to proceed these lengths against Me.” If addressed to those who had come to arrest Him, it might mean, “Tolerate thus much violence on the part of My followers,”—violence which He at once rectifies. It can hardly mean, “Allow Me just to touch the sufferer,” for He is still free, as ver. 52 implies: the arrest takes place at ver. 54. Some even make ἕως τούτου masc. “to go as far as Malchus”: but comp. Leviticus 26:18. In either of these last cases we should have had με after ἐᾶτε. For ἐάω see on 4:41.

ἰάσατο αὐτόν. Lk. the physician alone records this solitary miracle of surgery. A complete restoration of the ear is meant and required. “He touched the ear, ” not the place where the ear had been. Peter’s act had seemed to place Jesus in the wrong and to justify His enemies: He was shown to be the Leader of dangerous persons. To undo this result it was necessary to render Malchus uninjured, and to surrender without resistance. This confirms the interpretation given above of Ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου: they are a public command to the disciples not to impede the arrest. Comp. John 18:36. Marcion omitted vv. 49-51.

In the Classical Review of Dec. 1893 Dr. E. A. Abbott proposes to resolve this miracle into a misunderstanding of traditional language. The ingenuity is unconvincing. See Additional Note p. 545.

52. τοὺς παραγενομένους ἐπʼ αὐτόν . These are not fresh arrivals, but portions of the ὄχλος of ver. 47 more particularly described. There is nothing improbable in the presence of ἀρχιερεῖς, who are mentioned by Lk. alone. Anxiety about the arrest, which might be frustrated by a miscalculation of time, or by the people, or by a miracle, would induce them to be present. For στρατηγοὺς τοῦ ἱεροῦ see on ver. 4. Jn. tells us that Roman soldiers with their chief officer were there also (18:3, 12). Jesus addresses the Jewish authorities, who are responsible for the transaction.

The reading ἐπʼ αὐτόν (A B D L T X Γ Λ Π), “against Him” (RV.), is to be preferred to πρὸς αὐτόν (א G H R Δ), “to Him” (AV.); but Tisch., with his bias for א, adopts the latter.

Ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστήν. First with emphasis. These words down to καθʼ ἡμέραν are the same in all three accounts. Jesus is not a bandit (10:30, 19:46). The fact that they did not arrest Him publicly, nor without violence, nor in the light of day, is evidence that the arrest is unjustifiable. Perhaps ξύλων means “clubs,” as Rhem. from fustibus (Vulg.): comp. Jos. B. J. 2:9, 4.

53. Every point tells: “Every day there was abundant opportunity; you yourselves were there; the place was the most public in the city; and you made no attempt to touch Me.” The sentence is certainly not a question (Hahn). Tisch. does not make even the first part, from ὡς to ξύλων, a question: so also Wic. and Cran.

ἀλλʼ αὕτη ἐστίν. “But the explanation of such outrageous conduct is not difficult. This is your hour of success allowed by God; and it coincides with that allowed to the power of darkness.” So Euthym ὥρα ἐν ἐν ᾗ δύναμιν ἐλάβετε κατʼ ἐμοῦ θεόθεν· comp. John 8:44. Perhaps there is an intimation that the night is a fit season for such work: comp. John 13:30, and see Schanz, p. 529.

ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους. See Lft. on Colossians 1:13, where the same phrase occurs. He points out that ἐξουσία is sometimes used of unrestrained and tyrannical power, as well as of delegated and constitutional power. But the latter may be the meaning here. It is by Divine permission that Satan is ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ τοῦ κόσμοι τούτου (John 14:30).

Lk. omits the flight of all the disciples, which Mt. and Mk record. This is further evidence, if any be needed, that Lk. exhibits no animus against the Twelve. See on ver. 45 and 6:13.

54-62. Peter’s Denials are recorded in detail by all four Elvangelists, who tell us that three denials were predicted (Matthew 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38), and record three denials (Matthew 26:70, Matthew 26:72, Matthew 26:74; Mark 14:68, Mark 14:70, Mark 14:71; Luke 22:57, Luke 22:58, Luke 22:60; John 18:17, John 18:25, John 18:27). As already pointed out, Lk. and Jn. place the prediction during the supper, Mk. and Mt. on the road to the Mount of Olives, which is less likely to be correct, if (as is probable) the prediction was made only once.

