Luke Chapter 22
Luke 21 was the "apocryphal chapter" in Luke, corresponding to Matthew 24. The last three paragraph headers in 21 were The Coming of the Son of Man, The Lesson of the Fig Tree, and Watch Yourselves. This is Jesus' last week. He is teaching daily in the temple, and Luke says he was lodging each night on the mount called Olivet.
As in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, this chapter opens with the religious elite having a conspiratorial meeting to plot the murder of Jesus. First degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, accomplices before the fact. These people are very very guilty.
In this verse, Luke seems to be cutting Judas a little slack that the others did not. The others made Judas' betrayal of Jesus all Judas' doing. But Luke says this:
3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. [Luk 22:3 ESV] Luke lays Judas' actions at Satan's feet. But remember that Jesus said previously that it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born. Judas bears the consequences of his actions, no matter that he was influenced by Satan. He also walked with Jesus, and could have chosen to be influenced by him.
2021 - If Satan "entered" Judas, then he possessed him. If such possession was irresistible, then we couldn't blame Judas really, but Jesus has already told us - BEFORE this possession - that Judas is very solidly to blame. The life Judas lived up to this point, the choices that he made - stealing from the purse he shared with 11 friends and the Messiah, over and over again he did this - hearing and rejecting Jesus' words over and over again...If we also accept that Jesus spoke in parables as a mercy to those who heard him but still rejected, remember that Judas also heard the explanations of all those parables, and who knows how much more insight he was given, then his guilt only multiplies. To whom much is given, much is expected. Judas was given about as much as any man ever was - certainly only a few others could claim as much...like 12 others in all history...and he rejected it and betrayed Jesus to death. Yes. Judas is to blame, and Satan's amplification of what Judas already was doing is just more reason for the fate that awaits Satan also.
2025 - Satan entering may be just a figure of speech indicating that Judas "embraced" evil instead of good. The idea may well be to show that it was by his own choice - his elevation of self and his greed and perhaps even his desire to gain personal power by endearing himself to the ruling class of the Pharisees - that put him in lock step with Satan's plans for him. His own decisions made him a willing ally of the devil himself.
2022 - It is interesting that in Luke, Satan enters into Judas before Judas confers with the Pharisees to help betray Jesus. It is like that whole conspiracy is orchestrated by Satan from "inside" Judas.
Luke again gives us some detail we haven't previously seen. Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover feast for Jesus and the 12. Maybe it was also these two who went looking for that colt Jesus rode on. We are told about the man carrying the water jar, and Luke clarifies that this man was a slave, and that they were to follow this man to his master's house, and request a room for their Passover meal, and Jesus tells them it will be an upper room.
This verse, describing the Lord's Supper:
18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." [Luk 22:18 ESV]
I would use this verse as a proof text that the Kingdom of God, though given into Jesus' authority on his return to heaven, is not yet come to earth. That will happen at the Millennial.
2022 - I would clarify that the physical Kingdom is not yet come to earth, but the spiritual kingdom certainly is. The suffering servant introduced the spiritual kingdom, and it was sent, in great measure, for the Gentiles. The promises to Abraham are very physical promises having to do with lands and dominions, and these will come to pass in the Millennial. It all just makes more and more sense as you keep reading it.
2021 - For perhaps the first time, I note here that this goes cup, bread, cup. It is that first cup that Jesus says he won't drink again until the kingdom of God comes. Charlie told us in class one time that the Jewish Passover actually has four cups. I got out my Jewish Study Bible and found these things: According to this source "In these accounts, one sees the traditions of the first century with added spiritual lessons taught by the Messiah. Among the traditional items mentioned are lamb, bitter herbs, the washing (Jn 13:1-15), four cups of wine, and matzah."
This source says it was in the cup of bitter herbs, which signified bondage to an oppressor, that Judas and Jesus both dipped their matzah. I had certainly not seen this before. You'd have to really know and see the Passover feast - the Seder - performed to recognize the nuances that were there.
"Each of the four cups of wine teaches an important lesson. According to ancient rabbis, these four cups are based on the four promises given to the children of Israel in Exodus 6:6-7. "Therefore, say to the people of Israel: 'I am Adonai. I will free you from the forced labor of the Egyptians, rescue you from their oppression, and redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments. I will take you as my people, and I will be your God'.""
Here is the description of each cup as given in the Jewish Study Bible. I'm not going to put it in quotes, because it is a lot of typing and I may take a short cut here and there.
The first cup is the Cup of Sanctification. It sets apart this service as special to the Lord.
The second cup is the Cup of Plagues. This is a reminder that it was because of Pharoah's stubbornness that the plagues intensified, and that many innocent people died because of him.
Third is the cup of Redemption. This cup was designated by Messiah Yeshua as a special memorial through all generations (cf Luke 22:19). It was once a memorial cup of physical redemption for the Jews from Egypt, but for believers in Yeshua this cup symbolizes the spiritual redemption found in Messiah's sacrificial blood.
Fourth is the Cup of Praise, and some of the songs of the Hallel are sung around this cup. In Matthew 26:30, it says "After singing the Hallel, they went out to the Mount of Olives."
So now, my question is, which cup is it that Jesus won't drink again until the kingdom of God comes? The way it is worded in ESV and in the JSB, it doesn't look like Jesus drank this cup that night. He told them to share it among themselves because he wasn't drinking any more fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. As I continue to read in the JSB, I see we need to back up to vs 16:
16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." [Luk 22:16 ESV] Jesus has just told them he's looked forward to eating this Passover meal with them. So I think he fully participated in this last Passover he would celebrate until, according to ESV, "...it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God", or according to the JSB, "...it is given its full meaning in the Kingdom of God." The next thing we're told is that "He took a cup of wine...". A footnote in JSB says there were two cups before, and two cups after the meal. So unless we decide to get over-complicated for some reason, this was the first cup, the cup of sanctification. Since he says "not again" before the first cup, he may have been referring to wine in general, fruit of the vine. The reference is to all four of the individual cups. If we focus on the "full meaning" of the Passover, and we note that the third cup is about redemption, final redemption of the Jews will occur at the Millennial, after that battle. At that point, surely we can say that the full meaning of the Passover will be understood.
This seems like a more complete way to understand the last supper than what I understood of it before.
2021-2, It could be that the Jewish tradition of four cups is something that came later...but no. The Passover has been going on a very long time. I suspect that Jewish tradition had been four cups for a long time, though I doubt that it was that way the night they left Egypt.
Also 2021:
This verse:
21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. [Luk 22:21 ESV] Jesus said this after the Cup of Redemption, before the cup of praise. To me, it is clear that Judas participated in the last supper at least through that third cup. All four gospels record that Jesus said the betrayer was there among them. (I just read through this in the Harmony. In Matthew and Mark, it is pretty clear that Jesus said this before the meal, because one of the answers as to who the betrayer was is that it would be the one that shared the "sop". I'm thinking the sop is the way they ate the bitter herbs. Note that Luke does not tell this the same way that Matthew and Mark tell it...the order is a bit difference. Luke was not a Jew. The order would not have been as critical to him as to Matthew and Mark. John pretty much aligns with Matthew and Mark also. But the point I'm trying to make is that Judas was still there. He DID eat the Passover meal with Christ. I read the Matthew and Mark versions of this yesterday, but I read through them pretty quickly for some reason. I need to spend more time putting these accounts together, as I did on the three apocryphal chapters. Especially since parts of this supper are recounted in all four gospels. Surely that says something about how important these events were.
Judas' responsibility for his own actions are double stitched in this verse, in red:
22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" [Luk 22:22 ESV]
Judas' fate in the afterlife...
The disciples are disputing as to who will be greatest - presumably who will lead the group after Jesus is dead. But Jesus tells them that leaders serve, the young lead the old. But he also tells them that in the kingdom, they will sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes. When, I wonder, is this judgement? During the Millennial doesn't seem right. So when?
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [Luk 22:30 ESV]
MSB has a very short note saying this will happen in the Millennial. But will the dead in Christ be on earth during the Millennial? I thought he was only bringing angels with him, not the saints? Need to look again at all this.
2022 - They will judge throughout the Millennial. This is not a specific one day judging event. The Sheep and Goat judgment takes place with Jesus on the throne. Only he will judge on that day. But during the Millennial, the world will continue, and sin will still be present on earth, and disputes that need judging will arise. That is what Jesus is talking about in this verse.
2025 - Still, it implies that the 11 will be present on earth during the Millennial. Only the 11 or all of the New Covenant Christians? That's a lot of people coming back to earth for that period of time. A lot of non-Jews in Israel. That seems unlikely to me.
2021 - Didn't they have this squabble on the road coming into Jerusalem just a few days before this? After being "informed" about how "Gentile" this squabble was on that day, are they doing it again? Or does Luke just decide to put that in right here?
