Jerusalem in the Last Days (Luke 21:5-38)

Jerusalem in the Last Days (Luke 21:5-38)

5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” 7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?” 8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” 10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 “But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 This will result in your being witnesses to them. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 All men will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 By standing firm you will gain life.

20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Introduction

The temple fascinated both Jesus and His disciples, but how different were those things which attracted them. Jesus was attracted by a widow, and a contribution which would have little or no impact on the receipts of the temple that day (Luke 21:1-4). The small gift of this widow was singled out by Jesus, above all of the large contributions which were given at that time, for this was all the woman had. She gave out of her need. The others gave out of their abundance. She gave two small and almost worthless coins, but these were all that she had. Jesus commended her gift because it was evidence of her love for God and her faith in Him to care for her needs.

The disciples were attracted by something different, something more tangible, something more inspiring and impressive. They were awe-struck with the magnificence of the temple. What attracted their attention was that the temple was beautifully adorned. Luke alone informs us that at least some of these adornments were the result of gifts that were donated.

The temple was both great and glorious, especially to the disciples of our Lord. The disciples were not from Jerusalem, but from Galilee. We would say that they were “hicks” from the “sticks.” They would have seldom gone to Jerusalem, 71 and thus they would behold the grandeur of the temple as tourists. And the temple was indeed an awesome sight, as Geldenhuys points out:

“The original temple of Solomon was an exceptionally magnificent building, but was destroyed in 586 B.C., by the Chaldaeans. It was rebuilt by Zerubbabel and his companions after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. This rebuilt temple was comparatively small and simple. Herod the Great (who ruled over the Jewish people from 37 to 4 B.C.) was a great lover of architecture. And it is due to him that the temple, with its environs on the temple mount, was built up to such a massive and artistic building complex (nearly five hundred yards long and four hundred yards wide). Herod the Great drew up a grand architectural plan according to which the whole temple with all its surrounding buildings had to be rebuilt. He even caused a thousand priests to be trained as builders to do the work (so that the Jews could not accuse him of having the temple built by ‘unclean hands’). With this rebuilding a commencement was already made in 19 B.C., but it was only completed in A.D. 63 under Agrippa II and Albinus. This reminds us of what the Jews said to Jesus in reply to His figurative words about the breaking down and erection of the temple. They understood Him to speak of the temple building and then said: ‘Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou build it up in three days?’ (John ii. 20). When they uttered these words (c. A.D. 28), the temple was therefore already forty-six years in rebuilding. It would take another thirty years and longer before it was to be completed. And it had been finished for hardly seven years when in A.D. 70 it was completely destroyed in fire and blood notwithstanding the fanaticism with which the Jews tried to defend it.” 72

The backdrop to our text is thus the temple and its great beauty. The response of our Lord to the disciples’ awe will evoke two questions, the first pertaining to the timing of the coming of the kingdom, and the second seeking to learn the sign which would precede and prove that His kingdom was at hand. Jesus did not answer the first question, and He indicates a number of evidences that His return is near. But our Lord’s focus is not on the conclusion of history so much as on the conduct of His disciples in the interim period, a period of considerable length, and of much difficulty.

The Structure of the Text

The structure of this text is a bit difficult, because there are two major events in focus, but neither of them are dealt with completely separate from the other. 73 Nevertheless, we can generally view chapter 21 in this way:

(1) The beauty of the widow’s contribution to Jesus—(vv. 1-4)

(2) The beauty of the temple and Jesus’ teaching—(vv. 5-38)The destruction of temple & its implications—(vv. 5-24

(3) The second coming of Christ & its implications (vv. 25-38)

(4) Our lesson will largely be limited to verses 5-24, which may be broken down in this way:

(1) The disciples’ awe and Jesus’ awful revelation—(vv. 5-6)

(2) The disciples’ question and Jesus’ response —(vv. 7-24)

The question—(v. 7)

Do not be deceived and follow false messiah’s—(v. 8)

Do not be frightened, and fail to be witnesses—(vv. 9-19)

Do not seek safety within Jerusalem—(vv. 20-24)

The Background of our Text

Jesus had marched on Jerusalem. While there was an enthusiastic crowd to greet Him, Jesus knew that this was not the day of His coronation. There would be a cross before there was to be a crown, as He had already told His disciples on a number of occasions. Jesus wept over this city, for He knew that as a result of its rejection of Him as Messiah, a day of judgment was coming upon it:

“If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you when your enemies will throw up a bank before you, and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:42-44, NASB).

The official rejection of Jesus is now virtually complete. The leaders of the nation have conspired to put Jesus to death. They have challenged His authority and have asked Him questions which were designed to incriminate Him. These have failed. The leaders have only been embarrassed, causing them to be more resolute in their determination to kill Jesus. All that remains is for Judas to be introduced, and for his act of betrayal to be carried out, leading to the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus. Just as Jesus’ debate with the leaders of Jerusalem is over, so is His teaching of the masses coming to a close. Now, the Lord is concentrating much more on His disciples, preparing them for the treacherous days ahead. They are still “starry-eyed” and optimistic, but Jesus’ words will at least momentarily sober them, or at least puzzle them, for they pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Lord’s disciples, and the dangers which accompany discipleship.

Our Approach

In this lesson, we will begin by making some very important observations concerning the entire prophetic passage. We will then focus our attention on verses 5-24 and the destruction of Jerusalem. We will seek to identify the event, to understand Luke’s description of it, and then to consider the practical implications of this event for the disciple of our Lord.

Observations

Before we begin to look at the text in detail, let us be sure to get a feel of the passage by making several important observations:

(1) Two principle events are in view in our text: the destruction of Jerusalem, which is soon to come, and the second coming of Christ, which will take place after some protracted period of time.

(2) These two events are not neatly separated in our text, nor is our text chronological in its organization.

(3) Our Lord’s dealing with these two events, separated in time, is not to distinguish them so much as to intertwine them.

(4) Luke does not describe the destruction of the temple, and so his two works were either written before the temple’s destruction in 70 A.D. or he chose not to describe the event or to allude to it.

(5) Jesus dwells more on the disciples’ conduct than He is on satisfying their curiosity as to either the exact time of fulfillment, its sequence of events, or even some specific sign which unmistakably identifies the end as at hand.

(6) While we view the destruction of Jerusalem as past history and the second coming as unfulfilled prophecy, Luke and the disciples viewed them as both future.

(7) The things which Jesus says to His disciples as “you” cannot all happen to them, and thus “you” must refer to Israel or Israelites corporately, and not just to the disciples individually. 74

(8) The mood of this text is sober. There is no hype, and much warning about the dangers which lie ahead for Jesus’ disciples. It describes the times ahead, up to the second coming as dangerous and difficult. There is no “prosperity gospel” to be found here, but rather a sobering warning about the days ahead.

(9) The subjects of the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming are not introduced for the first time here. Luke 17:20-37 and 19:41-44 both deal with these future events.

The Disciples’  Fascination With the Temple  (21:5-6)

As we have already seen, the temple was an awe-inspiring sight. The disciples were understandably impressed. Was it possible that the disciples’ attachment to the temple was based upon some false assumptions concerning it? For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was about to establish His throne in Jerusalem, would He not make the Temple His headquarters? Did this not mean that their “offices” would be in the temple? If such was their thinking, then no wonder they were impressed with this building. What great facilities this building would provide them.

But this was not at all to be the case. The Lord’s coming would really usher in (or at least intensify) the “times of the Gentiles,” which would be signaled by the downfall of Jerusalem and the destruction of this temple. The huge stones, so impressive to the disciples, would not be left standing on one another. 75 What “cold water” this must have been, poured out, as it were, on the ever warming hopes of the disciples.

The Disciples’ Questions  (21:7)

7 “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Jesus had been very specific about the destruction of the Temple, but vague as to the time when it would take place. The disciples want to know exactly when these things will take place, and the sign which will signal that they are just about to occur. The disciples, like most of us today, are concerned about the wrong things. They wish to know information which will be of no real benefit to them, largely to satisfy their curiosity. Jesus is much more interested in their conduct than their curiosity, and so He virtually avoids their questions, teaching them instead what they do need to know—how they should conduct themselves in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem, and His second coming. This we see in the next passage.

The Destruction of Jerusalem  and Its Practical Implications  (21:8-24)

8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.” 10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

Though our Lord has little interest in satisfying the curiosity of His disciples concerning the timing of these events, He has a great interest in teaching them about their conduct in the light of these events. How different is His focus from our own. There are many differences and much debate about the timing and the sequence of events in matters of prophecy, but there can be little doubt as to what our Lord’s emphasis is here—on the disciple’s conduct. The conduct of the disciple can be summed up in three somewhat negative statements, which are given in the text above:

(1) Do not be deceived, so as to follow false “messiah’s” (v. 8).

(2) Do not be frightened, either by unsettling world events, or by persecution directed at you personally (vv. 9-19).

(3) Do not flee to Jerusalem for safety when it is under siege (vv. 20-24).

In verse 8, Jesus warned of the danger of following false “messiah’s.” When times are bad, it is easier to accept ready solutions to our problems. The false “messiah’s” have been with us throughout the history of the church. They claim to come in our Lord’s name. Indeed, they are bold enough to claim to be Him. Naturally, they must also claim that the time of the “kingdom” has come. I believe that it is not the “messiah” which is so attractive in the final analysis, but the “kingdom” which he promises. Jesus here outlines very difficult days ahead for His followers. The false “messiah’s” promise “good times,” which is synthetic “good news” for troubled saints. Jesus warns His disciples not to follow such fakes.

Luke’s account has but one verse of warning concerning the false “messiah’s,” but Matthew has much more to say on this subject. He reports of Jesus teaching that these “counterfeit Christs” will be accompanied by “great signs and miracles” (24:23-24). He further informs us Jesus warned that many will “turn away from the faith” in following such “savior’s,” and that the love of most would grow cold (24:10-13). These last days will be difficult ones for the followers of Jesus. To be too eager to escape these tough times will cause one to be susceptible to such errors.

In verse 9 Jesus turns to the difficulties which may tempt the true believer to deny or to distort his faith and practice. The great danger which is in view is that of fear. Fear is both the enemy of, and the opposite of, faith. Verses 9-11 speak of the dangers facing men in general, less personal forms: wars, revolutions, earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. These are not personal forces, but they can have a great personal impact upon an individual. The last days are going to be chaotic, dangerous, and foreboding, but these “dark hours” are the occasion for light, the light of the gospel (cf. Ephesians 5:8-14; Philippians 2:15). All of these chaotic events cannot and must not be avoided, for the kingdom of God will come only after these things have come to pass (v. 9). The cross always precedes the crown.

In verse 12 the difficulties of the disciple become much more personal. Now, the Lord speaks of the persecution which believers in Christ must suffer by virtue of their identification with Him. The persecution spoken of here is characteristic of that which has taken place down through the history of the church, but it is that which directly affected the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking. Luke, in his second volume, the book of Acts, gives a historical account of some of the sufferings of the saints in the days after our Lord’s ascension.

The difficulties of these hard times is no barrier to the gospel, however. Indeed, these hard times provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate and to proclaim the hope which we have in Christ. Believers will be brought forward, and charged publicly, and thus they have the opportunity for a public witness, whether before Jewish opponents in the synagogues,76 or Gentile opponents, such as kings and governors. In such cases, the saint is not to plan his testimony in advance, but rather to look to the Lord to give the right words for the moment. Stephen’s powerful message (recorded in Acts 7) is but one example of the faithfulness of God to give His servants the right words to speak.

The persecution which men will face will be even more personal, however. Not only will we be opposed by the enemies of the gospel, such as religious and political leaders, but we will be opposed by our own families. Saints in those hard times will be betrayed by their closest relatives, handed over to persecution, and even to death. Now, the hard words of Jesus concerning the disciple and his family (Luke 14:26), make a great deal of sense. The “hard words” of Jesus were intended for the “hard times” ahead, times such as those described here in chapter 21. If we are going to be betrayed by our own family, we must have chosen Christ above family, or we will forsake the faith in such times.

Disciples are not to be apprehensive about what they will say in their own defense, 77 because the words will be given them at the time of need (v. 14). Men need not fear the rejection of family if they have already chosen Christ above all others (v. 16). Men and women of faith need not fear persecution, and even death, because true life, eternal life, is found in Christ (vv. 17-19). It sounds contradictory for our Lord to say that some will be killed for their faith in Him, and then, in the very next sentence to affirm that “Not a hair of you head will perish” (v. 18). How can both statements be true? The problem is at once resolved when we distinguish “real, eternal, life” from “mere physical existence.” In our Lord’s discussion with the Sadducees He taught that with God, all are alive, for God raises the dead. To hold fast to one’s faith, and to die in faith is not to die at all, but to live. As Jesus elsewhere taught,

“For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it” (Luke 9:24).

The third warning of our Lord to His disciples is found in verses 20-24, where the context is the coming destruction of Jerusalem (of which the destruction of the temple was a part). This would happen in the lifetime of the disciples who were with Jesus. It was a warning particularly relevant to them, for most of the saints would have fled from Jerusalem by the time of its destruction, but not the apostles:

And on that day [of Stephen’s stoning] a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles (Acts 8:1b, NASB).

Persecution was to be God’s instrument for removing His church from Jerusalem before its destruction. The disciples (here called apostles), however, would remain behind. Jesus’ words are most relevant to them. When they saw the

Roman army coming to besiege the city, they should flee from it, so as to escape from the wrath of God 78 at the hands of these soldiers. The action which our Lord called for would have first seemed to be suicidal. Under normal circumstances, one who lived in the open ground would have fled to the fortified city for safety: “In time of war country people would come into walled cities for protection. Jesus tells His hearers that in view of Jerusalem’s impending destruction they should keep as far from it as they could.” 79

The destruction of Jerusalem would prove to be as devastating as Jesus had forewarned:

“According to Josephus (The Jewish War, vi, 9) 1,000,000 Jews perished at that time with the destruction of Jerusalem (through famine, pestinences, fratricide, and the Roman sword) and 97,000 prisoners were taken and carried off everywhere. Josephus probably exaggerates. But in any case it is certain that hundreds of thousands perished. The Roman historian Tacitus states (Historiae, v, 13, 4) that the normal population of Jerusalem was 600,000 before A.D. 70. And if we bear in mind that before the investment of the city the Jews poured into Jerusalem in tens of thousands for the Passover and could not again return to their homes and thus remained in the city throughout the five months’ siege, it may be understood that hundreds of thousands would perish in the over-populated city. In any case not a single one was left alive in the ruined city.” 80

In this destruction, foretold by our Lord, a number of the purposes of God would be accomplished. The old order would be done away with. The priesthood would be done away with. The way would be made for the church to be established as the dwelling place of God, the “new temple” (cf. Ephesians 2:18-22). The temple made with human hands would be no more. The Jews would be removed from their land. The times of the Gentiles would be in full swing. Until the Lord’s return, Jerusalem would be the pawn of the Gentiles, to deal with as they chose (in my opinion, this includes the present order in Israel, which exists only because of the Gentiles intention of dealing thus with the Jews).

Conclusion

Jesus’ words here contain a number of important lessons for those of that day, as well as for saints of all ages. Let us consider some of them.

First, the Lord’s words here should have laid to rest the disciples’ visions of an immediate kingdom, with Jerusalem and that temple as its headquarters. That temple was soon to be destroyed, Jerusalem to be sacked, and the times of the Gentiles to prevail for an indefinite period of time.

Second, the Lord’s words clearly spelled out “hard times” ahead for those who would follow Him, rather than “happy days,” as nearly all, including the disciples, hoped for. This was true for those disciples, and for the early church (cf. Acts), but it is just as true for saints of all ages (cf. 2 Timothy 3). There are many today who offer men immediate glory, peace, and good times, but who do not talk of suffering, persecution, and endurance, as Jesus does. Men love to hear of the blessings of the future kingdom as being realized and experienced now. That simply is not the way Jesus told it, my friend. Jesus consistently spoke of hard times to those who would follow Him. He did not dangle promises of immediate relief from suffering and pain, but warned that the way of the disciple was difficult. Jesus was right, and all who differ on this point, are wrong. Those who would follow Jesus should expect the path of adversity and persecution. That is just what Jesus promised.

Third, Jesus here teaches us that times of adversity, chaos, and opposition are days of opportunity for the proclamation of the gospel. We do not need “good times” to preach the gospel. The gospel is “light” to those in “darkness,” and it offers hope to those in despair. That is why Jesus can say that that the gospel is cause for rejoicing for those who weep, who hunger, and who are persecuted for His name’s sake (cf. Luke 6:20-26; Matthew 5:1-12).

Fourth, in order to maximize the opportunity that lies before us, the disciple of Jesus must beware of deception and following false “messiah’s,” must not be afraid, even in the midst of chaos and persecution, and must not seek safety where God’s wrath must abide.

Allow me to expand on this last point by establishing a principle, one on which the teaching of our Lord in this text is based, as I understand it: THE DISCIPLE OF CHRIST SHOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED TO THAT WHICH GOD WILL DESTROY, AND SHOULD NOT SEEK SALVATION IN THAT WHICH GOD HAS CONDEMNED.

Jesus responded to the awe of His disciples toward the temple by informing them that it was to be demolished. Jesus was teaching them, I believe, that they should not be attracted to that which God was about to destroy. They also had a great love for and attraction to Jerusalem, and yet Jesus told them that in the day of His wrath on Jerusalem, they should flee from this city, not flee to it. They should not seek salvation in that place which had rejected Him as Messiah, and which He now was to reject (for a time) and to destroy.

What a lesson for each of us. How often I am attracted to earthly things, things which are to decay and fail in my lifetime, or which God will destroy in the renovation of the earth. If prophecy should teach us anything, it is to stop placing too much value on that which God has told us He would destroy. Peter learned this lesson well, as we can see in his second epistle:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat? But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 2:10-13).

We need not understand the details of prophecy, nor to know the times or the signs of the times, but we do need to know the outcome, and thus we need to order our lives accordingly. We need to love the things of this world less, and the things of the next more. We need to have our trust in Him alone, and to seek to share the gospel with a world that is under condemnation, and soon to be destroyed in judgment.

Notes:

71 It is interesting to note that the 3 synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) mention only our Lord’s appearance in Jerusalem as a child. John, on the other hand, mentions several occasions at which Jesus was there (John 2:13; 4:45; 5:1ff.; 7:10ff.; 10:22; 11:18). In none of the instances of our Lord’s appearances in Jerusalem can I find a reference to the disciples —at least there is no emphasis on their being present. I would not go so far as to say that when Jesus went to Jerusalem He always left His disciples behind, but it would seem that He could have. In my mind, I suspect that Jesus did not want His disciples to get caught up in premature messianic enthusiasm, and He therefore may have purposely not taken them with Him, at least on some occasions.

72 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), pp. 533-534. Geldenhuys goes on to say,

“The group of buildings belonging to the temple as it was rebuilt by Herod occupied a much larger area than that of Solomon, and the whole of the temple-mount was surrounded by a high, strong wall with towers on the northern side. On the other sides there were no towers, because the steepness of those sides of the hill on which the temple was built and the height of the wall made it impregnable on those sides. On the temple square there were beautiful colonnades, stairs and gates by which the various temple buildings … were combined to form a whole. The actual temple … was built on an elevation of white marble blocks with golden ornaments. So it dominated all the buildings on the temple site. The Jewish historian Josephus … gives the following description of the temple: The whole of the outer works of the temple was in the highest degree worthy of admiration; for it was completely covered with gold plates, which when the sun was shining on them, glittered so dazzlingly that they blinded the eyes of the beholders not less than when one gazed at the sun’s rays themselves. And on the other sides, where there was no gold, the blocks of marble were of such a pure white the to strangers who had never previously seen them (from a distance they looked like a mountain of snow’” (v, 14), p. 534.

Morris also writes, “The noble stones were the great stones used in erecting the building (some huge stones can still be seen in the ‘wailing wall,’ but this was part of the substructure, not of the Temple itself). According to Josephus some of them were as much as forty-five cubits long. The offerings would be decorative gifts such as the golden vine Herod gave with ‘grape clusters as tall as a man’ (Josephus, Bellum v.210).” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 296.

73 The commentators generally agree that while the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming are distinct events, separated by a considerable period of time, they cannot be neatly separated in this text: “If we arrange the items into an ordered series, it would run as follows: (1) the time of testimony (vs. 12a) indicates this period comes before all the rest); (2) the emergence of false messiahs; (3) political upheavals (including the fall of Jerusalem); (4) cosmic disturbances; and (5) the coming of the son of Man. from this apocalyptic timetable we can extract the Lukan answers to the two questions raised in vs. 7. When will the temple be destroyed? It will occur as part of the political disturbances prior to the End. What will be the sign when this is about to take place? The sign will be when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies (vs. 20). Though it was the oracle about the temple’s destruction that prompted the questions which evoked the discourse, the evangelist’s concerns are broader in this chapter than the fall of Jerusalem and the temple’s demise (though the fall and the demise are a part of the recurrent theme in Luke: 123:31-35; 129:28-44; 23:26-31.” Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1984), p. 200.

“The chronology of the events described in 21:8-19 does not coincide with the order of their appearance in the text where a warning not to be misled by false messiahs and other signs into thinking the End has arrived (vss. 8-9), and references to political upheavals (vs. 10) and cosmic disturbances (vs. 11) precede the section on persecution (vss. 12-19). Chronologically, however, the persecutions precede the other items (cf. vs. 12a—pro de touton panton, ‘but before all these things’): that is, in the interim before the eschaton the disciples will experience persecution (cf. 6;22-23; 8:13; 12:11; Acts 4-5; 12; 16; 18; 21).” Talbert, p. 201.

“… verses 5-24 deal practically throughout (except verses 9, 9) with predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the preceding events, although in a secondary sense even some of these predictions also refer to the Last Things. But in verses 25-8 Jesus looks beyond the foreshadowing of the Final Judgment to that Judgment itself and its attendant signs, in association with His second advent. In verses 29-33 He exhorts His hearers to watch for the former set of events, which are to be accomplished within ‘this generation,’ while in verses 34-6 He warns them 9and through them the whole Christian church) to watch faithfully for the latter set of events, which are to take place at a day and hour known to none save god the Father.” Geldenhuys, pp. 523-24.

“But in all three records the outlines of the two main events, with their signs, cannot always be disentangled. Some of the utterances clearly point to the Destruction of Jerusalem; others equally clearly to the Return of the Christ. But there are some which might apply to either or both; and we, who stand between the two, cannot be sure which one, if only one, is intended. In its application to the lives of the hearers each event taught a similar truth, and conveyed a similar warning; and therefore a clearly cut distinction between them was as little needed as an exact statement of date.” Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), pp. 477-478.

74 “Another point of considerable importance remains to be noticed. When the Lord, on quitting the Temple, said: ‘Ye shall not see Me henceforth,’ He must have referred to Israel in their national capacity—to the Jewish polity in Church and State. If so, the promise in the text of visible reappearance must also apply to the Jewish Commonwealth, to Israel in their national capacity. Accordingly, it is suggested that in the present passage Christ refers to His Advent, not from the general cosmic standpoint of universal, but from the Jewish standpoint of Jewish, history, in which the destruction of Jerusalem and the appearance of false Christs are the last events of national history, to be followed by the dreary blank and silence of the many centuries of the ‘Gentile dispensation,’ broken at last by the events that usher in His Coming.” Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965 [Photolithoprinted]), II, p. 433.

75 I have been told that the reason why the stones were so completely torn down was due to the fact that the gold, used in decorating the temple, had worked into the stone, and thus the stones had to be completely destroyed in order to extract the gold. It is at least a plausible explanation for the motivation of those destroying the temple, and thus fulfilling our Lord’s predictions.

76 “We are apt to think of synagogues as places of worship, but we should not overlook their wider functions as centres of administration and education. They were the centres of Jewish life, and Jewish law was administered from them as far as applicable (cf. 12:11). The use of the term shows that Jesus’ followers must expect opposition from the Jews. Prisons points to the certainty of condemnation, while the reference to kings and governors shows that the persecuting authorities will be Gentiles as well as Jews.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 297.

77 “… the verb promeletan, meditate beforehand, is a technical term for preparing an address; see AG… ” Morris, p. 297.

78 Morris writes, “Days of vengeance, or ‘the time of retribution’ (NEB, cf. Ps. 94:1; Is. 34:8; etc.), are days when people will be punished for their sins. What is to happen to Jerusalem is not arbitrary, but due penalty. The fulfillment of Scripture shows that the divine judgment is being carried out.” Morris, p. 299.

79 Morris, p. 298.

80 Geldrnhuys, pp. 535-536, fn. 26.

The Second Coming of Christ (Luke 21:25-36)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.”

Introduction

It often takes a while for things to “sink in” with me, but I think I finally have a bit of a clue as to why the disciples were so excited about the temple and its beauty. You will recall that in the early verses of this 21st chapter of Luke the disciples were awe-struck with the splendor of the temple. Jesus quickly told them not to get too worked up about it because it would not be there that long. But the question has lingered, “Why would the splendor of the temple be such a big deal for the disciples?” Then it suddenly struck me. It is not a very pious thought, but then few of the disciples’ thoughts about the kingdom and their place in it were pious, until after the cross.

Office space is what this was all about. The disciples, I suspect, had visions of having their own offices in this beautiful building. Jesus had marched on Jerusalem. He had, in many regards, taken possession of the temple, not only by its cleansing (29:45-48), but also by going there daily to teach the masses.

The Messiah was predicted to reign in Jerusalem, from the temple. If His disciples were to have a part in this reign, then surely they would “office” in the temple. Aha! So now I can see why the splendor of the temple was such a big thing.