As to the three denials, all four accounts are harmonious respecting the first, but differ greatly respecting the second and third. The first denial, provoked the accusation of the maid, seems to have led to a series of attacks upon S. Peter, which were mainly in two groups; and these were separated from one another by an interval, during which he was not much noticed. Each of the four narratives notices some features in these groups of attacks and denials: but it is unreasonable to suppose that they profess to give the exact words that were spoken in each case. See on 8:24 for Augustine’s remarks on the different words recorded by the three Synoptists as uttered during the storm on the lake. Alford on Matthew 26:69, and Westcott in an additional note on Jn. 18., have tabulated the four narratives: see also Rushbrooke’s Synopticon, p. 114. With these helps the four can readily be compared clause by clause; and the independence of at least three of them soon becomes apparent. This independence results from truthfulness, and the variations will be a difficulty to those only who hold views of verbal inspiration which are contradicted by abundant phenomena both in O.T. and N.T. “St. Luke adds force to the episode by placing all three denials together. With St. John, however, dramatic propriety’s is sacrificed to chronological accuracy” (Lft. Biblical Essays, p. 191).

54. Συλλαβόντες . All four use this verb in connexion with the arrest of Jesus. It is freq. in Lk., especially of the capture of prisoners: Acts 1:16, Acts 12:3, Acts 23:27, Acts 26:21. Jn. tells us that they bound Him and took Him πρὸς Ἅνναν πρῶτον, i.e. before His being examined by Caiaphas, as recorded Matthew 26:57-68 and Mark 14:53-65. Both these examinations were informal. They were held at night, and no sentence pronounced in a trial held at night was valid. Hence the necessity for a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin after daybreak, to confirm what had been previously decided. This third ecclesiastical trial is mentioned by all the Synoptists (ver. 66; Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1); whereas Jn. gives only the first (18:12), and shows that it was in connexion with it that Peter’s denials took place. Lk. can hardly be said to give either of the first two hearings. He says that Jesus was taken to the high priest’s house, and was there denied by Peter and ill-treated by His captors; and then he passes on to the formal assembly of the Sanhedrin; but there is no mention of any previous examination. With the help of the other narratives, however, we obtain an account of all three hearings. The space devoted by all four to these Jewish and Roman trials seems to be out of proportion to the brief accounts of the crucifixion. But they serve to bring out the meaning of the crucifixion by exhibiting the nature of the Messiahship of Jesus. Why was Jesus condemned to death by the Sanhedrin? Because He claimed to be the Son of God. Why was He condemned to death by Pilate? Because He claimed to be the King of the Jews.

ἤγαγον καὶ εἰσήγαγον. “They led Him (away) and brought Him.” The latter verb is a favourite with Lk. See on 2:27.

D Γ, Syr-Sin. some Old Lat. texts Vulg. Aeth. omit καὶ εἰσἡγαγον.

εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. It is impossible to determine whether this means of Annas or of Caiaphas (comp. 3:2 and Acts 4:6): but the narrative of Jn. (18:12-24) renders it highly probable that Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas shared the same palace, occupying different parts of it. As Lk. records no examination of Christ before either of them, we do not know whether he connects Peter’s fall with the hearing before Annas (as Jn.), or with that before Caiaphas (as Mt. and Mk.). All that he tells us is that Jesus was kept a prisoner and insulted between the night arrest and the morning sitting of the Sanhedrin. Possibly his authorities told him no more. See Hastings, D.B. 1. p. 100.

ἠκολούθει μακρόθεν. This following at a distance is noted by all three. Quod sequitur, amoris est, quod e longo, timoris.

55. περιαψάντων . Here only in N.T. Comp. 3 Malachi 3:7. This would be April, at which time cold nights are not uncommon in Jerusalem, which stands high.

A D R X Γ Δ Λ Π have ἁψάντων, which is peculiar to Lk. in the sense of kindling: 8:16, 11:33, 15:8; Acts 28:2. For ἐν μέσῳ see on 8:7.

ἐκάθητο ὁ Πέτρος μέσος αὐτῶν. Cod. Am. and other MSS. of Vulg. have erat Petrus in medio eorum. All Greek texts have ἐκάθητο. Where did Jerome find ἦν? See on 9:44.

Here only in N.T. is συνκαθίζω intransitive: contrast Ephesians 2:6. D G, b c d e f ff2 i l q Vulg. Arm. Syr-Sin. have περικαθισάντων. But a (consedentibus supports א A B L R X etc. (συνκαθισαντων): and this is doubtless right.

56. παιδίσκη . All four use this word of the person who began the attack on Peter. Jn. says that she was the doorkeeper. It was not Pilate, nor any of the Sanhedrin, nor a mob of soldiers, but a single waiting-maid, who frightened the self-confident Apostle into denying his Master. Note the τις.

πρὸς τὸ φῶς. Comp. Mark 14:54. For ἀτενίσασα, which is a favourite word with Lk. (4:20 and often in Acts), Mk. has ἐμβλέψασα.

