Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 22

Luke 22:5. ἀργύριον] A C K U X, min. Syr. Slav. Eus. Theophyl. have ἀργύρια. See on Mark 14:11.

Luke 22:6. καὶ ἐξωμόλ.] is wanting in Lachm., in opposition to decisive evidence. The omission occurred the more readily that και εσ follows, and Matthew and Mark have nothing similar.

Luke 22:10. οὗ] A K M P R, min. have οὗ ἐάν. B C L א, Vulg. It. have εἰς ἥν. So Lachm. and Tisch. As the Recepta, according to this, has preponderating evidence against it, while οὗ ἐάν is grammatically erroneous ( ἐάν is from Mark 14:14), we must read εἰς ἥν, instead of which was placed, in inexact recollection of Mark 14:14, οὗ (Luke 157: ὅπου).

Luke 22:12. ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) is decisively attested. Comp. on Mark 14:15.

Luke 22:14. δώδεκα] is wanting in B D א, 157, vss., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was written in the margin in agreement with the parallels, and came into the text in some authorities alongside of ἀπόστ., in others instead of it (L X). Comp. also on Luke 9:1.

Luke 22:16. οὐκέτι] is wanting in A B C*? H L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Verc. Epiph. Marcion. Rejected by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. But how easily, being in itself superfluous, it came to be overlooked between ὅτι and οὐ! If it had crept in from Mark 14:25, it would rather have found its place at Luke 22:18.

ἐξ αὐτοῦ] αὐτό is read by Lachm. [and Tisch. 8], in accordance with [ א] B C? L, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. It. Vulg. Epiph. The Recepta is to be maintained. The accusative was introduced in accordance with Luke 22:15. Opposed to it, moreover, is the evidence of D, min. Cant., which have ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, wherein the preposition was altered in conformity with Luke 22:18.

Luke 22:17. A D K M U, min. Lachm. have τὸ ποτήρ. The article forced itself in here from the form used in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:20).

Luke 22:20. ὡσαυτ. κ. τ. ποτήρ.] Tisch. has κ. τ. ποτήρ. ὡσαυτ., following B L א, Copt. Sahid.; the Recepta is from 1 Corinthians 11:25.

Luke 22:22. καί] Tisch. has ὅτι, following B D L א, 157, Copt. Sahid. Rightly; ὅτι dropped out before ουι (see subsequently on μέν), as it is still wanting in Verc. Cant. Or.; and then καί was interpolated as a connecting particle.

μέν] is, with Tischendorf, to be placed after υἱός, following B L T א** (D has it before ὁ). The usual position before υἱός is from Matthew and Mark.

In what follows read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον πορ. The arrangement in the Recepta is in accordance with the parallels.

Luke 22:30. Elz. Scholz have καθίσησθε. But Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, καθίσεσθε [Tisch. 8 has καθήσεσθε]. This was changed, on account of the construction, into the subjunctive, as though dependent on ἵνα.

Luke 22:32. ἐκλείπῃ] Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκλίπῃ, in accordance with B D K L M U X א, min.; it is accordingly to be preferred. The present offered itself more readily to the transcribers. But στήρισον instead of στήριξον is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch.).

Luke 22:34. πρὶν ἤ] B L T א, min.: ἕως. So Lachm. and Tisch. D has ἕως ὅτου; K M X, min. have ἕως οὗ. Moreover, vss. (Syr. Vulg. It. al.) have donec. πρίν (Q) and πρὶν ἤ (A E G H S U V γ δ λ) were written in the margin from Matthew and Mark.

I regard ἕως ὅτου or ὥς οὗ as genuine. See on Luke 21:24.

ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με] Lachm. Tisch. have με ἀπαρν. εἰδέναι, in accordance with B D L M Q T X א [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με]. The μή was omitted as superfluous, but μέ was pushed forwards in accordance with Mark 14:30 (see thereupon the critical remarks).

Luke 22:35. On decisive evidence βαλλαντίου is to be written, and in Luke 22:36 : βαλλάντιον.

Luke 22:37. ἔτι] is not found, indeed, in A B D H L Q X א, min. vss. (except Vulg.), but after ὅτι its omission occurred too easily to be rightly suspected, according to Griesbach; rejected, according to Schulz; deleted, according to Lachm. Tisch.

Luke 22:42. παρενεγκεῖν] Lachm. has παρένεγκε, in accordance with B D, min. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Syr.p. Syr.cu. Or. Dam. Tert. Ambr.; Tisch. has παρενέγκαι, in accordance with K L M R π א, min. Both readings were meant to help out the construction in accordance with Mark 14:36. Subsequently is to be written, with Rinck and Tisch., τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ. The order in the Recepta, τὸ ποτ. τοῦτο, is from the parallels.

Luke 22:43-44 are bracketed by Lachm. They are wanting in A B R T, Sahid. and some cursives; are marked with asterisks in E S V δ π, min.; in others with obelisks; in the lectionaries adopted into the section Matthew 26:2 to Matthew 27:2; and as early as Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome their omission in MSS. is observed. But they are already acknowledged by Justin. Iren. Hippol. Epiphan., etc. See Tisch. The verses are genuine. Their omission is the work of the orthodox, to whom their contents appeared objectionable in respect of the divinity of Christ. See already Epiph. Ancor. 31. According to Ewald, Luke wrote Luke 22:44 from the “Book of the higher history” only in the margin, but Luke 22:43 was excluded by the comparison with Matthew and Mark.

Luke 22:47. δέ] has so important evidence against it (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) that it seems to be a connective addition.

Instead of αὐτούς Elz. has αὐτῶν, in opposition to decisive evidence. A correction.

Luke 22:55. ἁψάντων] B L T א, Eus. Tisch. have περιαψάντων; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound verb, which is elsewhere foreign to the New Testament.

αὐτῶν after συγκαθ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a frequent addition.

ἐν μέσῳ] Tisch. has μέσος, following B L T, min. The former is an interpretation.

Luke 22:61. After φωνῆσαι Tisch. has σήμερον, following B K L M T X π א, min. vss. The omission came from the parallels.

Luke 22:62. After ἔξω, ὁ πέτρος is to be maintained, against Griesb. and Tisch., although it is wanting in important authorities. Being troublesome, and not occurring in the parallels, it was passed over.

Luke 22:63. Instead of αὐτόν, Elz. Matth. Scholz have τὸν ἰησοῦν. The subject was written in the margin because another subject precedes.

Luke 22:64. ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον καί] is wanting in B K L M π א, Copt. Vind. Corb. 22 :Colb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and Tisch. It is an expansion by way of a gloss, which in D, vss. is not the same, and which the omission of δέροντες, Luke 22:63, drew after it. The glossing process began with the writing on the margin at the first αὐτόν: αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον, as 1, 209, vss. still read instead of αὐτόν; then ἔτυπτον was added in some authorities before, in others after, because δέροντες was attracted to what preceded.

Luke 22:66. Elz. Lachm. have ἑαυτῶν; Matth. Scholz, Tisch.: αὐτῶν. The Recepta is to be retained in accordance with A δ, min.: it was not understood.

Luke 22:68. Read, with Tisch., simply ἐὰν δὲ (even Lachm. has deleted καί) ἐρωτήσω, οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε, in accordance with B L T א, min. vss. Cyr. The addition μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε is an unsuitable expansion.

Luke 22:69. After νῦν is to be added, with Lachm. and Tisch., δέ, on decisive evidence.

Luke 22:71. The order of the words, τί ἔτι ἔχ. μαρτ. χρείαν, is to be preferred, with Tisch., following B L T. The order in the Textus receptus, τ. ἐ. χ. ἐ. μ., is from the parallels.