The splendor of the temple was to be short-lived, however. Jesus told His disciples that not one stone would be left standing on another. It would not be He, nor His disciples who would “reign” from Jerusalem, not at least for some time. The temple and the city of Jerusalem were to be surrounded and sacked by the Gentiles, and this city would be trampled by the Gentiles until the “times of the Gentiles was fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). Jesus has, up to this point, emphasized the nearer prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D. In verses 25-38 He will turn His attention to the more distant future, and to the time of His return to the earth. His emphasis, here as usual, will be on the practical implications of prophecy on our daily lives. Let us listen well to His words, especially in the light of this statement, made in our text: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (21:33).

If our Lord would have His disciples “calm down” about the temple, because it was about to “pass away,” surely He would have us approach His words with great excitement and expectation, knowing that they will never pass away.

The Structure of the Text

We have seen from our previous lesson that verses 7-38 have to do with prophecy, with the events of the future and their implications. To a large degree, verses 7-24 have focused on the near prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but not necessarily entirely so. So, too, verses 25-38 have to do with the second coming of Christ, but not exclusively so. The structure of verses 25-38 may be outlined as follows:

(1) The Coming of the Son of Man—(vv. 25-28)

0. Signs which precede it (v. 25)

0. The response of unbelievers (vv. 26-27)

0. The response of the saved (v. 28)

(2) The Parable of the Fig Tree—(vv. 29-31)

(3) Two Promises: Things That Won’t Pass Away —(vv. 32-33)

(4) Jesus’ Words of Application and Exhortation—(vv. 34-36)

Our Perspective and this Passage

There are many difficulties with some of the details of our text, which at least be put into perspective. Chronologically, our passage deals with events which are all future to the listener, but which are greatly separated in time. Some events, like the destruction of Jerusalem and persecution for following Christ, will be experienced by the listener within a reasonably short time (as the book of Acts will report). Other events—those associated with the Lord’s second coming—will occur much later on, at the “end times.” And still other events will take place in the intervening times. Some events will happen more than once, such as the destruction of Jerusalem. It was to be “trampled by the Gentiles in the near future (which proved to be 70 A.D.), just as it will again be trampled by Gentiles at the end times:

2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth” (Revelation 11:2-3).

Thus, we cannot view the Lord’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem as only occurring once, in the lifetime of His listeners. Some events will be, as it were, types of things yet to come. The destruction of Jerusalem seems to be one of these.81 We should bear in mind also that even those events which take place at the end times are a part of an extensive program, which take some time to accomplish, as we can see from the book of Revelation.

Another perspective is the people involved. The people referred to in these verses are those of the various time periods. Thus, the people of that generation in which Jesus lived, those in the intervening years, and those who are alive at His return are in view at various times, or in some cases at all times. In addition, however, the people would include believers and unbelievers, whose perspective and response would be very different. Also, it would seem that there will be those believers who are not alert, and who would thus interpret events quite differently from those who eagerly await His return. All of these dimensions must be kept in mind when we seek to interpret and apply our Lord’s words.

Finally, the end times are viewed here, not from the perspective of the blessings which they will usher in, but from the aspect of divine retribution. According to our Lord’s words in verse 22, these are “days of vengeance.” As you read through the entire prophecy, this fact becomes more and more evident. Jesus could have chosen to speak of the blessings which await the believer (as Peter does in 1 Peter 1:6-9), but He chose instead to speak of divine judgment. This is because the destruction of the temple is an outpouring of God’s wrath.

Signs of the End Times  (21:25-28)

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 82 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

Verse 25 depicts the end times as being signaled, not by a sign, but by various signs. In particular, the coming of our Lord will be preceded by cosmic chaos. In the heavens, sun, moon, and stars will be affected. On earth, the sea will be tossing and roaring. One must decide how literally to take these, 83 and not all will agree. Nevertheless, I am inclined to see them as literal. 84 In the first place, we know that the heavens, can greatly affect the earth. For example, the moon’s gravitational pull creates our tides in the seas. Second, and more importantly, the prophecies of the book of Revelation speak of cosmic and earthly chaos in what seems to be literal terms:

12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Revelation 6:12-17).

8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed … 12 The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night (Revelation 8:8-9, 12).

3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died. 8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire … 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him (Revelation 16:3, 8-9).

God created the cosmos, the heavenly bodies, the earth, and the seas. He also sustains them. Though men have rejected God, they often presume that the things He controls and “holds together” (Colossians 1:17) will remain constant. They predict time and location on the basis of the heavenly bodies. By means of astrology, men even regulate their lives by the heavens. The heavens and the earth are going to pass away, however, and there will not longer be any sea. The heavenly disorders are but a sign of the destruction which lies ahead.

Men will not ignore these signs. Indeed, they will be terrified by them, as Jesus indicated in verse 26. Many will not, however, repent of their sins, so as to be saved. They will continue to “eat, drink, and marry” (cf. Luke 17:26-29). Life will go on as usual, with men living in terror, but also in continued rebellion against God. This may seem inconceivable, but it is true, and we can see illustrations of this going on today. Aids has become a virtual epidemic. It is fatal, and there is no cure for it as yet. Many are terrified at the thought of contracting this disease. The homosexual community, not to mention others, are demanding that the government do more to curb and to cure this deadly disease, and yet they refuse to even discuss forsaking the sinful lifestyle which spreads the disease. Even though terrified by the disease, life goes on as usual in the homosexual community. The only modification that men will make in their practice is to strive to practice “safe sex,” when “godly sex” would stop the disease dead in its tracks. And so men may be frightened to death by a dangerous situation, and yet persist in living just as before at the same time.

The signs which the unbelieving world distort or deny are the same signs which the saint will heed. The signs which bring terror and fear to the unbeliever, will bring courage and hope to the saint. Thus, Jesus instructed believers to “stand up and to lift up their heads,” because their redemption was near (Luke 21:28). The reason is that these signs precede the return of the Lord Jesus, and His return in great power and glory (21:27). When He comes, He will deal with His enemies and ours. He will remove the wicked, as He will reward the righteous. His coming should bring terror to His enemies, and joy to His friends.

The Parable of the Fig Tree  (21:29-31)

This parable is a simple story, as most of our Lord’s parables were. It pertains to the timing of the events Jesus has foretold. Jesus here teaches what we might call a “seasonal” approach to prophecy, rather than a “specific” approach. Jesus never encourages the setting of dates, just as He refused to indicate a single sign which would accompany and accredit His coming. He did not want his disciples to be ignorant of the approach of His return, as would be the case with all unbelievers. How, then, were His disciples to recognize that His return was near? Not by a single sign, but by a sensitivity to a combination of events which indicated that the “season” of His return was at hand.

This is an agricultural analogy, the discerning of the season by observing the signs of its arrival. When the fig tree (and all the others as well) begins to put out leaves, we know that it is Spring, and that summer cannot be too far off. We can, of course, look at our calendars, but we should all recognize that seasons don’t always follow a calendar. The farmer recognizes the season by noting those evidences of its arrival. Jesus has likewise just informed His disciples (of all ages) of the evidences of the “season” of His second coming. Those who would like to know the exact time of His arrival will not be happy with our Lord’s answer. His nearness of His return will be sensed by those who are alert to and aware of the evidences of its arrival.

Two Promises  (21:32-33)

32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth 85 will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

There are two promises in these verses. The first is straightforward, but perplexing. It pertains to the fulfillment of the events predicted here. The second has to do with the words of our Lord. Both have to do with “that which won’t pass away.”

In verse 32, Jesus said that “this generation” would not pass away until all of “these things” had come to pass. The difficulty with these words should be obvious. How can Jesus say that “this generation” would not pass away until all these things come to pass when “all these things” occur over what we can now see to be nearly 2,000 years? The events described in these verses encompass many generations, so that no one generation will see all of them fulfilled in their lifetime.

The difficulties with this verse have led some to attempt to redefine the term “generation,” so that it may be taken more broadly, to mean either “mankind” or “Israel.” I do not think that the context of Luke (or the term “generation” itself) will allow this broadening. I believe that that generation was specifically in view. That generation had a particular privilege and a particular responsibility, both related to being those who witnessed the coming of the Christ. That generation also had a particular judgment, due to its rejection of Messiah:

49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all (Luke 11:49-51, emphasis mine).

I understand, therefore, that when Jesus said “that generation” would not pass away until “all these things” had come to pass, He was referring to that generation of Israelites. How, then, do we square this with the fact that “all these things” must come to pass, when we know that some will fall upon generations to come? My best answer is that “all these things” really happen twice, not once. They will happen once, to that generation. And, they will happen a second time, in the last days, related to Christ’s return. Thus, Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., in fulfillment of our Lord’s words. And so, too, Jerusalem will be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles again, during the tribulation (Revelation 11:2-3). There is also a sense in which much of what our Lord predicted would happen (e.g. persecution, betrayal by family, etc.) is something which saints have experienced throughout the intervening centuries.

Our Lord’s words, then, have relevance to those who heard Him speak these words. They also have had relevance to the saints over the centuries. And they will be relevant to the saints of the last days as well. No one dares to take these words idly, as though they will relate to a future people at a future time. Jesus does not allow this mentality to prevail.

The second promise is a related one. If the first promise related to the immediate relevance of His words, the second promise related to the eternal quality of his words. The first promise spoke with respect to the immediate value of His words, and the second to the long-term impact of His words. Jesus’ words were true for those who heard Him speak them, but they would be no less true for any saint, even though he might read them centuries later.

Two things strike me about this last promise of our Lord. First, I note that Jesus speaks here with an authority far greater than that of any other prophet. Jesus speaks here as God, not just as a man, and not even just as a prophet. Other prophets could, at best, say, “Thus saith the Lord.” Jesus here speaks of His words, words which will not pass away, as eternal words, and as His words. Jesus was speaking as God. His words were His own words of divine revelation.

Second, Jesus spoke of His words as eternal, never failing. Words, in our day and time (as then) are cheap. Words meant little. In time, even those who may have meant well may forget their word, or break it. Jesus assures His disciples that His words will never fail. Men tend to trust in material things, both because we can see them, and because they appear to have promise of lasting. Jesus here indicates that His words outlast heaven and earth. If we value things on the basis of how long they will last, nothing has greater value than the Word of God. Why is it that we so often value those things which are destined to perish above those words of God which will never perish?

The Application:  Admonition and Encouragement  (21:34-36)

In these final verses our Lord underscores the application of this prophecy to His followers. In verse 34 Jesus warned His disciples that they, like the unbelievers, could be caught off-guard by His return. The signs of His coming, brushed aside by the lost, might not be comprehended by the saint. Thus, the Christian would not realized that the season of His return was at hand. The reason in not in a lack of evidence or of signs, but of a dullness of mind and heart which causes the saint to miss these signs, and to fail to see them as such.

Our Lord listed three specific evils which would distract the saint, so as to cause him or her to miss these signs and their significance. The first evil is that of dissipation. 86 This is the “hangover” resulting from drunkenness. The last thing one suffering from a hangover wants is “input.” I believe that the saint may be tempted to “grab all the gusto he can get,” knowing that the end of this world may be near. Thus, he or she may over-indulge in that which this world offers, and then be rendered dull and insensitive to what is really going on.

The second evil, drunkenness, if very much related. If dissipation is the result of drunkenness, drunkenness is the cause of dissipation. We are dealing with cause and effect. Drunkenness may well be a temptation for the suffering, afflicted, persecuted saint, who is also aware of the chaos taking place in the created universe, and who wishes to blot out the danger and the pain by anesthetizing his brain. Thus, dullness results.

The third and final evil is “worry,” the preoccupation with the “anxieties of life.” These are the very things Jesus has warned us against in the earlier chapters of Luke. They include unnecessary and unbelieving worry about our food, our clothing, and our basic needs. In times of great persecution worry might seem more justifiable, but not according to our Lord. Worry about such things only misappropriates our energies to worthless endeavors.

All three of the evils specifically identified by our Lord affect the heart and the mind of the saint, dulling him or her to the “signs of the times,” which should serve to show that they season of Christ’s return is at hand. These are the some of the major dangers facing the saint. In verse 36 our Lord turns to those activities which can promote preparedness, as opposed to those activities (listed above) which hinder it. Watchfulness or alertness toward the times in which we live is one antidote to apathy and dullness of heart and mind. A ready and expectant spirit inspires careful observation of the times, in comparison to the Scriptures which our Lord has provided.

The second antidote is prayer. “Watch” and “pray” are terms that are often found together. Those who are not watching are not praying, and those who are not praying are also no watching. Prayer here is focused on two matters: (1) Being able to escape the destruction occasioned by the coming wrath of God. Perhaps also, prayer that they will escape the wrath of those who oppose the gospel. (2) That we may be able to stand before the living God, who is our Judge and the Judge of all men.

Conclusion

There is no more awesome event than that coming day, here spoken of by our Lord, the day of His wrath. We, like the Israelites of old, tended to think of the “day of the Lord” only in terms of blessings. If there was to be any judgment, it would be on the Gentile “heathen.” But as God told Israel (cf. Amos 5), the “day of the Lord” was a day of judgment on all who were disobedient to Him. The forms and rituals of their religion were an offense to Him. What He sought was their repentance. The theme of judgment was thus a very important one, and it is that which our Lord focused upon in His teaching here in our text. Let us not fail to take heed to this coming reality and its implications for us.

The coming judgment of God is one of the realities to which the Holy Spirit will bear witness (John 16:8-11). It was the “bottom line” of Peter’s message to Israel in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2). If you have not come to a personal faith in Jesus Christ, it is a coming reality that you should take very seriously. Then wrath of God is that which every person on earth deserves, as the due reward for his or her sin. Jesus came to the earth not only to speak of God’s wrath, but to bear it personally. The Good News of the Gospel is that Jesus has born the eternal punishment we deserve. Salvation is the escape from God’s wrath which men can experience through faith in Christ. If you acknowledge your sin, and trust in the death of Jesus on the cross of Calvary, as being the payment for your sins, you will be saved from the wrath which is yet to come on those who will not accept the payment which Christ has already made.

What a vast difference there is for men with respect to the coming day of His wrath. When our Lord comes to the earth again, it is to give men what they deserve. For sinners, it is eternal torment. For saints, it is deliverance—salvation—not because they deserve it, but because the Lord Jesus Christ has purchased it, at the cost of His life.

The Second Coming of Christ is, then, for sinners, the day of God’s vengeance, of destruction; for saints, it is the day of their deliverance. That deliverance includes salvation from their enemies, as well as from the presence and power of sin. For the sinner, the “day of the Lord” is something to dread; for the saint, a delight. For the sinner, the day will be unexpected, a shock; for the saint, it will be one that has been eagerly awaited, and sensed to be near for those who have discerned the “season” of His return.

The day of the Lord should be a truth that radically changes the Christian’s lifestyle. Knowing that the material world will vanish, we should not place too much value on material things. Knowing that the Word of God will never pass away, we should find it of infinite, eternal, value. And knowing that undue indulgence of earthly pleasures will dull or sensitivity to the time of His return should motivate us to live a disciplined life, a life marked by self-control, not self-indulgence. Neither should we worry or be anxious about the things of this life, knowing that this concern will also hinder our prayers and watchfulness.

Let us live our lives in the light of this reality—that Jesus Christ is to return to the earth to judge the wicked, and to bring deliverance to His saints. Let us live as though the material world is a vapor, and the unseen world (including the Word of God) is our only certainty.

Notes:

81 “This [generation] cannot well mean anything but the generation living when these words were spoken: vii. 31, xi. 29-32, 50, 51, xvii. 25; Mt. xi. 16, etc. The reference, therefore, is to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as the type of the end of the world.”Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896 [reprint]), p. 485.

82 Of v. 25, Plummer writes, “Similar language is common in the Prophets: Is. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, iii. 15: comp. Is. xxxiv. 4; Hag. ii. 6, 21, etc… The remainder of this verse and most of the next are peculiar to Lk.” Plummer, p. 483.

83 Plummer takes this reference to the sea symbolically: “It is the nations who are ‘in perplexity at the resounding of sea and surge.’ Figurative language of this kind is common in the Prophets: Is. xxviii. 2, xxix. 6, xxx. 30; Ezek. xxxviii. 22; Ps. xlii. 7, lxv. 7, lxxxviii. 7.” Plummer, p. 484.

84 Plummer seems to agree, when he writes, “By … [powers of heavens] is meant, not the Angels (euthym.), nor the cosmic powers which uphold the heavens (Mey. Oosterz.), but the heavenly bodies, the stars (De W. Holtz. Eridd, Hashn): comp. Is. xl. 26; Ps. xxxiii. 6. Evidently physical existences are meant.” Plummer, p. 484. Plummer takes the heavenly bodies literally, as we see here, but he takes “the sea” more symboically, as we see in the previous note.

85 “Comp. [the expression ‘heavens and earth’ of v. 33] 2 Pet. iii. 10; Heb. i. 11, 12; Rev. xx. 11, xxi. 1; Ps. cii. 26; Is. li. 6. A time will come when everything material will cease to exist; but Christ’s words will ever hold good.” Plummer, p. 485.

86 “Dissipation (kraipale) is properly the hangover after a carousal, ‘the vulgar word for that very vulgar experience’ (Henry J. Cadbury, The style and Literary Method of Luke (p. 54), as cited by Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William b. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 301.

Preparations for the Passion of Christ (Luke 21:37-22:6)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

37 Each day Jesus was teaching at the temple, and each evening he went out to spend the night on the hill called the Mount of Olives, 38 and all the people came early in the morning to hear him at the temple. 1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2 and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Introduction

At times, my family does not like me to be around when we are watching a television program. You see, I have a way of anticipating the conclusion of the movie, and I tell them how it will end. They would rather have the suspense. In fact, the more accurate I am, the more upset they get with me.

I have come to the conclusion that the fate of the “villain” of the movie is directly proportionate to his meanness in the movie. A villain that is mean and nasty and cruel is sure to come to a terrible end. He will not simply be arrested, nor will he just die peacefully. He will die some horrid death, giving the viewer a kind of satisfaction that justice has been meted out. It is almost always bound to work out this way, and so I predict it, so as to ruin the suspense of the plot.

If there is one thing that our literature and films do well it is to expose the villain early in the plot, setting him up for his just reward at the end of the drama. The worse the villain is portrayed, the greater the agony of his downfall (and likely his death) at the end. Early on in a movie, we are all given clues as to who the villain is, and also who the hero is. As the plot “thickens” the character of each is more clearly and precisely depicted, but we know who the “bad guy” is, and to the degree that he is mean, he will suffer at the end of the movie. A murder mystery is different, but here the writer of the movie entertains the viewer by toying with his or her desire to know who the bad guy is.

In the New Testament, Judas is represented as the betrayer of our Lord, but he is hardly painted as a “villain,” at least in the same sense that the movie-makers do so today. Luke is a very fine and skilled writer. He has highly developed literary skills. Nevertheless, Luke does not make a classic “villain” of Judas. He does not, as we might expect, often refer to Judas, always putting him in a bad light, so that we expect him to do some terrible thing. He does not use Judas for his own literary purposes, so that we almost eagerly await his downfall and destruction.

If you will notice, Judas receives very little attention in the gospel of Luke, and the same could be said for the other gospel accounts as well. A look in the concordance will show that in Luke’s gospel Judas is only referred to by name in chapters 6 (v. 16) and 22 (vss. 3, 47, 48). Luke does not, as we might expect, make a villain of Judas, so that we eagerly await is demise. In fact, Judas receives far less attention than we would expect. The “tension of the text,” as it were, is this: Why is the betrayer of our Lord given so little attention? Beyond this, why does Luke emphasize the role of Satan in the betrayal of Jesus? This we shall seek to learn from our study.

Our approach in this lesson will be to consider Judas in the light of all the gospel accounts, seeking to trace the sequence of events which led to his downfall. We will then turn our attention to Luke’s account, in order to try to discern his unique emphasis and its implications for us.

Judas Chosen as One of the Twelve

13 When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, 15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, 16 Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor (Luke 6:13-16).

In each of this and the other two gospel accounts of the choosing of the twelve, Judas is named, identified as the one who would betray Jesus, and is listed last. The fact that Judas was one of the twelve will become important as we consider our next category, the sending out of the twelve.

Judas Sent Out as One of the Twelve

1 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick (Luke 9:1-2).

The sending out of the twelve is recorded in each of the synoptic gospels, and this text in Luke is the one I have chosen to refer to, since we are studying Luke. The point of this passage is that there is every indication Judas performed all the miracles that the other 11 did. I understand from this passage that Judas not only preached the “gospel of the kingdom,” but that he was used of God to cast out demons and to perform healings. Some might doubt this, but it would seem that Judas was only one of a number who performed miracles in the name of our Lord, yet without really being a child of God:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:21-23).

I don’t know who Judas’ partner was, with whom he was teamed up and sent out, but I doubt that this disciple had anything different to report back than any of the others. Judas, without knowing Jesus as the rest, nevertheless experienced the power of God working through him, but to no avail, to no advantage for him. Perhaps some even came to faith through Judas’ preaching, but Judas himself did not really believe that which he proclaimed. That Judas was an unbeliever, I imply from these passages, in which our Lord spoke of His betrayer:

Judas’ Betrayal Foretold

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him (John 6:70-71).

“While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that the Scripture would be fulfilled” (John 17:12).

In John 6:70 Judas was called “a devil,” and so he was, for we shall see that the devil later entered into him. In the Lord’s high priestly prayer (John 17), Judas was viewed as the one “doomed to destruction.” Every indication is that Judas was not one of our Lord’s flock, a true believer. From the text in Matthew chapter 7 we know that one did not have to be a true believer to be able to perform miraculous works in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Last Straw— The “Wasted” Perfume

6 While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. 8 When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. 9 “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” 14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15 and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16 From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over (Matthew 26:6-16).

It is important to take note of the fact that the incident which I refer to as the “last straw supper” is not necessarily reported in its “proper” chronological order. Both Matthew and Mark refer to the meal shortly before our Lord’s betrayal, using the story as an explanation for Judas’ actions. Luke does not record the story at all. Only John records the story before the triumphal entry, which I believe is the actual chronological sequence.

In this account, given to us by Matthew, we find that the woman is here unnamed, and that “the disciples” are those who protest at the waste of money in the anointing of our Lord (Mark’s account suggests that perhaps only “some” of them protested—cf. 14:4). While Matthew reports that the disciples protested, he also indicates that there is a direct relationship between the anointing of Jesus, the protest of the disciples, the rebuke of our Lord, and Judas’ decision to betray our Lord. It was this incident that proved, for Judas, to be the last straw. Matthew alone tells us that not only was payment promised Judas (as the other accounts indicate), but that he was actually paid, thirty silver coins.

John’s account (which I consider to be a report of the same incident, even though this presents certain problems) gives us a slightly different perspective and emphasis, which proves to be very helpful:

1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “ It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me” (John 12:1-8).

Here, it is Mary who is identified as anointing Jesus’ feet (not His head, as Matthew reports—though both were probably done). The dinner is one held in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, as we would have expected. But here, John tells us that Judas protested, and he does not mention any other disciples doing so. This leaves us with at least two explanations. First, Judas is selected here because he was one of those protesting, and he was to betray our Lord. In other words, Judas was simply following the lead of the others. The second (and more likely) option is that Judas is the one who first verbalized a protest, and the others followed his lead. Thus, John refers only to Judas’ objection because he was the ring-leader. Matthew informs us that the rest agreed with him and thus joined in the objection. Either option leaves us with the conclusion that Judas and his fellow-disciples were thinking along the same (wrong) lines.

John has much more to tell his reader. In the first place, John tells us that the dinner was held in Jesus’ honor. Jesus was the honored guest. The use of the perfume was an act of worship. For Judas (and then at least some of the others) to view the use of the perfume as a “waste” was to betray a lack of appreciation for the “worth” of the guest of honor, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus was not worthy of a gift worth one year’s wages. Judas may have been able to judge the worth of the perfume, but he had not rightly esteemed the worth of the Savior.

John’s account provides us with yet another explanation for Judas’ response. Judas was a thief, motivated by his love of money. Judas was the “keeper of the bag,” the treasurer of the group. The money seems to have been used for meeting the expenses of the disciples, as well as for giving to the poor (cf. John 13:29). Judas was taking money from the bag. Perhaps he viewed this as his “commission,” his percentage, his fee. No one else seems to have known he was helping himself to the funds until later.

I cannot help but wonder what Judas did with the money. Did he hide it somewhere? Did he have a “Swiss numbered account”? Was he saving the money up? Or was he sneaking into town for a “big mac,” or perhaps going to the local pub, returning late at night with the smell of liquor on his breath? No matter what he did with the money, it was not his to take. And whether he squandered it, like the prodigal, or saved it, like the rich fool, he loved money more than his Master. I think that one thing is absolutely clear, and that is that Judas betrayed his Master for money. Greed seems to be the principle motivation of this pathetic figure. “How much will you pay me … ?” was his question to the Jewish leaders.

Judas was deprived of his commission from the perfume, which could have been a tidy sum. He seems to have justified his selling of the Savior in his mind as getting what was rightfully his. How deceitful and twisted the human mind can become, especially with the deception and temptation of Satan as a catalyst.

It was, then, at this supper that Judas made one of the most disastrous decisions of his life, the decision to betray the Master for money. Everything would snowball from here on, but the decision was made, the payment was accepted. All that was needed now was for the opportunity to arise and for the act to be carried out.