καὶ οὗτος σὺν αὐτῷ ἧν. The meaning of the καί is not obvious: as well as who? Possibly S. John, who was present and known to the household. With σὺν αὐτῷ ἦν comp. 24:44; Acts 13:7. The fondness of Lk. for σύν here comes out. Mk. and Mt. have μετά, and Jn. has ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν.

57. οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν . For αὐτόν Mk. and Mt. have the less explicitly false τί λέγεις. Lk. has ὃ λέγεις ver. 60, where they have τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Here Lk. again mitigates by omitting the oath which accompanied the second denial (Mt.), and the cursing and swearing which accompanied the third (Mt. Mk.). This first denial seems to have been specially public, ἔμπροσθεν πάντων (Mt.).

58. μετὰ βραχύ. Lk. alone states that a second denial followed close on the first. For ἕτερος Mt. has ἄλλη, Mk. ἡ παιδίσκη, Jn. εἶπον. For ἄνθρωπε see on 12:14.

59. διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς. Mk. and Mt. say μετὰ μικρόν. The classical διίστημι is peculiar to Lk. (24:51; Acts 27:28. In LXX Exodus 15:8; Proverbs 17:9, etc.).

ἄλλος τις. Jn. says a kinsman of Malchus; Mt. and Mk. say the bystanders. In this third attack all four call attention to the positiveness of the speaker; because he had seen Peter in the garden with Jesus (Jn.), and because of Peter’s Galilean λαλιά (Mt.). The Galileans are said to have mixed the gutturals in pronunciation, and to have had in some respects a peculiar vocabulary.

διισχυρίζετο. Classical, but only here and Acts 12:15 in bibl. Grk.

60. παραχρῆμα. All four note how quickly the crowing followed upon the third denial. Lk. has his favourite παραχρῆμα and Mk. his favourite εὐθύς: comp. 5:25, 8:44, 55, 18:43. But the graphic ἔτι λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ is given by Lk. alone.

ἐφώνησεν ἀλέκτωρ. No article: “a cock crew.” A few cursives insert ὁ.

The objection which has been raised, that the Talmud pronounces fowls which scratch on dungheaps to be unclean, is futile. In this the Talmud is inconsistent with itself: and Sadducees would have no scruples about what was not forbidden by the written law. Certainly Romans would have no such scruples.

61. στραφείς. Lk. alone preserves this incident. Peter is probably still in the court, while Jesus is inside. It is improbable that Jesus was present when Peter denied Him. He may have been visible through door or window, but scarcely within hearing. The στραφεὶς ἐνέβλεψεν may have taken place as He was being led to or from the examination before Caiaphas.

σήμερον. Lk. alone repeats this word, as Mk. repeats his δίς: otherwise all three have the same words. Jn. omits Peter’s recollection of the warning and also his bitter weeping.

The σήμερον is omitted in A B Γ Δ Λ and several Versions, but it is attested by א B K L M T, Boh. Sah. Syr-Sin. Aeth. b ff2 l.

62. WH. bracket this verse, which is wanting in a b e ff2 i 1* r. But ὁ Πέτρος (A Γ Δ Λ, Vulg.) is no doubt an addition both here and Matthew 26:75.

63-65. The First Mocking. As Lk. omits the examination by Caiaphas, it is impossible to determine whether he places this mocking before or after it. He knows that Jesus, after being denied by His chief Apostle, was insulted by His captors, and then taken before the Sanhedrin. His omissions seem to show that he is making no use of Mt. or Mk. Comp. Matthew 26:67, Matthew 26:68; Mark 14:65.

63. οἱ συνέχοντες αὐτόν. Not members of the Sanhedrin, but the servants or soldiers in whose charge Jesus had been left. Here only is συνέχειν used of holding fast a prisoner. Comp. 8:45; 19:43. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 160.

δέοντες . Comp. 12:47, 20:10. Of the five expressions which are used in describing these blows each Evangelist uses two: Lk. δέροντες and παίσας; Mt. ἐκολάφισαν and εηράπισαν; Mk. κολαφίζειν and ῥαπίσμασιν ἔλαβον. Comp. the treatment of the Apostles, Acts 5:40; and of S. Paul, Acts 21:32, Acts 23:2. Lk. omits the spitting. All three have the Προφήτευσον .

65. ἕτερα πολλά . Comp. 3:18. The statemenk here is made by Lk. only. On the combination of participle and verb, describing the same action from different points of view, see Burton., § 121.