Luke 22:1-2. With more detail and definiteness Matthew 26:1-5 and Mark 14:1 f. (Luke follows Mark with abbreviation).

ἐφοβ. γ. τὸν λαόν] the adherents that Jesus found among the people (Luke 21:38) made them afraid; hence they endeavoured to discover ways and means to remove Him, i.e. μέθοδον, πῶς ἀνελόντες αὐτὸν οὐ κινδυνεύσουσιν, Theophyl.

Luke 22:3-6. See on Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10 f. Luke passes over the history of the anointing, having already related an earlier one (Luke 7:37).

εἰσῆλθε] The part played by the devil, who “sensus omnes occupat” (Calvin), is conceived of as an actual intrusion, as εἰσέρχεσθαι is the word constantly used to express the intrusion of demons into bodies (Luke 8:30; Luke 8:32 f., Luke 11:27). Comp. John 13:27 (in regard to John 13:2, see on the passage).

ἰσκαρ.] See on Matthew 10:4.

ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀρ. τ. δ.] familiar to the reader (Luke 6:16), but a tragic addition.

Luke 22:4. τοῖς στρατηγοῖς] As ὁ στρατηγός is the chief of all the Levitical temple guards (Acts 4:1; Acts 5:26; Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3), איש הר הבית, probably the leaders of the several guards who were placed under Him are here meant also, consequently the entire Levitical body of officers. Comp. χιλίαρχοι, 3 Esdr. Luke 1:9. See Lightfoot, p. 879.

Luke 22:5. συνέθεντο] The several moments in the incident, as these are accurately traced by Luke, are: (1) Judas opens the correspondence, Luke 22:4; (2) they are pleased thereat; (3) they engage (Herod. ix. 53; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 7, Hell. iii. 5. 6; Herodian, v. 3. 23; Joseph. Antt. xiii. 4. 7; 4 Maccabees 4:16) to give him money; and the last step is, (4) Judas makes his acknowledgment, promises ( ἐξωμολ., spopondit; elsewhere only the simple form is used in this sense, as Plat. Symp. p. 196 C Jeremiah 44:25; Joseph. Antt. viii. 4. 3), and seeks henceforth a favourable opportunity, etc.

Luke 22:6. ἄτερ ὄχλου] without attracting a crowd. The opposite is μετὰ ὄχλου, Acts 24:18. Comp. Hom. Il. v. 473: φῆς που ἄτερ λαῶν πόλιν ἑξέμεν. The word ἄτερ, frequently occurring in the poets, occurs only here and at Luke 22:35 in the New Testament. Comp. 2 Maccabees 12:15; rarely, moreover, in the later Greek prose writers, as Plut. Num. xiv.; Dion. Hal. iii. 10.

Luke 22:7-13. See on Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16. Luke names the disciples, and makes Jesus take the initiative. The latter is a quite immaterial difference; the former is a more precise statement of the later tradition, in respect of which a special tendency is assumed (Baur supposes that the two are intended to represent the Judaism of the older apostles).

ἦλθε] there came, there appeared the day. Comp. Luke 5:35, Luke 23:29; Acts 2:20, and elsewhere.²⁴⁸

ἡ ἡ΄έρα] not ἡ ἑορτή again, as in Luke 22:1, because the latter denotes the whole festival, not the single day of the feast (in opposition to Wieseler, Synopse, p. 397).

Luke 22:11. ἐρεῖτε] a future with the force of an imperative: and ye shall say.

τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς οἰκ.] See, on such pleonastic combinations, Bornemann in loc.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 536 f.; also Valckenaer, Schol. p. 264 f.

Luke 22:14-18. On Luke 22:14 comp. Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17. “Describitur, Luke 22:15-18, quaedam quasi prolusio s. coenae, coll. Matthew 26:29,” Bengel.

Luke 22:15. ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα] I have earnestly longed, Genesis 31:30. See Winer, p. 413 [E. T. 584]. This longing rested on the fact (see Luke 22:16) that this Passover meal was actually His last, and as such was to be of special importance and sacredness. Thus He could only earnestly wish that His passion should not begin before the Passover; hence: πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν.

τοῦτο] pointing to: this, which is already there.

Luke 22:16. οὐκέτι κ. τ. λ.] namely, after the present meal.

ἐξ αὐτοῦ] of the Passover.

ἕως ὅτου κ. τ. λ.] till that it (the Passover) shall be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. The rationalistic interpretation: “sed aliquando vos in coelo mecum gaudiis propriis ac summis perfruemini” (Kuinoel), is purely arbitrary. Jesus means actually a Passover (specifically such a one, not merely the Messianic feasts in general, Matthew 8:11; Luke 22:30; Luke 14:15) in the Messiah’s kingdom, which should hold the same relation to the temporal Passover as that which is perfect (absolute) holds to the incomplete. This corresponds to the idea of the new world (of the ἀποκατάστασις, παλιγγενεσία), and of the perfected theocracy in the αἰὼν μέλλων. Comp. on Matthew 26:29. The impersonal view (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius), according to which the meaning is said to be: till the establishment of the kingdom shall be brought about, is an evasion opposed to the context. Completely without foundation, moreover, Schenkel says that the adoption of the Gentiles into the divine covenant is the fulfilment of the Old Testament Passover.

Luke 22:17 f. According to Luke, Jesus, after He had spoken quite at the beginning of the meal the words, Luke 22:15-16, receives a cup handed to Him ( δεξάμενος, not the same as λαβών, Luke 22:19), and after giving thanks hands it to the disciples that they might share it (the wine in it) among themselves (observe the emphatic ἑαυτοῖς), for He assures them that He should certainly not drink, etc. He therefore, according to Luke, declines to drink of the Passover wine, wherefore also in Luke 22:18 the absolute οὐ μή, but in Luke 22:16 the relative οὐκέτι οὐ μή, is used.

REMARK.

Although this refusal to drink the wine, which is not to be explained away, is in itself psychologically conceivable in so deeply moved and painful a state of mind, yet it is improbable in consideration of the characteristic element of the Passover. In respect of this, the drinking of the Passover wine was certainly so essential, and, in the consciousness of the person celebrating the rite, so necessary, that the not drinking, and especially on the part of the Host Himself, would have appeared absolutely as contrary to the law, irreligious, scandalous, an interruption which, on the part of Jesus, can hardly be credible. Since then Mark and Matthew, moreover, have nothing at all about a refusal of the wine, but rather do not bring in the assurance, οὐ μὴ πίω κ. τ. λ., until the conclusion of the meal, Mark 14:25, Matthew 26:29; and since Matthew uses the emphatic ἀπʼ ἄρτι, wherein is intimated that Jesus had just drunk with them once more,—the narrative of Luke, Luke 22:17-18, is to be regarded as not original, and it is to be assumed that Jesus indeed spoke, Luke 22:15-16, at the beginning of the meal (in opposition to Kuinoel and Paulus), but that what is found in Matthew 26:29 has been removed back by the tradition on account of the analogy of Luke 22:16, and placed after Luke 22:16, beside which Luke 22:17 easily appeared as a link, without the necessity of attributing to Luke the construction of a piece of mosaic from a twofold source (as Holtzmann wishes to do), especially as Luke 22:17 is not yet the cup of the Lord’s Supper. According to Baur, Evang. p. 482 f., Luke must have been led by 1 Corinthians 10, where, moreover, the ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας is emphatically placed first, to distinguish two acts in the Lord’s Supper (comp. also Ritschl, Evang. Marcion’s, p. 108), one with the leading idea of κοινωνία, and the other with that of ἀνάμνησις. He must have here represented the first by the help of Matthew 26:29. He must thus probably still have expressly brought in the supposed leading idea of κοινωνία, as Paul also has done in respect of the bread. In general, the use made by Luke of the Pauline Epistles, which here even Hilgenfeld (comp. Holtzmann, p. 237) considers as unmistakeable, is quite incapable of proof.

Luke 22:19-20. See on Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22 f.; 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff. Luke agrees with Paul, not, however, repeating, in the case of the cup, the expression τοῦτο ποιεῖτε κ. τ. λ., which is not found at all in Matthew and Mark.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον] which for your advantage (to procure your reconciliation and justification, and your Messianic salvation, comp. on Matthew 20:28) is given up. The entire context suggests the qualifying clause εἰς θάνατον. Comp. Galatians 1:4; Romans 8:32; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:15. In respect of the expression, Wetstein justly compares Libanius, Orat. 35, p. 705: καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπέδωκεν, and similar passages.

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to wit, the breaking of the bread after thanksgiving, and the distribution and partaking of the same. On ποιεῖν, occupying the place of more definite verbs, which the context suggests, see Bornemann, and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 8. 2; Schoemann, ad Is. de Ap. her. 35.

εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμν.] for the remembrance of me.²⁴⁹ See Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 192]. It is a mistake to say that this purpose of the Lord’s Supper must be appropriate only to the partaking of the real body and blood of Christ (see Kahnis, Lehre v. Abendm. p. 87). Rather in respect of such a partaking that statement of purpose appears too disproportioned and weak,²⁵⁰ since it would already certify far more than the remembrance; in opposition to which the idea of the ἀνάμνησις of that which the symbols represent, is in keeping with the symbolic character of the celebration (Plat. Phaed. p. 74 A: τὴν ἀνάμνησιν εἶναι μὲν ἀφʼ ὁμοίων). Comp. Justin, Ap. I. 66, where it is said of the cup: εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ.

Luke 22:20. ὡσαύτως] to wit, λαβὼν εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς.

τὸ ποτήριον] the cup before them.

μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι] “facto transitu ad majora et ultima,” Bengel. It was, to wit, the fourth cup which made the conclusion of the whole meal. See on Matthew 26:27.

τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον κ. τ. λ.] this cup is the new covenant by means of my blood, i.e. it is the new covenant by the fact that it contains my blood, which is shed for your salvation. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 11:25. In the wine which is poured into the cup Jesus sees His (atoning, Romans 3:25; Romans 5:3) blood, which is on the point of being shed; and because through this shedding of His blood the new covenant is to be established, he explains the cup, by virtue of its contents, as the new covenant—a symbolism natural to the deeply-moved, solemn state of mind, to which no greater wrong can be done than is perpetrated by the controversies about the est, which Luke has not at all! Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:25, inserts ἐστίν after διαθήκη, and consequently also, in so far as the passage before us is concerned, forbids the affixing ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου to ἡκαινὴ διαθήκη, as many of the older (not Luther²⁵¹) and of the more recent writers (not Kahnis, Osiander, Rückert, p. 232) do. So also even Ebrard (d. Dogma vom heil. Abendm. I. p. 113), who, besides, lays an emphasis upon μου not belonging to it, at least according to the expression of Luke, when he interprets the passage: “the new covenant made in my blood, not in the sacrificial blood of the Old Testament.”

ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη] opposed to the old Mosaic covenant, whose condition was the fulfilling of the law (in the new: faith). See on 1 Corinthians 11:25.

τὸ … ἐκχυνόμενον] belongs, although in the nominative, to τῷ αἵματί μου, as an epexegetical clause. The abnormal use of the case is occasioned by the fact that, according to Luke 22:19, the idea prevails: that the cup (in respect of its contents) is the blood of the new covenant which is shed. Consequently τὸ … ἐκχυνόμενον is applied to τῷ αἵματί μου because τὸ αἷμά μου has floated before the mind of the speaker as the logical predicate, even although it did not become the grammatical predicate. Thus the nominatival expression more emphatically brings into prominence what is declared of the blood ( τὸ … ἐκχυν.) than would be the case if it were joined on in the dative. Comp. James 3:8 (where μεστὴ ἰοῦ is joined to the logical subject γλῶσσα, which, however, is not the grammatical subject); Revelation 3:12; Revelation 8:9; Mark 12:40; John 1:14; Kühner, § 677; Winer, pp. 471, 473 [E. T. 668–670 f.]. According to Baur’s view, τὸ … ἐκχυνόμ. comes back to a very awkward transposition of the words from Matthew 26:28. Comp. also Rückert, p. 208, and Bleek and Holtzmann. Erroneously Euthymius Zigabenus, Calovius, Jansen, Michaelis, and others, including Bornemann, read: “poculum, quod in vestram salutem effunditur.” What is this supposed to mean? Calovius answers: “Dicitur effusum pro nobis propter sanguinem, quem Christus mediante poculo praebebat.” A forcible dislocation which, moreover, occurs in other old dogmatical writers, Chemnitz, Gerhard, and others. See Kahnis, Abendm. p. 103. This reference to the cup appeared to give a support to the explanation of the actual blood.

REMARK.

In the words of institution all four narrators vary from one another, although not essentially, which serves to prove that a mode of formulating them had not yet taken any fixed shape. Luke agrees the most closely with Paul, which is explained by his relation to him. The Pauline narrative, however, attains great weight, indeed, through his ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, 1 Corinthians 11:23 (see on the passage), and the ministry of the apostle makes it conceivable how his formula might fix itself liturgically; this, however, does not prevent our recovering the most primitive form of the words of Jesus in the simple narrative of Mark, which gradually underwent expansions. Wilke, Urevang. p. 142, is wrong in regarding Luke 22:20 in Luke as a later addition. The first distribution of the cup, Luke 22:17, does not indeed yet belong entirely to the Lord’s Supper, and as yet has no symbolism. According to Ewald (see his Jahrb. II. p. 194 f.), the agreement between Luke and Paul is explained by the fact that both have in this particular used one source (the oldest Gospel, probably composed by Philip the evangelist). But in general there is no proof of Paul’s having made use of a written Gospel; neither in particular is the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:23, ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, in any way favourable to that supposition.

Luke 22:21-23. Luke has this reference to the traitor (which, according to Luke, diverges from all the rest, without any more precise statement) in a wrong position, where it probably has been placed by way of transition to the following dispute about precedence. According to Matthew 26:21 ff., Mark 14:18 ff., it is to be placed at the beginning of the meal, and that in such a manner that the departure of Judas²⁵² ensued before the institution of the Lord’s Supper; comp. on Matthew 26:25, and see the remark after John 13:38.

πλήν] notwithstanding, although my blood is shed for you. Not a limitation of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (Hofmann), but, without such a reflection, a contrast to that love which is on the point of offering its own life. In spite of this ̔ πλήν, which carries on the Lord’s discourse, to place the departure of the traitor, even according to Luke, before the Lord’s Supper, is only possible to the greatest harmonistic arbitrariness, in respect of which, indeed, the statement that Luke does not relate according to the order of time (Ebrard, p. 522; Lichtenstein, p. 401) is the most convenient and ready resource.

ἡ χεὶρ κ. τ. λ. The hand of my betrayer, etc. It was still on the table ( ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης), after the eating of the bread, for the sake of partaking of the cup (Luke 22:20), and Jesus mentions the hand as the correlative of the idea παραδιδόναι. There is contained therein a tragic feature.

Luke 22:22. ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς μὲν (see the critical remarks) κ. τ. λ. discloses the objective ground of this mournful experience, Luke 22:21—to wit, the divine appointment of the death of the Messiah, which none the less ( πλὴν οὐαὶ κ. τ. λ.) leaves the person concerned under the imputation (of the subjectively free action).

Luke 22:23. συζητεῖν, to confer, disputare, and πρὸς ἑαυτούς, among themselves, as Mark 1:27.

τοῦτο] i.e. the παραδιδόναι. With the emphasis of horror τοῦτο is placed before the governing verb. On πράσσειν of traitorous transactions, comp. Thucyd. iv. 89. 3, 110. 2.

Luke 22:24-30. Earlier fragments of discourses (Matthew 20:25 f., Luke 19:28; comp. Mark 10:42 ff.), for whose appropriateness in this place the occasion narrated by Luke, ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία ἐν αὐτ., is neither psychologically probable, nor is it, from an historical point of view, adequately accounted for. Many have considered Luke 22:24 ff. as giving occasion to the footwashing (Paulus, Kuinoel, Sieffert, Lange, and others, including Strauss), which, however, would have any probability only if Luke placed the contest about precedence at the beginning of the meal. Nay, the already past footwashing, which, according to John, is to be assumed, only makes the situation of this contest about precedence in Luke still more improbable. That, moreover, only the association of ideas between the questions of Luke 22:23 and Luke 22:24 caused Luke to insert here this contest about precedence (Strauss, I. p. 723 f.; Holtzmann) is the more unfounded that Luke has already at Luke 9:46 related one dispute about precedence. Rather, he must have followed a definite tradition, which certainly may have taken its rise from the idea embodied in the story of the footwashing, and may have attracted here into a wrong position what is historically earlier.

δὲ καί] but also, in addition to that συζητεῖν.

δοκαῖ] is esteemed, Galatians 2:6. Bengel well says: “Quis sit omnium suffragiis.”

μείζων] of higher rank; to regard ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν as understood (Kuinoel and others) is an arbitrary proceeding, according to Matthew 18:1. Comp. on Luke 9:46; Mark 9:33.

Luke 22:25. τῶν ἐθνῶν] of the Gentiles.

οἱ ἐξουσιάζ. αὐτ.] These are the magnates (Matthew 20:25), rulers of the Gentiles after their kings.

εὐεργέται, a title of honour: benefactors, i.e. of great merit in respect of the state, possibly in respect of the government (Herod. viii. 85). Comp. εὐεργέτην ἀπογραφῆναι, Herod. viii. 85; Thuc. i. 129. 3; Xen. Rep. Ath. iii. 11; Lys. pro Polystr. 19. ψηφίζεσθαί τινι εὐεργεσίαν, Dem. 475.10; Wolf, Lept. p. 282; Meier, de proxenia, Hal. 1843, p. 10, 15; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 116. 6. Similarly our “Excellencies.”

Luke 22:26. οὐχ οὕτως] It is sufficient to supply ἐστέ (others take ποιεῖτε). See what follows. Ye are not to be thus, as that one should let himself be distinguished in rank from the others.

ὁ μείζων] not: “qui cupit maximus esse,” Kuinoel, but: he that is greater among you, who really is so, let him condescend so as to place himself on an equality with the younger, and claim no more than he. ὁ νεώτερος does not mean the less, and does not refer to one in the circle of the twelve, but it means one who is younger than the others, and denotes a believing youth. It must be supposed that such were present, performing the service. Comp. the parallel διακονῶν. See also Acts 5:6; Acts 5:10.

ὁ ἡγούμενος] he who rules, standing at the head. Comp. Matthew 2:6; Acts 15:22; Hebrews 13:7; Hebrews 13:17; Hebrews 13:24; Hebrews 3 Esdr. Luke 8:44; 1 Maccabees 9:30, and elsewhere. This use, moreover, is so frequent among the Greek writers (Dem. 654. 22; Soph. Phil. 386; Polyb. i. 15. 4, 31. 1, iii. 4. 6; Herodian, vii. 1. 22; Lucian, Alex. 44; Diod. Sic. i. 72), and the designation is so general, that the expression does not need to be derived actually from later times (Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. Ep. p. 29).

Luke 22:27. To this condescending renunciation my example engages you. For although I stand to you in the relation of the ἀνακείμενος to the διακόνοις, yet I bear myself in the midst of you no otherwise than as if I were your servant. The reference to the footwashing, which has been here assumed (even by de Wette and Bleek), could not be expected by Luke to be discovered by any reader. It is, moreover, superfluous; for the present repast might of itself give sufficient occasion for the designation of the relation by means of ἀνακείμ. and διάκον., and Jesus was in the highest sense of self-surrender actually the διάκονος of His disciples, as this found its indelible expression just at this time in the distribution of the last supper. Comp. Matthew 20:28.

ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν] more significant (in the midst of you) than ἐν ὑμῖν; He did not separate Himself from them as one more distinguished than they.

Luke 22:28. ὑμεῖς δὲ κ. τ. λ.] in order now, after this humiliation of His disciples’ desire of precedence, to induce them to seek their true exaltation, to wit, by means of the assurance of their future dominion and honour in the kingdom, of the Messiah, He proceeds in such a way as to contrast with His relation to them ( ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, Luke 22:27) their relation to Him ( ὑμεῖς δὲ … μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ), as the recompense of which He then assures to them the Messianic glory: But ye are they who have continued with me in my temptations, etc. Erasmus aptly paraphrases the πειρασμούς: “quibus pater coelestis voluit exploratam ac spectatam esse meam obedientiam.” These were the many injuries, persecutions, snares, perils of life, etc. (comp. Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15), for the bitter experience of which neither πειρασμός nor διαμένειν are expressions too strong (in opposition to de Wette); the former in respect of its relative idea being not too strong, nor the latter, if we consider the contrast of the Messianic anticipations of the time.

Luke 22:29. κἀγώ] and I, on my part, as a recompense for it.

διατίθεμαι) I ordain for you (herewith) dominion, as my Father (in His counsel known to me) has ordained for me dominion—both in the kingdom of the Messiah. βασιλ. belongs to both verbs, not merely as a parenthesis, so that ἵνα κ. τ. λ. contains the object of διατίθεμαιὑμ. (Ewald, Bleek, and others), since Luke 22:30 contains the idea of the συμβασιλεύειν.

διατίθ. is not said of testamentary appointment (Er. Schmid, Alberti, Krebs; see Plat. Leg. ii. p. 922 B, E, 923 C Dem. 1067. 1; Joseph. Antt. xiii. 16. 1; Arist. Pol. ii. 9), since the same meaning could not be retained in the second member, but in general dispono, I ordain for you (2 Chronicles 7:18; Genesis 15:18; 1 Maccabees 1:11; Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 9, and elsewhere). On the idea, comp. 2 Timothy 2:12.

Luke 22:30. ἵνα] purpose of this assignment of dominion.

ἐπὶ τ. τραπ. μ] at the table takes place the eating and drinking. Comp. Luke 22:21. This is said not merely of the Messianic Passover (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18), but of the Messianic table fellowship in general. Comp. Luke 13:29; Matthew 8:11.

According to the reading καθίσεσθε (see the critical remarks), the construction of the ἵνα does not run on, but the saying is promissory: and ye shall sit, etc., whereby this highest point comes forward more emphatically than if the future were made dependent on ἵνα (as is done by Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 202 [E. T. 234]).

ἐπί θρόνων] δώδεκα is not added, as in Matthew 19:28, on account of Judas. Christ is the divine Lord-superior of the βασιλεία till the consummation of all things (1 Corinthians 15:28), and gives to His disciples a share therein.

Luke 22:31-34. The conversation with Peter concerning his denial is found in John also at the supper, while Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, place it on the way to Gethsemane. But how possible it is that the momentous word, which had already been spoken at the supper, was returned to again on the journey by night! so that in this way both narratives are correct in regard to the point of time. The words addressed to Peter in Luke 22:31 f. are peculiar to Luke, and are so characteristic in substance and in form, that they seem to be original, and not the offspring of tradition. The words εἶπε δὲ ὁ κύριος (which, nevertheless, are not found in B L T, Copt. Sahid., and are hence suspicious, and deleted by Tischendorf), if they are genuine, separate what follows from what precedes as a special opening of a discourse the occasion of which Luke does not state, and probably, moreover, could not, and hence the question at issue cannot be decided.

σίμων, σίμων] urgently warning, as Luke 10:41; Acts 11:4.

ἐξῃτήσατο ὑμᾶς] he has demanded you (thee and thy fellow-disciples) for himself, longed for you into his power, sibi tendendos postulavit; namely, from God, as he once did in the case of Job (Job 1.). A similar allusion to the history of Job may be found in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 729: ἐὰν τὰ πνεύματα τοῦ βελιὰρ εἰς πᾶσαν πονηρίαν θλίψεως ἐξαιτήσωνται ὑμᾶς. Comp. Const. Apost. vi. 5. 4. The compound ἐξῃτ. refers to the contemplated surrender out of God’s power and protection. Comp. Herod. i. 74: οὐ γὰρ … ἐξσδίδου τοὺς σκύθας ἐξαιτέοντι κυαξάρεϊ; Plat. Menex. p. 245 B Polyb. iv. 66. 9, 30:8. 6. Moreover, the meaning is not to be reduced to a mere “imminent vobis tentationes” (Kuinoel), but the actual will of the devil ( ὁ γὰρ διάβολος πολὺς ἐπέκειτο ζητεῖν ὑμᾶς ἐκβαλεῖν τῆς ἐμῆς στοργῆς καὶ προδότας ἀποδεῖξαι, Theophylact), which is known to Jesus, is by Him declared, and only the form of the expression by means of ἐξῃτήσατο is, in allusion to the history of Job, figurative, so that the meaning is: The devil wishes to have you in his power, as he once upon a time asked to have Job in his power.

τοῦ σινιάσαι] so far as the ancient Greek writers are concerned, the verb σινιάζω²⁵³ is not to be found; but according to Photius, p. 512, 22, Hesychius, Suidas, and the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 961 f.; van Hengel, Annot. p. 31 f.), the meaning is without doubt: in order to sift you ( κοσκινεύειν); σίνιον γὰρ παρά τισι καλεῖται τὸ παρ ̓ ἡ΄ῖν κόσκινον, ἐν ᾦ ὁ σῖτος τῇδε κἀκεῖσε ΄εταφερό΄ενος ταράσσεται, Euthymius Zigabenus. The point of comparison is the ταράσσειν which puts to the test. As the wheat in the sieve is shaken backwards and forwards, and thus the refuse separates itself from the grains, and falls out; so Satan wishes to trouble you and toss you about (by vexations, terrors, dangers, afflictions), in order to bring your faithfulness to me to decay.

Luke 22:32. ἐγὼ δέ] spoken in the consciousness of the greater power which He by His prayer has in opposition to the demand of Satan. “Ostenderat periculum, ostendit remedium,” Maldonatus.

περὶ σοῦ] Comp. previously ὑ΄ᾶς; “totus sane hic sermo Domini praesupponit, Petrum esse primum apostolorum, quo stante aut cadente ceteri aut minus aut magis periclitarentur,” Bengel. Jesus here means a more special intercession than in John 17:15.

ἵνα μὴ ἐκλείπῃ κ. τ. λ.] that thy faith in me cease not, that thou mayest not be unfaithful, and fall away from me. Jesus knows this prayer is heard, in spite of the temporary unfaithfulness of the denial, the approaching occurrence of which he likewise knows. “Defecit in Petro ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς πίοτεως ad tempus,” Grotius. Therefore he goes on: and thou at a future time ( καὶ σύ, opposed to the ἐγὼ δέ), when thou shalt be converted (without figure: resipueris, μετανοήσας, Theophylact), strengthen thy brethren (thy fellow-disciples); be their support, which maintains and strengthens them, when they become wavering in their faith. Even here we have the dignity and duty of the primate, which was not to cease through the momentary fall. For the idea of στηρίζειν, see especially Acts 14:22. On the form στήρισον, see Winer, p. 82 [E. T. 110]. According to Bede, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, van Hengel, Annot. p. 1 ff., Ewald, and others, ἐπίστρ. is a Hebraism ( שׁוּב): rursus, vicissim, so that the meaning would be: what I have done to thee, do thou in turn to thy brethren. This is contrary to the usus loquendi of the New Testament (even Acts 7:42; Acts 15:36). But it is inconsistent with the context when Wetstein takes ἐπίστρ. actively: “convertens fratres tuos,” since Jesus has the fall of Peter (Luke 22:34) in His view.

Luke 22:33 f. Comp. on Matthew 26:32-35; Mark 14:20-31. The ἐπιστρέψας provoked the self-confidence of the apostle.

μετὰ σοῦ] stands with passionate emphasis at the beginning; ἐκ πολλῆς ἀγάπης θρασύνεται καὶ ὑπισχνεῖται τά τέως αὐτῷ ἀδύνατα, Theophylact.

πέτρε] not σίμων this time. The significant name in contradiction with the conduct.

΄ή] after ἀπαρν., as Luke 20:27.

Luke 22:35-38. Peculiar to Luke, from tradition or from some other unknown source. But the utterance itself is in respect of its contents so remarkably significant, that we are bound to hold by its originality, and not to say that it was introduced into this place for the sake of explaining the subsequent stroke with the sword (Schleiermacher, Strauss, de Wette), or the reason why Judas is afterwards represented as appearing with armed men (Holtzmann).

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς] A pause must be supposed as occurring before what follows, the connection of the thought being: not without reason have I uttered words so momentous (Luke 22:31-34), for now your position, when I am no more with you, will be entirely different from what it was formerly; there comes for you the time of care for yourselves and of contest!

ὅτε ἀπέστειλα κ. τ. λ.] Luke 9:3; comp. Luke 10:4.

Luke 22:36. οὖν] in consequence of this acknowledgment.

ἀράτω] not: “tollat, ut emat gladium” (Erasmus, Beza, and others), but: let him take it up, in order to bear it. The representation of the thought now refers to the time when ye can no more be unconcerned about your maintenance, but must yourselves care for it in the world which for you is inhospitable.

καὶ ὁ μὴ ἔχων] to wit, βαλλάντιον καὶ πήραν. The contrast allows nothing else. Hence μάχαιραν is erroneously suggested as implied (Beza, Jansen, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lange, Ewald, Bleek, and others), and equally erroneously is the general reference suggested: he who is without means (Kuinoel, Olshausen, Schegg). Jesus means to say, how far more necessary still than purse and scrip, nay, even more necessary than the upper garment, should now be to them a sword, for defence and protection against hostile attacks. But observe in this connection (1) that he wishes for the purchase of the sword, not by those merely who have no purse and knapsack, but, on the contrary, whilst he requires it of these, yea, requires it with the sacrifice of the cloak, otherwise so needful, yet he regards it as a self-evident duty on the part of those who have the means for the purchase. The form of his utterance is a parallelism, in which the second member supplements and throws a new light upon the first. (2) Nevertheless Jesus does not desire that His disciples should actually carry and use the sword (Matthew 26:52), but He speaks in such a manner as figuratively to represent in what a hostile relation they should henceforth find the world arrayed against them, and what resistance and struggle on their part would now be necessary in their apostolic missionary journeys. That the discourse is in reference to these is clearly proved by βαλλάντ. and πήραν, in opposition to Olshausen, who perversely allegorizes the whole passage, so that βαλλάντ. and πήρ. are taken to signify the means for the spiritual life, and μαχ. sword of the Spirit, Ephesians 6:17 (comp. also Erasmus).

Luke 22:37. A confirmation of the ἀλλὰ νῦν κ. τ. λ. For since, moreover, that (“etiamnum hoc extremum post tot alia,” Bengel) must still be fulfilled on me which is written in Isaiah 53:12; so ye, as my disciples, cannot expect for yourselves anything better than what I have announced to you, Luke 22:36. The cogency of the proof follows from the presupposition that the disciple is not above his master (Matthew 10:24 f.; John 15:20). On the δεῖ of the divine counsel, comp. Matthew 26:54 (Acts 2:23), and observe how inconsistent therewith it is to regard the passion of Jesus as a fortuitous occurrence (Hofmann).

καὶ μετὰ ἀν. ἐλογ.] καί, and, adopted together with the rest as a constituent part of the passage quoted. The completion (the Messianic fulfilment, Luke 18:31) of the prophecy began with the arrest (Luke 22:52), and comprehended the whole subsequent treatment until the death.

καὶ γὰρ τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλ. ἔχει] for, moreover, that which concerneth me has to come to an end; i.e., for, moreover, with my destiny, as with the destiny of him of whom Isaiah speaks, there is an end. Observe that Jesus did not previously say τὸ εἰς ἐμὲ γεγραμμένον κ. τ. λ. or the like, but τὸ γεγρ. δεῖ τελεσθ. ἐν ἐμοί, so that He does not explain the passage immediately of Himself (Olshausen), but asserts that it must be fulfilled in Him, in respect of which it is plain from καὶ γὰρ κ. τ. λ. that He conceived of another as the subject of the first historical meaning of the passage (whom? is another question, comp. Acts 8:34), of whom He was the antitype, so that in Him is found the antitypal historical fulfilment of that which is predicted in reference to the servant of God. On τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ, see Kühner, II. p. 119; on τέλος ἔχει, Mark 3:26; Plat. Pol. iii. p. 392 C Dem. 932. 4, and the examples from Xenophon in Sturz, IV. p. 275. Most commentators (Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, and many others, including Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek) read: for, moreover, that which is written of me, like other prophecies, is about to be accomplished, as though γεγραμμένα formed part of the sentence, as at Luke 24:44, or flowed from the context, as at Luke 24:27. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 380. But what a nugatory argument! and what is the meaning of the καί (which certainly most of them leave wholly unnoticed), since, indeed, it is just the Messianic prophecies which constitute the main substance of prophecy, and do not come in merely by the way?

Luke 22:38. The disciples, not understanding the utterance about the sword, imagined that Christ required them to have swords actually²⁵⁴ ready for defence from impending violence. Peter had one of the two swords (Luke 22:50). They may have been worn on the last journey, or even on account of the risk of these days they may have been first procured with a view to circumstances that might occur. Butcher’s knives (from the cutting up of the lamb, as supposed by Euthymius Zigabenus, following Chrysostom) they could not be, according to Luke 22:36, although the word, so early as the time of Homer (Döderlein, Glossar. I. p. 201 f.), but never in the New Testament, has this signification.

ἱκανόν ἑστι] a gentle turning aside of further discussion, with a touch of sorrowful irony: it is enough! More than your two swords ye need not! Comp. Castalio on the passage. The disciples, carrying out this idea, must have at once concluded that Jesus had still probably meant something else than an actual purchase of swords, Luke 22:36.²⁵⁵ The significance of the answer so conceived gives to this view the preference over the explanation of others (Theophylact, Calovius, Jansen, Wolf, Bisping, Kuinoel): enough of this matter! Compare the Rabbinical דייך in Schoettgen, p. 314 ff. Olshausen and de Wette combine the two, saying that Jesus spoke in a twofold sense; comp. Bleek. Without sufficient reason, since the setting aside of the subject is found also in our view.

Boniface VIII. proves from the passage before us the double sword of the papal sovereignty, the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction! “Protervum ludibrium” (Calvin).

Luke 22:39-46. See on Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42. The originality is on the side of Matthew and Mark. Luke by condensing disturbs the clearness of the single narrative, and mixes up with it legendary elements.

Luke 22:40. ἐπὶ τοῦ τόπου] at the place whither He wished to go,—had arrived at the spot. On γίνεσθαι in the sense of come, see Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 295.

προσεύχεσθε, κ. τ. λ.] which Matthew 26:41 and Mark 14:38 do not insert till later. Luke abbreviates, but to the prejudice of the appropriateness of the narrative. He is not to be supposed capable of having confounded the prayer of Jesus (Matthew 26:36) with that of the disciples (de Wette).

Luke 22:41. αὐτός] He on His part, in contrast with the disciples.

ἀπεσπάσθη] avulsus est, Vulgate; He was drawn away from them, not involuntarily, but perchance in the urgency of His emotion, which forced Him to be alone, so that He, as it were, was forcibly separated from His disciples, with whom He otherwise would have remained. Ancient scholium on Soph. Aj. 1003, ἀποσπᾶν τὸ βιαίως χωρίζειν τὰ κεκολλημένα. Comp. Acts 21:1, and the passages in Kypke, also Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 225. It might indeed also mean simply: secessit (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, and many others); comp. 2 Maccabees 12:10; 2 Maccabees 12:17; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 12; but the above view explains the choice of the word, which is not elsewhere used in the New Testament for the frequent idea, “He withdrew Himself.”

ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν] a distance of about a stone’s throw, therefore not so far that He could not be heard by the disciples in the still night. On the expression, comp. Il. xxiii. 529; Thuc. v. 65. 1; LXX. Genesis 21:16. On the accusative of measure, see Kühner, § 556.

Luke 22:42. εἰ βούλει παρενεγκεῖν κ. τ. λ.] if Thou art willing to bear aside (Mark 14:36) this cup from me.

The apodosis ( παρένεγκε) is in the urgency of the mental excitement suppressed by the following thought (comp. Luke 19:41). The momentary longing after deliverance yields immediately to unconditional submission. See Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 750]; Buttmann, p. 339 [E. T. 396].

θέλημα] not βουλή or βούλημα, which would not have been appropriate to μου. Comp. on Matthew 1:19; Ephesians 1:11

Luke 22:43. The appearance of the angel, understood by Luke historically and externally ( ὤφθη ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ), is by Olshausen (see, in answer to him, Dettinger in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1838, p. 46 f.) erroneously taken as an internal phenomenon (but see Luke 1:11, Luke 24:34; Acts 2:3; Acts 7:2; Acts 7:30; Acts 9:17; Acts 16:9; Acts 26:16), and interpreted as signifying an “influx of spiritual powers.” But of the strengthening itself is not to be made a bodily invigoration, as at Acts 9:19 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 391; Schegg), but it is to be left as an enhancement of spiritual powers,²⁵⁶ as, according to the just narrated prayerful disposition, the context suggests. His submission to the Father’s will, just expressed in the prayer, was the subjective condition of this strengthening, and on this submission being manifested the strengthening was objectively effected by the angel. Thus the narrative of Luke; but the circumstance that neither Matthew (John does not give the narrative of the agony at all) nor Mark relates this singular and remarkable angelic strengthening, although the latter would have had the testimony of Peter on his side, authorizes all the more the view of a legendary origination of the narrative (Gabler in Theolog. Journ. I. pp. 109 ff., 217 ff.; Schleiermacher, Strauss, Hase, Theile, Holtzmann, comp. Bleek, Schenkel, and others), the nearer the decisive resolve of Jesus (whether regarded in itself, or as compared with the history of the temptation and such expressions as John 1:52) approached to such an increase of strength, which decisive resolve, however, in the tradition took the shape of an external fact perceived by the senses. Dettinger, l.c.; Ebrard, p. 528; Olshausen, Schegg; Lange also, L. J. II. 3, p. 1430, and others, adduce insufficient grounds in favour of the historical view. The older dogmatic devices to explain the manner in which this strengthening came about, wherein orthodoxy comforted itself with the doctrine of the κένωσις, may be seen in Calovius.

Luke 22:44. Further particulars. According to Luke, the decisive resolve of Jesus: τὸ σὸν γενέσθω, was crowned with the strengthening angelic appearance; and thus decided and equipped for resistance, He now endured (comp. Hebrews 5:7 f., and thereupon Lünemann and Delitzsch) the agony ( ἀγωνία, Dem. 236. 19; Polyb. viii. 21. 2; 2 Maccabees 3:14; 2 Maccabees 15:19), which was now beginning, fervently praying (as before the appearance), which agony increased even to the bloody sweat. Luke has conceived the strengthening influence as increasing as the agony increased. The sweat of Jesus (in the height of the agony) was like to drops of blood falling down. This is referred by Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Calixtus, Hammond, Michaelis, Valckenaer, and most of the later commentators, including Paulus, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Bleek, merely to the size and consistence of the drops of sweat. So also Dettinger, l.c., and Hug, Gutacht. II. p. 145. Comp. Lange, II. 3, p. 1433. Thus in a naturalistic direction the point of comparison found in αἵματος is robbed of its characteristic importance, and Luke would have concluded his description, rising to a climax, with nothing but this: and Jesus fell into the most violent sweat! No! αἵματος only receives its due in being referred to the nature of the sweat, and this nature is viewed as foreshadowing the coming bloodshedding. Hence also the strongly descriptive word θρόμβοι is chosen; for θρόμβος is not simply a drop ( σταγών, στάλαγμα), but a clot of coagulated fluid (milk and the like), and is often used especially of coagulated blood (Aesch. Eum. 184; Choeph. 533, 545; Plat. Crit. p. 120 A: θρόμβον ἐνέβαλλον αἵματος; Dioscor. 13 : θρόμβοις αἵματος). See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 379; Blomfield, Gloss. Choeph. 526. Consequently that sweat of Jesus was indeed no mass of blood (opposed to which is ὡσεί), but a profusion of bloody sweat, which was mingled with portions of blood, and as it flowed down appeared as clots of blood trickling down to the ground.²⁵⁷ So in substance most of the Fathers, Erasmus, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, and others, including Strauss, Ebrard, Schegg. As to the historical character of the matter, it would come under the same judgment as that of the angelic strengthening, were it independent of the analogies of sweat of blood elsewhere occurring (Aristotle, H. A. iii. 19; Bartholinus, de Cruce, pp. 184 ff., 193 ff.; Gruner, de J. C. morte vera, pp. 33 ff., 109 f.; Loenartz, de sudore sanguin., Bonn 1850).

Luke 22:45. ἀπὸ τῆς λύπης] by reason of the sorrow in which they were. An attempt to explain the strange sleep which had overmastered the whole band of disciples. Is it, however, sufficient? Hardly in this case, where in the chilly night of spring (John 18:18) Jesus was so near, and was in a situation exciting the deepest interest and the most intense participation in the sympathy of His disciples. In itself there is justice in the observation that continuous deep grief relaxes into sleep. See examples in Pricaeus, ad Apulej. Metam. p. 660 f., and Wetstein. Calvin suggests Satanic temptation as the cause first of this sleep, and then of the blow with the sword.

Luke 22:47-53. See on Matthew 26:47-56, Mark 14:43-52, in both of which the linking on of what follows by means of ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλ. is better suited to the sense. Luke in this part uses in general less original sources.

ὁ λεγόμ. ἰούδ.] who is called Judas. Comp. Luke 22:1; Matthew 2:23; Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:14; Matthew 27:33, and elsewhere.

εἷς τῶν δώδεκα] as Luke 22:3.

προήρχετο αὐτούς] See on Mark 6:33

Luke 22:48. φιλήματι] placed first for emphasis; φίλου ἀσπασμῷ ἐχθροῦ ἔργον τὴν προδοσίαν μιγνύεις; Theophylact. That the kiss was concerted with the enemies (Mark 14:44) Luke leaves to be gathered only mediately from the words of Jesus.

Luke 22:49.²⁵⁸ εἰ πατάξομεν κ. τ. λ.] whether we shall smite by means of the sword? Comp. Luke 13:23; Acts 1:6, and elsewhere. See on Matthew 12:10 and on Luke 13:23. Grotius says rightly: “Dubii inter id, quod natura dictabat, et saepe inculcata patientiae praecepta dominum quid faciendum sit rogant. At Petrus non expectato Domini responso ad vim vi arcendam accingitur.”

Luke 22:50. τὸ δεξιόν] as also John 18:10 has it.

Luke 22:51. ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου] is a prohibitory summons to the disciples: sinite usque huc (Vulg.), which Augustine, de cons. ev. iii. 5, aptly explains: “permittendi sunt hucusque progredi.” Let them go so far as even to take me prisoner! Comp. Luther, Maldonatus, and others; recently also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 437, and Schegg. Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Bleek, and others have explained: cease (comp. Acts 5:38; Hom. Il. xxi. 221, al.)! so far! (not farther! comp. Leviticus 26:18; Job 38:11). To this it stands opposed that herein is found no disapproval of the blow with the sword, but only the prohibition to go any further; and, moreover, this not at all negatively expressed, as it would have most obviously occurred by means of some such expression as μὴ ποῤῥωτέρω or the like. Others take the words as an address to those who were taking Him prisoner, and thus τούτου either as neuter and temporal: “missum facite me usque ad id tempus, quo vulnus illius hominis sanavero” (Bornemann, so also Hammond, Kypke, de Wette, Lange, II. 3, p. 1461, III. p. 512), or τούτου as neuter, indeed, but local: let me go thither where the wounded man is (Paulus), or τούτου as masculine: let me go to this man in order to heal him (Stolz, Baumgarten-Crusius). Against these views the objection is that the context in the word ἀποκριθείς shows nothing else than a reply to the disciples, as Jesus does not turn to His enemies till Luke 22:52.

καὶ ἁψάμ. κ. τ. λ.] On account of ἀφεῖλεν, Luke 22:50, this is to be referred to the place and the remains of the ear that had been cut off; and ἰάσατο αὐτόν to the healing of the wound (not: replacing of the ear). With desperate arbitrariness Paulus says that He touched the wound in order to examine it, and told the man what he must do to heal it! Luke alone records the healing; and it can the less be cleared of the suspicion of being a legendary accretion (comp. Strauss, II. p. 461; Baumgarten-Crusius, Holtzmann, and others), like Luke 22:43-44, that even John, who narrates the blow with the sword so circumstantially, says nothing about it.

Luke 22:52. πρὸς τοὺς παραγενομ. κ. τ. λ.] These chief priests, etc., were therefore, according to Luke, associated with that ὄχλος, Luke 22:47. Inappropriate in itself, and in opposition to the rest of the evangelists. An error on the part of tradition, probably through confusion with John 18:20 f. Comp. on Matthew 26:47; Matthew 26:55. Ebrard, p. 532, is in error when he says that Luke is speaking of those who had just then newly approached. So also Lange. Opposed to this is the aorist participle.

Luke 22:53. ἀλλʼ αὕτη κ. τ. λ.] informs us of the reason that they had not laid hands on Him sooner in spite of His daily association with them: But this (the present hour) is your (that which is ordained for you for the execution of your work, according to divine decree) hour, and (this, this power in which ye now are acting) the power of darkness, i.e. the power which is given to darkness (in the ethical sense, the power opposed to the divine ἀλήθεια, opposed to φῶς). Observe the great emphasis on the ὑμῶν by being placed so near the beginning of the clause. The expression τοῦ σκότους, not τῆς ἁμαρτίας (so Kuinoel and Olshausen explain it), not τοῦ διαβόλου (so Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), is chosen in reference to the actual night, which it was at this time; but it is not the actual darkness of night that is meant (“only the darkness gives you courage and power to lay hold of me,” de Wette, comp. Neander, Bleek, and older commentators), for this quite commonplace thought would declare nothing on the destiny of that hour and power.

Luke 22:54-62. See on Matthew 26:57 f., 69–75; Mark 14:53 f., 66–72. Jesus is led into the house of the high priest, in the court of which (Luke 22:61; Luke 22:63), according to Luke, who follows a diverging tradition, He is kept and subjected to mockery till daybreak (Luke 22:66), when the Sanhedrim comes together. According to Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrim assemble immediately after the arrival of Jesus, and examine Him. The two narratives cannot be reconciled, but the preference is to be given to Luke in so far as he agrees with John. See below on τοῦ ἀρχιερ. Moreover, Luke is not self-contradictory (in opposition to Strauss), as the chief priests and elders mentioned at Luke 22:52 are to be regarded only as individuals, and probably as deputed by the Sanhedrim.

τοῦ ἀρχιερ.] As Luke did not regard Caiaphas (the general opinion), but Annas, as the officiating high priest (see on Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6), the latter is to be understood in this place. Comp.Bleek, Beitr. p. 39 ff., and Holtzmann. Luke, indeed, thus falls into a new variation from Matthew, but partially comes into harmony with John so far, that is, as the latter likewise represents Jesus as brought at first to Annas, and so far also as in Luke and in John the denials occur in the court of Annas. But of a trial before Annas (John 18:19 ff.) Luke has nothing, yet it finds its historical place naturally enough immediately after εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχιερ., when the prisoner, as may be supposed, was announced. Wieseler also, Synopse, p. 405, comes to the result that Luke 22:54-65 belongs to what occurred in the house of Annas, but comes to it in another way. Comp. on Luke 3:2.

Luke 22:55. περιαψάντων] (see the critical remarks) after they had kindled around (Phalaris, Ep. v. p. 28), i.e. had set it in full blaze. The insertion of αὐτῶν was not needful, Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2. 17.

Luke 22:56. ἀτενίσασα] after she had looked keenly upon him, Luke 4:20, and very often in the Acts of the Apostles. See Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 259.

Luke 22:58. ἕτερος] A variation from Matthew and Mark. For Luke does not think of a maid; rather he distinguishes the interrogator here as masculine, by ἕτερος and ἄνθρωπε, from the female questioner of Luke 22:56 f.; hence Ebrard (comp. Wetstein) is wrong in contenting himself with the indefinite sense, “somebody else.”

Luke 22:59. ἄλλος τις] several, according to Matthew and Mark. As to the variations of the four Gospels in the account of the denials, see in general on Matthew 26:75, Remark.

Luke 22:61. According to Luke, therefore, Jesus is still also in the court, and, down to Luke 22:66, is kept there in custody (Luke 22:63). Certainly it is psychologically extremely improbable that Peter should have perpetrated the denials in the presence of Jesus, which, moreover, is contrary to the other Gospels. But a reconciliation of them with Luke is impossible; and, moreover, the assumption that Jesus looked upon Peter as He was led from Annas to Caiaphas and passed close by the disciple in the court (John 18:24, so Olshausen, Schweizer, Ebrard), is inadmissible, as, according to John, it is already the second denial that occurs about the same time as this leading away of Jesus, but according to Luke, Luke 22:59, there is an interval of about an hour between the second and third denial.

ἐνέβλεψε] What a holy power is in this silent glance, according to the narrative of Luke!

Luke 22:63-65. See on Matthew 26:67 f.; Mark 14:65. Luke follows an entirely different tradition—different in respect of the time, the place, and the persons who were engaged in the mockery. The same characteristic ill-treatment (smiting—demand for prophecy), the original connection of which is in Matthew and Mark (in opposition to Schleiermacher), had arranged itself variously in tradition. Against the supposition of many times repeated mockery must be reckoned the identity and peculiarity of its essential element (in opposition to Ebrard and others).

δέρειν and παίειν are distinguished as to scourge (Jacobs, Del. Epigr. vi. 63) and to smite in general.

Luke 22:66-67. According to Luke, the Sanhedrim now first comes together after daybreak, and Jesus is led in for trial. Where it assembled Luke does not say, and there is nothing therefore opposed to our finding in this place the leading away from the court of Annas (see on Luke 22:54) into the house of Caiaphas (John 18:24). The trial itself, as to its matter, is plainly the same which Matthew—although immediately after the bringing in of Jesus—makes to be held in the house of Caiaphas. See Matthew 26:59 ff. Luke relates the matter and proceedings in a merely summary and imperfect manner.

τὸ πρεσβυτέριον κ. τ. λ.] the elders of the people, (the) chief priests, and scribes. These are the three constituent elements of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Luke 9:22, Luke 20:1. On πρεσβυτέριον, denoting the elders as a corporation, comp. Acts 22:5. By the non-repetition of the article the three parts are bound into a unity, in respect of which the difference of the gender and number is no difficulty (comp. Plato, Pol. vi. p. 501 D: τοῦ ὄντος τε καὶ ἀληθείας ἐραστάς; Soph. Oed. C. 850: πατρίδα τε τὴν σὴν καὶ φίλους), especially in respect of the collective nature of πρεσβυτέριον. See in general, Krüger, § 58. 2. 1; Winer, p. 115 f. [E. T. 157 f.].

ἀνήγαγον] The subject is the assembled members of the Sanhedrim who had caused Him to be brought up. ἀνα indicates a locality situated higher, as contrasted with the court of Annas, in which locality the Sanhedrim were met.

εἰς τὸ συνέδρ. ἑαυτῶν] into their own concessus, into their own council gathering, in order now themselves to proceed further with Him. Comp. the use of συνέδριον of the Amphictyonic council, also of the Roman and the Carthaginian Senate (Polyb. xl. 6. 6, i. 11. 1, 31. 8).

Luke 22:67. εἰ σὺ κ. τ. λ.] may mean: If thou art the Messiah, tell us (Vulgate, Luther, and most commentators), or: Tell us whether thou art the Messiah (Castalio, Bornemann, Ewald, and others), or: Is it the case that thou art the Messiah? Tell us (Erasmus). The first is the simplest, and corresponds to the purpose of framing the question so as to elicit an affirmative answer.

Luke 22:68-69. Matthew and Mark have not the evasive answer, Luke 22:68; and the explanation of Jesus: ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν κ. τ. λ., does not come in there till after the distinct affirmation. Their narrative has the advantage of internal probability. Luke has worked up the material more catechetically.

ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἐρωτ.] but in case I also (should not limit myself merely to the confession that I am He, but also) should ask, should put before you questions which are connected therewith, ye would certainly not answer (see the critical remarks).

ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν δέ] “Ab hoc puncto, quum dimittere non vultis. Hoc ipsum erat iter ad gloriam,” Bengel. On the position of δέ, see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378 f. Moreover, see on Matthew 26:64; yet Luke has avoided the certainly original ὄψεσθε, and thus made the utterance less abrupt.

Luke 22:70-71. ὁ υἱὸς τ. θεοῦ] This designation of the Messiah is suggested by ἐκ δεξιῶν … θεοῦ, in recollection of Psalms 110; for “colligebant ex praedicato Luke 22:69,” Bengel. And their conclusion was right.

ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι] ὅτι, argumentatively, comp. John 18:37; ἐγώ, with emphasis, corresponding to the σύ of Luke 22:67; Luke 22:70.

μαρτυρίας] that He gives Himself out to be the Messiah.