Incidentally, it should not be overlooked that Judas’ decision to betray his Master, and his proposition to the Jewish leaders, caused them to change their plans and to set aside a decision which they had previously reached—the decision not to attempt Jesus’ arrest and assassination during the feast:

Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. “But not during the Feast,” they said, “or the people may riot” (Mark 14:1-2).

Arresting Jesus during the feast was simply too risky, they reasoned. Thus, they had determined not to make their move until the feast was over. This was not within the plan of God, however, for Jesus must be sacrificed as the Passover Lamb, at the appointed time. It was Judas’ unexpected (but most welcomed) offer which caused the leaders to set their decision aside. This was too good a deal to pass up. In this way, the sinful choice of Judas was used by God to achieve His divinely determined purposes, and thus to fulfill prophecy.

The Last Supper

And while they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.” 22 They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.” 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you” (Matthew 26:21-27).

17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” 19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely not I?” 20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “One who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. but woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born” (Mark 14:17-21).

1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love. 2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; … 21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.” 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. 23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.” 25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. “What you are about to do, do quickly,” Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night (John 13:1-3, 21-30).

In Matthew and Mark’s parallel accounts of the “last supper” Jesus is said to have indicated to His disciples that one of them would betray Him. The disciples are greatly saddened, and one by one they say, “Surely, not I, Lord?” Is this an expression of over-confidence, something like that of Peter? Jesus then gave a solemn word of warning, perhaps especially aimed at Judas. He said that He would surely be betrayed so that the prophecies would be fulfilled in this regard, but He warned that the one who betrayed Him would have been better off not to have been born. Surely this was so.

Luke’s account adds an interesting comment (cf. Luke 22:21-24). He passes over the sorrow of the disciples, and the “soul-searching,” to the degree that it happened. Luke informs us that the conversation seems to have quickly deteriorated into a finger-pointing session, where the disciples seemed to look more at one another to find the culprit than to look within themselves. Indeed, they actually ended up in an argument over which of them was the greatest. From a search for the great sinner, the disciples moved to a scrap over the greatest success among them. How typical, of them, and of us.

John’s account is distinct, as usual, giving us yet another perspective on this event. John begins by reminding the reader that the devil had already prompted Judas to betray the Lord Jesus. He further informs us that when Peter prompted John as to who the betrayer was, 87 Jesus indicated that it was Judas, though no one seems to have understood this at the time.

By giving Judas the piece of bread, Jesus indicated to the disciples (in answer to John’s question) that Judas was the betrayer. But by taking the bread, Judas appears to have consciously accepted his role as the betrayer, and this after (so it seems) the warning of our Lord of the danger of doing so. I see this “passing of the bread” to Judas as a kind of counter-communion. Judas had asked Jesus if he was the one, and Jesus had indicated that he was (Matthew 26:25). Now, Jesus said that the one who took the bread was the betrayer. When Jesus handed Judas the bread, he took it. Anyone else of the disciples would have pushed it away. Who would have willingly accepted this role? Only Judas.

Notice from John’s very precise account that it was only after Judas had taken the bread Jesus offered him that Satan entered into Judas. Was Judas “possessed” by Satan? It surely seems so, but this was the result of his own choice. It was not something forced upon him, unwillingly. Satan first prompted Judas at the “last straw supper,” when the expensive perfume was used to anoint Jesus, and then he chose to conspire with the Jewish leaders to betray Jesus. But Satan possessed Judas only after Jesus had indicated to him that he would betray Him, and after His strong words of warning. Judas made a number of choices, all of which were wrong, and which finally resulted in his possession by Satan. This possession, it would seem, enabled him to carry out the dastardly deed of betrayal.

The Betrayal

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. 50 Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him (Matthew 26:47-50).

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders. 44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 88 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him (Mark 14:43-45).

1 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it. 2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. 4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 “I told you that I am he,” Jesus answered. “If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” 9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me” (John 18:1-9).

The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) all give us a similar picture. Jesus was in the garden, along with the eleven disciples, as His custom had been (cf. Luke 21:37). Judas led the leaders and their assistants, armed to the teeth, to Jesus, identifying Jesus by giving Him a kiss. John’s account gives us a further insight, by telling us that when Jesus identified Himself, His enemies fell back to the ground. What authority! All of the accounts tell of the cutting off of the ear of one of the arresting party. While Luke tells of the healing of this man’s ear, John tells us that it was put who wielded the sword. Now why does this fail to surprise me?

The wonder of the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus, and of the accounts leading up to it is the gentleness and kindness of our Lord in His dealings with Judas. Jesus foretold of His betrayal. He seems to have given Judas great privileges and position among the 12. He warns Judas of the danger of carrying out his intended act. He gives him permission to leave them and to carry it out. But even at the time that Judas kissed Him, Jesus still spoke warmly (“friend,” Matthew 26:50) to him. What amazing mercy and compassion! What love! This makes the act of Judas even more detestable.

Remorse and Suicide

1 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2 They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. 3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” “What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” 5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:1-5).

Only Matthew includes an account of the remorse of Judas after the arrest of Jesus, and of his efforts to reverse what he had done. But there is no repentance here, only regret. Judas cast away the money and took his own life. What a tragedy. There is no sense of satisfaction here, as there often is at the conclusion of a contemporary movie, for Judas is not really a villain, but a tragic victim of his own sin and of Satan’s schemes. Note also the callousness of the religious leaders to Judas’ remorse. Their actions and attitudes seem, to me, almost more evil than those of Judas. How willing they are, like Satan, to exploit the sinful inclinations of others. How glad they were for him to do the dirty work.

Judas Replaced

16 and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” 18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, “‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’… 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs” (Acts 1:16-20, 25).

It is Luke, the author of both the gospel of Luke and of the historical account of Acts, who tells us not only of the death of Judas (as Matthew did), but also of his replacement. One additional element here is the emphasis on Judas as fulfilling the Scriptures, and also on the “scriptural necessity” (as the disciples saw it, at least) of replacing Judas.

Summary

Thus, although Luke’s account of Judas is sparse, we can see this sequence of events in the New Testament pertaining to Judas:

(1) Judas chosen as one of the twelve

(2) Judas sent out as one of the twelve

(3) Judas’ betrayal foretold by Jesus

(4) Judas’ exposure to the teaching of Jesus, not only as to His up-coming death, but also on the danger of loving

(5) The “last straw supper” when Judas was angered by the waste of money on the worship of Jesus, and at which time Satan tempted him to betray Jesus

(6) Judas’ seeking out of the Jewish leaders, who wished to be rid of Jesus, his striking a bargain with them, and receiving payment for his betrayal

(7) Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and His pattern of teaching in the temple and returning to the Mount of Olives at night

(8) The last supper, at which time Jesus again foretold of His betrayal, indicated that Judas was the one, and warned him of the danger

(9) Satan’s entry into Judas, after he took the bread from Jesus

(10) Judas’ betrayal of Jesus in the garden and Jesus’ arrest

(11) Judas’ remorse, suicide, and replacement

Luke’s Unique Emphasis

We can see that there is a great deal more to the man Judas than that which Luke has reported. In comparison with the composite account of Judas which we have just pieced together, Luke’s report is very brief, very concise, very much played down, so far as what could have been made of this man as a kind of literary “villain.” What is Luke’s emphasis? How does his brief account help to further his own argument, as laid out in this gospel?

In the first place, we need to be reminded that Luke is writing to a Gentile audience, and so the Jewish disciple, Judas, and his betrayal are not as much emphasized. In the second place, Luke has his eyes (figuratively speaking) on the cross. He is giving us these details as background for what is coming, not unlike Matthew and Mark, only more concise. Luke does not wish to have us focus on how Jesus came to the cross, but on the cross itself, and its consequences for all mankind. He does not seek to emphasize the human element in Judas’ sin so much as he does the satanic aspect. Judas became, due to his own sin and greed, a tool of Satan in his plot to murder the Messiah. From the divine point of view, Judas’ sinful proposition to the Jewish leaders was used of God so as to perfectly fulfill God’s purposes and the biblical prophecies, so that the “Lamb of God” would be sacrificed on the Passover, even though the Jewish leaders had decided against such action (Mark 14:1-2).

Conclusion

In spite of the brevity of Luke concerning Judas, there are a number of lessons that can be learned. As we conclude, allow me to focus on three areas which are relevant to us.

The first area concerns Judas, and that which we can learn from him. I should warn you that the things we learn about Judas are not necessarily comforting. We tend to think of Judas as an unbeliever and a traitor, and thus we place him in a category all by itself, rather than to see Judas as a man not all that different from ourselves, which is exactly where the discomfort comes from. Consider the following characteristics of Judas:

The Characteristics of Judas

(1) Judas was a man who seemed, for a good period of time, to be a genuine follower of Jesus.

(2) Judas was a man who had experienced and had been a channel of God’s power.

(3) Judas was very much like the other disciples, who did not stand out from them, nor was he ever suspected by them as a traitor.

(4) Judas seems even to have been somewhat of a leader among the disciples.

(5) Judas’ downfall came from a flaw evident earlier in his life, in a secret sin.

(6) Judas was a man who seems to have loved money too much and Jesus too little.

(7) Judas was a man who heard Jesus’ teaching, but failed to obey it.

(8) Judas’ failure was progressive, taking place over a period of time, and by means of a sequence of decisions.

(9) Judas was not forced to sin by Satan, but was surely tempted and assisted in his fall.

(10) Judas was made vulnerable to Satan’s involvement by his sin of greed. Satan was able to get a “death grip” on Judas by means of his fleshly desires and their dominion in his life.

(11) Judas did not choose to follow Satan, but to follow his own lusts.

(12) While it is clear to the reader that Judas became possessed by Satan, we do not know that Judas was ever consciously aware of this. To put it differently, Judas made choices which resulted in his possession by Satan, but we are never told that he actively sought to be possessed.

(13) From Judas’ twisted point of view his sin was not all that bad (he merely pointed out Jesus), and it was justifiable (after all, he did deserve the commission—in his mind).

(14) Judas was a man who was not born a traitor, but became one, by a progressive sequence of wrong choices.

If our text teaches us a great deal about Judas, we also learn some important characteristics of Satan. Consider these characteristics:

(1) Satan can work freely through religious leaders, as well as through the secular powers (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

(2) Satan can work through believers (e.g. Peter, cf. Matthew 17:23; Luke 22:31; Acts 5:3) as well as through unbelievers.

(3) Satan is perfectly willing and able to work through secondary causes (like greed), rather than openly and directly. In particular, Satan works through the world (external pressure) and the flesh (internal pressure).

(4) Satanic possession does not always take the form of foaming at the mouth and unusual behavior. It may seem to act in a normal, even in a spiritual way.

(5) While Satan’s control is more evident to us in the life of Judas, he is ultimately in control of every unbeliever (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3).

(6) Regardless of Satan’s success in working through the lives of men, his activity is subject to the control of God and it ultimately produces that which God has purposed and promised. Satan’s plan to kill the Messiah was the purpose of God. Satan thought that killing Christ would thwart God’s promises, but it ended up thwarting him, forever. The cross of Christ has brought about Satan’s downfall.

I fear that while there are times that Satan is credited with things that are not of his doing, there are also times when Satan’s involvement is simply not detected. All sin, in the final analysis, is to his liking, and is a part of his program and of his control over those who do not believe. Satan’s control in the lives of men and women seems to be strengthened over time, due either to his deception, or due to the decisions which men make which give him a strong grip in their lives. Luke reminds us here that Satan is very much “alive and well on planet earth.”

I hope that we have seen that the way in which Satan worked in the life of Judas is like the way that he works in the life of every unbeliever. Satan promotes and entices men to act in a way that seems to be to their own best interest, but which ultimately extends his control over their lives. Satan’s way of working in the lives of the saints is not all that different. He seeks to influence us through the pressures the world exerts upon us, and to stimulate the inner urges of the flesh, so that he can have control of us indirectly.

How is it that the Christian can avoid the pull of Satan? How is it that we can win over the world, the flesh, and the devil? If the warning of our text is that Satan can work on (Luke 22:31) and through (Matthew 16:22-23) a Peter, the encouragement is that while a Judas will fall hopelessly, never to be restored, a Peter will fall only temporarily. We should be warned by the similarities between a Peter and a Judas, but we should not leave our text without being reminded of the crucial differences between them. Consider these differences with me as we conclude:

(1) While Peter denied his Lord for a short time, Jesus was his Lord. Put in its briefest form, Peter was saved, and Judas was not. Judas did not lose his salvation, he never possessed it (compare Matthew 7:21-23).

(2) While Peter may not have prayed, as our Lord urged that he do (Luke 21:36; 22:45-46), Jesus never ceased to pray for him (Luke 22:32).

What crucial differences these are. The difference between a Judas and a Peter can be boiled down to one thing—faith. Peter was saved, and thus had the shed blood of Christ to pay for his sins, and the intercession of Christ to sustain him. Judas was lost, and thus was left to himself.

Which of the two are you, my friend? Are you a Peter—fallible, stumbling, self-confident, but saved? Or are you a Judas, looking good for a time, but really being a tool of Satan, who will suffer the eternal judgment of God. I urge you to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. Do it today.

Notes:

87 Note from John’s account that Peter seems to have been sitting some distance, while John and Judas appear to be nearby. I am inclined to think (as some commentators have suggested) that Judas may have been given the place of honor by our Lord.

88 It seems hard to believe that it would be necessary for Judas to identify Jesus to these leaders. The best explanation I can think of is that the top level leaders of Jerusalem did not “lower themselves” (in their minds) to see or hear Jesus, or to debate with Him. The Pharisees and a number of Sadducees were quite willing to “hound” Him. The top leaders, then, seem to have little or no direct contact with Christ. The “police force” who came along to arrest Jesus did not seem to have been familiar with Him either, although you will recall that some of those who were sent to arrest Jesus were so impressed with Him that they did not carry out their assignment (cf. John 7:44-49).

The Last Supper (Luke 22:7-23)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

Matthew 26:17-30 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’ “ 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.” 22 They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely not I, Lord?” 23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.”

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” 30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke 22:7-23 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” 9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked. 10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.” 13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Mark 14:12-26 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.” 16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

17 When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18 While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” 19 They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely not I?” 20 “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” 23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” 26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Introduction

The story was told of a great revival that broke out through the ministry of a well-known evangelist of by-gone days. There were various accounts told of the response of that evangelist on the night when the power of God’s Spirit fell on the audience, causing many to repent and come to saving faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. One version portrayed a very lengthy night of soul-stirring prayer. At a later date a Christian leader had the opportunity to ask the song leader, who accompanied the evangelist what happened that night, after they returned home. The song reported that rather than a lengthy and pious prayer, the evangelist, exhausted from the demands of the day, plopped into his bed with the words, “Good night, Lord, I’m tired.”

That man’s account is believable. But so often stories seem to be embellished with the passing of time. Family folklore is this way. The war stories of my seminary days are a lot more dramatic now than they were some years ago. As time goes on, we tend to glorify and to horrify the past, making our accounts of past events greater than life. This is simply a human phenomenon. We expect it to happen, and so most of us tend to discount stories of the past a little, to compensate for the exaggerations which accompany history.

Looked at from this point of view—expecting the past to be glorified—we find Luke’s account (and, the other gospel accounts as well) of the last supper amazingly brief and unembellished. Somewhere 30 to 50 years after our Lord’s death, resurrection, and ascension, the gospel of Luke was written (depending upon which conservative scholar you read). In spite of all the time which passed, and of the great significance of the “Lord’s Supper” or “Communion,” neither Luke nor any other gospel writer makes a great deal out of the celebration of the last Passover, just before our Lord’s death. I am not saying this celebration was unimportant, but rather that because of its importance, I would have expected it to have been a more detailed account. This brevity is the first of several “tensions of the text.”

There are other tensions as well. Why is nearly as much space devoted to the preparation for the Passover meal as for the partaking of it? Furthermore, why was Jesus so eager to partake of the Passover, when it preceded and even anticipated His death? Finally, why is there such confusion and consternation (including a deletion of some of the text) over Luke’s account of the Lord’s Table, in which it appears that the (traditional) order of the bread and wine may have been reversed?

Events Surrounding the Last Supper

Before we begin to look more closely at the partaking of the Passover, let us pause for just a moment to remind ourselves of the broader setting in which this event is found. The Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem have already determined that Jesus must die (not to mention Lazarus, John 11:47-53; 12:9-10).After the meal at the house of Simon the Leper, at which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus, “wasting” her expensive perfume on him, Judas decided to betray the Lord, approached the chief priests, and received an advance payment (Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:1-6). Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and after He cleansed the temple, the sparks really began to fly, with the religious leaders making every effort to discredit Him, or to get Him into trouble with the Roman authorities (Luke 20:19-20). When these efforts, as well as their attempts to penetrate the ranks of our Lord’s disciples miserably failed, the chief priests were delighted to have Judas approach them with his offer. It was only a matter now of waiting for the right chance. This could have been the Lord’s celebration of the Passover, along with His disciples.

At the meal itself, a number of events took place. It would seem that the Lord’s washing of the feet of the disciples was the first item on the agenda (John 13:1-20). During the meal, once (cf. Matthew 26:20-25; Mark 14:17-21), if not more (Luke 22:21-23), the Lord spoke of His betrayer. The meal seems to have included some (perhaps most all) of the traditional Passover elements, and in addition, the commencement of the Lord’s Supper, with words that I doubt the disciples had ever heard at a Passover meal (Luke 22:19-20). John’s gospel avoids giving us yet another description of this ceremony. He, unlike the other gospel writers, includes an extensive message known as the “upper room discourse” (John 14-16), concluded by the Lord’s “high priestly prayer” of intercession for His followers, which may have been prayed during the meal time, or perhaps later on in Gethsemane (John 17). The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) report the disciples’ argument about who would be the greatest, along with our Lord’s response (cf. Luke 22:24-3), the Lord’s specific words to the over-confident Peter (Luke 22:31-34), and then His words about being prepared to face a hostile world (Luke 22:35-38). With this the party is said to have sung a hymn and to have departed to the Garden of Gethsemane, where our Lord prayed, with little help from His disciples (Luke 22:39-46). The arrest of Jesus then follows, concluding in His being handed over for crucifixion.

The point in all of this is simply to remind you that the meal was a lengthy one, during which time the Passover was memorialized, and also the Lord’s Supper was inaugurated. It was also during this time that a great deal of teaching took place, as recorded primarily by John. The so-called “Last Supper” was but a part of a larger whole. We must therefore study and interpret it in this broader context.

Background: The Passover

It is beneficial to briefly review the meaning of the Passover Meal before we look at our Lord’s last Passover celebration. It think it is important to begin by drawing attention to these remarks by Plummer, one of the well-known scholars who has written a classic commentary on the gospel of Luke:

“… 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; … ” 89

These days it has become very popular to reenact the Passover, showing how many of the elements have a kind of symbolic, prophetic element. These descriptions of the Passover ceremony come not from the Scriptures, however, but from tradition—traditions which are not necessarily accurate, and even if they were correct, we have no assurance that they reflect a genuine faith and obedience to the Word of God. May I remind you that Jesus often rebuked the Jews for their traditions. We have no assurance that these traditions are entirely correct, nor that Jesus personally observed them. Thus, I am committed to an interpretation which takes only the information supplied to us by the Scriptures themselves.

The Passover itself began at the exodus of the Israelite nation from Egypt. The word which Moses brought to Pharaoh from God, “Let My people go, …” was challenged by Pharaoh: “Who is this God, that I should obey Him?” The plagues were God’s answer to this question. But while Pharaoh often agreed to release the people of Israel, he would renege once the pressure was off. The final plague was the smiting of the eldest son of the Egyptians, which resulted in the release of the Israelites. The first-born sons of the Israelites were spared by means of the first Passover celebration. The Passover animals were slaughtered, and some of the blood was placed on the door posts. When the death angel saw the blood on the door posts, he “passed over” the house. This celebration was made an annual feast for the Israelite nation, with a number of stipulations:

Exodus

11 “This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover.” 14 “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD—a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” 43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it.” 48 “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it (12:11, 14-20, 43, 48).

“Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning (34:25).

Leviticus

The Lord’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month (23:5).

Numbers

4 So Moses told the Israelites to celebrate the Passover, 6 But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day 10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they may still celebrate the Lord’s Passover. 12 They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations. 13 But if a man who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, that person must be cut off from his people because he did not present the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. That man will bear the consequences of his sin. 14 “‘An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must do so in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for the alien and the native-born’” (9:4, 6, 10, 12-14).

“‘On the fourteenth day of the first month the Lord’s Passover is to be held (28:16).

Deuteronomy

1 Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover of the Lord your God, because in the month of Abib he brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 Sacrifice as the Passover to the Lord your God an animal from your flock or herd at the place the Lord will choose as a dwelling for his Name. 5 You must not sacrifice the Passover in any town the Lord your God gives you 6 except in the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name. There you must sacrifice the Passover in the evening, when the sun goes down, on the anniversary of your departure from Egypt (16:1-2, 5-6).

There are a number of stipulations and regulations governing the observance of the Passover, as can be seen from the texts above. First, the Passover is to be partaken of only by those who have embraced the faith of Israel. No “uncircumcised” person could eat of it. This did not exclude foreigners who had accepted the faith of Israel, as evidenced by circumcision. Second, the Passover was to be observed on the 14th day of the first month, at the time when the Israelites first partook of the Passover lamb in Egypt. The animal was to be slain on the evening of the 14th, and the meal to follow shortly afterward. Third, no bones of the animal were to be broken, and no leftovers were to be kept until the next day. Fourth, the Passover celebration also commenced the Feast of Unleavened Bread. No yeast was to be used, and all leaven was to be removed from the dwellings of the Israelites on the first day of the celebration. Finally, the Passover animal could only be slaughtered at the place which God would designate (Deuteronomy 16:2, 5-6), which would later be specified as Jerusalem.

Preparations for the Passover  (22:7-13)

7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” 9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked. 10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.” 13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

There is a note of urgency expressed in verse 7, for the day came when the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. The Passover must be celebrated in Jerusalem, and the lamb had to be sacrificed and eaten at the appointed time. Matthew’s gospel is even more emphatic here:

He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house’” (Matthew 26:18-19).

Jesus sent two of his disciples to make the necessary preparations, two of His most trusted disciples, Peter and John. These were two of the three who were in the “inner circle” of the three disciples (Peter, James, and John), whom Jesus sometimes took along, apart from the others (cf. Luke 9:28). What was so important that two of His most trusted disciples had to prepare the Passover? This becomes evident in the directions Jesus gave as to the place where the Passover meal was to be eaten.

If I were Peter or John, I would have been somewhat distressed by Jesus’ directions. He did not give the name and the address of the man with whom arrangements had been made. 90 When you think about it, there is a kind of “cloak and dagger” dimension to this account. The disciples were sent on what amounted to a treasure hunt. They were to find an unspecified place by going into the city and being found by a man who would be identified only by the fact that he was carrying a water pot. It is not even said that the man would speak to them, but they were to follow him to the house he entered. There, the owner of the house (presumably another man) was to be asked where the guest room was where the “Teacher” could eat the Passover with His disciples.

Had it not been Jesus who gave these instructions, one would probably have not been very inclined to follow this plan. There is a certain similarity in these instructions to those given to the “two” (unnamed) disciples who were to obtain the mount on which Jesus was to ride into Jerusalem in His “triumphal” entry (Luke 19:30-31). The purpose for the two sets of arrangements was the same, and thus required a vagueness in each case.

It had already been determined by the religious leaders in Jerusalem that Jesus should be eliminated, earlier (cf. John 7), and now with even greater determination after the raising of Lazarus (cf. John 11:45-53). The one thing which the religious leaders needed was privacy. They wanted to arrest Jesus, away from the curious eyes of the crowds, who favored Jesus, and who would very likely revolt at the sight of Jesus being arrested and put to death by the religious leaders (cf. Luke 19:47-48; 20:19-20; 22:3-6).

Luke gives the account of Judas’ agreement with the chief priests and officers (22:3-6) just before the Lord’s instructions concerning the preparation for the last supper (22:7-13). This order of events is significant, for had Judas known in advance the place where the Passover was to be eaten, he could have arranged for Jesus’ arrest there. And this would have been an ideal time, for everyone would be off the streets, eating the meal with their own families. Jesus’ gave instructions which assured that this meal would not be interrupted, and that his arrest would take place in the garden of Gethsemane, later that night.

There is, by way of application, a wonderful truth to be seen in these verses. Whenever God truly calls on us to do that for which we feel unprepared and at “loose ends,” that which seems ill-defined, we shall discover that He has long before gone before us, making the necessary arrangements. The two disciples would surely not have felt “in control” of this situation, just as the two disciples who went to fetch the Lord’s mount for His entry would have felt matters were not very well defined. But in each case the text is clear: they found things to be exactly as Jesus had described them. While the disciples may not have been confident that things would work out well, they did.

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you believed that God was leading you to do or say something, but you really didn’t know how things would work out? Have you ever done something in obedience to what you believed to be the leading of God’s Spirit, only to find that He had been there long before you arrived? When God instructs us to do something that He intends to come to pass, He will always have gone before us, preparing the way for us. All we need to do is to obey, trusting that things will work out as He has planned. While we may not know the outcome as the two disciples did in our text, we may be assured that it will be just as God has ordained it. How wonderful it is to walk in obedience to His will and His word, and to watch Him open the doors before us, preparing our way. And how wonderful to know that what God has not told us is for our own good.

The Last Supper  (22:14-23)

Characteristics of the Last Supper

As we begin to consider the “last supper” let us start by considering some of the characteristics of this event.