66-71. The Third Jewish Trial. The Sanhedrin could hold no valid meeting before daybreak, and what had been irregularly done in the night had to be formally transacted after dawn.1 Comp. Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1. But Lk. is quite independent; whereas Mt. and Mk. have much in common.

66. ὡς ἐγένετο ἡμέρα . All three note the early hour: εὐθὺς πρωί (Mk.), πρωίας δὲ γενομένης (Mt.). The expression ἡμέρα γίνεται is characteristic of Lk. Comp. 4:42, 6:13; Acts 12:18, Acts 12:16:35, Acts 12:23:12, 27:29, 33, 39.

τὸ πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ λαοῦ, ἀρχιερεῖς τε καὶ γραμματεῖς. The meaning is that the three component parts of the Sanhedrin met, and that Jesus was brought before the whole assembly. Mt. and Mk. also give the parts as well as the whole; but the place of meeting is not given by any. That portions of what is recorded of one examination should resemble portions of what is recorded of another is natural. Before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin the same questions would be asked. At this last and only valid trial everything of importance would have to be repeated. It is probable that τὸ συνέδριον αὐτῶν is here used in a technical sense for the Great Council or Sanhedrin. Comp. Acts 4:15, Acts 4:5:21, Acts 4:27, Acts 4:34, 41, Acts 4:6:12, Acts 4:15, Acts 4:22:30, Acts 4:23:1, Acts 4:6, Acts 4:15, Acts 4:20, Acts 4:28, Acts 4:24:20. See Herzog, art. Synedrium; Keim, Jes. of Naz. 6. pp. 63-72; Edersh. L. & T. 2. pp. 553-557; Hist. of. J. N. ch. 5.; Farrar, L. of C. II Excurs. 13.; and above all Schurer, J. P. in T. of J. C. II. 1. pp. 163-195, where the literature of the subject is given.

Note the τε καί, which neither Mt. nor Mk. has. In the Gospel Lk. never has τε without καί following: 2:16, 12:45, 21:11, etc.

67. Εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστός, εἶπον ἡμῖν. Si tu es Christus, dic nobis (Vulg.). The εἰ is conditional, and the emphasis is on ὁ Χριστός, not on σύ. This is the simplest construction, and is adopted by Luth. Wic. Rhem. RV. De W. Schanz, Mey. Nösg. Go. Hahn, etc. Others prefer, “Art Thou the Christ? tell us” : so Erasm. Tyn. Cran. Gen. AV. Or, “Tell us whether Thou art the Christ”: Ewald and some others. The question was vital; and in the examination recorded by Mt. and Mk. it was coupled with “Art Thou the Son of God?” (ver. 70).

Ἐὰν ὑμῖν … ἀποκριθῆτε. This part of Christ’s reply is peculiar to this occasion, whereas what follows (ver. 69) is almost verbatim as in Mt. and Mk. The meaning seems to be, “If I tell you that I am the Christ, ye will assuredly not believe; and if I try to discuss the question, ye will assuredly refuse to do so.” Note that here the proceedings are conducted by the Sanhedrin as a body; not, as in the earlier trial, by the high priest alone (Matthew 26:62, Matthew 26:63, Matthew 26:65; Mark 14:60, Mark 14:61, Mark 14:63). For the addition ἠ ἀπολύσητε see additional note at the end of ch. 23.

69. ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν δέ. His glorification has already begun: John 12:31. Hoc ipsum erat iter ad gloriam (Beng.) Comp. the parallel Acts 7:56, where see Blass.

The δέ is thus placed because ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν is virtually one word. TR. with Γ Δ Λ Π, Sah. omits δέ, and Syr-Cur. Syr-Sin. substitute γάρ. The Latin Versions are again interesting in their rendering of ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν: a modo (a c d r), ex hoc (f Vulg.): see on 1:48 and also on 5:10.

70. εἶπαν δὲ πάντες. The πάντες is again peculiar to Lk. (7:35, 19:37, 20:18); in Mt. and Mk. the high priest asks the question. In the allusion to Daniel 7:3 they recognize a claim to Divinity, and they translate ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου into ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. But it is not clear whether by the latter they mean the Messiah or something higher.

ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὃτι ἐγώ εἰμι. Both here and John 18:37 “that I am” (English Versions, Godet) is more probable than “because I am” (Luth. Weiss, Hahn). A third possibility, to make the whole a question. is worth noting. For other cases of ambiguous ὃτι comp. 1:45. 7:16, 19:31.

71. ἠκούσαμεν. “We have heard” that He claims to be the Messiah and the Son of God. It is quite natural that in accusing Him to Pilate nothing is said about this charge of blasphemy,—one of great weight with the Sanhedrin, but which the heathen procurator would not appreciate.