2021 - Some really difficult questions arise here, starting with these verses:
31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." [Luk 22:31-32 ESV]
Satan demanded....Of whom did he demand it? How are his demands of any consequence? It reads like a Satan gets "equal consideration" with Jesus as to the coming of the church. Now I know this next is wrong, but I don't know how to answer it. What if someone says that Satan's demanding means that Satan and Jesus are competing, which means that they are equal. Then, if I wanted to press such a point, I'd say that implies that Jesus and Satan are both angels. And then I would attack the Trinity, and attack the position that Jesus is a manifestation of God's working in the world toward redemption of man, since Jesus is just an angel, though a perfect angel. How do you answer this line of attack? I find it interesting that MSB does not address that Satan demands this at all. Just doesn't mention that aspect of it. For now, my answer to al this would be that Satan's "so called" demand is allowed because of the "sifting" that will result in a more refined final product. In fact, this sifting, especially in Peter's case, will result in a nearly unshakeable faith afterwards. Yeah...that's a pretty good answer. Same answer in Job's case. Satan needed permission still. In the case of Job, there was nothing about competition. In this case, you have to read in that it is a competition between equals, it certainly isn't stated that way. And we know from many other scriptures - including the temptation of Christ - that Satan is NOT equal to Jesus, we know that Jesus was born a man, not an angel....There are a lot of replies to the argument above. Many ways to show it wrong. Maybe that's why MSB doesn't even bother to go there.
Reading this in JSB, I think the "you" that Satan demanded is ALL the apostles, not just Peter, but Jesus prayed expressly that Peter would come through, because Jesus knew just how devastatingly Peter would fail in the face of Satan's attack. (Yes. One of the footnotes points out that the "you" in vs 32 is singular all four times, as distinguished from the usage in 31. Satan wants to sift them all. Jesus prayed for Peter specifically - perhaps because his testing would come so soon, and result in such dramatic failure.
Luke also gives us more information about Peter's coming denial. This verse:
32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." [Luk 22:32 ESV]
Jesus knew Peter would fail, but that he would also repent of his failure. How can we say that Peter was unsaved when he denied? How can we say the truly saved never deny? I just don't see it this way. The JSB also has a note on the phrase "turned again". In Judaism, the word for turning (t'shuvah) is not used of conversion, but of repentance. So my point above seems solid. You can get pretty bad in your denial of Jesus and still be saved.
This next is cut and paste, because it's come up before:
36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. [Luk 22:36 ESV]
When Jesus sent them out previously, they were divinely provided for and protected. He gave them all the food, clothing, and protection from thieves, thugs, and tyrants on the road that they needed. But after he dies, they will be on their own for these things. It won't be divinely provided - beyond basic needs I believe - but instead, they are to use their own foresight and planning to take care of these things. This would sort of contradict the whole idea of setting out with no visible means of support and just depending on God. I think this verse says you make your best plans, and you depend on God to make what you have work for what HE plans for you.
2021 - Also, in light of the sifting that is coming, we know they will all be persecuted and abused and subject not only to the random evil of men, but to directed purposeful attack. The time for "miraculous" protection as evidence of the purpose of God that they are fulfilling is now passing. The miracles are going to go away, but the church must still continue, against all attacks. They will have the Holy Spirit, as we do, but few if any miraculous interventions.
Reminds me of the Book Roy Moody loaned me about the missionary to China, Hudson Taylor, and the way he did things. He prayed, long, hard, and with others, to discern God's will. He got that part right first. Once he knew God's will, then and only then, did he plunge ahead and depend on God to provide. Only in His will can we expect his provision. This might be made into a good FB post, especially in view of what is happening in the US right now as Biden's swearing in approaches, as congressmen pray in the name of Brahma, and as prayers are ended with amen and a-women. We had better get ourselves into God's will, tie on our moneybag and knapsack, and prepare to defend ourselves - not against government, but against the random violence that is no longer held in check by a God-fearing majority.
2021-2, ...sell his cloak and buy one... They needed a moneybag, a knapsack, and a sword. Most likely this is how people traveled in those days. Or was it? Would the Romans really let Jewish citizens travel with swords? And if not...Jesus is telling them to break the law. So that must not be what he means. Instead of traveling with divine protection, they would need to travel considering all the contingencies, including robbery on the highway. They would need to travel as ordinary citizens traveled and not depend on God to provide everything. That is surely all that was meant here. Look after yourselves to a much greater extent than when he sent them out special. And do not forget that in any case, he is talking to the 12, not to all men at all times. Be careful of applying this instruction universally. And remember that we never hear about swords in the rest of the NT. Even Paul, though he says robbers attacked him, never talks about fighting them off with swords. Ahh...They told Jesus they had two swords with them, so it is highly unlikely that this was illegal.
2022 - Perhaps this paragraph is an extension of the previous one. They are to be sifted, so the kind of divine protection they had previously will have to be withdrawn. Otherwise, it is not sifting at all.
2024 - I believe Jesus was telling them they'd need to defend themselves on the road, and perhaps in their own homes. The swords were legitimately for defense. Since two were enough, this was strictly about defensive action. But look at that next verse also and consider what it might mean: 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." [Luk 22:37 ESV]. Is Jesus saying that the 12 are going to also be treated as transgressors? As lawbreakers because of their faith, their convictions, their Bible-derived morality? Will they need to defend themselves because they are treated as criminals even though they are not criminals? And does that thinking extend on down to us today also? Is the time when we are treated as criminals approaching?
Possible FB post in that series about not rebelling against the govt.
2025 - Early. Or does it mean they really were not allowed by Rome to carry swords on the road, but since it was necessary, and they did it anyway, they were transgressors, and Jesus was numbered among them???
Luke does not mention the singing of a hymn - or the Hallel - before they left the upper room. Again, Luke was not Jewish, and this detail may not have meant so much to him as it did to Matthew and Mark. John doesn't mention singing either.
Where Matthew and Mark say Jesus told the disciples to watch, Luke says he told them to "Pray that you may not enter into temptation..." Apparently their desertion of him when the mob arrived was their yielding to temptation.
This verse:
43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. [Luk 22:43-44 ESV]
I still don't know how Luke could have know about this. He doesn't say anything about the three closest to Jesus moving further into the garden with him. He doesn't talk about that at all. Yet he talks about this angel and about sweating blood. Luke never met Jesus, so far as we know. So who knew these details???
2021 - The obvious answer to this kind of question, here and previously where I have asked it, is that this is inspired scripture. So where no other explanation is forthcoming - that is, where no naturalistic explanation is forthcoming - we know the information is inspired and is there because it was important that we knew these details. Also, a footnote in TCR says that some manuscripts omit vvs 43 and 44 about the angel and the drops of blood. ESV does include these verses though. ESV claims to only include the "best" manuscripts, so some pretty good ones must include it.
2021 - I looks like I ran out of gas right about here last year also. I am tired, but I have added some helpful information to these notes. But for the rest of Luke 22, and all of John, I will just be reading straight through. Next year, I will start with John 13. I also need to focus on Lk 22:47-71 one year also, as I burn out before I get to these. 2021-2, Reading straight through to vs 47 this time (June).
It is Luke that tells us Jesus turned and looked at Peter when the cock crowed. Neither Matthew nor Mark told us about that. Luke could only have gotten this information from Peter himself.
I have only tried to note things Luke says that Matthew and Mark didn't. I will do the same in...
Any notes below this are from 2021-2.
47 While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, [Luk 22:47 ESV] A crowd, led by Judas. The implication is that they were a mob. And note that swords come out and a clash takes place. The apostles do try to physically defend Jesus, even cutting off someone's ear. But Jesus stops them. This is not the time he was talking about earlier when he told them to get swords. We learn also that Jesus directly addresses the chief priests, officers of the temple, and elders. So there were some officials in this mob. They made it look legitimate, though it was still just a mob with torches and clubs. Jesus knows who incited this mob though. It is not "the people" trying to arrest him, but the powerful. And Jesus asks them why the powerful have to operate in darkness when he was right there with them in the light. He makes sure THEY know that HE knows.
Luke does not mention that all the apostles fled the scene. It is implied in that Peter was following at a distance.
Peter's denials come next. I have written about those elsewhere in detail.
Beginning in vs 66, we see the first "official" charges leveled against Jesus. As you read the "transcript" in Luke, it is hard to see how they could even trump up charges based on Jesus' answers to them. Ahh...If you look at it in the Interlinear, in vs 70, when they ask him if he is the Son of God, he answer with the proscribed phrase, "I am". There is no "You say that..." in the Morphological Greek New Testament. All that is implied. Or not...
Both the mGNT and the Textus Receptus are shown in the BLB notes. Jesus' answer seems to have been five words - in both versions. The difference seems to be that the TR puts Jesus answer in quotes and capitalizes the first word. The transliteration of both the capitalized and uncapitalized words is "hymeis" in both versions. Yet a different Strong's number is assigned to the words. In the mGNT, it is Strongs. 4771, uncapitalized, and in the TR, it is Strongs 5210, capitalized. Well...the more I look the more obvious it is that I don't know Greek and that this response is actually a lot more complicated than capitalized and uncapitalized. When I see this kind of thing, I believe the implication is that the full complex meaning of what was said in Greek does not at all translate into English. You just cannot bring it across. And then add to that the fact that in a Jewish court, Jesus was probably speaking Hebrew, and that Hebrew might well not have translated fully into Greek. And when you think about it that way, you must make some assumptions. Whatever his specific answer in Hebrew, addressed to Hebrews was, it was considered blasphemy by the court. Therefore, what he answered must have been an unmistakable "Yes, I AM". He not only claimed to be God's Son, but included himself AS God. Very much is here. By the way, it turns out Strong's 4771 is just the personal pronoun of the second person singular. Jesus was referring to himself in the second person. First person is "I". Second person is some kind of singular "We"? Is that what he answered? They asked "Are you the Son of God", and Jesus answered "We are". Oh my. I bet that is pretty close to what went on here. That is probably as close to what he really answered as English can get. I don't think we have a second person singular other than "you". A word must be "invented" or a substitution made to understand this answer.