(1)The “last supper” was a segment of a larger whole. Even in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the account of the actual celebration of the “last supper” brief, but in the gospel of John, it is not even recorded. John’s gospel gives us a much fuller account of our Lord’s rather extensive teaching on this occasion, known as the “Upper Room Discourse.”

(2)The account of the “last supper” is not only brief, it does not “read back” into the event the greatly enhanced understanding of this event in the light of later events, such as the death of Christ on the cross. It is not until Acts and the epistles of the New Testament that the full meaning of “communion” is seen. Luke waits until later to spell out this unseen significance. Luke describes the event from the historical perspective of those who were there, not from that of those saints who can look on the event in terms of its added meaning in the light of the cross.

(3)The “last supper” was the last supper in that it marked the end of one dispensation and the entrance into another. It instituted the age of the “new covenant” and anticipated (at the cross) the end of the period of the “old covenant.” The “last supper” is unique, never to be reenacted. It is the closing of one chapter, and the beginning of a new one.

(4)The “last supper” was the inauguration of a new “church” ordinance, although it was not recognized as such at the time. The church will go back to this celebration as the historical roots of its celebration of “communion,” but the disciples had no grasp of the newness of this celebration at the time.

(5)The meaning and significance of this celebration of the “last supper” was almost totally missed by the disciples. They did not understand what Jesus was doing, and they were busy thinking about the identity of the betrayer, their own sadness, and who was the greatest among them.

(6) Jesus did not seek to explain to His disciples, at this point, all that He was doing meant. Indeed, in the fuller teaching of John’s gospel, it was clear that they would not understand.

(7)The last supper was not, in its observance, a glorious occasion. Regardless of how the artists might have portrayed it, this was a time of confusion, of fear, and of self-seeking on the part of the disciples. Jesus was the only one present who knew the meaning of what He was doing.

(8)The “last supper” was a modification of the Old Testament observance of the Passover. But there is little information given to us about the “ritual” that was observed by our Lord, or even that Jesus followed the normal Jewish ritual of that time. The part of the celebration that is emphasized is that which was utterly foreign to the Passover celebration, that which our Lord added.

(9) The mood of the “last supper,” especially for the disciples, was dominated by the gloom of our Lord’s betrayal and of His imminent death on the cross. The disciples did not know what was about to take place, but there was a sadness, a heaviness, in their spirits, knowing that something ominous was about to occur.

(10) In spite of and in contrast to the disciples, Jesus approached this meal with eagerness: “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (v. 15).

The Meaning of the Meal

Having familiarized ourselves with the context and characteristics of the “last supper,” I now wish to turn our attention to the meaning of this event, as Jesus reveals it to the disciples here. There is a problem with this passage, as you should know. The basic problem, it would seem, is that there are too many “cups” here, and thus the order of events given by Luke seems to contradict that found in the other gospel accounts. One easy solution is to retreat to the ceremony which allegedly took place at the celebration of the Passover, and to point out that there were numerous “cups.” The solution which some ancient copyist(s) seem(s) to have taken is simply to exclude the last half of verse 19 and all of verse 20. No everything matches, nice and neat. I think there is a much simpler explanation—one which points to the “punch of the passage”—which can be seen by this simple arrangement of the verses in view:

The Celebration and Jesus

15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

The Celebration and the Church

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Luke’s account, more dramatically than the other two, emphasizes the fact that the “last supper” had two distinct meanings. The extra cup is no problem when viewed from the standpoint of Luke’s structure. Verses 15-18 refer to the significance of the Passover for the Lord Jesus. The reference to “eating” (the bread, presumably) and “drinking” is to its meaning for Him, as Israel’s messiah. The reason why He can say that He has eagerly desired to eat the Passover is revealed in verse 16: He will not eat it again until its fulfillment in the kingdom of God. So, too, for the cup. He will not drink the cup again until the kingdom of God is fulfilled.

Now this is a very important point, I believe. Normally, we tend to look at the Passover as being a prototype of the death of Christ on the cross. Jesus, in verses 14-18, looks beyond the cross, to the crown. The joy set before Him is the kingdom, and the suffering of the cross is the way this joy will be realized. Thus, Jesus focused on the joy of the fulfillment of the Passover and was encouraged and enabled to endure the cross because of it.

The eating of the first Passover did involve the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, but it was done so as to deliver the first-born sons of Israel from death. It was done as well as a preparatory step to the exodus, their release from Egypt by Pharaoh, their crossing of the Red Sea, and their entrance into the promised land. Thus, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb was not focused only on the preservation of the lives of the firstborn, but on the possession of the promised kingdom.91 In the same way, Jesus saw this Passover as prophetic, as anticipatory of the coming of the kingdom, and in this He could rejoice.

For the disciples (and, indeed, for the Jews) the Passover meal had a very different significance. For them it was the end of one order, and the entrance into another. It spelled the end of the Mosaic covenant, and the inauguration of the new covenant, that which the prophet Jeremiah prophesied (Jeremiah 31:31). That which God promised Abraham was to be realized and accomplished through the faithful obedience and sacrificial death of the Messiah, whose death inaugurated a new order, based upon the new covenant. The full meaning of the meal, and of our Lord’s death would only be grasped after His death and resurrection. It surely was not grasped at this moment by the disciples.

Warning to His Betrayer

They were quickly distracted by what Jesus said next. He told them that He was to be betrayed, and that His betrayer was at the table, one of them (verse 21). At a time when Jesus’ rejection, suffering, and death were imminent, here He is, reaching out one last time to Judas, warning him of the destiny which awaits him if he follows through with his plan to betray Him. Both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are underscored by Jesus’ words. The Son of Man was going, as it had been predetermined by God, and yet woe to that one who would do it. Judas was going to be held accountable for his actions (verse 22). How sad that Judas did not heed this warning.

How sad it was that one could be so close to the Savior, could have heard so much, and yet did not believe. How many people have thought themselves saints, when they were really wolves and not sheep, falsely religious, but not Christians (cf. Matthew 7:13-23). Judas was warned. He was even urged to turn from his course, but he did not. How tragic is this man.

While the disciples are different than Judas, they are not that different. The principle difference between Judas and the other eleven was that they believed, they were saved, and Judas was not. Judas did not lose something which he once possessed, for he never possessed it. But the disciples are so like Judas in that they are thinking mainly of themselves, and not of Jesus. They, too, are seeking their own self-interest. And so, the discussion among them as to who would betray Jesus quickly deteriorated into an argument as to who was the greatest. How typical—of them, and of us.

At the most “spiritual” times, in the most pious of surroundings and ceremonies, our sinful desires are still present. The significance of the Passover, and of the Lord’s supper has nothing to do with what we add to it, but only with what Christ Himself has done. In that alone we can rejoice. The amazing thing is that the disciples and even Judas, for all their sin, did not ruin this meal for the Savior. They did not ruin it because He observed it in the light of what God was doing, not in what men were doing. There is no benefit to rituals or ceremonies, my friend, there is only benefit in Christ. It is what he has done that gives any ritual significance. May we approach the Lord’s table as the Savior did, with great joy and anticipation, looking back, but also looking forward to that day when the kingdom of God shall come.

Notes:

89 Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. 495.

90 The assumption here is that Jesus had already made arrangements with the owner of the “upper room,” and this He may very well have done. Jesus did not say so, however. It is also possible, as in the case of the acquisition of the Lord’s transportation into Jerusalem (the donkey and its foal), that the man did not know in advance, by prior arrangement, but gladly let Jesus use the room. The question here is somewhat academic, and would only inform us as to how routine or miraculous this preparation was.

91 I am going to have to think about this more carefully, but let me throw out some points to ponder. As a rule, we tend to equate the Passover lamb with the atonement. It would seem more accurate to see the annual day of atonement in this light, and that sacrificial animal as typical of Christ and His death. The Passover lamb, however, was more anticipatory. It looked forward to the possession of the kingdom, and to the new age, the new covenant, which would make it possible. The Passover lamb did not die in the place of all the nation, but only to save the first-born.

Perspective, Personal Ambition, and Prophecy (Luke 22:24-38)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.” 35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Introduction

Fred Smith, a friend of mine, once said to me, “John Calvin would have made an excellent golfer.” He waited for a response. I bit, and he explained. “You see,” Fred quipped, “John Calvin taught that everything that comes naturally is the wrong thing to do. In golfing, you never do the thing that feels right.” I have played just enough golf to believe that Fred was right. Likewise, in skiing, when one seems to be losing control and gaining speed going down hill, the way to solve the problem is to lean forward. But the natural inclination is to lean back, gain speed, and lose the ability to steer the skis.

Calvin, if indeed he taught as Fred claims, was right too. How often the natural thing to do is the wrong thing, at least when it comes to the Christian life. In many, many, areas of life, if we asked ourselves how we would naturally handle a certain situation or accomplish a particular goal, and then do the opposite, we would be right, biblically speaking. Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the earth, that the mourners will rejoice, that one gains his life by losing it, and that one acquires wealth by giving it away. Jesus’ way of doing things is very often the opposite of the way we would think things should be done. For this reason Donald Kraybill entitled his book on this subject, The Upside-Down Kingdom. 92

Our text consists of three major sections. In verses 24-30, Luke gives an account of a dispute between the disciples as to who was regarded as the greatest, and Jesus’ words of correction and instruction. In verses 31-34, Jesus informed Peter of his three-fold denial, which was soon to occur; but He did so in such a way as to give Peter encouragement and hope after he failed. In the last paragraph, verses 35-38, we come to one of the most difficult texts in the gospels, one which has caused Bible students to scratch their heads.

Remember as we approach these three paragraphs that these are the last words of instruction Jesus gave to His disciples, at least as Luke’s account in concerned. These are very important words, indeed, words that had great meaning for the disciples, and words which contain important lessons for us as well. It is not just the disciples of days gone by who have a problem of sinful personal ambition and who reflect an ungodly and destructive spirit of competition. When we look at the Corinthian church, we find this problem of self-assertion and status-seeking was still one of the major hindrances to the unity and ministry of the New Testament church. In his epistle to the Philippians, Paul wrote that of all those whom he might have sent, those who were both saints and ministers (of a kind), he had only one man who was not self-seeking, and that man was Timothy. All the rest “seek after their own interests” (Philippians 2:21), Paul said. If we but look about the church today, we see that power struggles, ambition, and self-seeking are everywhere—everywhere. Jesus has the answer to this problem, and Luke has recorded the answer in our text. Let us listen well to our Lord, for His words are desperately needed today.

The Setting

Long before, Jesus had set His face toward Jerusalem, where He was to be rejected by the religious leaders and the nation, and where He would be crucified by Roman hands. Jesus has come to Jerusalem, where He made His entrance, to be received by many, but not by the leaders of the nation, and not really by most Jerusalemites. Jesus cleansed the temple, driving out the money-changers, arriving there early in the morning, and then leaving in the evening, to camp out (it would seem) on the Mount of Olives. The Jews sought to publicly challenge and embarrass Jesus, to challenge His authority, and to entrap Him in His words, but this plan failed miserably. They also sought to infiltrate His ranks, in order to obtain inside information which would enable them to arrest Him privately and to put Him to death out of the sight of the crowds, who still favored Him.

But it was through none of these efforts that their plans to destroy Jesus were realized. It was one of Jesus’ own followers who volunteered to turn Jesus over to them conveniently when the opportunity arose, for a price. The actual betrayal is coming quickly count, but not yet. Jesus has gathered with His disciples to observe the Passover meal. At the meal table, Jesus has much to teach the disciples, for this is His last opportunity to speak to them before He is separated from them by His arrest, trial, and crucifixion. It seems to be sometime during the meal that the dispute broke out among the disciples, a dispute which provides the occasion for further instruction and admonition by our Lord. This is the setting for our entire section of Scripture.

The Dispute  (9:24)

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which [one] of them was considered [regarded, NASB] to be greatest.

It is impossible to determine from Luke’s account whether the dispute arose before the washing of the disciples’ feet (John 13) or after. It would seem most likely that it arose before, perhaps in connection with the disciples’ eager rush to find the best seats at the table. Where one sat at a meal table in that part of the world indicated how important he was (cf. Luke 14:7-11; Matthew 23:6). It would seem that as the disciples entered the upper room where they were to partake of the Passover Lamb, they rushed past the basin where a slave would normally have washed the feet of the guests (and where no slave was present), in order to gain the best seats. Perhaps the disciples argued because those who thought themselves to be the greatest lost out in the race for the chief seats. Peter, who may have been the oldest, and thus a likely candidate for “first chair,” seems to have been more removed from Jesus than John who was reclining on Jesus’ breast and who also may have been the youngest (cf. John 13:23-25). If this were the case, then Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet was indeed a timely lesson. This act would certainly exemplify our Lord’s claim to be among them as “one who serves” (Luke 22:27).

But why the great concern about where one sat at the dinner table, about who was regarded as the greatest? I think the answer is quite simple: the disciples seemed to think that whoever was the greatest at the time the kingdom was inaugurated would also be the greatest in the kingdom. It is much like those who want to purchase tickets for the finest seats at the Super Bowl, tickets which are in very limited quantities and in great demand. They will go through great efforts and sacrifices to wait in line for hours to be at the head of the line when the ticket office opens.

When I lived in Washington State, one of my favorite sports events was the Gold Cup unlimited hydroplane races sometimes held on Lake Washington. These boats would be out on the lake some time before the starting gun went off. In fact, there was a one minute gun which was fired to serve notice that in exactly one minute, the starting gun was to be fired. While the boats would be in various places before the one minute gun went off, they would all congregate in the same general area, and then, with each driver carefully watching his speed, his position, and the one minute clock in the cockpit, the boats would all race down the lake, passing under the Lake Washington bridge at 160 miles per hour, hoping to cross the line first, a split second after the starting gun was fired.

Every driver knew his chances of winning the race were far better if he began the race in front of all the others. If he were not first, the driver would have to constantly fight the wake of the boat or boats ahead of him, rather than run on relatively smooth water. The boat would also be caught in the rooster tail of water shooting high into the air behind the lead boats. The rooster tail threatened to literally drown out the engine of the boat behind. To start first meant a good chance of staying in front all the way through the race. I believe this was the way the disciples felt about where they were seated at the Passover Celebration, as well as the way they felt about who among them was regarded as the greatest. It is my assumption that the disciples did not consider how Christ regarded them, but rather they debated as to their ratings with the masses. It was not the reality of who was the greatest which was the concern of the disciples, but only the perception of it. Their standing before men seems to be the issue.

Ironically, but not accidentally I think, Luke places his account of this dispute among the disciples concerning who was regarded as the greatest immediately after the verse in which we are told the disciples were discussing who it was among them who might be the betrayer of whom Jesus had just spoken. It is as though the disciples were more interested in their own greatness than in identifying who among them was the traitor. There is little time to look for traitors when one is disputing about his greatness.

I do not know just how “civil” or “subtle” this debate was. Among many, the struggle for position and power can be very polite, very orderly, and very underhanded. Here, I am inclined to see the disciples as more frank and not so subtle. Remember that James and John were known as the “sons of thunder.” These fellows were the kind who could have come to blows over such matters, at least before they met the Master.

We should not move on without also pointing out that this dispute over who was perceived to be the greatest did not erupt here for the first time. It seems to have been the cause for debate frequently among the 12. In Luke chapter 9 (verse 46), after the transfiguration of our Lord and the successful sending out of the 12, the disciples argued about who might be the greatest. Often, it would seem, the disciples’ discussion about their greatness came in the context of Jesus’ disclosure of His rejection, suffering, and death (cf. Mark 9:31-34).

Jesus’ Correction of  the Disciples’ Competitiveness  (22:25-30)

25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus began by contrasting what we might call “Christian greatness” with “Gentile greatness.” In verses 25 and 26, Jesus contrasted the conduct of “great Gentiles” with that of “great disciples.”93 The Gentile kings “use” their greatness; they let others know they have it; they flaunt it. Gentile kings do not simply lead; they dictate and dominate; they “lord it over” others. This dictatorial rule seems to be justified, in their minds at least, by their claim to be “Benefactors.” They had themselves called by the title, “a doer of good,” and thus their being a “public servant,” a doer of good for the people seems to have justified their abuse of power. We hear of men who justify the abuse of power by labor union leaders on the same premise. “I don’t care if there is corruption and graft in the leadership. They have done a lot of good for me.”

How different the disciple of Jesus must be. Jesus does not here argue against greatness. He accepts the fact that some men are great, greater than others. All are not equal. The issue here is not whether some saints should be greater than others, but rather how they use their greatness. Jesus said the first characteristic which should mark the great Christian is that they don’t use their position. While they may be the greatest, they are not to act like it, or to demand they be treated like it. They are to be like the youngest; they are to regard themselves and act like the one who has the least power. (Many of us know how “bossy” older brothers or sisters can get, and how they think they can tell younger siblings what to do.) They would thus speak gently, when they could get away with being harsh and severe. They will not seek to force others to serve them. Instead, they will be characterized by servanthood. They will use their position and their power as a platform of service. The benefits which they could claim for themselves they will pass along to others. In short, Jesus taught His disciples that they should manifest greatness in exactly the opposite way the Gentiles do. They should live in an “upside-down” kingdom.

If verses 25 and 26 contrast the conduct of the great Gentiles and great Christians, verses 27-30 tell us the reasons why this should be so. If verses 25 and 26 contrast the manifestations of greatness (between the disciples and the heathen), then verses 27-30 contain the motivation and the means of true greatness, that greatness which characterizes Christ, His disciples, and the nature of the kingdom of God.

The disciples were not to pattern their lives after the heathen, but rather after their Master. The greatest, Jesus pointed out, was the one who sat at the table—who was served—while the one who stood, the servant, was the lowest. There was no argument that Jesus was the greatest, and yet He told them He was the one who serves (verse 27). When Jesus told His disciples above that the greatest must be the servant of all, He was simply reminding them that they must be like Him. He was not asking them to do anything which He was not doing Himself. How can it be that the greatest—Jesus Christ—is the servant? That answer will be found in the last paragraph of our text.

It would appear Jesus is saying that His disciples are never to possess a position of greatness, power, or leadership, but this is not the case. Jesus says in verses 28-30 that His disciples are giving up position and power in this life because they are to obtain it in the next, in the kingdom of God. Jesus never commands men to give up life, money, family, and power for nothing. He calls upon His disciples to give up the temporary and imperfect riches of this life in order to lay them up for the next. These riches are temporary; they are subject to decay and theft. The true riches of heaven will never perish. So too with position and power. We are to give up “first place” and its prerogatives in order to be given a place of honor in His kingdom. In His kingdom, the disciples are promised that they will sit at the table—His table, and that they will be given thrones on which they will be seated, and from which they will rule.

The disciples’ preoccupation and debate over their own position, prestige, and power was inappropriate for several reasons. Those Jesus has mentioned thus far are: (1) this is the way the heathen behave; (2) it is the opposite of the way Jesus has manifested Himself, even though He is the greatest of all; and, (3) the preoccupation with greatness is untimely, for that which the disciples were seeking will not come in this life, but in the next.

It is neither the disciples’ accomplishments nor their own greatness which gain them a place of power in the kingdom, but it is the Lord who wins this for them. Their blessings and privileges in the kingdom are those which Christ Himself achieves, and then shares with His followers. The Messiah does not “ride on the shoulders of His disciples,” as they seemed to have thought, propelled by their greatness; rather they are carried to their blessings by Him.

Jesus’ Words of Prophecy to Peter  (22:31-34)

It seems to me that Peter was one of the main characters in this debate over the disciple’s perception of greatness. (I suspect James and John were also very much a part of this argument.) Jesus’ words to Peter then would be very directly related to His role in the debate over greatness. Jesus’ words must have smarted as the elder statesman of the group, who thought he was the greatest, heard from Jesus that he would not even survive the next few hours without denying His Lord, three times no less! If Peter felt he was considered the greatest, surely he must also have looked at himself as one of the most loyal, committed members of our Lord’s band. It must have been inconceivable for him to think of himself as such a weakling that he would deny his Lord when the going got tough.

The two-fold reference to Peter (the nickname Jesus gave him, meaning “the rock”) as Simon must have hurt, too. This was Peter’s “natural” name, the one which characterized him, to which he always answered, before he met the Master. It seems to suggest that Peter would be acting like his old self, and not as a disciple of the Lord when he denied Him. He would be acting in his own strength, and not that which the Lord gives.

It was not just that the “old Simon” was going to prevail in the next few hours and thus fail. Jesus informed Peter that Satan himself was involved in what was to take place.94 It amazes me that Satan had the audacity, the arrogance, to demand anything from the Lord. It further amazes me that Jesus did not forbid Satan to “sift” Peter (and the rest—the “you” here is plural = “to sift you all”). Why didn’t Jesus simply forbid Satan from attacking Peter and the others? The answer must be that Jesus intended to use Satan’s dirty tricks to serve His own purposes for the disciples’ good.

Peter’s failure was for his own benefit and for the benefit of all the disciples. While the Master would not prevent Satan’s attack, He would pray for Peter’s faith not to fail. Thus, while Peter was destined to fail, his faith would not. Jesus therefore predicted not only Peter’s failure but also his restoration. And when he had turned back, Jesus instructed, Peter was then to strengthen his brethren. Peter could not be used when he was too “great,” too self-confident, too self-seeking. But after he failed, after he experienced the grace of God, then Peter could lead men. It was not greatness Peter needed to experience, but grace, and this was soon to come.

Peter protested, insisting that Jesus’ words would never come true, and that he would remain faithful, even unto prison and death. There is a sense in which this was true, for it was Peter who drew his sword, seeking to prevent Jesus’ arrest, and cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant. But in the final analysis, Peter was calling our Lord a liar. Peter, as someone has pointed out, was willing to trust his own feelings of love and of self-confidence rather than to trust in these words of prophecy, words from none other than the Lord. Jesus therefore must once again reiterate the fact that Peter would deny Him, and not only once, but three times.

Jesus’ Puzzling Words  About Satchels and Swords  (22:35-38)

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

This passage is, without a doubt, one of the most problematic texts in the Gospel of Luke. The difficulties are obvious:

(1) When Jesus sent out the 12 (chapter 9) and the 72 (chapter 10), He appeared to give them guidelines and principles which would govern their future missionary journeys, even (perhaps especially) after His death, burial, and resurrection. Now, it would seem that He is throwing out all that He had told them.

(2) In the previous sending of the disciples, Jesus gave them assurance of His presence and protection (cf. 10:3, 18-19), but now it would almost seem as though Jesus were telling these men that they are on their own, and that they will have to handle their protection themselves.

(3) Later texts seem to indicate that Jesus did not want His disciples to do that which He seems to be commanding here. When Peter attempted to resist the arrest of Jesus by drawing his sword, Jesus rebuked him with words that clearly forbade the use of force (cf. Matthew 26:52). Neither the Book of Acts (which Luke wrote) nor any of the epistles reiterate or reinforce the practice which Jesus appears to have advocated here.

There is then no question that this is a difficult text, and that these words are hard to understand. But if we believe the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, then we must also assume there is a solution, one we are expected to find. As I approach this passage and the difficulties it presents, I do so with several assumptions, which I should spell out before we press on:

(1) The difficulties in this text (I normally refer to these as the “tensions of the text”) are by divine design. They are designed to catch and to hold our attention, to cause us to meditate and to pray, and to study the Scriptures carefully.

(2) This text cannot be understood in isolation, but only in the light of its immediate context, as well as the Bible as a whole (Old and New Testaments).

(3) Jesus has deliberately connected and contrasted (“But now,” v. 36) His instructions here with those laid down in Luke 9 and 10. The nature and the extent of this contrast is a crucial factor, which we must determine.

(4) Jesus’ words here may have long-range implications and applications for these men, but for the moment they must have a very immediate and practical application.

The disciples have a very immediate problem, and immediate dangers and temptations, concerning which they will be encouraged to pray (cf. Luke 22:46). Peter will soon reach for his sword for which he will be rebuked. In John 16, which depicts the same scene but supplies additional teaching, Jesus told His disciples He had much more to say to them, but they were not able to bear it at the moment (John 16:12-13). This seems to be a signal that what He was then telling them concerned the most immediate and urgent matters.

(5) The words of Jesus were not to be taken in a starkly literal way. In the same context in John’s gospel (at least at the same general time frame—at the table with His disciples in the upper room), Jesus said He was not then speaking literally to them (John 16:25). Jesus rebuked Peter for taking His words literally (Matthew 26:50-54).

(6) The key to understanding the meaning of Jesus’ words in Luke 22:35-37 is to be found in context in Isaiah 53:12, the passage Jesus cited as an explanation and basis for His puzzling words.

The Meaning of This Mysterious Text

If we are to understand the meaning of our Lord’s words, we must first consider the context. The setting was described by Luke in verse 24. The disciples were debating among one another which of them was considered to be the greatest. This debate is far from new. It has been going on for a great while. We find the disciples arguing over this matter in chapter 9 (v. 46), immediately after Jesus told them of His coming betrayal (9:43-45). I think the power which had been bestowed on them in their first missionary journey (9:1-6) had already begun to go to their heads. Not only do they argue about who was the greatest, but they wanted to destroy a Samaritan village by calling down fire from heaven (9:51-55).

In chapter 10, the 72 were sent out (10:1-16), and it is obvious from the response of the disciples on their return that they were greatly impressed with the power they had at their disposal (10:17). Jesus did not debate the authority they had been given, and even went on to describe it in terms beyond their own awareness (10:18-19). Nevertheless, the disciples had lost the proper perspective, and so Jesus gently admonished them with these words:

“Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20, NASB).

Not only were the disciples wrong in seeking greatness and in competing with one another to do so, but they were also wrong in seeking greatness as men perceive it. The text does not state this directly, but it likely implies it. The disciples, Luke informs us, were debating “as to which one of them was considered to be greatest” (Luke 22:24, emphasis mine). The question is, “Considered the greatest, by whom?” Surely not by the Lord, but rather by men. In judging their standing in terms of human approval, they became guilty of the same sin as that which characterized the Pharisees:

“You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15, NASB).

Even if one of the disciples was right, as was “number one” of Jesus’ followers, as his ratings went with the crowds this would still be worthy of a rebuke from the Lord, for they were playing to the wrong audience. Their hearts were not seeking God’s approval, but men’s.

The preoccupation with position and power was a long-standing problem with the disciples, and Jesus was addressing it here for the last time before His death. This, it seems to me, is the cause of Jesus’ enigmatic words to His disciples. Jesus pointed out that the Gentiles love to be perceived as the greatest, and they accomplish this by “lording it over” those under them, and they seek to become known as benefactors. The disciples’ behavior is to be the opposite. Even if they are great, they are to be behave as the youngest, and they are to use their power to serve others, rather than to demand that men serve them.

Peter must have perceived his greatness not only as a result of his age but also as a consequence of his faithfulness and commitment. Jesus graciously “let the air out of Peter’s tires” of self-confidence by informing him that in spite of his bold pronouncements of fidelity and loyalty, he would fail three times over, and in a very short time. The final paragraph in this section, verses 35-38, addresses this same evil—the disciples’ preoccupation with position, power, and prestige.

The key to the correct interpretation of Jesus’ words is to be found in the text to which He referred—Isaiah 53:12. Jesus explained His puzzling words to His disciples with this statement:

“It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37, NIV).

Interestingly, the NASB uses the term “criminals” instead of “transgressors” here. This may very well be influenced by these words, contained in Mark’s gospel:

And they crucified two robbers with Him, one on the right and one on the left. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And He was reckoned with transgressors” (Mark 15:27-28, NASB).95

One can easily understand how the term “criminal” could be chosen here. After all, did those who came to arrest Jesus and His followers not come out, armed to the teeth, something like a SWAT team? And did not Jesus point out that in so doing they were dealing with Him as a robber, a criminal (cf. Luke 22:52)?

The word in the original text which is found here is not the normal word we would have expected to be used of a criminal, although this meaning may be acceptable. The original (Hebrew) term employed in Isaiah 53:12 is one which refers to a “rebel,” one who defiantly sins against God. This may very well result in criminal acts, but the term “transgressor” is, I think, a better translation. Mark is, of course, correct. The fact that Jesus was crucified between two criminals did fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12, but it did so in a kind of symbolic way, so that it also left room for a broader, more sweeping fulfillment. Jesus was numbered (perhaps, as has been suggested, “allowed Himself to be numbered”) among transgressors, and the two thieves were surely that. But it could also be said that since Jesus was now dealt with as a criminal, His disciples were regarded in the same way. Jesus and His disciples were considered transgressors.

Jesus had, to some degree, set Himself up for this accusation. From the very beginning, the “higher class” religious leaders objected to the fact that Jesus associated Himself with very unsavory characters. Technically speaking, men like Matthew probably were criminals before they met the Master. Jesus said, after all, that He did come to seek and to save sinners. Surely criminals too are sinners.

Jesus here said that His instructions to His disciples were to assure that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 was fulfilled. What did this prophecy predict, and why was Jesus making such a point of drawing the disciples’ attention to it? I believe Isaiah 53:12 is the key to unlocking the meaning of Jesus’ words. Let us briefly consider the passage in which it is found. This passage, as you will recognize, is one of the greatest (and most beautiful) messianic texts in the Old Testament. The apostles and the epistles will point to it as one of the key messianic texts. And yet only here, in the gospels, do we find this prophecy identified as Messianic, and as being fulfilled by our Lord. It is a magnificent text.

52:13 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness— 15 so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 52:13–53:12).

If you were to ask one of the disciples upon what they had based their messianic hopes and aspirations, they would surely respond that their expectations were based upon the Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom of God and the Messiah. In reality though their expectations were based on only some of the prophecies, namely those which conformed to their own desires. They would have undoubtedly turned to those passages which spoke of Messiah’s coming in order to judge the wicked and to liberate Israel. The one text to which they would not have referred is the text above in Isaiah 52 and 53. There would be at least two reasons for this. First, this text was not recognized or viewed as messianic until after Christ’s coming. Second (and, to a large degree, the explanation for the first observation), this text did not speak of a triumphant King, but rather of a suffering Savior. It did not fit their expectations. This is precisely the text to which our Lord calls the disciples’ attention, a text which He speaks of as having to be fulfilled through Him and through His disciples as well. What was it about this text that did not appeal to the disciples (or anyone else), yet which Jesus saw as coming to fulfillment?

There is one thing about this prophecy which characterizes it as a whole, yet which I have never before noticed. The entire prophecy utilizes a kind of literary contrast. The Messiah will be the King of Israel, who will mete out judgment to sinners, and yet He will also be the Suffering Savior who dies for the sins of His people. He is innocent, yet He will bear the guilt of men. He is greatly esteemed by God and is elevated to the pinnacle of position and power, and yet He is regarded by men as a sinner (a criminal, if you would), whose rejection, suffering, and death is viewed as just. He who is God is viewed as justly condemned by God. He who bears the sins of men is viewed by men as bearing the guilt of His own sins. The Messiah is perceived by men in a way precisely opposite that of God. Men look down upon Him as worthy of God’s wrath, yet it is He who alone is worthy (righteous), but who bears the sins of men.

The application of this prophecy to the circumstances of our text in Luke’s gospel is incredible. Jesus was not only speaking of the necessity of His fulfillment of this prophecy (as Mark’s gospel informs us—of His being crucified between two criminals), but of the broader implications of the prophecy. Men would reject the Messiah because He would not conform to their expectations of Him and of His kingdom. While God would look upon Messiah as the sinless Son of God, men would view Him as a sinner, condemned by God. Men wanted a kingdom in which they would have riches, freedom, power, and pleasure. Messiah would bring, at least initially, rejection and suffering. And so men would reject Him.

The disciples were debating among themselves who was perceived to be the greatest. They were thinking in terms of a “scepter,” but Jesus spoke to them of a “sword.” The disciples were thinking in terms of a crown, but Jesus was headed for a cross. Jesus, in so doing, was fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Messiah and His kingdom, but the disciples were wholly missing the point of His coming. What the disciples did not understand was precisely what this messianic prophecy was saying, that the glorious kingdom of righteousness was to be brought about by a “king” who was rejected as a sinner. The crown, as it were, was to be preceded by a cross. Indeed, the cross was God’s means of gaining the crown. All of this was revealed through this prophecy of Isaiah. Yet the disciples failed to grasp it, because they were looking at matters through the eyes of their own ambition.

If God’s Messiah was to be regarded and even rejected as a criminal, this also meant that His disciples would be regarded as such. Were the disciples debating who would have the highest position, the most power, the greatest prestige? Then the disciples were wrong. They, by association with Christ, were to be regarded as criminals, not kings. They would thus need to think in terms of swords (not literal ones, however), not scepters. They must be ready to endure men’s rejection and persecution, not men’s honor and praise. In so identifying with Christ and suffering with Him, the disciples would eventually enter into the victories and joys of His future kingdom, as He had just told them (Luke 22:28-30).

In the broader context of Isaiah’s prophecy and of our Lord’s rejection, suffering, and death, I believe we can now better understand Jesus’ words to His disciples in our text. When Jesus contrasted the disciples’ future experience with that in the past (“But now,” verse 36), He is not overturning every principle and instruction given to the disciples earlier. By and large, the principles and instructions laid down in the sending of the 12 (chapter 9) and the 72 (chapter 10) were those given to govern the missionary outreach of the church as practiced after Pentecost and as described by Luke in his second volume, the Book of Acts.

The “But now” of our Lord in verse 36 is intended to focus the disciples’ attention on the change which was occurring in the minds of the people of Israel toward the Messiah. Jesus asked His disciples if they had lacked anything when they went out before. They responded that they had not lacked anything at all. But why didn’t they lack anything? Because they were popular, as was their message, and the “Messiah.” But now a more complete picture of Messiah is available, and the people do not like what they see, even as Isaiah predicted.

Incidentally, we have a foreshadowing of this sudden change of popularity in the gospel of Luke. At the very outset of our Lord’s public ministry, He went to the synagogue in Nazareth, and He introduced Himself as the fulfillment of a very popular messianic prophecy. At that moment, these people were very open to the possibility that this one might be the Messiah (Luke 4:16-22). But when Jesus went on to speak of His messianic ministry as including the blessing of the Gentiles, the people could not tolerate Him any longer, and they were intent on putting Him to death (Luke 5:23-30). How prophetic this early incident in the ministry of our Lord was, and how much in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah to which our Lord referred.

No, the disciples need not occupy themselves with thoughts of the kingdom which included popularity and position and power. They must prepare for the rejection and persecution which Messiah was prophesied to experience, in order to eventually enter into the blessed kingdom in time to come. The crown (12 thrones even, verse 30) would come, but not until the cross was borne. What a cause for sober reflection these words of Jesus should have brought to the disciples.

Were Jesus’ words intended to be taken literally? Certainly not. Jesus rebuked His disciples for seeking to use the sword to prevent His arrest. Nowhere in the Book of Acts or the epistles do we ever see the use of force advocated in proclaiming or defending our faith. The sword rightly belongs to the state (Romans 13:4). If we are to bear a sword in our fight, it is a spiritual sword, for it is a spiritual war (Ephesians 6:10-20). Jesus’ words in Luke 22 did draw attention to the contrast in the “climate” of this hour, with that atmosphere which prevailed at the time He sent out His disciples earlier, but even at that time Jesus had much to say about opposition and rejection. It was not that Jesus had not said anything about rejection, but just that the disciples had not experienced it, and neither were they disposed to think about it—until now. Jesus’ words here in Luke 22 then should not be viewed only in terms of contrast, but also for clarification—clarification of what had already been said but which had been overlooked because of the aspirations and ambitions of His disciples, fueled by their power and popularity, thus far, with the masses.

Conclusion

There are many points of application to these words of our Lord, addressed to His disciples so long ago. Let us consider just of few of the implications of these as we conclude.

First, we should expect rejection and persecution also, just as the disciples were instructed by our Lord. If you would, the disciples were suffering from a kind of “dispensational disorientation.” They were eager and willing to enter into the joys of the kingdom of God, when they should have been expecting and enduring the rejection of Christ, as prophesied by Isaiah. Why is it then that the gospel is still being proclaimed as the doorway to immediate popularity, prosperity, power and prestige? Because it is the way we would prefer things to be, rather than the way our Lord and the prophets have promised it would (and must be).

Second, we must, like the disciples, decide whether we are to view the world through the eyes of our own ambition, or through the lens of God’s revealed Word. The words of our Lord were intended to call the disciples to live in the light of what the prophets and He had been consistently predicting—the misunderstanding of, rejection of, and death of Messiah, in order to bear the sins of men and to bring about (ultimately) the kingdom of God. It would not then be by a sword, but by the shed blood of the Savior, that men would be saved. The disciples should not expect power, prosperity, and prestige, but rejection and persecution. Bottom line, the disciples must learn to live in the light of what God says, rather than in the light of what they want, or even what they, for the moment, see. God’s Word is to be our guide, not our own ambitions or desires. Faith is not based upon what we see, or even what we want to see, but on what God has said, even though that is not yet visible to the natural eye.

Third, God’s ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. The disciples were arguing about a crown while Jesus was speaking of a cross. The Messiah was rejected as a sinner by men, but received as the sinless Son of God by the Father. We must give up our lives to gain them, give up our wealth to gain true riches, serve others to be great. It is often true that man’s values are the reverse of God’s, and that His ways are incomprehensible to man. If we would think and act God’s way, we must do it in accordance with His word.

Fourth, we should not pray to avoid failure, but that our faith does not fail. So often our prayers seem to focus on the avoidance of failure, rather than on the endurance of our faith. Jesus promised Peter that he would fail, but that his faith would not. Failure taught Peter that it is grace that sustains us, not our own performance—as great as our affirmations of its magnitude might be. When we pray, either for ourselves or for others, let us pray that faith will endure and even be strengthened, not that we will not fail.

Fifth, if you would enter into the kingdom of God, you must see yourself as the sinner and Christ as the sinless Son of God. Isaiah’s prophecy indicated that men would regard the Messiah as a sinner. The assumption, borne out by the Scriptures, is that we see ourselves as righteous, and the Son of God as a sinner. If we would come to experience God’s salvation and enter into His kingdom, we must reverse our thinking—we must repent. We must see that it is we who are sinful and He that is sinless. We must see that it is we who were deserving of God’s wrath, and He who is worthy to reign over all the earth. On the cross He bore our sins, and He suffered God’s wrath for us. By trusting in His worth and His work, as personified and worked out through His Son, Jesus Christ, we can experience God’s forgiveness and salvation. In short, we must repent, and we must see things as they are, as God’s Word describes them.

Notes:

92 Donald B. Kraybill, The Upside-Down Kingdom (Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1978).

93 The question arises, in my mind at least, as to why Jesus did not speak to His disciples about the misuse of power by the Jewish leaders, in a way similar to what we find in Matthew 23. Gentile conduct, however, was readily recognized and accepted as heathen behavior, and that which was ungodly and unseemly. This was the “worst possible case” in the minds of a Jew, even though they may behave similarly.

94 How well Satan should know this matter of seeking position and power. This was the occasion for his fall, and He seeks to make it the basis for the fall of others. The temptation of our Lord, therefore, should come as no surprise, when we find Satan in two of the three temptations offering Jesus power and position. When men enter into the realm of power-seeking, they have set foot on Satan’s turf, and they are thus an easy prey for him. It is also interesting to note here that Jesus did not “bind” Satan, as some pray for, but rather that He prayed for Peter. It is not intervention, but intercession which Jesus employed.

95 The NASB also omits verse 28, supplying it in the margin, based on the fact that some of the earliest manuscripts omit it.

The Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-46)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

Matthew 26:36-46 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” 42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. 45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!

Luke 22:39-46 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. 45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

Mark 14:32-42 They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.” 35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” 37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” 39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Introduction

The six verses of our text underscore for us that the significance of a text cannot always be determined by its length. Sometimes, as we see here, we must discern the significance of the text by its weight or its density. Several indicators point to the crucial importance of our passage. First, the prominent activity of our passage is prayer. From a combined view of Gethsemane gained by a comparison of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we find that our Lord instructed the disciples to pray three times. They were to pray that they would not fall into temptation. Jesus prayed and persevered. The disciples did not, and they failed. Jesus spent what appears to be at least three agonizing hours in prayer. From what we have already seen in Luke, prayer often accompanied (or, better yet, preceded) very important events. Thus, Jesus was praying when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him at the outset of His public ministry (Luke 3:21). Jesus was in prayer when He was transfigured before the three disciples (Luke 9:29). Jesus is likewise in prayer here in the Garden of Gethsemane. Thus, past experience has taught us to look for something very important to take place in the very near future.

Second, this is our Lord’s final act, before He is arrested, tried, and put to death. So too these are His last words spoken to the disciples, His final instructions to them. A person’s last words are very often of great import, as these words of our Lord are to the disciples, and to us.

Third, there is an emotional intensity to what is described here. The disciples, Luke tells us, are overcome by sorrow, which is manifested by their drowsiness and slumber. Jesus is, according to Matthew and Mark, “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:38; Mark 14:34). Never before have we seen Jesus so emotionally distraught. He has faced a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee, totally composed and unruffled. He has faced demonic opposition, satanic temptation, and the grilling of Jerusalem’s religious leaders, with total composure. But here in the Garden, the disciples must have been greatly distressed by what (little) they saw. Here, Jesus cast Himself to the ground, agonizing in prayer. Something terrible was going to happen. Jesus knew it, and the disciples were beginning to comprehend it as well.

The Setting

The Passover supper has been eaten. Jesus has concluded His “upper room discourse,” as recorded in John’s gospel, including the high priestly prayer of Jesus for His disciples, in chapter 17. Jesus and the disciples have sung a hymn, they have left the upper room, and they have crossed the Kidron to the Mount of Olives, and specifically to the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke mentions only that the party went to the Mount of Olives, for his Gentile readers would not have known the precise location that some of the Jewish readers (of other gospels) would have recognized.

The cross now looms large on the horizon. Jesus will pray in the Garden, returning twice to His disciples, only to find them sleeping. He will urge them to pray that they enter not into temptation, and then He will return to His own agonizing prayer.96 In Luke’s account, Jesus was still speaking the words of verses 45 and 46 when Judas and the arresting party arrived (verse 47). The arrest of Jesus would lead to His trials, and then to His crucifixion. The cross was not only near in time, it was also heavy on the mind of the Savior.

The Text

One can quickly see that Luke’s account of the agony of our Lord in Gethsemane is considerably shorter than those of Matthew and Mark. Luke, for example, does not set the three disciples (Peter, James, and John) apart from the other eight, even though these three were taken by our Lord, to “watch” with Him at a closer distance. Neither does Luke focus on Peter, although in the other accounts, Jesus specifically urged Peter to watch and pray. While Matthew and Mark indicate three different times of prayer, with our Lord returning twice to awaken His disciples and urge them to pray, Luke refers to only two.

The unique contribution of Luke to the account of the Lord’s prayer in Gethsemane is to be found in verses 43 and 44. These verses have been omitted by a very few manuscripts, which has caused some to question their originality. It is my opinion that these verses are not only original, but that they are the unique contribution of Luke to the gospel narratives of the event. It is much easier to see how a copyist could have left them out than to comprehend how they could have been added. We will look carefully at these two verses and consider their unique contribution.

The Superhuman  Suffering of Jesus in Gethsemane

39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Jesus was pressing on to His own cross, even while in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke tells us that Jesus “went out as usual to the Mount of Olives” (verse 39). Furthermore, we are told that the Savior and the disciples “reached the place” (verse 40). This was all a part of the plan. While Jesus had deliberately been secretive about the location of the place where the Passover meal was to be celebrated, He was completely open and predictable about the place where He would be on that fateful night. He followed His custom, He acted according to a very predictable pattern. Judas would know exactly where to lead the arresting officers, at “the place,” the place where they had stayed every night. There is no elusiveness here, for it was Jesus’ time to be betrayed. He will be taken, but it is not by surprise. Everything is proceeding according to the plan, and according to our Lord’s predictions.

On reaching “the place” Jesus instructed His disciples to pray. There was a specific purpose, a particular object in mind, “that you will not fall into temptation” (verse 40). They were to pray that they would not succumb to temptation. Notice that Jesus did not conduct a prayer meeting, as we sometimes have. He left the disciples in one place, while He went off, by Himself, to another. Neither does Luke or any of the other writers tell us that Jesus prayed for His disciples, as He did in John 17. Furthermore, Jesus did not ask His disciples to pray for Him, as though He might succumb to temptation. It was the disciples who were in danger of failing, not Jesus. Nowhere in this text (or its parallels) do I see any reference to Jesus being in danger of forsaking His path to the cross. Neither the Lord Jesus nor the plan of salvation were in danger here. That had been settled in eternity past. Throughout the account of our Lord’s life in the gospel of Luke we have seen only a resolute purpose to do the Father’s will, to go to Jerusalem, to be rejected by men, and to die. That resolute spirit continues here.

Three times Jesus urged His disciples to “pray that they would not fall into temptation,” that is, that they would not succumb to it. To what temptation was our Lord referring? I believe that the temptation is specific, not general, and that it can be known from the context of our Lord’s words. What was it, in the context, that the disciples were in danger of doing, that would be considered succumbing to temptation? The temptation, as I see it, was based upon the disciples’ predisposition to view their circumstances in the light of their own ambition and desires, and their own distorted view of how and when the kingdom would come. Early on, Peter had attempted to rebuke the Lord for speaking of His own death (Matthew 16:21-23). This, however, is not recorded in Luke’s gospel. In the immediate context of Luke’s gospel we find the disciples debating among themselves as to who was perceived to be the greatest. We also find Peter boldly assuring Jesus of his faithfulness, even though Jesus has already told him he would fall. The danger is that the disciples would attempt to resist our Lord’s sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary, even as was the case when Peter drew the sword in an attempt to resist His arrest (Luke 22:49-51). In addition to this, there was to be the scattering of the disillusioned disciples when their Lord was arrested, and when their hopes of an immediate kingdom were dashed on the rocks of His rejection by the nation Israel. To put the matter briefly, the disciples were going to be tempted to resist the will of God for the Savior and for themselves, rather than to submit to it.

Having charged His disciples with their duty to pray for themselves, Jesus went off from them a ways—about a stone’s throw, Luke tells us—and began to pray Himself. Our Lord’s prayer, while it had three sessions, and it took up a fair amount of time, could be summed up in these words, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42).

For what is our Lord praying? What is He asking from the Father? Is Jesus, at the last moment, trying to escape from His commitment to go the cross? Is He seeking to change the Father’s mind? Does the fate of all mankind hang in the balance here? Was there a very real danger that Jesus might change His mind?

Let me point out first of all that it was not Jesus who was in danger of changing His mind. Jesus was seeking to learn from the Father what His will was. Jesus was, all along, committed to do the Father’s will. From a purely hypothetical viewpoint, Jesus could have told the Father He had changed His mind, and that He was not going to the cross. Jesus has not changed His mind about obeying the Father; He is asking the Father if He has changed His mind, as it were. Our Lord’s submission to the Father’s will is never a matter that is in question. If there is any question, it is what the Father’s will is. In one way, Jesus is simply seeking one last “reading” as it were as to what the Father’s will was. And even at this, there was never really any doubt.

Second, Jesus was probing the matter of the cross with His Father to see if there was any other way to achieve the salvation of men. Jesus is asking the Father whether or not there is any other way for the sins of men to be forgiven. The answer is obvious, for the purpose and plan of God stands, and is faithfully pursued by the Lord Jesus.

Let me pause for a moment to underscore this very important point: THERE WAS NOT OTHER WAY FOR MEN TO BE SAVED THAN THROUGH THE INNOCENT AND SUBSTITUTIONARY SUFFERING OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Jesus had said it before. He was the way, the truth, and the life. No man could come to the Father, except through Him, except through faith in His death on Calvary, in the sinner’s place. How often we hear men speak of the cross of Calvary as a way, one option among many as to how men can attain eternal life. Let me say that if there were any other way Jesus would not have gone to the cross, and the Father would not have sent Him. The prayer of our Lord in the garden underscores the truth of the New Testament that there is but one way, and that way is the shed blood of the sinless Savior, shed for sinners.

Third, we should note from our Lord’s prayer in the garden that He greatly dreaded “the cup” and that it was this “cup” that Jesus was asking be removed, if possible. Why is “the cup” such a dreaded thing? What is “the cup” to which Jesus the Lord Jesus is referring? The answer is crystal clear in the Bible. Let us consider just a few of the passages that speak of this “cup” which our Lord dreaded so greatly, and we shall see that His dread was fully justified.

The “Cup” of God’s Wrath

For not from the east, nor from the west, Nor from the desert comes exaltation; But God is the Judge; He puts down one, and exalts another. For a cup is in the hand of the LORD, and the wine foams; It is well mixed, and He pours out of this; Surely all the wicked of the earth must drain and drink down its dregs. But as for me, I will declare it forever, I will sing praised to the God of Jacob. And all the horns of the wicked He will cut off, But the horns of the righteous will be lifted up (Psalm 75:6-10, NASB).

Rouse yourself! Rouse yourself! Arise, O Jerusalem, You who have drunk from the LORD’s hand the cup of His anger; The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs (Isaiah 51:17, NASB).

Then I took the cup from the LORD’s hand, and made all the nations drink, to whom the LORD sent me: Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, and its kings and its princes, to make them a ruin, a horror, a hissing, and a curse, as it is this day; Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his princes, and all his people; and all the foreign people, … (Jeremiah 25:15-20a).

And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If any one worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name” (Revelation 14:9-11).

What, then, is the “cup” which our Lord dreaded? It is the cup of God’s wrath, poured out on sinners. It is the cup which will be poured out in those who are unrighteous, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. It is the “cup” which was foretold in the Old Testament, and which is still prophesied in the Book of Revelation. It is the cup of the wrath of God, beginning with the Great Tribulation, and enduring throughout all eternity. The cup 97 which our Lord dreaded drinking was the wrath of God, manifested in eternal torment.

No wonder our Lord was “sorrowful and troubled” (Matthew 26:37), and His soul was “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:38). Jesus’ agony was due to the cross which loomed before Him. He was not in agony because He would be forsaken by men, but that He would be forsaken and smitten by God. Jesus was dreading, suffering in the anticipation of His bearing of the sins of the world and the wrath of God which they deserved.

This text tells us that because Jesus bore the wrath of God (the “cup,” as it were) in the sinner’s place, it is not necessary for men to drink this cup as well. Salvation comes when a person comes to faith in Christ as the One who was innocent, and yet died in their place, bearing the wrath of God which their sins deserved. Those who reject Christ and His atoning sacrifice must bear the wrath of God, which will be poured out on unbelievers in the future. It is this wrath to which the Book of Revelation refers (see text above).

There are many disagreements among evangelicals as to when and how the Lord’s return will come, but one thing seems certain to me, based on our text: No Christian will go through the Tribulation, the future outpouring of God’s wrath upon an unbelieving world. All who are godly will suffer “tribulation” (small “t”), which is the wrath of unbelieving men toward God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:12), but the Great Tribulation (big “T”)—the outpouring of divine wrath on sinful men—will only come upon the unbelieving. The Great Tribulation is a horrifying repeat of the agony of Calvary, which men must endure because of their rejection of the Savior, and it will only come upon unbelievers.

A Problem Passage

43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

Verses 43 and 44 pose a problem for some. First, these verses are not found in a very few of the “older” manuscripts. Since “older” is not necessarily “better,” and since only a few manuscripts omit these verses, I find it easy to assume that the verses are original. The very fact that these verses are difficult to understand and that they are not found in the parallel accounts is strong evidence for their originality, in my opinion.

Assuming that the verses are genuine, the problem of interpreting them remains. The two verses might, at first look, seem to be in reversed order. One would tend to think that Jesus should have been strengthened by an angel from heaven at the end of his time of prayer in the garden, not somewhere in the middle. One must also wonder how it is that an angel could strengthen Jesus at all. How could an angel “strengthen” the Son of God? If this is not a problem in your mind, imagine that it was you who was dispatched from heaven to go to the earth and strengthen the Son of God. What would you have done? What would you have said or done?

Fortunately for us, the term “strengthened” is found one more time in the New Testament, in Acts 9:19, where Paul was said to be “strengthened” after taking some food, after his three day fast (which commenced by the appearance of the Lord to him on the road to Damascus). Here, it is evident that Paul’s strengthening was physical in nature. It would seem that our Lord’s strengthening by means of an angelic ministry at the end of His temptation was also primarily physical (cf. Matthew 4:11).

But why would Jesus have needed physical strengthening here? Matthew and Mark both tell us that our Lord was sorrowful to the point of death. I take this very literally, and not in some metaphorical sense. Luke, a doctor you will recall, tells us that sorrow was the cause of the disciples’ drowsiness (22:45). If these disciples were sleepy from their sorrow, with as little knowledge of the situation as they had, how do you think the sorrow of our Lord must have affected Him. Luke does not leave us to our imaginations here. He tells us that Jesus’ agony was so great that “his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground” (22:44).

I believe that our Lord’s sorrow was so great that He was virtually at the point of death. I believe that apart from supernatural sustenance (brought by the angel from heaven) Jesus would not have died on the cross, He would have died in the Garden of Gethsemane. So great was His agony at the thought of the cross and all that it implied, our Lord was sorrowful to the point of death. The physical strengthening was, no doubt, intended to carry our Lord on through all of the physical and emotional demands of His arrest, trials, and crucifixion, but it was also given to Him to sustain Him through His night of prayer. Thus, after He was strengthened, Jesus returned to His prayer in the garden, praying, as Luke tells us, even “more earnestly” (22:44).

The suffering of our Lord was not merely Him, in his humanity, struggling with the ugly realities of the cross. It was a supernatural suffering, the unique, unparalleled, suffering of the sinless God-man, who alone could fathom the depths of God’s righteousness, man’s sin, and the measure of divine wrath which these required. Jesus was supernaturally strengthened because He supernaturally suffered. We do Him a great injustice to liken Him to us, and His sufferings to what ours would have been in such a setting.

An Explanation and a Rebuke  (22:45-46)

45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

The last two verses conclude the section on the Garden of Gethsemane and lead us right to the point of our Lord’s arrest. In verse 47, Luke will go on to tell us that it was as Jesus was saying these words (of verses 45-46) that Judas and the arresting party arrived on the scene. In a general description of the disciples as a whole, Luke informs us that when Jesus returned to the place where His disciples were to be “watching and praying” He found them asleep. Luke alone tells us that their sleep was induced by sorrow. This was not merely physical fatigue, or the lateness of the hour, nor apathy. The disciples, I believe (cf. “The spirit is willing, but the body is weak,” Mark 14:38) wanted desperately to stay awake and to “keep watch” with Him, but could not. Their sorrow, perhaps somewhat vaguely understood or recognized by them, was too much for them.

The human weakness of the disciples did not totally excuse the disciples, however, and thus the final rebuke of the Savior in verse 46. They were urged, one final time, to awaken, to arise, and to pray, so that they would not fall into temptation. There was no more time, however, for Judas had now arrived, along with a group that was heavily armed, coming on Jesus as though He were a dangerous criminal, a robber, perhaps.

Conclusion

This passage may be short, but it is weighty indeed. I find myself emotionally worn down just in the reading of it. Let us consider some of the implications and applications of our text as we conclude.

First, the suffering of Jesus was not only his humanity struggling with the physical agonies of the cross, but Jesus’ deity and humanity inseparably coming to grips with the awesome agony of Calvary. It is not Jesus’ humanity which dominates this text, but the disciples’ humanity. It is His deity and humanity, dying for man, that is in focus. It is supernatural suffering that is in view here.

Second, the measure of Christ’s agony in Gethsemane is the measure of man’s sinfulness and of its disastrous and painful consequences. We read the words, “the wages of sin is death,” but these words take on a vastly deeper and more personal meaning in the light of Gethsemane.

Third, the measure of Christ’s agony in Gethsemane is the measure of the suffering which Christ endured in bearing the wrath of God toward sinners at Calvary. 98 The immensity of Christ’s agony in the Garden of Gethsemane is in direct proportion to the agony which unsaved men and women will face in hell, when they drink of the “cup” of God’s wrath. The doctrine of propitiation focuses on this area, stressing the fact that Jesus bore the wrath of God on the cross, satisfying His righteous anger, so that men might have peace with God.

Fourth, the measure of Christ’s agony at Gethsemane is the measure of the love of God for sinners, which caused Him to die that we might live. The songwriter put it well when he wrote, “What wondrous love is this … ?” It is, indeed, amazing love which caused the Son of God to voluntarily pursue the path of pain which led to the cross. If you are troubled by the thought of an angry God and of hell, do not forget that this same God bore His own wrath for sinners. Those who will suffer the torment of hell will do so only because they have chosen to reject the love of God which brought about salvation on the cross for all who would receive it.

Fifth, this text makes it clear that what Jesus did for the salvation of men, He did alone. The disciples did not understand what Jesus was doing. They tried to resist it when it began to take place, by drawing the sword. They did not watch and pray with the Savior. They did not bear Him up in His hour of grief. Jesus suffered and died alone, unaided by men, even the closest of His followers. What Christ did, He did in spite of men, not because of them.

Sixth, the suffering of our Lord is the test, the standard, for all suffering. Let those who think they have suffered for God place their suffering alongside His, as described here. The writer to the Hebrews reminded his readers that they had not yet suffered to the shedding of blood (Hebrews 12:4). But whose suffering will ever begin to approximate His? The best that we can do in our suffering is to gain some sense of fellowship with Christ and His suffering, some minutely small sense of what He underwent for us (cf. Philippians 3:10). His suffering should surely silence our complaints of giving up much for Him.

Finally, we are reminded of the tremendous power of prayer. Prayer, in this text, did not deliver our Lord from suffering, but it did deliver Him through it. So often we pray that God might get us out of adversity, rather than through it. Prayer is one of God’s primary provisions for our endurance and perseverance. His words to His disciples apply to us as well: “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.”

Notes:

96 It would seem from Matthew’s account that there was some progress in the prayer(s) of our Lord in the Garden. In His first prayer, Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (26:39). In the second prayer Jesus said, “My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Thy will be done” (26:42). The prayer of our Lord thus changed from “If it is possible… ” to “If it is not possible…”

97 Much less frequently, the Bible speaks of another cup—the cup of salvation or of rejoicing (cf. Psalm 16:5; 23:5; 116:13; cf. Jeremiah 16:7). I think that the disciples had the two “cups” confused. Thus, when James and John sought permission to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in the kingdom, and Jesus asked them if they were able to drink the “cup” that He would drink (Matthew 20:20-23), they were thinking of the “cup” of salvation, of rejoicing, not of His suffering on the cross, when they quickly responded, “We are able.”

98 It is my understanding that our Lord endured suffering all of His earthly life. He endured suffering in His identification with sinful men, and in having to “put up with” us (cf. Luke 9:41). He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane, and perhaps other times as well, in anticipation of the wrath of God which He would bear (cf. Hebrews 5:7-10). And finally He suffered the ultimate agony of the cross of Calvary.

The Rejection of Israel's Messiah - Part I (Luke 22:47-71)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

The Arrest

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” 49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”

Peter’s Denial

54 Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. 55 But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. 56 A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” 57 But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. 58 A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied. 59 About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” 62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Mocked and Abused

63 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him.

Condemned by the Sanhedrin

66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

Introduction

The arresting party made its way to the place where Judas had assured them Jesus could be found. I have to wonder if some of those who made up this party had “butterflies” in their stomachs. This time, could they pull it off? Could they actually succeed in arresting Jesus? You see, it was the first time something like this had been attempted. One such abortive attempt, which occurred in Jerusalem, was recorded by John in his gospel. It was the during the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), and Jesus went up to Jerusalem somewhat secretly (v. 10). There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the person of Jesus as the time, but people were fearful to talk about Him because of the Jews (vv. 10-13). Jesus then went to the Temple and began to teach. The subject of Jesus’ death—that is, of those who wanted to put Him to death—was on the lips of many, including our Lord (v. 19). The Jews were seeking to arrest Jesus, and then to put Him to death. This brings us to the events surrounding the failed arrest attempt of the Jews:

30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come … 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him … 37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. 40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “He is the Christ.” Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him. 45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?” 46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards declared. 47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.” 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 “Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?” 52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.” 53 Then each went to his own home (John 7:30, 32, 37-53).

It is, in some respects, a humorous account. The Jewish religious leaders are angry that Jesus has come to Jerusalem and to the Temple and almost taken over. His teaching and presence has created a sense of expectation, and even a certain amount of tension. They purpose to do away with Jesus, and yet, as John tells us, it was not His time (v. 30). An arresting party was sent out by the Jewish leadership to bring Jesus in. They planed to arrest Him, accuse Him and to put Him to death.

The arresting officers—the temple guards—that had been dispatched to arrest Jesus came back, empty handed. They must have shuffled their feet a great deal when the religious leaders began to fume at their “failure.” Jesus had not eluded them, by some clever escape route or method. They simply could not find it in themselves to arrest Him. To put the matter briefly, they were so impressed with the person of Christ, they could not find it in themselves to do as they had been commanded. Jesus had more authority than the religious leaders. Wow! Were the leaders ever angry when they heard this explanation from the soldiers. The haughty snobbery of these leaders didn’t convince the soldiers either. Did the masses believe in Jesus, though their leaders did not? Maybe the leaders needed to go and hear Jesus for themselves.

The religious leaders were not able to press the matter any further, because it quickly became apparent that they did not hold a unanimous view among themselves. When they met as a council, Nicodemus called his fellow-leaders to account by reminding them that they were condemning Jesus without having heard Him. They brushed aside his rebuke by reminding him that no prophet comes from Galilee (v. 52). 99

And so I say, the arresting party which came to lead Jesus away from the Garden of Gethsemane was not the first? Would they succeed? And if so, why? Was it because they were right, because they had truth on their side, because they had so ordered and arranged things that it couldn’t be avoided? Or was it because it was Jesus’ time now and He allowed them to get away with it, in spite of their own blindness and blundering.

Obviously, my view is that it is the latter of these two options. I see the account of the arrest and trials of our Lord as a pathetic, almost humorous, bungling effort, which succeeded only because God purposed for it to succeed, in spite of the failings and wicked motives of men, because it was through these events that the salvation of men would be accomplished by the Savior.

The Structure of our Text

I have chosen to deal with the “religious” side of our Lord’s rejection and condemnation, which thus focuses on verses 47-71 of Luke chapter 22. In chapter 23, we come to the more secular side of the story, where Jesus is brought before Pilate and Herod. The major events of our text are as follows:

(1) The betrayal and arrest of Jesus—(vv. 47-53)

(2) The denial of Jesus by Peter—(vv. 54-62)

(3) The soldiers’ abuse of Jesus—(vv. 63-65)

(4) The condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin—(vv. 66-71)

Luke’s Account and the Rest of the Gospels

Descriptions of the events surrounding the arrest, trials, and crucifixion of the Savior are found in each of the four Gospels. Luke’s account of the betrayal, arrest, denial, and condemnation of Jesus is the most concise. I believe that this is because Luke is aware that other accounts of these events exist, some with much more detail (as John contains, for example). The things which Luke does report are those which he has selected because they contribute to the theme or message which he is trying to convey here. As we look at Luke’s text, I will, from time to time, fill in some details supplied by other Gospel writers.

It should be understood that we cannot piece together all of the details supplied by all of the Gospels and come up with one “complete” story. There are some aspects of the Lord’s arrest, trials, and execution which none of the Gospel accounts chose to record. On the other hand, those details which are supplied may, at times seem to contradict. This is due to our limitations, however, and not to the “failings” of any of the inspired writers, whose words have been divinely directed by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). 100

The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus  (22:47-53)

At the meal table that evening, while they were celebrating Passover, Jesus had once again told His disciples that He was to be betrayed (22:21-22). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told His disciples that the betrayer was at hand. Rather than Judas and the arresting party coming upon Jesus and His disciples, still at prayer, Jesus aroused His disciples and went forth to meet them (Matthew 26:46; Mark 14:42). Jesus was not “caught off guard” by their appearance, for He knew all that was going to happen to Him (John 18:4), but they were “shaken” by His response. They obviously expected something very different.

They came in large numbers, with a large number of Roman soldiers (John 18:3), who were heavily armed. They even came with torches, as though they would have to search for Him in hiding. They expected a fight. Jesus did not resist, and He rebuke His disciples for trying to resist. Jesus did not hide from them; indeed, He went to them (cf. John 18:4-8). They found Jesus totally unshaken, totally in control. It was these arresting officers who were shaken up. John’s account informs us that they actually drew back and tripped over themselves when Jesus identified Himself to them (John 18:6). 101

Luke does not go into detail concerning the arrest of Jesus, as do some of the other Gospels. Instead, he sticks to a very basic account of the approach of Judas, of the arresting party, and of the attempted resistance of Jesus’ disciples, one of whom (John tells us it was Peter, John 18:10) struck the servant of the high priest (John, again, tells us his name was Malchus, 18:10), severing his right (thanks to Luke’s report) ear.

The focus of Luke’s account is not on what was done to Jesus, but on what was said and done by Jesus. In the final analysis, Jesus rebuked three times and He healed once. In response to Judas’ approach to kiss the Savior, Jesus rebuked him with the words, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” These were serious words to ponder. Words that would haunt him until his death. Words which will likely haunt him throughout all eternity. In response to His disciples’ attempt to resist His arrest, Jesus rebuked His disciples, healing the severed ear of the high priest’s servant at the same time.

Before we can fully grasp the significance of what Jesus said and did here, I think we must pause to reflect a moment on the explosive atmosphere of the moment, and the very real dangers that existed. This incident, which ended up being amazingly peaceful, was not expected to go down that way. The arresting party that came was a large one, a crowd, in fact. They were heavily armed, and they even had torches. If this were to have happened in our day and time, this would have been a swat team, accompanied by the national guard. There would have been helicopters hovering overhead, with searchlights fanning the area, seeking to illuminate the “criminal band,” which they feared might be in hiding in the trees. The soldiers would be armed with automatic weapons. You would have been able to hear the safety latches clicking off on each of them as they approached the place where Jesus was praying.

Now let’s suppose that Peter was not carrying a sword, but a 357 magnum automatic pistol. What do you think would happen if one of those whom you were seeking to arrest began to open fire? I can tell you, with a reasonable measure of confidence. Guns would have been blazing. The casualties would have been great. Peter’s drawing of his sword was the most volatile thing he could have done, which, apart from our Lord’s intervention, would have been devastating to the cause of our Lord. Granted, Peter thought he was helping, but he greatly endangered the eternal plan (from a human point of view).

Apart from the quick action of our Lord, I believe that a blood bath would have occurred. Jesus first took charge of the situation with the words, “No more of this!” This expression has been taken in a number of ways, but I think that Jesus is calling a truce. Both the disciples and the arresting officials heeded the Master’s command. He surely was in charge here, and fortunately so. Jesus healed the ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest. In the other accounts, Jesus told His disciples that to resist His arrest would have been to resist the eternal purpose of God, which was for the Messiah to die as a sin-bearer. He also reminded them that if He wished to defend Himself, He could have called 12 legions of angels to His side (Matthew 26:53). But the Scriptures must be fulfilled (Matthew 26:54).

Had Peter swung his sword on a Roman soldier, things could have been different, at least for him, for this would have been assaulting an officer (at least in our terminology). Why wasn’t Peter arrested for assault? Well, it surely would have proven somewhat embarrassing for this servant to attempt to prove to a judge that he was, indeed, assaulted by Peter? If his ear were perfectly restored, who would ever believe someone cut it off, and another put it back on him?

I think, however, that there is something even greater here. I believe that the diffusing of this explosive situation, even after Peter had swung his sword, was the direct result of the power and authority which Jesus possessed here. Jesus id portrayed by the Gospels here not only as a person of great composure and dignity, but also as a man of great personal power. When Jesus spoke, men did listen. Just as the power of our Lord caused the soldiers to draw back from Him and to fall on the ground (John 18:6), so His dignity and power here caused the soldiers to “cease fire” at the command of our Lord. Jesus was in charge here, so that when He said, “Enough of this!” everyone stopped dead in their tracks. Jesus’ power was so great that no one even thought about taking Peter into custody, even though he had just assaulted a man with a deadly weapon. Its really amazing when you think of it, isn’t it?

In the first place, then, Jesus rebuked His betrayer, Judas, for betraying Him with a kiss. In the second place, Jesus ordered a “cease fire” and was obeyed, by both His own disciples and by the crowd of armed men who had come to arrest Him. Third, Jesus healed the servant’s ear, so that all damages were corrected.

Finally, Jesus rebuked the religious leaders for the way in which they dealt with Him. In verses 52-54, Jesus spoke to the chief priests, the temple guard, and the elders of the Jews, rebuking them for dealing with Him underhandedly and inappropriately, as though He were a criminal, rather than a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. Every day He had been in the Temple. His teaching was in the open and subject to public scrutiny. He had not hidden out, but had taught publicly. Yet they chose not to deal with Him openly, but to secretly capture Him late at night, in the cloak of darkness and deceitfulness (the kiss of Judas, for example). They should be admonished for the way they were dealing with Jesus. The reason that they are able to carry out their plans, wicked though they may be, is that this is, in God’s eternal purpose and plan, “their hour.” It is also the hour when “darkness reigns.” This does not mean, however, that they are somehow frustrating the purposes of God. They are fulfilling them, for God is able to use those things men mean for evil to achieve His good purposes (cf. Genesis 50:20).In Jesus’ rebuke we see that He is, even now, in charge.

Peter’s Denial  (22:54-62)

Before we attempt to show what Luke wants us to learn from this account of Peter’s denial of the Lord, let me make a few comments about what we are not told here. I admit, this is one of my “hot” buttons, and I need to let off a little steam before we proceed.

Nowhere in this account do I see either fear or cowardice as being the reason for Peter’s denials, at least so far as the Gospel writers’ words would indicate. We project the response we would have had into the account and thus conclude that Peter was acting as we would. I hear preachers speak of Peter, “warming his hands at the enemy’s fire,” using this as an illustration of the danger of worldliness or wrong associations. I think we have missed the point. If Peter was denying His Lord out of fear, then how do we explain the following facts?

Peter is not portrayed as a fearful man. Peter was certainly willing to stick his neck out when other disciples held back. It was Peter who walked on the water (so he sank), while the rest watched from the safety of the boat. It was Peter who not only promised to stay with His Lord, even unto death, but was the first and only one to draw his sword and use it. In the Garden, Peter was willing to die for His Master. And think of the odds—one man, one sword (two, at best, if someone else had the guts to use it, cf. Luke 22:38), against an entire crowd, armed to the teeth. That doesn’t look like fear to me. From Mark’s account, I believe that the soldiers had every intention of arresting Jesus and all of His followers. The young man in Mark’s account got away only by leaving his clothing behind (Mark 14:50-52). According to John’s account, if the soldiers had not been so overwhelmed by the presence of Jesus, the disciples would not have been dismissed, but this miracle occurred in order to fulfill prophecy (John 18:4-9). 102 If the soldiers intended to arrest all of the disciples, then surely they would have wanted Peter the most, for he was the only one, to have drawn his sword and used it.

There was no more dangerous place for Peter to have been than in that courtyard, where the soldiers must have stood by, and where Peter could not only be identified as a disciple of Jesus, but also could be detained. And if Peter were lying, out of fear for his life, all he had to do to “save his own skin” was to leave. The amazing thing is that Peter stayed there in that courtyard, even after he had been spotted, and even after he knew that this young servant girl was not going to give up in getting him arrested. One more thing. The text seems to make it clear that Peter did not realize that he was denying his Master, as Jesus had said he would, until after the third denial. If Peter were acting out of fear, you would have thought that he would have realized what he was doing, and that he would have felt guilty each time he denied the Savior, rather than only after the third time. Had he been aware of what he was doing, I think he would have fled, weeping bitterly, after his first denial.

I do not know why Peter denied His Lord. And none of the Gospels tell us. I should probably stop right here. I admit it. But I will nevertheless press on to say that it could have been out of anger that Peter acted. Peter had been frustrated all along that Jesus had it in His mind to die. Peter tried to talk Him out of it. Jesus could have called down fire from heaven, or 12 legions of angels, but He did not. Jesus’ arrest, Peter knew, was Jesus’ will. Knowing this, and having your own hopes of quick power and glory and prestige dashed, could have made Peter angry at the Lord. Have we not heart someone say to us, “I don’t know you” when they are angry at us?

And then again, it could have been out of misdirected loyalty that Peter denied His Lord. In Peter’s mind, his lies may have been a kind of necessary evil, justified by the good end they were aimed to accomplish. And what would this “good end” be? The release of Jesus. Peter may have staying in that courtyard, not only to find out how things where going, but with the intention of “breaking Jesus out of jail.” Does this sound fantastic? Well so does drawing a sword against a mob. If this were the case, Peter would be warming himself by the fire to learn the whereabouts of Jesus and the plans which the religious leaders had for transporting Jesus elsewhere, as they would.

So much for speculation. My point is that we need to be careful not to accuse Peter of doing as we might, when he was acting for other reasons, reasons which he may have considered commendable, at the moment. Now, back to the story.

Luke’s account of Peter’s denial gives us no explanation for Peter’s presence there in the courtyard of the high priest’s house. Neither does he give us the reason why Peter denied his Lord, when confronted with the fact that he was one of His disciples. Luke simply gives us a straightforward account of Peter’s three denials. Luke’s conclusion to this account is, I believe, the key to why it is included. In verses 60-62, Luke tells us that immediately after Peter’s last denial, Jesus was somehow able to look Peter straight in the eye, at the very time that the cock crowed. It was only then that it struck him, full force, that he had done exactly as Jesus had said earlier that night (cf. Luke 22:31-34). It was then that he went out and wept bitterly.

Jesus is under arrest. He is being interrogated, and even abused. It would seem, at this point, that things are out of His hands. But they are not. Even at this point in time, Jesus is fully in control. After Peter has denied his Lord three times, Jesus is able to “give Peter the eye,” right at the time the cock crowed. Jesus was able to communicate to Peter that those things He had foretold earlier in the evening had taken place, even though this was the “hour when darkness reigned.” Prophecy will be fulfilled. Jesus’ words were prophecy, and they were fulfilled precisely at the time and in the way Jesus said they would be. Once again, we see that Jesus Christ is in control, even when life seems to be unraveling at the seems, at least for Peter.103

Mocked and Abused  (22:63-65)

63 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him.

Both Matthew and Mark record mockings and abuses of our Lord after the Lord’s “trail” before the Sanhedrin. Luke tells us of mockings which occurred before this trail. It is my opinion that the abuse of the Savior by His “guards” occurred all through His trials, up to the time of His death.

But why this very brief account? For the same reason, I believe. Luke is once again informing us that it is Jesus who is “in control.” Think about it for a moment. Law enforcement officials are trained to keep their emotions under control. The ideal policeman remains calm in the execution of his duties. He is not supposed to be goaded by the prisoner, or by the crowd. But look at these men! They have utterly lost control of themselves. And notice that they are not abusing Jesus as though He were a hardened criminal, a violent man who has caused others to suffer, and so He deserves to suffer as well. They are mocking Jesus as a prophet. They want Him to give them some kind of magical display of His powers. In the process, they are fulfilling Jesus’ own words, that a prophet is persecuted, not praised, for his work. Thus, Jesus is here identified with the prophets who have gone before Him to Jerusalem, to be rejected and to die.

Condemned by the Sanhedrin  (22:66-71)

The other Gospels give a much fuller account of the “mock trials” of the Sanhedrin. 104 We know that there were two “pretrial hearings” late that night, the first in the home of Annas, 105 a kind of high priest emeritus, and the second in the home of Caiaphas,106 the high priest and son-in-law of Annas. The scholars also have much to say to us about all of the ways in which these religious leaders, with all of their meticulous rules and demands on others, violate the legal protections and processes assured by their laws. Luke brushes past all of this. He does not record the chaos and ad hoc kind of spirit which dominated these trials. Luke chose rather to focus on the Savior.

The Sanhedrin had come to its wits end. It looked as if this meeting once again (remember John 7) would end up not only with their failing to rid themselves of Jesus, but also in internal discord. They had to resort to another illegal ploy. Could they somehow trick Jesus into bearing witness against Himself? While the law of that day had its own fifth amendment, which prevented the accusers from forcing a man to testify against himself, could they somehow get Him to acknowledge that He was Messiah, and even better, that He was the Son of God? If so, then they could find Him guilty of blasphemy, a crime punishable by death.

Jesus answered their question, not because they had the right to ask it, and not because it would bring about pleasant results, but because His time had come. But first shows us Jesus, the accused, rebuking His accusers. The Savior pointed out that the trial was a sham, and that “justice” was not being administered in this court. If He told them He was the Messiah, they would not believe Him. And if He did give testimony against Himself, they would not allow Him to question (cross examine) them. Thus, He informed them that His answer was not one that was elicited by their trickery.

Yes, Jesus affirmed, He was the Messiah, in spite of their response toward Him. You can almost see the Sanhedrin hush with silence and with anticipation. Did He refer to Himself as the “Son of Man”? This expression, found in Daniel’s prophecy, implied not only humanity, but deity. Could they now press Jesus just a bit further, to admit that He was the Son of God? If so, they had Him. The room must have become absolutely quiet. They all asked with anticipation, “You are the Son of God, then?”

Jesus’ response was not evasive, nor was it indirect, as some tend to take it. Jesus spoke directly, in the idiom of that day. It was a firm “yes,” precisely what they had been looking for. No matter that their trials were a sham. No matter that this man’s rights had been violated. No matter that no witnesses could agree on the charges against Him. No matter that the accused had been beaten beforehand and that a testimony had been drawn from Him. They had the evidence they needed. Now, all they needed was the cooperation of the state, to kill Him.

Conclusion

I want to end with one simple, but overwhelming, point: Jesus was still in charge, even at the time of His arrest, His trials, His abuse, and His denials. Men consistently fail in our text. Not one man is faithful. Not one man understands fully what is going on. No one man stands by the Lord. Virtually everyone has or will soon abandon Him. But He is faithful to His calling. And even in this “hour of darkness” His is in control. His prophecies are coming to pass, even if by sinful men. Jesus is not overtaken by His enemies. Jesus went out to them, and He was taken captive and condemned because He purposed to do so. Men did not even take His life from Him. He gave it up Himself. Jesus was in charge, even in the worst hour of history.

As I have studied this passage, it occurred to me that virtually every section of Luke’s account is the fulfillment of something which Jesus told His disciples earlier in the book. Compare with me, if you would, the history of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, denials, mocking, and condemnation with the prophecies of our Lord, as Luke has recorded them. Note with me how perfectly prophecy is fulfilled.

Peter followed at a distance. 55 But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. 56 A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” 57 But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. 58 A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied. 59 About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” 62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

63 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him. 66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

9:43 While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.”

22:21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.”

37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

22:31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

13:33 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

18:32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.”

17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

9:22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

There is a song about the birth of Jesus which goes like this, “Je-sus, Lord at Thy birth.” I agree with that song, but I must also add a line, as it were, to it. “Je-sus, Lord at Thy Death.” There is but one reasons why Jesus died on the cross of Calvary. It is not that men rejected Him. It was not that His mission failed. It was that His hour had come, and He was doing His Father’s will. Jesus was in charge at every point. What an awe-inspiring thought.

There are implications to this. Jesus not only spoke of His own rejection and suffering, but also of that of His disciples, which would include those who believe in Christ today (cf. Luke 21). There are going to be dark times ahead, Jesus warned, times when it would appear that it is the “hour” of the powers of darkness (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:13-16; 2 Timothy 3:12). And so it will be, during the time of the Great Tribulation as well (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8; Revelation 12:7ff.; 20). Even at such dark hours as this, He is in control, and His purposes and prophecies are being fulfilled. Let us not lose heart.

Notes:

99 Isn’t is interesting to see that when the chips were down, the religious leaders twice found they had to resort to social stratifications and snobbery, rather than to facts, in order to prove their points. In the first case, the leaders rebuked the soldiers for taking the same position the ignorant masses held, rather than the more informed view of their leaders. In the second case, the leaders again revealed their snobbery by reminding Nicodemus that nobody of any importance (certainly not a prophet) comes from Galilee.

100 Some would see the differences in the accounts of the Gospels as to who accused Peter of being a disciple of Jesus as proof of error or sloppiness in recording, but there is a much easier explanation. Morris, for example, poses a very satisfactory explanation for these differences:

“In Matthew the second denial appears to be elicited by a question from a slave girl different from the first one, in Mark by the same slave girl, in Luke by a man and in John by a number of people. A little reflection shows that in such a situation a question once posed is likely to have been taken up by others round the fire.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 315.

101 It is a rather humorous scene, and one that is easy to believe, once you grant the divinity and the dignity of the Savior, whose poise and confidence (a dimension of His deity, I suspect) disarmed them. There was a large crowd present. When Jesus and His disciples came up to the arresting party, the rest of the crowd pressed in behind. When those in the first row backed away from Jesus, they tripped over those behind them, and thus a mass of bodies and confusion. How hard it must have been to regain their compose and get on with the arrest. It was a little like the Keystone Cops.

102 Incidentally, it is interesting to note that in John’s account, Peter is not said to have drawn his sword until after the release of the disciples had been secured. Had all the other disciples already begun to escape for their lives?

103 It might be worthwhile to ask, at this point, “What could or should Peter have done, other than what he did do?” One of my friends suggested that Peter should have been praying for the Savior, that He would be obedient to the Father’s will, and that the purposes of God for Him would have been realized. Peter could have been praying for himself, that he would not succumb to temptation. This is possible, although I am inclined to say that now, at this point, there was nothing for Peter to do but fail. Peter had not prayed, when Jesus had told him to do so. The time for taking the right course of action was earlier. Peter (and the others as well) had not done so, and thus they had set themselves up to fail. Jesus had told them this would be the case, so it was also in accordance with God’s purposes and prophecies. My point here is simply to illustrate that there is a kind of “point of no return,” spiritually speaking. There is a time when we can act, so as to prevent our failure under fire. But when that time to take evasive action has passed and we have neglected it, we are destined to fail, and nothing (save divine intervention) at that point in time can save us from ourselves. Some Christians pray and plead for deliverance after it is too late. How grateful we can be for a Savior who prays for us that even when we fail, our faith will not fail.

104 “The Sanhedrin, or Jewish Council at Jerusalem, consisted of seventy members plus the chairman (the high priest), and exercised the supreme authority over the ordinary as well as the religious life of the Jewish people (though at that time in subordination to the Roman authorities).” Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [Photolithoprinted], 1975), p. 589., fn 3.

Concerning the trials of Jesus, Morris comments: “The details of Jesus’ trial are not easy to piece together, for none of the Gospels gives a full account. But it seems clear that there were two main stages. First, there was a Jewish trial in which the chief priests had Jesus condemned according to Jewish law and then tried to work out how best to get the Romans to execute Him. Then a Roman trial followed in which the Jewish leaders prevailed on Pilate to sentence Jesus to crucifixion. The Jewish trial was itself in two or three stages. During the night there were informal examinations before Annas (as John tells us) and Caiaphas (who had some of the Sanhedrin with him). After daybreak came a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. This was probably an attempt to legitimate the decisions reached during the night. It was not lawful to conduct a trial on a capital charge at night. It was not even lawful to give the verdict at night after a trial had been held during the day. But the Jewish hierarchy was in a hurry, so they rushed Jesus into an examination immediately after His arrest, night-time though it was. To give this an air of legitimacy they proceeded to hold a daytime meeting in which the essentials of the night meeting were repeated and confirmed. Even so they came short of what was required, for a verdict of condemnation could not be given until the day after the trial (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:1).” Morris, p. 317.

Shepard adds, “The regular place for the meeting of the Sanhedrin was in the Temple, but they led Jesus away to the house of the high-priest Caiaphas, situated in a place just outside the present wall of the city, where all the chief priests and elders and scribes had been summoned to meet. Nor was the legal hour of meeting for trials in the night. Other features in the illegality practiced in the trials of Jesus were: undue haste, seeking or bribing witnesses, neglecting to warn the witnesses solemnly before they should give evidence, forcing the accused to testify against Himself, judicial use of the prisoner’s confession, and failure to release the prisoner when there was failure of agreement between witnesses.” Shepard, p. 575.

105 “They seized Jesus and tied His hands behind Him. He was led away, first to Annas, who had served as high-priest from 6 to 15 A.D., and, through astute politics, had succeeded in securing from the Romans the succession of this office to his five sons, and how his son-in-law Caiaphas, who was the present occupant of the high-priesthood. Annas owned the famous Bazaars of Annas, which ran a monopoly on the sale of animals for the sacrifices and the stalls of the money-changers. It was the vested interests of this monopoly that Jesus had assailed in the first and second cleansing of the Temple.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [Photolithoprinted, 1971]), p. 573.

106 “Caiaphas, the high priest (18-36 A.D.) and his son-in-law, was thoroughly lined up with Annas in all that he might perpetrate against the hated Nazarene. Weeks ago, he had suggested in a secret session of the Sanhedrin, when plotting the ruin of the ‘pretender-Messiah,’ that it was very convenient that one man die for the people rather than that the whole nation perish.” Shepard, p. 573.

The Rejection of Israel's Messiah - Part II (Luke 23:1-25)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

Jesus Before Pilate

Jesus Before Herod

8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. 9 He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. 12 That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.

Jesus Again Before Pilate

13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” 17 [Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the Feast.] 18 With one voice they cried out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” 22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.” 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

Introduction

Sometimes we hear of “an offer you can’t refuse,” especially by those like me who are bargain hunters. We also hear of those “offers you can’t accept,” or perhaps we should say, offers people assume you will not accept. As a college student, I lived in the upstairs of a house owned by the college with two roommates who lived on the second and third floors. An older man and his wife lived on the first floor. One day the man came up to ask two of us to help him carry a desk from the top floor down the stairs to the driveway where it was to be loaded onto a trailer. It was a very easy task which couldn’t have taken more than a few minutes. I have often helped with such things without even thinking about it.

Except this time, when we had finished placing the desk on the trailer, the man reached into his wallet, pulled out a five dollar bill, and offered it to me. Looking back, I see that his offer was “one I could not accept.” But he didn’t know me very well. Perhaps he thought he had couched his offer in such a way I couldn’t take it—but he was wrong. I was in need, and I took it—gratefully—but I did take it. My roommate couldn’t believe it, and after thinking about it, neither could I. But the man offered it. If he had not intended to give me the money, I reasoned then, he should not have offered it.

We all make offers we really don’t expect others to accept, don’t we? I believe Pilate made the leaders of Israel—the chief priests and rulers of the people—an offer they would never accept—but they did. The religious leaders of Israel brought Jesus to Pilate, accusing Him of being a criminal worthy of death. But Pilate did not see it this way at all. Eventually, he made these leaders an offer I think he was sure they would not accept. His offer was to release to them Barabbas, a thief, a revolutionary, and a murderer. Which would they choose—to turn Barabbas loose on their city—or Jesus? Jesus was a man of peace, a seemingly harmless fellow. Barabbas was a dangerous criminal. Surely they would leave Barabbas in prison, where he belonged, and be content to have Jesus found guilty of a crime and then pardoned.

If Pilate thought the Jews would accept this offer, he was wrong. They demanded the release of Barabbas, and the execution of Jesus. Now this was something this Gentile ruler could not comprehend. He had made them an offer which they accepted. What an amazing thing!

When we read the account of the trial of our Lord before the political rulers of that day, it is like watching a table tennis match. On the one hand, Jesus is passed back and forth between Pilate and Herod. On the other, the dialogue between Pilate and the religious leaders bounces back, from one to the other. Pilate repeatedly pronounces Jesus innocent of any crime, but the Jewish religious leaders respond by even more vigorously affirming His guilt, demanding nothing less than the death penalty. One would think that Pilate, with the power of Rome behind him, would have little difficulty enforcing his will on the people, but such is not the case. We see that indeed the people prevail, and the story ends with Pilate giving them their way, even though this means the death of an innocent man.

The Structure of the Text

Portrayed in our text are basically three scenes. Scene one (verses 1-7) takes place in the presence of Pilate. Scene two (verses 7-12) takes place before Herod, to whom Pilate has referred the Jews and Jesus, gratefully breathing a sigh of relief, because Jesus’ alleged offenses seem to have occurred in Herod’s jurisdiction. Scene three (verses 13-25) takes us back, once again, to the judgment seat of Pilate who unhappily finds himself the one who must make the decision concerning the accusations made against Jesus. In spite of repeated pronouncements of Jesus’ innocence, by Pilate (primarily) and Herod (by inference), Jesus will not only be mocked and beaten, but He will be put to death as a common criminal, while one of the nations most dangerous criminals will be set free.

Characteristics of Luke’s Account

Each of the gospels has a unique emphasis which causes each writer to include or exclude certain material, as well as to arrange his material uniquely. Luke’s account of the secular trial of Jesus is quite distinct from the other accounts. Before beginning to study the text in Luke, let us first consider some of those distinctive characteristics.

(1) Luke’s account is a very short, concise version of the trial of our Lord before Pilate. It is not the shortest, for Mark’s account is only 15 verses, while the text of Luke is 25 verses. Matthew covers the trial in 26 verses (with verses 3-10 dealing with the remorse and suicide of Judas), and John’s account is the most detailed, with 27 verses.

(2) Luke is the only gospel to include the trial of our Lord before Herod. The significance and contribution of this will be pointed out later.

(3) Luke’s account describes Pilate more in terms of his intentions and desires, than in terms of his actions. Luke tells us that Pilate proposed that he would punish Jesus, and then release Him. We are never told by Luke that Jesus was actually severely beaten, as seen in the parallel accounts in the other gospels. The fact is that most of what Pilate intended to do—such as releasing Jesus—he was not able to do. That is significant in light of the fact that this man was a dictator, with great power and with armed forces at his disposal to back up any action he decided to take.

(4) Luke does not emphasize the external pressures brought to bear on Pilate, as the other gospels do. As I view Luke’s account, we see two major forces at work: Pilate’s decided purpose to release Jesus, whom he judged to be innocent, and the religious leaders, who were determined that Jesus must die, and at the hand of Rome. Matthew tells us Pilate’s wife warned him not to condemn this “innocent man,” due to her tormenting dream that night. John’s account depicts an increasing sense of Pilate’s wonder and fear at the person of Jesus.

(5) Luke has a strong emphasis on the innocence of Jesus, as repeatedly stated by Pilate, and as at least implied by Herod.

(6) Also impressive in Luke (though apparent in the other accounts) is the silence of Jesus. Herod pressed Jesus with many questions, but with no answer. Pilate received more answers, as recorded in the other accounts, but in Luke’s version of these events, Jesus said only these words, “Yes, it is as you say” (verse 3). Nothing more is recorded in these 25 verses as to anything Jesus said. This is not surprising in light of the Old Testament prophecies which foretold the silence of the sinless Messiah (cf. Isaiah 53:7).

(7) The account has a kind of “ping-pong” structure, with a back and forth dialogue between Pilate, who maintains Jesus’ innocence, and the Jews, who insist He is guilty. Notice this characteristic when we indent the verses in a way that demonstrates the back and forth nature of the debate between Pilate and the religious leaders of Israel:

1 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.” 3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.” 5 But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.” 6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. 9 He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. 12 That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.

18 With one voice they cried out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” 22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.” 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

Jesus Before Pilate  (23:1-7)

It would seem that it was very early in the morning when a very persistent pounding commenced on the front door of Pilate’s 107 house. 108 Pilate, probably begrudgingly, slipped out of bed, angry at the interruption of his sleep but nonetheless trying not to awaken his wife who was probably still asleep. As Pilate’s day begins, his wife’s sleep will be disturbed by a very unpleasant dream, the essence of which is that Jesus is an innocent man who should not be put to death (cf. Matthew 27:19). The Jewish religious leaders are bold and aggressive in their attack against Jesus, and in expressing their expectation that Pilate will give them what they want. Not only do the Jews seem “pushy” in demanding Pilate’s attention at this hour, they also refused to enter into the palace, forcing him to come out to them (cf. John 18:28-29).

Luke informs us in verse 2 that the Sanhedrin (who apparently all came along to bring charges, cf. 23:1) pressed three charged against Jesus, all of which were political (that is, against the state), and none of which were religious. 109 The charges against Jesus were:

(1) stirring up unrest and rebellion: “subverting our nation” 110

(2) opposing taxation by Rome

(3) claiming to be a king.

These, of course, were very serious crimes against the state, crimes which could not be brushed aside, and crimes which would have brought the death penalty. 111

Pilate seems to know the Jews better than they may have thought. Roman rulers had no interest in being “used” by one Jewish faction against another. 112 It did not take very long for Pilate to see that this was, indeed, a power struggle (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10). He saw Jesus standing before him, already beaten and bloody from the abuse the temple guards had hurled on Him during the night (Luke 22:63-65). He did not look very awesome or dangerous to this political power broker.

Notice that Pilate passed right over the first two charges. If Jesus were a revolutionary, would not the Romans have known about Him much sooner? Indeed, did not the Romans know of Jesus? Surely they had long ago determined that He was no threat. Revolutionaries there were, but Jesus was not among them. And neither did the Roman IRS have any evidence that Jesus had ever so much as implied that the Jews should not pay their Roman taxes. And, as Jesus had emphasized to His arrests, had He not taught publicly, day after day, so that His teaching was a matter of public record (cf. Luke 22:52-53)?

No, if any of these three charges had any substance at all, it was the last. At least this was the real issue with these Jewish religious leaders. And so Pilate passed over the first two charges, asking Jesus only to respond as to whether or not He was “the king of the Jews.” I understand Pilate not simply to be asking whether or not Jesus is a king of the Jews, but the king of the Jews. Would this man not be aware that the Jews looked for a Messiah. After all, were not some of those who were guilty of insurrection those who claimed to be the Messiah (cf. Acts 5:33-39)? I believe, therefore, that while Pilate may have been cruel and ungodly, he was at least shrewd and well-informed about the Jews. 113

One would think our Lord’s acknowledgment that He was the Messiah, the King of Israel, would have caused Pilate considerable distress. Pilate, however, does not seem surprised at all. Did he not already know this was, indeed, Jesus’ claim from the beginning of His public ministry? And did not John the Baptist and the disciples go about introducing Jesus as Israel’s king? Contrary to our expectations, Pilate is not at all distressed by Jesus’ admission of His “claimed” identity—claimed, that is, so far as Pilate was concerned. At this point, I believe Pilate probably looked upon Jesus as one would respond to a “hippie” who claimed to be Albert Einstein. “How pathetic,” Pilate could have reasoned, “but certainly Jesus is no political threat to Rome or to me, and not even to these Jewish leaders.” Pilate’s appraisal of Jesus will change considerably over the course of his interrogation, to the point where he will actually begin to fear Jesus, or at least fear putting Him to death (cf. Matthew 27:19; John 19:7, 12).

Pilate announced his verdict, but it was not well-received. He said, “I find no basis for a charge against this man”114 (Luke 23:4). In effect, Pilate had just functioned as a one-man grand jury. He had listened to the charges and to the evidence, and he “no-billed” Jesus. There was insufficient evidence to prove that Jesus was a criminal, worthy of the death penalty, which these leaders wanted.

The chief priests and the crowd would not be so easily denied what they had determined to have—Jesus’ blood. They protested, insisting that Jesus “stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching, starting in Galilee, and now reaching all the way to Jerusalem.” The Jewish leaders had sought to reinforce their indictment, but they had gone too far. They had disclosed that Jerusalem was simply the last place where Jesus had created some measure of unrest. He was not a Judean, a man of Jerusalem, but a Galilean. This was where His ministry began. Most of Jesus’ ministry had been in Galilee, and thus Pilate delighted in ruling that this case was really not in his jurisdiction. The case must go to Herod the Tetrarch, for he was the one who ruled over Galilee. And so Jesus, along with the religious leaders and the rest of the crowd, were sent, still early in the morning, to bother Herod.

I can see Pilate smiling to himself, congratulating himself for getting rid of this thorny problem. In fact, he had succeeded in passing the buck to a man he really didn’t get along with anyway. “It serves him right,” I can hear Pilate thinking to himself. Perhaps Pilate leaned back in his chair and ordered breakfast. What a leisurely and enjoyable meal it must have been. What a great day it would be. No more worries about Jesus, or so it seemed. How fortunate it was that Herod was also in Jerusalem at this season (cf. Luke 23:7).

Jesus Before Herod  (23:8-12)

While Pilate seemingly had little interest in Jesus and virtually no previous contact with Him, Herod at least had a fair amount of indirect contact. Remember that one of the women who followed Jesus and helped to support Him was Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward (Luke 8:2; cf. 24:10). And then, of course, there was Herod’s relationship with John the Baptist. Let’s briefly review what Luke has had to say about Herod115 thus far in his gospel.

Herod Antipas

Luke 3:1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 3:19 But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, 20 Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.

Luke 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed, because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, 8 others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. 9 But Herod said, “I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” And he tried to see him.

Luke 13:31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” 32 He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ 33 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

Mark’s gospel records a very interesting incident related to Herod the Tetrarch, which Luke’s gospel does not include:

11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side. 14 The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15 “Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.” 16 They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.” 17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied. 20 “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” 21 He said to them, “Do you still not understand?” (Mark 8:11-21)

In Mark’s account, Jesus warned His disciples to “watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod” (v. 15). The disciples could only think in literal terms of “yeast” and of “bread.” The moment Jesus mentioned “yeast,” they had the word association with “bread.” That brought to mind that they had not remembered to bring “lunch” with them. And so in the midst of a very important word of warning, the disciples’ thoughts are diverted to food. Jesus’ words which follow are not an interpretation of “yeast” but are rather a rebuke for being concerned about “bread,” the very lesson which the two miraculous feedings was intended to teach them.

Jesus therefore reminded them that in both instances where many people lacked food, when all was said and done there was an excess, so that the leftovers had to be collected in several baskets. The point is that Jesus’ disciples need not be concerned about “food,” for the Lord will meet their material and physical needs, a principle frequently found in the gospels (cf. Luke 12:22ff.). And so, when Jesus speaks of “yeast” His disciples should not be distracted by thoughts of their next meal, but they should be free to consider the spiritual implications of His words.

And what was the spiritual lesson Jesus had in mind when He warned them of the “yeast” of the Pharisees and of Herod? The preceding context of Mark chapter 8 tells us (Mark 8:11-12). The Pharisees and Herod both wanted Jesus to perform some great sign, to prove that He was, indeed, the Messiah. Both were looking for external evidences, rather than looking at the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiah, to see if Jesus had indeed fulfilled them. In this sense, the disciples of our Lord suffered from the same preoccupation that blinded Herod and the Pharisees—a preoccupation on the external and the physical, that which can be seen, as opposed to the “unseen” things which faith “sees” (cf. John 20:29; Hebrews 11:1).

We should not at all be surprised, then, when Luke informs us that Herod was more than happy to see Jesus, unlike his Roman counterpart, Pilate (Luke 23:8). Herod was very eager to see Jesus. Indeed, he had been hoping to see Him for a long time (Luke 9:9). But, as Jesus had warned His disciples earlier (in Mark chapter 8), his motives were wrong. He wanted to see Jesus work some wonder. If He did so, he would show Himself greater than John who performed no such signs. And if Herod could be so fortunate as to make an alliance with a miracle-working Messiah, what would this do for his own position and power?

So far as we can tell from the gospels, Jesus never came in direct contact with Herod. There were various “links” between the two men, as we have shown above. And there was, as well, the “threat” which the Pharisees conveyed to Jesus, warning Him not to flee because Herod wanted to kill Him (Luke 12:31). If this were a true report, something which one cannot be certain about, then Jesus ignored it, giving the Pharisees a message to take back to Herod, a message which conveyed His determination to carry out His mission, without any deviations or compromises.

The chief priests and scribes were standing nearby, constantly reiterating their charges against Jesus, pushing Herod to find Jesus guilty. It seems as though Herod was completely ignoring them. And, likewise, Jesus was not responding to Herod. How disappointed Herod must have been after eagerly bombarding Jesus with questions which were intended to induce a barrage of miraculous signs, or at least some compelling evidence of His power. Luke informs us that Jesus did not speak so much as one word to Herod. All he received in response from Jesus was silence. This must have been a severe blow to the pride of this man, who was used to having things his way, and to having people submit to his power. Jesus had no words for him, not one.

Herod was in a very awkward position here. It was obvious that the religious leaders wanted Jesus put to death. All the time he was trying to interrogate Jesus, they kept pressing their charges. But the fact was they had no real evidence to back up these charges. And because Jesus would not testify, they were at a stalemate. It would seem like a no-win situation for Herod. It is it this point that he makes a very shrewd move. He conceals his own frustration, at being unable to persuade Jesus to produce some miraculous sign, and at the same time pleases his own soldiers and at least sides with the religious leaders by mocking Jesus. And yet in all of this he has avoided taking a clear stand on Jesus. Although Pilate will infer that Herod found Jesus innocent, Herod has avoided the wrath of the chief priests and scribes by not pronouncing any verdict. He seems to be “firmly standing” on both sides of the issue at the same time. What a politician! In the final analysis, Herod forced Pilate to make the decision which he did not want to make himself. And he did so in a way that actually won the friendship of a former enemy.116 Now that is quite a feat.

Why does Luke include this incident with Herod while no other gospel writer does? I believe it is important to see that everyone rejected Jesus as the Messiah, including Herod. But it was absolutely necessary for Rome and the Gentiles to share in the rejection and the crucifixion of Christ so that all men, not just the Jews, might be guilty of His innocent blood. Thus, Herod does play a part, but this is the time for the Gentiles to show their own disdain for the Savior.

Jesus Again Before Pilate  (23:13-25)

13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” 17 18 With one voice they cried out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” 22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.” 23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

If Pilate thought his problems were over with Jesus, he was wrong. Perhaps it was during the time Jesus was standing trial before Herod the message came from Pilate’s wife that she had a frightening dream, warning her husband not to have anything to do with “that innocent man” (Matthew 27:19). He may thus have thought to himself, “Not to worry. I sent Jesus on to Herod. He’s his problem now.” As the noise of the unruly crowd began to draw nearer and became noisier, Pilate knew that his desire to duck the issue of Jesus’ guilt or innocence was not to be realized.

It would seem, not only from verse 13 but also from the parallel accounts, that Pilate took Jesus aside after He was brought back from His “trial” before Herod, and that He attempted to satisfy himself concerning Jesus’ guilt or innocence. When he came out, Pilate called the chief priests and rulers of the people (for it was they who were pressing him for a guilty verdict) and reiterated that he was unconvinced of any criminal charges which the case presented against Jesus merited, reminding them that by his actions, Herod had also acknowledged the innocence of Jesus.

Having just repeated, for the second time in Luke’s account, the innocence of Jesus, Pilate makes a very perplexing statement to these Jewish religious leaders. He tells them that he is going to punish Jesus, and then release Him (Luke 23:16). I am assuming the punishment referred to is that which is described in the parallel accounts when Jesus was beaten severely (cf. John 19:1-3). Now why, if Jesus has been convicted of no crime, would He be punished? Because Pilate is trying to appease his own conscience, while attempting to appease the hostile crowds at the same time. Pilate hoped, it seems, to satisfy this bloodthirsty crowd by beating Jesus so badly that He would present them with such a horrible sight they would have mercy on Him. Pilate had not judged the animosity of the chief priests and religious leaders correctly.

It is interesting that in Luke’s account only the intentions of Pilate are recorded. That is, Pilate announced it was his intention to “punish” Jesus, but Luke does not go on to report that Jesus was beaten. It is not what happened to Jesus that Luke focuses on so much here as that which Pilate (and Herod too) wanted to do with Him.

It is at this point the name of Barabbas appears. The editors of the NIV and the NASB have chosen to omit verse 17 because of its omission in a few of the older manuscripts (although not necessarily “better”—here is a subject of hot debate). I believe that it should not only be accepted as a part of our text, but that we should accept it because of its clear mention in the parallel accounts. Somehow the custom had come about that Pilate would release one prisoner to the Jews, seemingly as a kind of “goodwill” gesture.

From the record in the parallel accounts, I believe Pilate raised Barabbas as a second proposal to these Jewish leaders in the hope that he would appease them and also secure Jesus’ release. Every year at this time, we are told, Pilate would release one prisoner. Why not convict Jesus as being guilty of the crime of treason—giving government approval to the condemnation of Jesus by the religious community—and then release Him, as a gesture of goodwill? There was, of course, another “criminal” whom Pilate could release—Barabbas—but he was a violent and dangerous man. (Is it possible that he was scheduled to be executed that very day, and that Jesus, indeed, took his place? Surely they would not want him back on the streets.

Here was the shocker, which I don’t think Pilate expected at all. How could these people possibly prefer the release of Barabbas to that of Jesus? Barabbas was a thief, a revolutionary, a terrorist (it seems) and a murderer. Jesus, while He may have had some misguided delusions of grandeur (or so Pilate may have thought at the time), was not a dangerous or violent man. He was a man of peace, a man who had done many kind and wonderful things to help His fellow-countrymen. The offer of Barabbas was, it appears, an offer no sensible Israelite could accept; the offer of Jesus’ (release), was one no sensible Israelite could turn down. If Pilate thought thus, he was very mistaken indeed.

The crowds, incited by the chief priests and scribes, called for Jesus’ death and for the releasing of Barabbas. I suspect Pilate could hardly believe his ears. Why did they hate this man so much? Pilate wanted very much to release Jesus (23:20). While it is not said plainly, surely Pilate did not want to release Barabbas. That man was nothing but trouble. His kind deserved to stay in confinement. And so Pilate pled, once again, for the release of Jesus. Again the innocence of Jesus was reiterated, and Pilate’s intention of beating Him unmercifully and then releasing him was repeated.

The Jews who were present would not hear of it. With loud shouts they demanded the crucifixion of Christ and the release of the revolutionary. And Pilate caved in, giving them their way. The final verses tell it all. Pilate released to them the man who was a danger to society, Barabbas, while He kept Jesus in custody, so that He could be hung on a Roman cross, crucified for crimes Pilate knew He did not commit.

Conclusion

The first thing our text establishes is that Jesus died, not because He was guilty of any offense, or of breaking any law, but simply because He was the sinless Son of God, and because He acknowledged that He was the “King of Israel.” Pilate, who was no “friend” of the Jews nor of Jesus, repeatedly reiterated the fact that Jesus was not guilty of any crime, and most certainly not of any crime worthy of death, even though this is precisely what the religious leaders demanded.

The second thing I believe the Holy Spirit intended for us to learn from Luke’s account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate and Herod is this: the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus was not just that of the Jews, nor of the Gentiles, but it was a rejection by both. I believe this is why Luke alone includes the account of Jesus before Herod. Note the apostles’ commentary on this matter as recorded in the Book of Acts by none other than Dr. Luke:

24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: “‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One.’ 27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen (Acts 4:24-28).

Luke thus informs us that his gospel account was intended to historically establish and document the collaboration between Herod and Pilate, and in a broader sense between the Jews and the Gentiles, to put Jesus, the Messiah, to death.

If the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah was a mutual action of both Jews and Gentiles, it was also a unanimous decision, reached by all. No one stood for the Savior. All rejected Him, as this moment in time. The disciples had fled. Judas has now taken his own life. Everyone who is mentioned in these verses in chapter 23 has rejected Jesus as the King.

While the form which their rejection takes is different, the essence is the same in every case. The chief priests and leaders of the Jews took a very hostile and aggressive stance with respect to Jesus. That is very evident in our text, for they, in a very pushy and offensive way demanded nothing less than His execution.

The third thing this text teaches us is the utter sinfulness of men, as evidenced in the rejection of Jesus as the King of the Jews. As I view the individuals described by Luke at this trial of our Lord, I find that the description of the sinfulness of man in Romans 3 is remarkably appropriate for this occasion. As you read these markedly descriptive words, remember that these are a collection of statements from the Old Testament, descriptive of man’s sinful and lost condition:

“There is none righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. There mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Romans 3:10-18).

This is the one thing which Pilate failed to take into account. He seems to have thought that his audience was a reasonable, rational group, who would objectively hear, consider, and accept his verdict. If he thought thus, he was wrong. He seems to have felt that if Jesus were beaten severely enough, they would take pity on Him and give up their demand that He be crucified. If this was his thinking, again he was wrong. And he seems to have thought that if he found Jesus guilty, and then gave the crowd the choice between pardoning Barabbas, a hardened and violent criminal, and Jesus, they would have to take Jesus. He was again wrong.

It is important crucial to recognize that all of those who were at this trial were wrong, and that indeed they all rejected Jesus, not just the Jews. Clearly, the religious leaders were hostile to Jesus and demanded that he be put to death. In a different way, Herod also rejected Jesus. He was eager to see Him. In some ways, he was a religious man, a man who had listened with keen interest to John the Baptist. But when Herod saw that Jesus was not going to “jump through his hoops,” that He would not perform for him, and that He was not going to further his own personal interests and ambitions, Herod rejected Jesus, making a public mockery of Him. The soldiers, both of Herod and Pilate, were wrong, for they mistreated and mocked Messiah. And then there was Pilate. Granted, he harbored no great hostility toward Jesus, but neither did he accept Him for who He was. Granted, Pilate seems only to wish that Jesus would just go away. His rejection is polite, aloof, disinterested. But, my friend, it was rejection.

I do not know what your response is to Jesus Christ, but if it is anything less than receiving Him as the divine Son of God, the King of Israel, and the Savior of the world, it is not enough, and it is rejection. Your rejection may be polite. Indeed, it may appear that you have not rejected Him at all. Perhaps you have ignored Him. But if you have not received Him as God’s Messiah, you have rejected Him. If you and I had been there that day when Jesus was on trial, I am convinced that we would have sided with one of these rejecting groups, and not with the Savior.

It seems hard to believe, doesn’t it, that men can actually hate God, that they can hate Him as God? Those who rejected Jesus in our text, rejected Him as the promised Messiah, as their King, even though He was innocent. Far more, even though everything about His life and ministry bore witness to the fact that He was righteous, and that He was the Son of God.

In the politeness with which men often reject Christ, we have lost sight of the deep hatred and animosity which unsaved men and women have toward God. As I was preparing this message, I was reminded of a book by R. C. Sproul, entitled, The Holiness of God.117 Sproul’s concluding chapter is entitled, “God in the Hands of Angry Sinners.” In this chapter Sproul reminds us that fallen men are not neutral toward God—they hate Him. He writes,

By nature, our attitude toward God is not one of mere indifference. It is a posture of malice. We oppose His government and refuse His rule over us. Our natural hearts are devoid of affection for Him; they are cold, frozen to His holiness. By nature, the love of God is not in us.

… it is not enough to say that natural man views God as an enemy. We must be more precise. God is our mortal enemy. He represents the highest possible threat to our sinful desires. His repugnance to us is absolute, knowing no lesser degrees. No amount of persuasion by men or argumentation from philosophers or theologians can induce us to love God. We despise His very existence and would do anything in our power to rid the universe of His holy presence.

If God were to expose His life to our hands, He would not be safe for a second. We would not ignore Him; we would destroy Him. 118

I not only believe Sproul is biblically correct, I also believe that this description of man and his animosity toward God describes both those who were a part of our Lord’s trial, and describes us, apart from God’s initiative and grace in saving us. Have you experienced this salvation? If so, your love for God is a supernatural thing, the result, not of your reaching toward God, but of His reaching out toward you, through the very One whom men rejected—Jesus Christ.

Just as Pilate could not avoid making a decision about Jesus, so you and I must make a decision as well. And if we should think we can avoid a decision by ignoring Him and ignoring a decision, let me simply remind you that this is a decision—to reject Him. May this not be so for you.

We find in our text that Pilate ultimately feared man more than he feared the Son of God. Pilate was willing to sacrifice Christ, as it were, for his own ambitions, for his own self-interest. I believe he thought he had to “sacrifice” Jesus for his own survival, and yet his decision spelled his own doom. Pilate, like Herod, soon fell from power. Their ends were not pleasant. How tragic.

This text should teach us that human government is, like men, sinful and fallible. The very government which was given by God to protect the innocent and to punish the evil-doer (cf. Romans 13:1-5), is that government, in Jesus’ day, which condemned the innocent and freed the wicked. If there was ever a dramatic demonstration of the need for a new government, a new “kingdom” where righteousness reigned in the person of Jesus Christ, it was at the trial and crucifixion of our Lord.

This text also serves to illustrate, at least to my satisfaction, the limitations and liabilities of the political system and its approach to getting things done. I hear Christians today talking about taking over the political system, as though they can use it to further God’s kingdom. I hear others talking about “beating the humanists at their own game.” In our text, I see the inability of the political process to achieve the righteousness of God. The problem lies not only in the system itself, but in the fallen humanity which operates it. Herod was never finer, as a politician, than in his maneuverings in which he rejected Christ, maintained the support of the chief priests and leaders, and won Pilate as a friend. But righteousness and justice were not served here. Pilate, though he knew Jesus to be innocent, also knew that politics require compromise and keeping the constituency happy. God’s work is not done in man’s way, and nothing is more human than the political process. It may be the best means of getting the business of state done, but it is not the means of doing God’s work. Let us beware of using “politics,” whether it be office politics or church politics, to do God’s work.

One last remark. If men are so utterly angry with God that they will always hate, oppose, and reject Him, how can they ever be convinced, converted, and changed? It will not be through human might or methods, my friend, but only through the Holy Spirit of God. As we read the Book of Acts we learn that men were convinced and converted—miraculously so, such as Saul—but they were convinced and converted through the work of God’s Spirit, as He empowered men and their testimony for Christ. May we go about His work, dependent upon His Word and dependent upon His Spirit.

Notes:

107 “Pontius Pilate was the Roman Procurator from 26 to 36 A.D.. He resided ordinarily in Caesarea, but during the feasts was accustomed to be present in Jerusalem, so as to quickly suppress any disorder. He was born in Seville, Spain, was twice married, having abandoned his first wife to marry Claudia, the daughter of Julia, the prostitute daughter of the Emperor Augustus. After a checkered political career as procurator, he was banished by Caligula on account of his cruelty and inability to maintain order, to Vienne, Gaul, and at Mount Pilatus he ended his life by suicide. He was a typical Roman—stern and practical. He had a contempt for religious superstitions and traditions, and an imperious desire to rule with a high hand, compelling obedience. He had not tactfully managed his government, and soon became odious to the Jews and Romans. He planted his standards on the citadel on his first entry to the city, regardless of the religious feeling of the people, prohibiting all images. The people were greatly incensed at the standards, bearing the Emperor’s image, and requested their removal. Pilate at first condoned their request, and threatened them later with violence; but, with extreme persistence, the Jews won out and the Governor submitted. Later, when he would have constructed an aqueduct for supplying the city with water, he made the serious blunder of defraying the cost from the Temple treasury. When the people revolted, he suppressed the tumult with great cruelty. Just a short while before the trial of Jesus, he had a company of Galileans in the Temple court and mingling their blood with their sacrifices, a thing which sent a shudder of religious superstition and horror through the whole nation.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. [photolithoprinted], 1971), pp. 582-583.

108 According to Mark’s account (15:25), Jesus was put to death at 9:00 a.m. This would mean that the judicial proceedings must have begun quite early that morning. Mark also begins the account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate by telling the reader that the Sanhedrin reached their verdict that Jesus was guilty “very early in the morning” (15:1), and then he immediately moves on to say that they bound Jesus and led Him away, taking Him to Pilate. The inference here as well is that Pilate was disturbed early in the morning to pronounce Jesus guilty so as to crucify Him before the day is far along. John’s Gospel tells us clearly that Jesus was led to the palace of the governor in the early morning (John 18:28).

109 John tells us in his gospel that a fair bit more took place before Pilate inquired of our Lord as to whether or not He was “the king of the Jews.” He informs us of the Jews’ hope that Pilate would simply take their word for the fact that Jesus was guilty of whatever crimes they were to indicate (John 18:29-32). Pilate wanted specific charges and evidence that these were true. I think that he had too much experience with these folks to give them too much latitude. He did, however, invite them to proceed on their own, judging Jesus by their own laws. Then, they had to admit that they could not do so because they did not have the authority to utilize capital punishment.

110 The Jerusalem Bible renders this, “inciting our people to revolt.”

111 It is generally agreed that the Jews had lost the freedom to carry out capital punishment some 40 years before this. Nonetheless, they did, as in the case of Stephen (Acts 7), execute people at times, taking their chances with the state by doing so without prior permission. There were times in Jesus’ life when they would have killed Jesus, if they could have done so out of the sight of the crowds (e.g. John 7:19, 25, 30). But now, I think they sought the approval of Rome, not so much out of concern that they would incur its wrath for executing Jesus without permission, but that this was the justification with the crowds for His death. Let Rome take the heat for Christ’s death.

112 Acts 18:12-17 is a parallel text, which shows that Roman officials had no intention in getting involved in the “in fightings” of Judaism.

113 It is my understanding, for example, that Pilate normally resided in Caesarea, but because this was the season of the Passover, he had temporarily stationed himself in Jerusalem, since this was both the most likely time and place for a revolt to occur.

114 The Jerusalem Bible renders it, “I find no case against this man.”

115 There are a number of “Herods” in the New Testament, so that we can easily confuse one with another. Herod the Great was the Herod who sought to kill the baby Jesus, who is the villain of Matthew chapter 2. He died in 4 B.C. He had three sons. Archelaus, the oldest, succeeded his father in ruling over Palestine (cf. Matthew 2:22). It was Herod Antipas, the younger brother of Archelaus, who ruled over Galilee during the lives and ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Herod Philip was tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, whose wife Herodias, left him to elope with Herod Antipas. Herod Agrippa I was the “Herod” of Acts chapter 12, who killed James, and who arrested Peter with the intention of putting him to death as well (Acts 12:1ff.).

116 We are not told precisely why the two men, Pilate and Herod, were enemies, nor are we told exactly what it was that healed this wound. We do know from Luke 13:1 that the blood of a number of Galileans had been mingled with their sacrifices in Jerusalem, by none other than Pilate. As Galilee was Herod’s territory and Jerusalem was under Pilate’s control, this was surely one source of tension between the two men. Did Herod go to Jerusalem at this time to insure the safety of other Galileans?

117 R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1985).

118 Sproul, pp. 229-230.

The Rejection of Israel's Messiah - Part III (Luke 23:26-49)

By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

Via Dolorosa

Luke 23:26-32 As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ‘ 31 For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.

The Crucifixion of Christ  (23:33-49)

33 When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.” 36 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.” 38 There was a written notice above him, which read: This is the King of the Jews. 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” 44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. 47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

Introduction

People never cease to amaze me. One area of fascination, to me at least, is the way in which people view themselves and God. There are those (few) who say there is no God, but these are few I think. The majority of folks believe there is a God, and yet find a way to avoid Jesus Christ as either Savior or Lord. If some of these folks were honest, they would say they have rejected the claims of Christ, not because He claimed to be God and not because He was not God. Their reason, I think, would be because they believe that man is not nearly as bad as God’s Word says, nor is God is not nearly as good as His Word says. Put even more crassly, they would say that man is kind, compassionate, and good, while God is cruel and evil.

While few would be so blunt, many really believe this. The goodness of man is a “doctrine” taught in every corner. It is taught in the liberal seminaries and institutions of higher learning. It is popularly (and how popular it is) taught in the media. It is said that man may, from time to time, deviate from his intrinsic goodness, but this may be explained by a bad background, or a bad environment, and certainly by bad institutions. God, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do. If God is both good, and powerful, and all-knowing, then why is there so much suffering to be seen, and much of it happening to the innocent? What of the heathen in Africa who are destined to hell, yet have never heard the name of Christ or of Christianity? What of the children who die cruelly at the hand of disease, war, or abuse?

No, many will have nothing to do with a God who fails to “rise” to the level of their expectations and demands. “If that is the kind of God who is there,” they would tell us, “then I don’t want anything to do with Him.” They would rather eternally protest in hell, with other good folks, than to live in heaven with God, and with hypocritical saints.

This kind of thinking is not only popular—whenever men are honest enough to admit to it—but it is also dead wrong. When we come to the crucifixion of our Lord, all would have to admit that this is, without question, the worst moment in the life of our Lord. We all justify our own unacceptable actions by saying that, “it was a bad time for me” or something similar. Surely, if there was ever a “bad time” for Jesus, when acting out of character would have been understandable, it would have been at this point in His life. And yet what we will find is that even at this moment, Jesus continued to act fully “in character.” This incident, on the road to Calvary, and then at the sight of the crucifixion itself, reveals both God and man as they truly are. It exposes man as incredibly cruel, and God as amazingly kind and compassionate. It is man who is evil, and God who is good, not only in this text but everywhere in the Bible, and throughout all of life as well. Let us look at our text with this in focus.

The Structure of our Text

The events surrounding the death of our Lord, as described by Luke, fall into several distinct sections. The first of these is the via dolorosa, the way to the cross, described in verses 26-32. The second is the actual crucifixion scene, the events surrounding the execution of our Lord, taking place on Calvary, in verses 33-43. The final section, in verses 44-49, is the account of the death of our Lord, along with Luke’s description of the impact of these events on some of those who witnessed it—namely, the centurion, the crowd, and the women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee.

Our Approach

The approach of this lesson will be to consider the crucifixion of Christ, as described by Luke, in more than one lesson. In this lesson, we will consider verses 26-43, with a focus on the cruelty of men and on the kindness of God in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. In our next lesson, we will study verses 33-49, with the focus on the change which Calvary brought in the lives of many of those who witnessed this incredible event. The lives of all who were present would never be the same from this point onward.

Characteristics of Luke’s Account of the Crucifixion

Before we begin our study of some of the particulars of the passage, let us take a step backward, characterizing the account as a whole, particularly in comparison to the parallel accounts found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John.

First, Luke’s account is one that is obtained second-hand, from witnesses who personally saw what took place. From all that we know, Luke was not a personal disciple of Jesus, and not an “apostle” in any sense that the 12 were. Luke was a man who traveled with Paul (cf. the “we” passages in Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1—28:16), and who was probably greatly impacted by his life and ministry. It would seem that Luke had a fair bit of contact with the personal witnesses to these events in the life of our Lord, and that his account in Luke is the result of research he did over a period of time. He may well have recognized the need for a gospel account that was geared to Gentile saints during his ministry with Paul, and set his hand to the task, inspired by the Holy Spirit as he did so. Having said all this, we should realize that Matthew and John were witnesses (John alone stayed close to the Lord, to provide the great detail of Christ’s trials and crucifixion), and Mark’s account may be largely gained through Peter.

Second, Luke’s account is selective. Luke’s account of the trials, crucifixion, and death of Jesus leaves out much that has been reported elsewhere, in the parallel accounts. Luke, unlike the other gospel writers, does not often seek to emphasize the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, 119 simply because, I believe, these were not well-known to the Gentile audience that he was addressing.

Third, Luke’s account is unique, making contributions omitted in the other accounts. In this study and the next, we will be looking at three incidents which are not reported elsewhere in the gospels:

(1) The account of the words of Jesus to the “Women of Jerusalem,” vv. 27-31.

(2) The account of the conversion of the thief on the cross, vv. 38-43.

(3) The words of our Lord, “Father, forgive them, … in verse 34.

As we study the account of our Lord’s death according to Luke’s gospel, we shall endeavor to be aware of what other gospel writers have written, and yet to focus on that which Luke has recorded, and on the unique message which the Spirit of God intended to communicate through this book.

The Via Dolorosa:  On the Way to the Cross  (23:26-32)

26 As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ‘ 31 For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.

There are two major incidents described in Luke’s gospel, both of which occurred on the way to Calvary.120 The first was the commandeering of Simon of Cyrene. The second was Jesus’ response to the wailing “women of Jerusalem,” with regard to the danger which lay ahead for them as a part of the generation which rejected Him. The incidents, at first glance, seem unrelated, but they are not. These two incidents are both prophetic of the unpleasant “things to come” for the nation Israel, and specifically for those who lived in Jerusalem.

A very large crowd followed Jesus out of the city of Jerusalem, as He made His way to “Calvary,” the place of His execution. While we do not know for certain where Calvary was, we would at least be safe in concluding that it was outside the city. Thus, Jesus, followed by a large crowd, a crowd no smaller than that which is described as being in Jerusalem at Pentecost, after our Lord’s death and resurrection:

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven … Parthians, Medes and Elamites; resident of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Lybya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs … (Acts 2:5, 9-11a).

Thus, it is not far from the facts to say that this crowd must have, to a fair degree, represented the whole world.

As Jesus, bearing His cross, and the large crowd which followed, made their way out of the city of Jerusalem, there was at least one man going in the opposite direction. Simon was coming into the city from the country, Luke tells us, and thus he may have passed by Jesus just at the time when He collapsed beneath the burden of His cross. He was greatly weakened by His agonizing hours in the garden at Gethsemane (where he sweat, as it were, great drops of blood), and by His numerous beatings, handed out during the night of His arrest (Luke 22:63-65), at the palace of Herod (23:11), and by Pilate, at least once (Luke 23:16,22; cf. Matthew 27:27-31; Mark 15:16-20).

We do not know a great deal about Simon. He was from Cyrene, a city in Africa (cf. Acts 2:10; 6:9) founded by the Greeks, but with a fairly large Jewish population. He was, according to Mark’s account, the father of Alexander and Rufus (15:21). By inference, we might conclude that this man, along with his sons, came to faith in Christ, perhaps as a direct result of this incident described by Luke. But this is not the point which Luke wants to get across. Luke’s words tell us very little, but they tell us enough to prove his point. Simon was an “innocent by-stander,” so far as the rejection and crucifixion of Christ was concerned. He was a man from another place, a faraway place, and he was not in Jerusalem; he was heading to it, from the country. He was as removed from the rejection of Jesus as was possible. And yet this man was the one who was made to carry the cross of our Lord the rest of the way to Calvary. Suffice it to say, at this point, that it was the Roman soldiers who commandeered this man, Simon, and who forced him to go in the opposite direction, with his burden being the cross of another man, a man whom he may never have seen before. The primary reason for the inclusion of this story is yet to be seen.

The second incident on the way to the cross involved a large crowd of people who followed Jesus to His place of execution. It is not, however, the large crowd that is in focus. Our Lord looked not at the over-all crowd, but to a small segment of it—those women from Jerusalem (not the Galilean women who had followed Him to Jerusalem, cf. 23:49) who came along, wailing and mourning for Jesus. Had Barabbas been crucified that day, as he should have been, there would have been a very small party of mourners indeed. Most of Jerusalem would have celebrated his death—good riddance. Only his mother, and perhaps a very few other family members would have mourned that man’s death. But with Jesus there were many more mourners. The reason for their mourning seems to be their knowledge that Jesus was to die, but that He was innocent, indeed, righteous.

Jesus turned to these mourning women with words that must have caught them off guard. He told them not to weep for Him, but for themselves and for their children. The tragedy to which Jesus was referring was that which had caused Him to weep as He had entered Jerusalem at His “triumphal entry”:

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your