Wsctt. Westcott.

אԠא Cod. Sinaiticus, sæc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.

B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).

D D. Cod. Bezae, sæc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sæc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

X X. Cod. Monacensis, sæc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-24:53.

TR. Textus Receptus.

A A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sæc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.

C

C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sæc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.

These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.

R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sæc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.

Δ̠Δ. Cod. Sangallensis, sæc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.

Jos. Josephus.

Syr Syriac.

Cur. Curetonian.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

Vulg. Vulgate.

Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moulton’s edition).

Sin. Sinaitic.

1 It has been asserted that Justin Martyr (Try. xli. and lxx.) is an exception. But this is a mistake. That Justin himself sometimes uses ποιεῖν in a sacrificial sense is possible; that he understood τοῦτο ποιεῖτε in this sense is not credible. No subsequent Father notes that Justin gives this interpretation, an interpretation so remarkable that it must have attracted attention.

T T. Cod. Borgianus, sæc. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains 22:20-23:20.

Sah. Sahidic.

Boh. Bohairic.

Arm. Armenian.

Orig. Origen.

Beng. Bengel.

Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.

De W. De Wette.

Nösg. Nösgen.

L. J. Leben Jesu

Mey. Meyer.

F F. Cod. Boreeli, sæc. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel.

K K. Cod. Cyprius, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

M M. Cod. Campianus, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.

S S. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel.

U U. Cod. Nanianus, sæc. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.

G G. Cod. Harleianus, sæc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.

Latt. Latin.

RV. Revised Version.

Tert. Tertullian.

Cypr. Cyprian.

Wetst. Wetstein.

Ambr. Ambrose.

Aug. Augustine.

Grot. Grotius.

Maldon. Maldonatus.

§ Found in Luke alone.

Cov. Coverdale.

Gen. Geneva.

Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).

Tyn. Tyndale.

AV. Authorized Version.

1 The Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface 8., a.d. 1302, bases the double power of the Papacy on this text. The following are among the most remarkable passages: Igitur Ecclesiæ, unius, et unicæ unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita quasi monstrum, Christus scilicet et Christi vicarius, Petrus Petrique successor … In has ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem evengelicis dicits instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis: Eccegladii duo hic; in Ecclesia scilicet, cum Apostoli loquerentur; non respondit Dominus nimis esse, sed satis … Uterque ergo in potestate Ecclesiæ, spiritualis scilicet gladius, et materialis: sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero ab Ecclesia exercendus; ille sacerdotis, is manu Regum et militum; sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdortis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potesttati … sic de Ecclesia et ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium Jeremiæ [i. 10]: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes, et regna, etc. quæ sequuntur … Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omnem humanam creaturam declaramus, dicimus et definimus omnino esse denecessitate salutis (Raynald. 23. p. 328; see Milman, Lat. Chr. Bk. xi. ch. ix.; Robertson, Bk. vii. ch. v.; Stubbs’ Mosheim, ii. p. 261; Zoeckler, Handb d. Theol. Wiss. ii. p. 167; Gregorovius, Stadt Rom, 5. p. 562; Berchtold, Du Bulle Unam Sanctam. München. 1888).

Luth. Luther.

D. B. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

1 Even Meyer is disposed to admit that this strengthening by an Angel is legendary, because it is “singular” (absonderlich), and not mentioned by Mt. or Mk., who has Peter to rest upon. Let us admit that perhaps Lk. did not mention it either. That does not prove that it is legendary; unless we are prepared to admit that the ministry of Angels after the temptation, which is analogous to this, and which is attested by both Mt. (4:11) and Mk. (1:13), is legendary also.

2 In class. Grk. θρόμβος, both with and without αἵματος, may mean a drop of blood (Aesch. Eum. 184; Choëph., 533, 546; Plato, Crit. p. 120 A.).

Wic. Wiclif.

1 It was perhaps in memory of this treacherous act that the “kiss of peace” was omitted in public service on Good Friday. Tertullian blames those who omit it on fast-days which are less public and universal. But die paschæ, quo communis et quasi publica jejunii religio est, merito deponimus osculum (De Orat. 18.). At other times the omission would amount to a proclamation that one was fasting, contrary to Christ’s command.

Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.

Tisch. Tischendorf.

Cod. Am. Codex Amiatimus.

1 Synedrium magnum sedet a sacrificio jugi matutino ad sacrificium juge pomeridianum (Maimonides, Sanhed. 3.); sessiones judicii sunt instituendæ mane, non autem postquam homo edit et bibit (Synops. Soh. p. 56 n. 2).

Edersh. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.

Schurer, Schürer, Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ.