Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 22:47
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
47-53. The Traitor’s Kiss. The Arrest. Malchus.
47. behold a multitude ] Composed of Levitical guards under their ‘general;’ a Roman Chiliarch (‘tribune’), with some soldiers, part of a maniple or cohort ( ) from the Fort of Antonia (Joh 18:12); and some priests and elders.
one of the twelve ] It seems as if in narrating the scene the Evangelists unconsciously add the circumstance which to their mind branded the deed with its worst horror. For the terror which seized the multitude, the precipitate entrance of Judas into the garden, and our Lord’s first words to him, see Joh 18:3-9.
See this explained in Mat 26:48-56. Luk 22:48 Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? – By the Son of man was evidently meant the Messiah. Judas had had the most satisfactory evidence of that, and did not doubt it. A kiss was the sign of affection. By that slight artifice Judas thought to conceal his base purpose. Jesus with severity reproaches him for it. Every word is emphatic. Betrayest thou – dost thou violate all thy obligations of fidelity, and deliver thy Master up to death? Betrayest thou – thou, so long with him, so much favored, so sure that this is the Messiah? Betrayest thou the Son of man – the Messiah, the hope of the nations, the desire of all people, the worlds Redeemer? Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss – the sign of friendship and affection employed in a base and wicked purpose, intending to add deceit, disguise, and the prostitution of a mark of affection to the crime of treason? Every word of this must have gone to the very soul of Judas. Perhaps few reproofs of crime more resemble the awful searchings of the souls of the wicked in the day of judgment. Luk 22:47-53
Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss
The traitors kiss
A TRAITOR AMONG THE DISCIPLES. Many of them were weak in faith and carnal in apprehension, but only one a traitor.
1. It was the accepted token of affection.
2. It was here prostituted to the basest of uses.
3. It was received with lamblike meekness by Him who knew it meant treachery.
1. Compliment and deny Him with the same lips,
2. Profess to be united with Him at His table, and then act as lovers and servants of the world.
3. Exalt His humanity to the skies, and deny His rightful divinity and the efficacy of the atonement. (Homiletic Review.)
Christ betrayed by Judas
1. We see how needful it is that we, each one of us, look well to the state of our own hearts. Here is a man who knew the truth, who had preached the truth, who had wrought miracles for the sake of the truth; and yet became a castaway. Now, why was this? He held the truth in unrighteousness. The man who has been a hypocrite in religion is very rarely recovered; he deceives others, but yet more fatally does he deceive himself.
2. Again: the history teaches us how little security against our falling away, there is in the possession of eminent spiritual advantages. Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve.
3. Again: we learn from this history how insensible and unperceived is the progress of the downward course in sin. When a man once enters on the way of transgression, he can never tell where he shall stop. Neither wickedness nor holiness attain to their full stature all at once. We cannot suppose that Judas had the remotest thought of his treachery when he first accepted the invitation to become one of the apostles.
4. The enslaving power of the love of this present world. (D. Moore, M. A.)
The treason of Judas
1. Hence in the first place we learn, that the greatest professors had need be jealous of their own hearts, and look well to the grounds and principles of their professions.
2. Learn hence also, that eminent knowledge and profession puts a special and eminent aggravation upon sin. To sin against clear light is to sin with a high hand. It is that which makes a sad waste of the conscience.
3. Learn hence, in the third place, that unprincipled professors will sooner or later become shameful apostates.
4. Moreover in this example of Judas you may read this truth–that men and women are never in more imminent danger than when they meet with temptations exactly suited to their master-lusts, to their own iniquity. O pray, pray, that ye may be kept from a violent suitable temptation. Satan knows that when a man is tried here, he falls by the root.
5. Hence, in like manner, we are instructed, that no man knows where he shall stop when he first engages himself in a way of sin.
6. Did Judas sell Christ for money? What a potent conqueror is the love of this world! How many hath it cast down wounded? What great professors have been dragged at its chariot-wheels as its captives? Pliny tells us that the mermaids delight to be in green meadows, into which they draw men by their enchanting voices; but saith he, there always lie heaps of dead mens bones by them. A lively emblem of a bewitching world! Good had it been for many professors of religion if they had never known what the riches, and honours, and pleasures of this world meant.
7. Did Judas fancy so much happiness in a little money, that he would sell Christ to get it? Learn, then, that which men promise themselves much pleasure and contentment in, in the way of sin, may prove the greatest curse and misery to thorn that ever befel them in the world.
8. Was there one, and but one, of the twelve that proved a Judas, a traitor to Christ? Learn thence, that it is a most unreasonable thing to be prejudiced at religion, and the sincere professors of it, because some that profess it prove naught and vile.
9. Did Judas, one of the twelve, do so? Learn thence, that a drop of grace is better than a sea of gifts. Gifts have some excellency in them, but the way of grace is the more excellent way (1Co 12:31). Gifts, as one saith, are dead graces, but graces are living gifts. There is many a learned head in hell. These are not the things that accompany salvation. It is better for thee to feel one Divine impression from God upon thy heart than to have ten thousand fine notions floating in thy head. Judas was a man of parts, but what good did they do him?
10. Did the devil win the consent of Judas to such a design as this? Could he get no other but the hand of an apostle to assist him? Learn hence, that the policy of Satan lies much in the choice of his instruments he works by.
No bird, saith one, like a living bird to tempt others into the net. Austin told an ingenious young scholar the devil coveted him for an ornament. He knows he hath a foul cause to manage, and therefore will get the fairest hand he can to manage it with the less suspicion.
11. Did Judas, one of the twelve, do this? Then, certainly, Christians may approve and join with such men on earth whose faces they shall never see in heaven.
12. Did Judas, one of the twelve, a man so obliged, raised, and honoured by Christ, do this? Cease then from man, be not too confident, but beware of men. Trust ye not in a friend, put no confidence in a guide, keep the door of thy lips from her that lieth in thy bosom (Mic 7:5). (J. Flavel.)
The betrayal
1. It is appointed that He must die, but how shall He fall into the hands of His adversaries? Shall they capture Him in conflict? It must not be, lest He appear an unwilling victim. Shall He flee before His foes until He can hide no longer? It is not meet that a sacrifice should be hunted to death. Shall He offer Himself to the foe? That were to excuse His murderers, or be a party to their crime. Shall He be taken accidentally or unawares? That would withdraw from His cup the necessary bitterness which made it wormwood mingled with gall.
(1) One reason for the appointment of the betrayal lay in the fact that it was ordained that mans sin should reach its culminating point in His death.
(2) Beyond a doubt, however, the main reason for this was that Christ might offer a perfect atonement for sin. We may usually read the sin in the punishment. Man betrayed his God. Therefore must Jesus find man a traitor to Him. There must be the counterpart of the sin in the suffering which He endured. You and I have often betrayed Christ. It seemed most fitting, then, that He who bore the chastisement of sin should be reminded of its ingratitude and treachery by the things which He suffered.
(3) Besides, brethren, that cup must be bitter to the last degree which is to be the equivalent for the wrath of God.
(4) Moreover, we feel persuaded that by thus suffering at the hand of a traitor the Lord became a faithful High Priest, able to sympathize with us when we fall under the like affliction.
2. Now let us look at the treason itself. You perceive how black it was.
(1) Judas was Christs servant, what if I call him His confidential servant.
(2) Judas was more than this: he was a friend, a trusted friend.
(3) The world looked upon Judas as a colleague of our Lords.
(4) Our Lord would look upon Judas as a representative man, the portraiture of many thousands who in after ages have imitated his crime.
3. Observe the manner in which Christ met this affliction.
(1) His calmness.
(2) His gentleness.
1. I would call your attention, dear friends, to his position and public character.
(1) Judas was a preacher; nay, he was a foremost preacher, he obtained part of this ministry, said the Apostle Peter.
(2) Judas took a very high degree officially. He had the distinguished honour of being entrusted with the Masters financial concerns, and this, after all, was no small degree to which to attain. The Lord, who knows how to use all sorts of gifts, perceived what gift the man had.
(3) You will observe that the character of Judas was openly an admirable one. I find not that he committed himself in any way. Not the slightest speck defiled his moral character so far as others could perceive. He was no boaster, like Peter.
2. But I call your attention to his real nature and sin. Judas was a man with a conscience. He could not afford to do without it. He was no Sadducee who could fling religion overboard; he had strong religious tendencies. But then it was a conscience that did not sit regularly on the throne; it reigned by fits and starts. Conscience was not the leading element. Avarice predominated over conscience.
3. The warning which Judas received, and the way in which he persevered.
4. The act itself. He sought out his own temptation. He did not wait for the devil to come to him; he went after the devil. He went to the chief priests and said, What will ye give me? Alas! some peoples religion is grounded on that one question.
5. We conclude with the repentance of Judas. He did repent; but it was the repentance that worketh death. The man who repents of consequences does not repent. The ruffian repents of the gallows but not of the murders and that is no repentance at all. Human law, of course, must measure sin by consequences, but Gods law does not. There is a pointsman on a railway who neglects his duty; there is a collision on the line, and people are killed; well, it is manslaughter to this man through his carelessness. But that pointsman, perhaps, many times before had neglected his duty, but no accident came of it, and then he walked home and said, Well, I have done no wrong. Now the wrong, mark you, is never to be measured by the accident, but by the thing itself, and if you have committed an offence and you have escaped undetected it is lust as vile in Gods eye; if you have done wrong and Providence has prevented the natural result of the wrong, the honour of that is with God, but you are as guilty as if your sin had been carried out to its fullest consequences, and the whole world set ablaze. Never measure sin by consequences, but repent of them as they are in themselves. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Treachery to Christ
1. That He is really and properly Man, as well as truly Divine.
2. The phrase, Son of Man, seems intended to denote the meanness of Christs origin, and the poverty of His outward condition.
3. Christs assumption of this character may teach us to consider Him as the Saviour of all nations; or of all that ever will be saved, out of every kindred, tongue, and people: He is not the Son of this or that particular people, but the Son of Man, and the Saviour of all them that believe, by whatever name they may be distinguished.
4. The term Son of Man seems to have been prefigured and foretold as a title which belonged to the expected Messiah.
1. We have here a loud call to be jealous of our own hearts, and to exercise a holy watchfulness over them. More especially, if we regard our immortal interests, let us carefully avoid the following things–
(1) Self-confidence. The fear of falling is a good security against it.
(2) The secret indulgence of any sin: this was the ruin of Judas.
(3) Beware of a profession without principle, the form of godliness without the power. Those who have no root in themselves will soon wither away.
2. We see how far a person may go in the way to heaven, and yet fall short of it.
3. Let us admire and adore the infinite wisdom of God, who brought so much real good out of so much aggravated evil. (B. Beddome, M. A.)
He touched his ear, and healed him
Jesus the Restorer
Jesus wrought a miracle to repair the mischief which Peter had done. Thus, by one act, in one moment, Christ made Himself the repairer of the breach. The evil, which His follower had done, was cancelled; and, through the kind interposition of a special act, the injured man was none the worse–but rather the better–and the harm, of which a Christian had been the occasion, was neutralized by his Master. I do not know what we should any of us do if we might not hope that this is still one of the blessed offices of Christ. We go through life meaning to do good; but oh! how often–through some ignorance, or indiscretion, or self-will-doing exactly the reverse! Happy is it for us if we might believe that Christ comes after us to undo the harm–nay, that by one of His gracious transformations, He comes afterwards to turn to benefit the very thing which we have done hurtingly. In the retrospect of life there was, it may be, a long period before you knew God–when your influence was all on the wrong side; your example and your words were always for the world, and sometimes for what was positively sinful! How many a bad and well-nigh deadly wound must you have been making during those years upon the minds of those among whom your remarks and your actions were being flung about with such utter carelessness! How many a young companion, years back, may have learnt then to carry with him a life-long scar through some idle word of yours. Through the infinite patience, and the abounding grace of our God and Saviour, you have become a Christian; and you now love the Lord Jesus Christ as you love nothing else in earth or heaven; and, at this moment, you could not have a bitterer thought than to think that you had ever done anything to keep a soul from Jesus; or to give a moments pain to one of His little ones. Now, may you take it as one of the wonderful provisions of your new state–as one of the blessings into which you have been admitted–that the Christ, whom you now call yours, will prevent the consequences of what you did in those days of sinful blindness–that He will restore what you destroyed, that fins bloom to that delicate conscience, it may be, of one of your early friends; that He will rectify the ill–that He will touch with His own virtue the afflicted part, and that He will heal all that wound. Why may we not believe all this? Was not that the spirit of the Man, that night, when He stood upon the Mount of Olives? And is He not the same Restorer now? Do not think because man made your trouble, therefore God will not deal with the trouble. It rests with you. If you bring a sin to Christ believingly, He will take away that sin. If you bring a sorrow to Christ believingly, He will take away that sorrow. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)
See Poole on “Mat 26:47“, and following verses to Mat 26:49. See Poole on “Mar 14:43“, and following verses to Mar 14:45. And while he yet spake,…. The above words to his disciples,
behold a multitude. The Persic version adds, “of Jews, with arrows, swords, and spears”; but the multitude consisted partly of Roman soldiers, and partly of the officers of the chief priests:
and he that was called Judas: and sometimes Iscariot, to distinguish him from another Judas, who also was of the number of the apostles:
one of the twelve; disciples of Christ, whom he had chosen, called, and ordained:
went before them; as their guide, to show them where Jesus was, and to point him out unto them; see Ac 1:16
and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him; that being the signal he had given them, by which they should know him. The Syriac version here adds, “for this sign he had given to them, whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he”: and so likewise the Persic and Ethiopic versions, adding also this, “lay hold upon him”; but the whole seems to be transcribed from Mt 26:48.
The Treachery of Judas. 47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. 48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? 49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? 50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? 53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. Satan, finding himself baffled in his attempts to terrify our Lord Jesus, and so to put him out of the possession of his own soul, betakes himself (according to his usual method) to force and arms, and brings a party into the field to seize him, and Satan was in them. Here is, I. The marking of him by Judas. Here a numerous party appears, and Judas at the head of them, for he was guide to them that took Jesus; they knew not where to find him, but he brought them to the place: when they were there, they knew not which was he, but Judas told them that whomsoever he should kiss, that same was he; so he drew near to him to kiss him, according to the wonted freedom and familiarity to which our Lord Jesus admitted his disciples. Luke takes notice of the question Christ asked him, which we have not in the other evangelists: Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? What! Is this the signal? v. 48. Must the Son of man be betrayed, as if any thing could be concealed from him, and a plot carried on against him unknown to him? Must one of his own disciples betray him, as if he had been a hard Master to them, or deserved ill at their hands? Must he be betrayed with a kiss? Must the badge of friendship be the instrument of treachery? Was ever a love-token so desecrated and abused? Note, Nothing can be a greater affront or grief to the Lord Jesus than to be betrayed, and betrayed with a kiss, by those that profess relation to him and an affection for him. Those do so who, under pretence of zeal for his honour, persecute his servants, who, under the cloak of a seeming affection for the honour of free grace, give a blow to the root of holiness and strictness of conversation. Many instances there are of Christ’s being betrayed with a kiss, by those who, under the form of godliness, fight against the power of it. It were well if their own consciences would put this question to them, which Christ here puts to Judas, Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? And will he not resent it? Will he not revenge it? II. The effort which his disciples made for his protection (v. 49): When they saw what would follow, that those armed men were come to seize him, they said, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword? Thou didst allow us to have two swords, shall we now make use of them? Never was there more occasion; and to what purpose should we have them if we do not use them?” They asked the question as if they would not have drawn the sword without commission from their Master, but they were in too much haste and too much heat to stay for an answer. But Peter, aiming at the head of one of the servants of the high priest, missed his blow, and cut off his right ear. As Christ, by throwing them to the ground that came to take him, showed what he could have done, so Peter, by this exploit, showed what he could have done too in so good a cause if he had had leave. The other evangelists tell us what was the check Christ gave to Peter for it. Luke here tells us, 1. How Christ excused the blow: Suffer ye thus far, v. 51. Dr. Whitby thinks he said this to his enemies who came to take him, to pacify them, that they might not be provoked by it to fall upon the disciples, whom he had undertaken the preservation of: “Pass by this injury and affront; it was without warrant from me, and there shall not be another blow struck.” Though Christ had power to have struck them down, and struck them dead, yet he speaks them fair, and, as it were, begs their pardon for an assault made upon them by one of his followers, to teach us to give good words even to our enemies. 2. How he cured the wound, which was more than amends sufficient for the injury: He touched his ear, and healed him; fastened his ear on again, that he might not so much as go away stigmatized, though he well deserved it. Christ hereby gave them a proof, (1.) Of his power. He that could heal could destroy if he pleased, which should have obliged them in interest to submit to him. Had they returned the blow upon Peter, he would immediately have healed him; and what could not a small regiment do that had such a surgeon to it, immediately to help the sick and wounded? (2.) Of his mercy and goodness. Christ here gave an illustrious example to his own rule of doing good to them that hate us, as afterwards he did of praying for them that despitefully use us. Those who render good for evil do as Christ did. One would have thought that this generous piece of kindness should have overcome them, that such coals, heaped on their heads, should have melted them, that they could not have bound him as a malefactor who had approved himself such a benefactor; but their hearts were hardened. III. Christ’s expostulation with the officers of the detachment that came to apprehend him, to show what an absurd thing it was for them to make all this rout and noise, Luk 22:52; Luk 22:53. Matthew relates it as said to the multitude. Luke tells us that it was said to the chief priests and captains of the temple the latter commanded the several orders of the priests, and therefore are here put between the chief priests and the elders, so that they were all ecclesiastics, retainers to the temple, who were employed in this odious piece of service; and some of the first rank too disparaged themselves so far as to be seen in it. Now see here, 1. How Christ reasons with them concerning their proceedings. What occasion was there for them to come out in the dead of the night, and with swords and staves? (1.) They knew that he was one that would not resist, nor raise the mob against them; he never had done any thing like this. Why then are ye come out as against a thief? (2.) They knew he was one that would not abscond, for he was daily with them in the temple, in the midst of them, and never sought to conceal himself, nor did they offer to lay hands on him. Before his hour was come, it was folly for them to think to take him; and when his hour was come it was folly for them to make all this ado to take him. 2. How he reconciles himself to their proceedings; and this we had not before: “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. How hard soever it may seem that I should be thus exposed, I submit, for so it is determined. This is the hour allowed you to have your will against me. There is an hour appointed me to reckon for it. Now the power of darkness, Satan, the ruler of the darkness of this world, is permitted to do his worst, to bruise the heel of the seed of the woman, and I resolve to acquiesce; let him do his worst. The Lord shall laugh at him, for he sees that his day, his hour, is coming.” Ps. xxxvii. 13. Let this quiet us under the prevalency of the church’s enemies; let it quiet us in a dying hour, that, (1.) It is but an hour that is permitted for the triumph of our adversary, a short time, a limited time. (2.) It is their hour, which is appointed them, and in which they are permitted to try their strength, that omnipotence may be the more glorified in their fall. (3.) It is the power of darkness that rides master, and darkness must give way to light, and the power of darkness be made to truckle to the prince of light. Christ was willing to wait for his triumphs till his warfare was accomplished, and we must be so too. Went before them (). Imperfect middle. Judas was leading the band for he knew the place well (Joh 18:2). Multitude – one of the twelve. See on Mt 26:47. To kiss. See on Mt 26:47.
JESUS BETRAYED BY JUDAS, RESTORES MALCHUS’ EAR
V. 47-53
1) “And while he yet spake, behold a multitude,” (eti autou lalountos idou, ochlos) “While he was still speaking, behold a crowd,” a night-scene of the betrayal and the arrest of our Lord is now at hand. Led by Judas Iscariot a Levitical guard under their Jewish Generals, a band of Roman soldiers of the cohort from the Fort of Antonio with priests and elders, charged across the Kedron valley, and up the mount of Olives to Gethsemane to seize Jesus, Mat 26:47.
2) “And he that was called Judas, one of the twelve,” (kai ho legomenos loudas eis ton dodeka) “And one of the twelve (apostles) the one who is called Judas,” Judas Iscariot, Mat 26:47; Mar 14:43; Joh 18:3-4. All four of the Gospel writers record his presence and forward part in the betrayal.
3) “Went before them,” (prosercheto autous) “Came before them,” to guide them, leading the crowd up the mount of Olives, through the dark of the night, having given his followers a token or sign by which they would know Jesus, Mar 14:44. He was eager to deliver Jesus to them, and get his pay-off.
4) “And drew near to Jesus to kiss him.” (kai engisen to lesou philesai auton) “And he drew near to Jesus to kiss him,” though his deceitful heart was far away from loving Him, for the purpose of kissing Him, the prophesied method of identifying Jesus and Judas for what he was that night, Mat 26:48; Mar 14:44.
CRITICAL NOTES
Luk. 22:47. A multitude.Composed of Levitical guards under their generals, a Roman tribune with some soldiers, part of a cohort from the Fort of Antonia, and some priests and elders (Farrar). To kiss Him.The preconcerted sign.
Luk. 22:48. Betrayest thou? etc.In the order in the original the basest circumstance of the deed of treachery is made prominentJudas, with a kiss betrayest thou? etc.
Luk. 22:50. One of them.St. John tells that it was Peter, and that the servants name was Malchus. Perhaps the synoptists omit the former name, from prudential motives. Suffer ye thus far.If we are to understand these words as addressed to the disciples, they mean, Let them do what they please; resist them not, and are equivalent to the longer speech reported in Mat. 26:52-54. If, however, they are addressed to the captors, they might be interpreted to mean, Allow Me thus much libertyi.e., to set Him free for a moment to heal the wounded man. The former is perhaps to be preferred, as the words can be understood as virtually equivalent to the remonstrance addressed to the disciples in the parallel account in St. Matthew, and as the next words of Jesus are spoken to the captors.
Luk. 22:52. A thief.Rather, a robber (R.V.).
Luk. 22:53. This is your hour, etc.I.e., This is the time when power is given you against Me by the determinate counsel of God (Act. 4:28), and in which the Power, or Prince, of darkness, is permitted to exercise his rancour against Me (Bloomfield). Perhaps there is also an allusion to the darkness of the night, as harmonising with deeds of treachery and violence.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Luk. 22:47-53
The Arrest.The agony (lit. struggle) in the garden of Gethsemane was now past, and Christ had won the victory, so that now He was fortified against the new form of temptation to which He was subjected. For still the power of darkness (Luk. 22:53), was arrayed against Him, and the tempter, who had sought in vain to overthrow His self-possession by suggestions of coming evil, now resorts to force and arms. The quiet of the garden and of the midnight hour is broken in upon by the arrival of a multitude of enemies, led by one into whom Satan had entered. All through the scene that followed the Divine majesty and calmness of the Saviour are very conspicuous. Neither the baseness of the act of betrayal, nor the rash conduct of one of His would-be defenders, nor the malignant rage of His enemies, provokes Him to a hasty word. He expostulates in turn with the traitor, with the disciple who drew his sword, and with His captors.
I. An appeal to conscience.If anything might have aroused the fiercest and most righteous indignation, it was surely the conduct of Judas. He knew the place where Christ was to be found, and the reason why He was accustomed to resort thither. Yet He did not hesitate to violate the sanctity of the place of prayer used by his Master, so bent was he upon carrying out his evil purpose. He goes before the armed band as their leader, and as if to make sure that Christ should not escape, even if he had to capture Him with his own hands. And then, too, as the crowning act of baseness, he had arranged to point out the Saviour to His captors by drawing near to Him and kissing Him. Surely we have sin here in its last and most hateful form: when the evil purpose is disguised by hypocritical pretence, and the sinner is so hardened as not even to recognise his own baseness. There is a certain severity, mingled with tenderness, in the expostulation addressed by Jesus to the traitor. His calling him by his name might have reminded him of friendly, confidential intercourse in former days. Is it by this mark of affection, the kiss of discipleship and friendship, that the signal is to be given to the enemy? Dost thou kiss and betray? In words calculated to sting and arouse the sleeping conscience, Jesus reveals to the fallen apostle the blackness of his guilt. He calls the evil by its name and reveals it in all its hideousness. And had not the heart of Judas been hardened, the remonstrance of Jesus might not have been in vain. Had he, even at his last moment, repented and asked forgiveness, we cannot doubt but that it would have been freely extended to him. The pleading of Christ with the sinner falls in vain on the heart that is wedded to its sin.
II. A call to patience.Before Jesus had had time to reply to the question of the apostles, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? one of them, Peter, acted on his own impulse and struck wildly at one of the crowd. Perhaps Malchus, the servant of the high priest, who received the blow, was more prominent than his fellows in laying hands upon Jesus; yet was he less guilty than othersless guilty, for example, than the high priest, from whom probably he caught by contagion the spirit of rancorous hatred against the Saviour. The high priest veiled his hatred under courteous phrases and legal forms: the uncultured, rude servant manifested his hatred in a rough, brutal way. Yet was the master more guilty than the servant. Peters action was hasty and ill-advised. It is not for the Church to wield the sword of justice; she is apt to strike the wrong person. His action, too, not only endangered his own safety, but was calculated to compromise his Masters cause. For it was necessary for Jesus, in order to clear Himself from the accusations brought against Him by the Jews, to be able to say, My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews (Joh. 18:36). And so Christ restrained the apostle from striking another blow, and healed the wound he had inflicted. His words prescribed patience instead of resistance. Suffer ye thus farallow these men to go as far as this, to bind Me and take Me away. How marvellous the patience shown by Him, whose next action proved His possession of superhuman power! What a rebuke does not His submission to violence and wrong administer to us, who are so eager to resent every petty affront! He returns good for evil, and blesses His enemies. He heals the man who was binding His hands, and who not only asked for no benefit, but was even devoid of faith in Him who conferred it.
III. A rebuke of cowardice.Christ turns from those who were merely acting under orders, and addresses the members of the Sanhedrim, who had not thought it beneath their dignity to be present at the arrest of their victim, and rebukes their cowardice. Surely all this parade of soldiers and officers for the capture of one man, who offered no resistance, was unnecessary! He was no desperate malefactor, but one who had often taught the people the way of righteousness, in the courts of the Temple. Had He been an evil-doer they might have arrested Him openly, in the daylight. And even now it was not the force they brought against Him that compelled His surrender. It was their hourthe hour appointed by God for their triumph and for His submission; a greater than an earthly power aided them, but it was the power of darkness. And so, even at the time when Christ yielded to His foes, He declared plainly that He was the light, that resistance to Him was of the essence of sin, and anticipated the triumph of the light over darkness. This hour would pass, and the Sun of Righteousness, which was now suffering eclipse, would shine forth in His strength.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luk. 22:47-53
Luk. 22:47-53. The Arrest of Jesus.
I. The traitors kiss (Luk. 22:47-48).
II. The attempt, on the part of the disciples, to defend Him (Luk. 22:49-51).
III. The protest of Christ against the treachery and cowardice of His enemies (Luk. 22:52-53).
Luk. 22:47. Went before them.A twofold act of treachery Judas was guilty of.
1. He led the band to the place where they might find Jesus. Luk. 22:48. Judas, betrayest thou?Every word in the sentence indicates the depth of guilt belonging to this evil deed.
I. Its treachery.Judas, betrayest thou?
II. Its malice.Betrayest.
III. Its ingratitude.The Son of man.
IV. Its hypocrisy.With a kiss.
Betrayest thou?Jesus spoke appealingly to Judas, but only cast a look upon Peter. The words were lost upon Judas: the look brought Peter to repentance.
Luk. 22:48; Luk. 22:61. Two Rebukes.These rebukes were given by our Lord to two disciples. Both quiet, but potent.
I. To the arch-hypocrite.A few mild words.
II. To the denying disciple.A look.
III. Their results.Each rebuke was followed by repentance. But what a difference! Heaven in the one; hell in the other. The one tearful; the other tearless. The one leading to contrition and restoration; the other to remorse, anguish, suicide.Campbell.
Luk. 22:49. Shall we smite?The enigmatical warning of Luk. 22:36 was evidently in the minds of the disciples. They were not sure whether or not He intended them to use the swords they carried.
Luk. 22:50. Smote a servant.By this action Peter
(1) endangered his own safety, and Luk. 22:51. Healed him.A mark
(1) of Christs power,
(2) of His mercy, even towards an enemy.
I. How readily the Saviour repaired the damage caused by the mistaken zeal of His servants! Luk. 22:52-53. The Weapons and Stratagems used against Christ Unnecessary.
1. His whole previous conduct might have made it clear to them that He would offer no resistance. Luk. 22:52. Chief priests.In spite of their dignity, they were drawn, by motives of curiosity and malice, to witness His arrest. The phrase which were come to Him seems to imply that they had just arrived, possibly to receive Him into their custody the moment He was apprehended.
Luk. 22:53. Your hour.
1. A time appointed by God. This is your hour.Our Lord here distinguishes between the power exercised over Him by men, and that by the Evil One; but so as to make the power which rules over them to be that of darkness, while His own assertion of this shows that all was by the determinate counsel and fore-know ledge of God.Alford.
Butlers Comments
SECTION 4
Condescension (Luk. 22:47-53)
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; 48but Jesus said to him, Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss? 49And when those who were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we strike with the sword? 50And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51But Jesus said, No more of this! And he touched his ear and healed him. 52Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? 53When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
Luk. 22:47-51 Conspirator: Jesus knew all along that Judas Iscariot would conspire with His enemies to betray Him in some secret place, away from the multitudes. Three other gospel accounts combine to document the careful preparations by His enemies to arrest Him; (cf. Joh. 18:1-12; Mat. 26:47-56; Mar. 14:43-52):
a.
Soldiers, Temple police and a great crowd armed with clubs and swords to take care of any resistance whether by Jesus disciples or some wonder He might perform.
b.
Having soldiers along gives the incident a seal of legality.
c.
Torches were carried to light the way and to search the dark corners of the garden.
d.
Cords or chains were brought to bind the prisoner lest He over power them (a crowd with swords and clubs?).
e.
A guide to direct them to the place where He might be found away from the multitudes in the person of one of His disciples.
f.
A pre-arranged sign of betrayal which hopefully would catch the victim unawares, an embrace!
g.
Priests, officers and elders led a huge mob to make sure that previous failures are not repeated (cf. Joh. 7:32; Joh. 7:40-44; Luk. 22:52).
h.
The High Priest remained in his palace rehearsing bribed witnesses in what they must say to make the false accusations sound legal (cf. Mat. 26:59).
We are also indebted to these other three gospel accounts for a harmonization of the order of events at the arrest. Luke has the briefer account and omits some of the details included by the others. The order of events are:
a.
As Jesus was rousing the apostles from sleep the great crowd entered the garden (Mat. 26:47; Mar. 14:43; Luk. 22:47).
b.
They were being led by Judas Iscariot and searching for Jesus.
c.
Jesus stepped forward asking, Whom do you seek? When they said, Jesus of Nazareth, He replied, I, even I am He! (Joh. 18:4-5).
d.
Taken completely by surprise and half afraid He might do a miracle, those in front stumbled backward and some fell down. The mob was not prepared for such awesome honesty and docility (Joh. 18:5-6). There is no indication in any text that Jesus caused these people to fall miraculously. They went out to slip up on Him, knowing they were being led by a traitor, and they were completely surprised and shamed and so, stumbled backward over one another!
e.
Jesus surrenders Himself and requests that His disciples be allowed to go away from (Gr. hupagein) the same fate (Joh. 18:8-9). Apparently the mob, at first, honored Jesus request for the disciples, but later (Mar. 14:51-52) tried to seize one of His followers.
f.
Then Judas confirms Jesus identity with the pre-arranged signthe embrace (Gr. katephilesen, effusive embracing Mat. 26:49; Mar. 14:45), and said, Hail, Rabbi! Jesus answered, Friend (Gr. hetaire, Comrade) why are you here? Jesus is reminding Judas of the baseness of betraying comradeship (Mat. 26:48-50; Mar. 14:44-46; Luk. 22:47-48).
g.
The soldiers came and threw (Gr. epebalon) hands upon Jesus and seized Him. It was a scene of rough, coarse and violent action.
There has been no warrant presented for Jesus arrest, sworn to by witnesses. There has been no inquiring diligently (cf. Deu. 17:2-5; Lev. 5:1) into the accusations of blasphemy made about Jesus prior to His arrest. All this, instigated by the priests and Pharisees, has been done illegally.
Luke records that Jesus apostles asked if they should fight with the swords (Gr. machaire, short, dagger-type sword, copied by the Romans from the Greeks) they had. Peter did not ask (Mat. 26:51; Mar. 14:47; Joh. 18:10), but drew his sword and struck a servant of the High Priest, named Malchus, and cut off his right ear. Since Peter was not defending himself or the other apostles, Jesus told him to put up his sword because taking the law into ones own hands (without due process) leads to anarchy. Force is self-destructive. The only kingdom that lasts will be the one of love and persuasion. The cup which the Father gave, Jesus must drink. Peters action is at variance with Gods will (Joh. 18:11). The world must know that His kingdom is not of this world. If Jesus had wished to defend Himself He could have called thousands of angels (Mat. 26:53). What was happening, Jesus declared, was in perfect agreement with the Old Testament prophets concerning the Messiah (cf. Mat. 26:54; Psa. 22:1-31; Isa. 53:1-12, et al.).
Luke alone tells us that Jesus healed the servants severed ear (Luk. 22:51). The Greek phrase here translated, No more of this! might literally be rendered, Allow ye it thus far. . . . meaning, probably, Let me reach far enough to touch his ear. Thus is documented clearly one healing by Jesus where there is a definite absence of faith in Him, and no indication that Jesus tried to elicit faith from the one healed. Jesus could heal even the enemies of the faith. His mercy and compassion probably squelched what might have quickly turned into a bloody riot.
Luk. 22:52-53 Cowards: Luke notes that the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders were among this illegally operating gang of people. Jesus rebuked and shamed the mob for treating Him as if He were a gangster or highway robber (Gr. lesten, from the root word leia, booty and different from the word kleptes, thief). He had always taught peace and had never done anything criminal (in fact He tried to clean the criminals out of the Temple). They had plenty of opportunities to see His conduct and know that He was not a violent man (like Barabbas, Luk. 23:18-19).
They could have arrested Him in the Temple. But they were cowards. They had been afraid to take Him while the multitudes thronged about Him. The multitudes knew He was innocent and they would have attacked these chief priests and elders had they tried it then. Cowards and criminals operate in the darkness. They must have the protection of night and falsehood. God is allowing the power of darkness to have its hour and now it has come. Satan, and all those aligned with him, are to be allowed to exercise the ultimate wickedness. But the forces of darkness are to be cast out and judged (cf. Joh. 12:31; Joh. 16:11).
The apostles all forsook (Gr. aphentes, took off, pardoned, excused) Him and fled (Gr. ephugon, shrank away from with aloofness, shunned) from Him (Mat. 26:56; Mar. 14:50). We repeat, the apostles were not cowards. They wanted to fight for Him. But they were unwilling to share in His humiliation. Awakened by the noise, a young man (perhaps John Mark) leaped out of bed, covered only by a bed sheet, and ran after the mob taking Jesus prisoner (Mar. 14:51-52). The mob then tried to take prisoner this follower of Jesus.
Appleburys Comments
The Traitors Kiss Luk. 22:47-53 While he yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. 48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? 49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? 50 And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. 52 And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, that were come against him, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? 53 When I was daily with you in the temple, yet stretched not forth your hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
Comments
Judas, one of the twelve.The Satan-inspired traitor saluted Jesus with a kiss of friendship, little aware of the fact that Jesus knew exactly what he was up to. Jesus challenged him saying, Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss? The little band of disciples drew close to Jesus, as if to protect Him. One of themJohn says it was Peterdrew his sword and struck a blow in what he thought was in the defense of his Lord. All that he did was to strike off the ear of the high priests servant. Jesus touched the ear of the high priests servant and healed him.
Jesus had permitted them to go this far. They could arrest Him; they could sentence Him to death; they could nail Him to the cross; but they could not keep Him from arising from the dead. He turned to the captains of the temple and the chief priest and challenged them with these words, Are you come out as against a robber with swords and with staves? He reminded them that He had taught openly in their temple but they had not dared to touch Him. In the garden they were made bold by Satan whose strength was the power of darkness.
(47-49) And while he yet spake.See Notes on Mat. 26:47-50; Mar. 14:43-46.
Went before them.The tense implies, not that Judas then left those with whom he had walked before, but that he was seen walking, as he had been all along, in advance of the others. He was guide to them that took Jesus (Act. 1:16).
‘While he yet spoke, behold, a crowd, and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and he drew near to Jesus to kiss him.’
Note how Luke brings out the idea of suddenness, and the unexpectedness of such a crowd (‘behold, a crowd’). One moment Jesus was quietly speaking to His disciples in the darkness about their need to pray, and the next thing that happened was that out of the darkness came this great crowd of people carrying torches. And the torches revealed that amongst them was Judas, leading the way and coming to carry out his mission. As he advanced on them it was no surprise to Jesus. He had been expecting it. But the disciples were no doubt both bewildered and confused. What was Judas doing bringing such a crowd here at night?
‘He who was called Judas.’ The reference brings out that at the time of writing he was a has-been. He was now long forgotten, a distant memory, for the twelve had been made up by the inclusion of Matthias.
‘One of the twelve.’ The phrase has a foreboding sound. This man had been one of the chosen few. Jesus’ own familiar friend was lifting up his heel against Him. And by his action he was forfeiting his destiny.
What happened next may possibly have even surprised Jesus. For Judas had had to find some way of indicating which man they should arrest in the darkness. And the way he had chosen brought out just how hardened he had become. Indeed we cannot even feel pity for a man like this, for it indicates that he must have been callous through and through. For he betrayed Jesus with a kiss of friendship, a kiss which may well have been given deliberately in order to disarm Jesus’ companions, and which he had given from other motives in better days. To believe Judas guilty of betrayal would have been almost unbelievable. But to think that he would do it with a kiss of seeming friendship would have been seen as absolutely impossible.
‘He drew near to Jesus to kiss him.’ As his intention to kiss Him would not have been known had he not actually made the attempt, (he would hardly have walked up with his lips pursed), the assumption must be that he did kiss him. Thus the suggestion that he did not go through with it is not tenable. He drew near with the aim of kissing Him, and he did. A parallel example of betrayal and hypocrisy is found in 2Sa 20:9. For other examples of non-genuine kisses compare Gen 27:26-27 ; 2Sa 15:5; Pro 7:13. The kiss was usually an attempt to show friendliness or win favour. In betrayal it was infamous, and accentuated the betrayal.
The purpose of the kiss was undoubtedly identification. All knew how dangerous it would be if they arrested the wrong person in the darkness with the result that the information of what they had intended to do then filtered through to the Galileans present in Jerusalem with Jesus still free. The consequences were unthinkable. And such a mistake would have been so easy to make. In the darkness one beard is much like another.
The Approach Of Judas. Physical Swords Are Not Enough (22:47-53).
Having finally satisfied Himself that the way ahead was in accordance with His Father’s will Jesus awaited His fate with equanimity. The battle having been fought and won in His mind and heart from this time on He goes forward without a moment’s hesitation. And in all His suffering we are made aware that He was in control. This passage deals very briefly with what happened in the Garden on the Mount of Olives. He was not taken by surprise to see Judas leading a party of Temple police towards Him, accompanied to the rear by a Roman cohort, who had presumably been warned of how dangerous this man was, with His band of bloodthirsty insurrectionists, whom they were coming to seize. The Roman cohort was therefore no doubt surprised when Judas stepped forward and kissed Him. It would not quite tie in with what they had almost certainly been told about this fearsome desperado.
But the disciples must have watched, unbelievingly. They could understand the arrival of Judas, but why with this great crowd of people? And then the kiss and what followed betrayed all. It especially emphasised Judas’ hardness of heart. How many men could have carried such a thing through, or even have considered arranging it? And most significantly it revealed to all who saw it that Jesus really was no threat, and that Judas knew that Jesus would not respond violently.
But it was different with ever impulsive Peter, and when he woke up to what was happening, he drew his sword ready to defend his Master with his life. It was a foolhardy act, for even though he was probably not yet aware of the composition of the approaching crowd, they only had two swords between them. And what were they against so many? But Peter, ever precipitate, did not consider the consequences, and striking out wildly, took off the ear of a servant of the High Priest, who no doubt saw the blow coming and dodged, but not quickly enough. Peter was no doubt still feeling rankled about Jesus’ warning that he would deny Him. But Jesus immediately told him to put his sword away, and restored to the man his ear. He did not want the disciples arrested as well. Nor did He want His own case to be marred by accusations of violence, and ‘resisting arrest’.
Then He rebuked His opponents for their hypocrisy, and for this great show which He knew was only in order to impress the Romans and convince them that He really was a political danger. For all knew what He was. They had seen Him daily preaching in the Temple.
a While He yet spoke, behold, a large group, and He who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and he drew near to Jesus to kiss Him (Luk 22:47).
b But Jesus said to him, “Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a kiss?” (Luk 22:48).
c And when those who were about Him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” (Luk 22:49).
d And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear (Luk 22:50).
c But Jesus answered and said, “Allow them to go thus far.” And He touched his ear, and healed him (Luk 22:51).
b And Jesus said to the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, who were come against him, “Are you come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves?” (Luk 22:52).
a “When I was daily with you in the temple, you did not stretch forth your hands against me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness” (Luk 22:53).
Note that in ‘a’ treachery is revealed against Him, and in the parallel there is similar treachery. In ‘b’ the treacherous one is questioned, and in the parallel the other treacherous ones are questioned. In ‘c’ His disciples asks what they should do, and in the parallel Jesus tells them. And centrally in ‘d’ one of His disciples cuts off the High Priest’s ear. Was this seen by Luke as symbolic of the deafness of the Jewish leaders to His message?
The betrayal:
v. 47. And while He yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the Twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss Him.
v. 48. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?
v. 49 When they which were about Him saw what would follow, they said unto Him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
v. 50. And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
v. 51. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And He touched his ear, and healed him.
v. 52. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests and captains of the Temple and the elders which were come to Him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
v. 53. When I was daily with you in the Temple, ye stretched forth no hands against Me; but this is your hour and the power of darkness.
While Jesus was still speaking, He had probably moved down to the entrance of the garden, there to be joined by the eight disciples whom He had left near the road. And about at this point He met the rabble of servants of the high priests and Temple guards and some few soldiers, with a sprinkling of captains of the Temple and the chief priests. Judas, one of the Twelve, was with them, as their leader. “With this name, as with a branding iron, Judas is designated even unto the end. ” With revolting hypocrisy he came near to Jesus to kiss Him, and thus to betray Him to His murderers with the token of respect and love. Jesus indicated the full contempt and disgust for this shameful act in the reproving words, which yet seem to contain a pleading tone, as of the Savior that will try even now yet to coax the sinner back to the way of righteousness: With a kiss thou betrayest the Son of Man? About this time, the spectacle also excited the disciples, especially Peter. They were becoming apprehensive for the safety of their beloved Master and, in their misunderstanding of His words, thought that this was a time when swords would stand them in good stead. No sooner had they called out than their anger overpowered them. One sword flashed and descended, cutting off the right ear of the high priest’s servant. That was carnal zeal; the Lord was not in need of such defense. The weapons of His warfare are not carnal, but. spiritual. Jesus therefore immediately called His disciples to order by saying: Cease, it is enough! Let the enemies proceed; make no resistance; for only in this way are the Scriptures to be fulfilled. And touching the ear of the servant, He healed him: an affecting bit of kindness to the enemy at the height of a crisis, and one which probably saved the disciples from sudden death. But then the Lord turned to the leaders of the crowd that had come to apprehend Him, the chief priests and the captains of the temple and the elders, and censured their action with words of bitter reproach. As against a thief or robber they had come out, with swords and clubs; and yet He had been in their midst in the Temple every day, and not once had they extended their hands to take Him. Their behavior savored of a bad conscience and was altogether unworthy of the leaders of the people. If all had been open and above board, they could have made an open case against Him and taken Him in charge in the proper way. But now was their hour, the time when the enemies were apparently victorious; and it was the power of darkness that was actuating them. They were in the employ of the prince of darkness. It was Satan that was carrying out his murderous intention against the Lord. And God permitted the wickedness of men and of the devil to have free rein for the present, but only for one purpose, namely, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.
Luk 22:47-53 . See on Mat 26:47-56 , Mar 14:43-52 , in both of which the linking on of what follows by means of . is better suited to the sense. Luke in this part uses in general less original sources.
. .] who is called Judas . Comp. Luk 22:1 ; Mat 2:23 ; Mat 26:3 ; Mat 26:14 ; Mat 27:33 , and elsewhere.
] as Luk 22:3 .
] See on Mar 6:33
Luk 22:48 . ] placed first for emphasis; ; Theophylact. That the kiss was concerted with the enemies (Mar 14:44 ) Luke leaves to be gathered only mediately from the words of Jesus.
Luk 22:49 . [258] . . .] whether we shall smite by means of the sword? Comp. Luk 13:23 ; Act 1:6 , and elsewhere. See on Mat 12:10 and on Luk 13:23 . Grotius says rightly: “Dubii inter id, quod natura dictabat, et saepe inculcata patientiae praecepta dominum quid faciendum sit rogant. At Petrus non expectato Domini responso ad vim vi arcendam accingitur.”
Luk 22:50 . ] as also Joh 18:10 has it.
Luk 22:51 . ] is a prohibitory summons to the disciples: sinite usque huc (Vulg.), which Augustine, de cons. ev . iii. 5, aptly explains: “ permittendi sunt hucusque progredi .” Let them go so far as even to take me prisoner! Comp. Luther, Maldonatus, and others; recently also Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 437, and Schegg. Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Bleek, and others have explained: cease (comp. Act 5:38 ; Hom. Il . xxi. 221, al .)! so far! (not farther! comp. Lev 26:18 ; Job 38:11 ). To this it stands opposed that herein is found no disapproval of the blow with the sword, but only the prohibition to go any further; and, moreover, this not at all negatively expressed, as it would have most obviously occurred by means of some such expression as or the like. Others take the words as an address to those who were taking Him prisoner , and thus either as neuter and temporal: “ missum facite me usque ad id tempus , quo vulnus illius hominis sanavero” (Bornemann, so also Hammond, Kypke, de Wette, Lange, II. 3, p. 1461, III. p. 512), or as neuter, indeed, but local: let me go thither where the wounded man is (Paulus), or as masculine: let me go to this man in order to heal him (Stolz, Baumgarten-Crusius). Against these views the objection is that the context in the word shows nothing else than a reply to the disciples , as Jesus does not turn to His enemies till Luk 22:52 .
. . . .] On account of , Luk 22:50 , this is to be referred to the place and the remains of the ear that had been cut off; and to the healing of the wound (not: replacing of the ear). With desperate arbitrariness Paulus says that He touched the wound in order to examine it, and told the man what he must do to heal it! Luke alone records the healing; and it can the less be cleared of the suspicion of being a legendary accretion (comp. Strauss, II. p. 461; Baumgarten-Crusius, Holtzmann, and others), like Luk 22:43-44 , that even John, who narrates the blow with the sword so circumstantially, says nothing about it.
Luk 22:52 . . . . .] These chief priests, etc., were therefore, according to Luke, associated with that , Luk 22:47 . Inappropriate in itself, and in opposition to the rest of the evangelists. An error on the part of tradition, probably through confusion with Joh 18:20 f. Comp. on Mat 26:47 ; Mat 26:55 . Ebrard, p. 532, is in error when he says that Luke is speaking of those who had just then newly approached . So also Lange. Opposed to this is the aorist participle.
Luk 22:53 . . . .] informs us of the reason that they had not laid hands on Him sooner in spite of His daily association with them: But this (the present hour) is your (that which is ordained for you for the execution of your work, according to divine decree) hour, and ( this , this power in which ye now are acting) the power of darkness, i.e. the power which is given to darkness (in the ethical sense, the power opposed to the divine , opposed to ). Observe the great emphasis on the by being placed so near the beginning of the clause. The expression , not (so Kuinoel and Olshausen explain it), not (so Euthymius Zigabenus, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), is chosen in reference to the actual night , which it was at this time; but it is not the actual darkness of night that is meant (“only the darkness gives you courage and power to lay hold of me,” de Wette, comp. Neander, Bleek, and older commentators), for this quite commonplace thought would declare nothing on the destiny of that hour and power.
[258] Vv. 49 51, as also already at vv. 35 38, was objectionable to Marcion, and was omitted in his gospel. See Volkmar, p. 69 f. Hilgenfeld decides otherwise in the Theol. Jahrb . 1853, p. 240 f., where he, indeed, likewise concedes the genuineness, but supposes that the deletion may have happened in the Romish Church even before Marcion.
b. THE ARREST (Luk 22:47-53)
(Parallel with Mat 26:47-56; Mar 14:43-52; Joh 18:3-11.)
47And [om., And] while he yet spake, behold a multitude [or, throng], and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. 48But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou [deliverest thou up] the Son of man with a kiss? 49When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him [om., unto him17], Lord, shall we smite with the sword? 50And one ofthem smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far.18 And he touched his ear, and healed him. 52Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be [Are] ye come out [Ye are come out, V. O.], as against a thief [robber], with swords and staves? 53When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched [not] forth no [your] hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Luk 22:47. One of the Twelve.With this name as with a branding-iron Judas is designated even unto the end. In painters style Luke also brings forward the unexpectedness and rapidity of the coming forward of the enemy, although he only speaks in general of the , which is more specialized by Matthew and Mark. The question whether the treacherous kiss of Judas, which all the Synoptics mention, had preceded or followed the falling to the earth of the band, Joh 18:3-9, we believe (with Hess, Lcke, Olshausen, Tholuck, Ebrard, and others) that we must answer in the former sense. According to all the Synoptics, Judas presses forward while Jesus is yet speaking with His disciples, and gives the concerted sign too early, on which account the band, in advance of which he had hurried on, do not remark it, and therefore do not recognize our Lord. We should without ground magnify the guilt of the unhappy man if we assume that he had seen the falling of the band upon the earth, perhaps had been himself struck down, and even yet, as if nothing had come to pass, had himself given the token, which, moreover, had now become superfluous. The words, moreover, which D., E., H., X., &c., read after Luk 22:47, , …, are certainly borrowed from Mark.
To Kiss Him.If we consult Luke alone, it might appear to us as if Judas had indeed the intention of pressing the kiss of betrayal upon the lips of innocence, but had been hindered in the carrying out of his purpose by our Lords address. From Matthew and Mark, however, it appears that the kiss was actually given. The accounts, however, make the impression that the answer of our Lord followed this shameful act as immediately as upon the burning lightning the stunning thunder-peal follows.
Luk 22:48. With a kiss, , the hallowed token of friendship. This in Luke stands emphatically first. Mark omits this utterance of our Lord; Matthew, on the other hand, has: Friend, wherefore art thou come? (Mat 26:50.) If Judas had, perhaps, approached in the thought of being able wholly to escape rebuke while he did what could only be the work of a moment, he now at once experiences that even this last wretched consolation is torn from him. Brief as his last tarrying in the presence of the Saviour was, it appears, nevertheless, at once, that he is seen through, vanquished, and condemned. If we assume that the , …, of Matthew was uttered when Judas was first hurrying to Him the moment before the kiss, the , …, immediately after it, everything agrees admirably. It is as if our Lord would, in the last word with which He gives Judas over to his self-chosen destruction, with every syllable yet thrust a sword through his Soul. the emphasis may be laid on every word, and yet even then we have only imperfectly rendered the force of this crushing question, which loses by every paraphrase. But alas, our Lord could therewith only reveal His own forbearance, holiness, and majesty, but could not win the wretched man for heaven who was already consecrated to hell. Cold as his kiss, remained the heart of the betrayer; from now on, we see Judas no longer standing with the disciples, but with the enemies, Joh 18:5. Even the Mohammedans have marked the place at which this abomination has been conjectured to have been committed, with a heap of stones. See Sepp, l. c., iii. p. 460.
Luk 22:49. When they which were about Him.Unconscious but strong contrast between the unfaithful disciple and the faithful ones. They see : what is now on the point of taking place. By the approach of the band and the insult of Judas, they are at once persuaded that they themselves are no longer a step distant from the dreaded hour. They believed themselves hitherto to have dreamed, and appear now all at once to awake. Whether they shall strike in with the sword, is the question which they, looking upon the weapons brought with them out of the paschal hall, addressed to the Master, and before He could answer approvingly or disapprovingly, already one of them has followed the ill-considered question with a hasty act. No one of the Synoptics has here mentioned the name of Peter; the occurrence did not redound to the Apostles honor; the repeated narration of this occurrence with the statement of his name might have had the effect of bringing the Apostle into trouble; but for John, who did not write his gospel until after Peters death, such a ground of silence no longer existed. If, on the other hand, John, with Matthew and Mark, leaves the healing of Malchus ear unmentioned, this was not done because this miraclethe last miraculous benefit which Jesus bestowswas in itself compared with other miracles less remarkable, but because it was, of course, understood that the Master immediately made good the harm which the inconsiderate zeal of His disciple had occasioned. Luke, the physician, can not, however, omit to add: , … It is alike arbitrary to declare the ear to have been only wounded (Von Ammon), and to deny the whole reality of this miracle, as Neander, Theile, De Wette, Strauss, and others do.
Luk 22:51. Suffer ye thus far.Instead of the more detailed address to Peter, Mat 26:52-54, Luke has only a brief but most remarkable utterance of our Lord to His enemies, . For that our Lord here speaks to the disciples (Grotius, Bengel, Meyer, and others), in the sense of: Leave them, the , alone, nolite progredi, is proved by nothing, not even by . Much more probable is it that the interrupted sentence is more particularly explained by the immediately subsequent act of healing. Our Lord, namely, sees how the band are just addressing themselves to take Him prisoner, with the greater bitterness, perchance, because blood had already flowed, and He Himself is not minded to counterwork their designs. He only desires that they would leave His hands yet a moment free, that He might bestow yet one more benefit. Leave Me, He says in other words, still free for the moment that I need in order to be able to perform this. He does not even say, but only indicates by a sign, what He means. While He thus speaks, He attaches again the wounded member, and heals with one act two men, the one of a wound in the body, the other of a sickness in the soul. With this last friendly beam of light, the sun of His majestic works of wonder goes down in the mists of Gethsemane. [This interpretation of , although opposed to the usual view, is accepted by Alford, and appears to me more natural and simple than any explanation of the words as addressed to the disciples.C. C. S.]
Luk 22:52. Then Jesus said.Probably we can understand these words as spoken during the seizure and binding, or even after this. From the fact that our Lords words in Gethsemane are comparatively many, we may in some measure conclude as to the great tension of His spirit and the great composure of soul in which He inwardly passes through the beginning of His suffering, of which particularly the character of what He says may most strongly convince us.
To the chief priests.If we place ourselves fairly in the intense excitement of the moment, we shall not be able to find it at all incredible that, as appears from Luke in this passage, some chief priests were personally in Gethsemane, in order to convince themselves of the fact of the arrest, and, in case of need, to encourage their servants by their presence. The servants had been sent out, but their masters had come of their own accord, and, perhaps, had only just now entered the garden (Ebrard, Lange). Why might they not, in their impatience, have rushed after their dependents, when these, on account of the delay in Gethsemane, did not return so quickly as had probably been expected? It is worthy of note that they are mentioned only at the end but not at the beginning of the arrest. The words which our Lord addressed to them and the captains of the temple, with the elders, were well fitted to shame them, provided they had been yet capable of shame. Without doubt, we find in this address of our Lord a resemblance to the words which He, Joh 18:20, addresses to the high-priest. However, the distinction is still considerable enough to refute the conjecture (Strauss) of our having here no independent part of the history of the Passion, but only two variations upon one and the same theme. Better than to concede this is it to direct attention to the manner in which by this Synoptical sentence, the truth of the Johannean statement, Joh 7:30; Joh 7:44; Joh 8:20; Joh 8:59, is confirmed, without the comparison with which the words of our Lord in the text cannot be even understood.
As against a robber.Our Lord deeply feels in this moment as well the ignominy as the injustice that is inflicted upon Him, and therefore expresses his resentment that they should have come to take Him as they would a robber and murderer. Then first does He direct their view back to the memorable past: I was daily with you, &c. This utterance must remind them of many a fruitless plot which they had meditated, and many a word of rebuke which they had heard, although our Lord, who is not minded to eulogize Himself, is entirely silent as to the miracles which He has performed before their eyes, and as to the triumphs which He by word or deed has won over their perplexity and weakness. Finally, after He has upbraided them with their, month-long cowardice, to which wretched presumption has now succeeded, He takes from them even the fancy of having really taken Him against His will and to His harm, by speaking (Matthew) of the Scriptures which are fulfilled in precisely this way, and at the same time (Luke) by saying to them that they are not serving the kingdom of light but that of darkness.
Luk 22:53. This is your hour, and the power of darkness.Our Lord alludes therewith to the just fallen hour of night, and gives the reason why they have taken Him now and not in open day, in the temple, when He there walked and taught, . Your hour, not the favorable hour suited for you (De Wette), but the hour destined according to the Divine decree for you to the carrying out of your work (Meyer); (so may we supply) , that is, the might which now reveals itself and works through you, is that which God, according to His own eternal purpose, had left to the kingdom of darkness. Without doubt, our Lord makes use of this figurative language in view of the nocturnal darkness which had been chosen for the carrying out of the wicked deed, and His words thereby become only the more striking; , however, of which He here speaks, can be nothing else than the kingdom of darkness, whose faithful accomplices in this moment Judas and the whole throng are. This whole address affords, at the same time, a proof of the clearness of mind with which our Lord, in the midst of the darkness surrounding Him, looked through the past, the present, and the future. Luke, who alone relates to us this last word of the Lord in Gethsemane, on the other hand, passes over the flight of the disciples and that of the naked young man, Mar 14:48-52.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. If we yet needed a proof of the completeness of the strengthening which our Lord had gained from His prayer in Gethsemane, it would be afforded by the composed and yet so dignified demeanor in which He went forward to meet the traitor and the officers. Here there is, indeed, no word too much or too little; even now He yet speaks and acts altogether as the Mighty One, although He gives plainly to be observed that He will not avail Himself of His might for His own deliverance. The position which our Lord in Gethsemane occupies, between dismayed friends on the one hand and implacable enemies on the other, has, at the same time, a typical and symbolical character.
2. The manner in which our Lord deals with the traitor, is an act of the sublimest self-revelation in the midst of the deepest humiliation. Whoever could so speak and act, had also full freedom to speak even in prayer concerning the son of perdition, as our Lord had done, Joh 17:12. The whole scene, in which heaven and hell, as it were, looked in each others eyes, endured not much longer than a moment; but now our Lord occupies Himself no longer with this adder, who has wound himself hissing through the garden, and whom He flings from Him with a single gesture, but He goes out towards the band come to arrest Him. Yet was His last word to Judas tremendous enough to thunder through his ears even to all eternity.
3. The wound which Peter inflicted with his sword on Malchus, is the first of innumerable wounds which perverted carnal zeal has inflicted on the cause of the Lord. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual, 2Co 10:4. Where this is forgotten, and men think themselves able to serve the truth not by dying but by killing (non moriendo, sed interficiendo), there it is no wonder if the Lord of the Church often utters in the ears of the combatants in very palpable wise, non tali auxilio. In this respect, therefore, there is perpetually an immense significance in the manifold misfortunes of the Crusaders, the defeat of the Reformed in the battle-field of Kappel, &c. What would have become of the kingdom of God if our Lord had not, as here, every time advanced anew into the midst, in order by His wisdom and might to make good again the consequences of human rashness? Even as Peter here hews off the servants ear, so have those who vaunt themselves to be his successors taken from the church the hearing and understanding of the word of God. But Christ touched the church and healed her. J. Gerhard.
4. How entirely different is the situation of our Lord in which He leaves Gethsemane, from that in which He had entered the garden! And yet now, when He is led away as prisoner, the crown is much nearer to Him than before, when He could as yet in perfect freedom speak to His disciples and to the Father.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The sanctuary of prayer turned into a battleground of wickedness.Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus, Act 1:16.Our Lord between perplexed friends on the one hand and implacable enemies on the other.Gethsemane in the hour of the arrest: 1. Scene, and; 2. school of a great alteration.The kiss of betrayal, how it was: 1. Once given and answered; 2.is even yet continually given and answered.The traitor over against the Lord: 1. His iniquity before; 2. his falsehood in; 3. his disappointment after his crime.The Lord over against the traitor: 1. His still presence of mind; 2. His forbearing love; 3. His judicial severity.In Gethsemane we may learn how the combat against the kingdom of darkness must not be carried on, and how it must be carried on: the one in Peter, the other in Jesus.How oft we are doing our own will although we appear to be consulting the Lords will !Inconsiderate zeal in the service of the Lord: 1. What it does; 2. what it destroys.Peter is zealous with a Jehu zeal, 2Ki 10:15-16.Peters sword: 1. Rashly drawn; 2. peremptorily commanded back into the scabbard.The disciple may forget himself, but the Lord forgets him and Himself not an instant.The last movement of the unfettered hand of our Lord used for the accomplishment of a benefit.The great-hearted love of our Lord for His enemies: 1. Warmly attested; 2. coldly requited.How His enemies disgrace themselves by the way in which they seek to overmaster the Nazarene.Jesus in bonds free, His enemies in their seeming freedom bound.The cowardice of the armed ones, the courage of the Prisoner.The hour of darkness: 1. How threateningly it fell; 2. how brief its duration; 3. what glorious light followed it.Even darkness has its hour, yet its might is of just as short duration as its hour.The might of darkness: 1. Permitted of God; 2. used by God; 3. vanquished by God.God is there working most where He seems to be wholly inactive.The Lamb bound in order to be led to the slaughter, Psa 22:16.
Starke:Brentius:Government should not be against, but for Christ.Hot-tempered people have special need to go to Christ to school.Nova Bibl. Tub.: Even zeal for Christ is sinful when it is displayed unintelligently, Rom 10:2.Where power prevails over justice, there to be still and patient is the best counsel.When the world acts against Christ, it has no scruple to give up its convenience and dignity for a while.Rambach:When one regards the hours as his own, he is thereby misled into many sins.Nova Bibl. Tub:The bonds of Jesus our deliverance.Arndt:The arrest: 1. Jesus prevalence over His enemies; 2. His providence for His friends; 3. His sparing love towards Judas.Krummacher:Passions-buch:The Judas kiss: 1. The separation; 2. the farewell.Simons sword and Jesus cup.The Saviour, how He gives Himself as Gift and then as Sacrifice.Braunig:The treason committed against the person and cause of Christ: 1. How we are to think of such treason; 2. how we are to combat such treason.Gratia sit vinculis tuis, bone Jesu, qu nostra tam potenter diruperunt. Bernard.
Footnotes:
[17]Luk 22:49.Rec.: . Critically doubtful. [Om., B., Cod. Sin., L., X.C. C. S.]
[18]Luk 22:51.Van Oosterzee translates this: Lasset mich so lange! Let me alone so long, i. e., till He could heal the servant. Others take it to mean: Suffer them (the soldiers) to go as far as they are doing. A good deal may be said for either interpretation, but, as Bleek remarks, , appears to designate our Lords words as in reply to Peters, which would establish the second interpretation as the right one. The weight of authority appears also to favo*** this, though De Wette and Alford support the former, and the mildness of the words, if considered as a rebuke to His disciples, are, as De Wette remarks, greater than we should expect.C. C. S.]
“And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. (48) But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? (49) When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? (50) And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. (51) And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. (52) Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? (53) When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. (54) Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.”
We now are called upon to another view of the Redeemer. I beg the Reader’s close attention. Every word is big with importance. And, first, Judas, with the band coming to apprehend Christ. But what a band of such armed men to lay hold of one poor unarmed man? Had they conceived that Jesus was nothing more than man, is it likely that they would have taken so great a body? And wherefore did Judas give such a signal for the apprehension of Christ? And Matthew adds to this account, that Judas, who made this the signal for the seizing of Christ, said to the soldiers, that when he had kissed Christ, they should hold him fast. Mat 26:48 ; Wherefore were all these precautions, but from a conviction, that Christ was more than man. Surely, in the very moment they seized the Lord of life and glory, the minds of the greater part of the party were struck with condemnation. Judas could not forget the miracles of Christ. He had known his Master escape from the hands of his enemies, when they sought to throw him over the hill of the city. Luk 4:29-31 . Hence he charged them to bind him, and lead him away safely. Mar 14:44 . Reader! pause here to remark, how the Lord was overruling their malice to his own glory. Christ was now accomplishing the whole predictions of the prophets. Though the voluntary of offering of the Lord Jesus formed a most momentous part in the great efficacy of his sacrifice, yet the sacrifice, according to the law, must be bound. Psa 118:27 . Hence Isaac, a type of Christ, was bound and laid upon the altar. So that to answer both purposes, Christ’s willingness, and their holding him fast, we have Jesus’ voluntary surrender of himself, and their binding him.
And, secondly, I beg the Reader not to overlook what is said of the whole band, both of Jews and Gentiles, as engaged in this apprehension of Christ. By the spirit of prophecy, ages before these events came to be fulfilled, it was said, that, the kings of the earth, and the rulers, should take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed. Psa 2:1-2 . Here we behold the accomplishment. And God the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of Peter, sweetly explains the whole, and applies it. Act 4:19-28 . Compare with Psa 22 the title of it, and Psa 22:19 and Psa 22:16 explain each other.
And, thirdly, I pray the Reader to observe, that though all along, as the mock trial which follows proves, their intention was to deliver Christ over to the Roman power; yet to the High Priest he shall be first led. And wherefore? Aye! there’s the point. They saw not the Lord’s hand in all this; but the sacrifice of Christ must be bound, must be led away, as all sacrifices under the law were, to the High Priest, and both Jew and Gentile must be engaged in the great work. So that the hurrying the Lord Jesus, from the High Priest to the Governor, and from the hall of Pilate, to the Mount of Calvary, shall be in confirmation of that glorious scripture, He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Isa 53:7 .
XXVI
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, FORSAKEN; TRIED BY ANNAS, BY CAIAPHAS, AND BY THE SANHEDRIN
Harmony, pages 186-196 and Mat 26:47-75 In the last chapter we considered the sorrow of Christ in Gethsemane, and dipped somewhat into the account of the betrayal of our Lord. Just here we call attention particularly to the supplemental testimony of John’s Gospel that the Roman band or cohort, under its own prefect or miltary tribune, or chiliarch, was present when Jesus was arrested, and participated therein, indeed, themselves arresting, binding, and conducting Jesus to the Jewish authorities. This is a little difficult to understand, but we find no difficulty in the presence of the Temple guard, under the leadership of the Sanhedrin, and the mixed multitude irregularly armed, that came out for the purpose of arresting Jesus. Our trouble is to account for so strong a Roman force, under a high Roman officer, and the part they played in the matter, inasmuch as it was not an arrest for violating a Roman law, nor did they deliver the prisoner to Pilate, but to Annas and Caiaphas. From this supplemental story of John (Joh 18:2-14 ), certain facts are evidenced:
Judas, the betrayer of Christ, and who guided the arresting party, “received the Roman cohort,” usually about 600 men, under its own commanding officers. This could not have been without the consent of Pilate.
They evidently did not go out to make an ordinary arrest under Roman law, else would the prisoner have been delivered to Pilate. Yet the facts show that they did seize and bind Jesus and deliver him to Annas, one of the acting high priests, and thence to Caiaphas. As it was not customary for Roman legionaries in conquered states to act as a constabulary force for local municipal authorities in making an arrest touching matters not concerning the Empire, and as it is evident there were present an ample force of the Jewish Temple guard, besides an irregularly armed Jewish multitude subordinate to the Sanhedrin, then why the presence of this Roman force at all, and more particularly, why their participation in the arrest? The answer is as follows:
First, both the Sanhedrin and Pilate feared tumults at the crowded feasts when the city swarmed with fiery, turbulent Jews gathered from all the lands of the dispersion. Doubtless the Sanhedrin had represented to Pilate the presence in the city of a dangerous character, as they would charge, yet one so popular with the masses they dare not attempt to arrest him in the daytime, and even feared a mob rising in the night.
Second, their presence and intervention was necessary to protect the prisoner himself from assassination or lynch law. When they came to the garden and found Jesus there with a following of at least eleven men disposed to resist the arrest, and when they saw the whole Jewish guard fall before the outshining majesty of the face of Jesus as if stricken by lightning, and when they saw at least one swordstroke delivered in behalf of Jesus, then only, it became proper for the Roman guard to intervene. This necessity might arise from the fact that they could not trust the turbulent Jews with the management of this case. “We will arrest this man and protect him from their violence until delivered to their authorities to be tried for whatever offense with which he may be charged under their laws.” Indeed, humanly speaking, if that Roman cohort had not been present, he would have been mobbed before he reached any kind of a trial. The case of Paul (Act 21:30 ), and the intervention of Lysias, the chiliarch, illustrates the grounds of Roman intervention. It must be borne in mind that the Romans were silent, and did nothing until they saw the Temple guard unable to face the dignity of Jesus, and that a commencement, at least, of the struggle had been made by Peter to resist arrest.
As we are now coming to the climax of our Lord’s earth life, his betrayal, his trials, condemnation, execution, and resurrection, the literature becomes the richest in the world, and the bibliography most important. Particularly do we here find a unique and most powerful literature from the viewpoint of lawyers. They do not intrude into the theological realm to discuss the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of spiritual death, nor the trial of Jesus as the sinner’s substitute before the court of Satan on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical death, but they discuss the legal aspects of his trial before the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, on the charge of blasphemy) with the penalty of stoning, and the trials of Jesus before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod on the charges of treason and sedition. They answer the question: Under the Jewish law, which was not only civil and criminal, but ecclesiastical, was Jesus legally arrested, legally prosecuted, and fairly condemned, or was the whole case, as tried by the Sanhedrin, a case of malice, violating all the rights of the accused, and culminating in legal murder? In the same way these great lawyers and jurists expound the case before the Roman courts of Pilate and Herod, and from a lawyer’s viewpoint pronounce upon the Judgment of these cases under a judicial construction of the Roman law.
Under this first head of bibliography I give a list of these books by the great lawyers, every one of which ought to be in every preacher’s library. Do not waste money on inconsequential and misleading books. Do not fill your libraries with rubbish. Have fewer and greater books, and study them profoundly.
The Testimony of the Evangelists, by Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was a law partner of Chief Justice Story, was for quite a while professor of law in Harvard University, and the author of that noted book, The Law of Evidence, which has been accepted in two continents as the highest and safest authority OD this great theme. Indeed, when we consider this splendid contribution by Dr. Greenleaf, we may almost forgive Harvard for its erratic infidel president emeritus, Dr. Charles v. Eliot, and many of its radical critic professors. This book of Greenleaf’s, over 600 pages, is divided into the following distinct parts:
The legal credibility of the history of the facts of the case, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, of which there are no known existing autographs, but only copies. The question he raises is from the lawyer’s standpoint: “Before a human court, could these confessed copies be accepted as legal evidence of the history of the case?” That part of the case he demonstrates affirmatively in the first fifty-four pages.
Then he gives a harmony of these histories, pages 55-503, in order to compare the several histories on each fact given, not only of our Lord’s life and death, but of his resurrection and appearances. The point of this section is to show that the books, having been accepted as legal evidence, then these are a legal harmony of the testimony of the books.
He gives on pages 504-549 Tischendorf’s discussion of the various versions or translations of these histories, with notes of variations from the King James Version, to show that the legal harmony is not disturbed.
Having thus shown the legal credibility of the histories, and their legal harmony as witnesses, he applies the case by giving his account of the trial of Jesus before these three earthly courts, demonstrating that it was a case of legal murder, pages 550-566.
Then on pages 567-574 he gives an account of the trial of Jesus from a Jewish viewpoint. Mr. Joseph Salvador, a physician and a learned Jew, published at Paris a work entitled A History of the Institutions of Moses and of the Jewish People, in which, among other things, he gives an account of the course of criminal procedure in a chapter on the administration of justice, which he illustrates in a succeeding chapter by an account of the trial of Jesus, which he declares to be the most memorable trial in history. This last is the chapter Mr. Greenleaf publishes. Mr. Salvador ventures to say that he shall draw all of his facts from the evangelists themselves, without inquiring whether their history was developed after the event, to serve as a form of new doctrine, or an old one which had received fresh impulse. This was a daring venture on the part of Mr. Salvador. Relying upon these historians Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John for the facts, he contends that Jesus was legally arrested, legally tried, according to all the forms of Jewish law, and legally condemned.
The rest of Mr. Greenleaf’s book, pages 575-603, he gives to a reply to Salvador by the very distinguished French advocate and doctor of laws, M. Dupin, which is a most overwhelming demonstration of the fallacy of Mr. Salvador’s argument. This sixth section of Mr. Greenleaf’s Kook makes it invaluable to a biblical student.
The late Judge Gaynor, a jurist, and who later became mayor of New York City, delivered a legal exposition on the trial of Jesus Christ, purely from a lawyer’s standpoint. His conclusions are in harmony with Dr. Greenleaf and Dr. Dupin.
In two octavo volumes Walter M. Chandler, of the New York bar, has written perhaps the most critical examination of the whole subject from a lawyer’s standpoint. He devotes his first volume to the Jewish trial, and his second volume to the trials before the courts of Herod and Pilate. On all substantial points, and after a most exhaustive investigation of the legal points involved, he agrees substantially with Dr. Greenleaf, Dr. Dupin, and Judge Gaynor.
In only one point would the author think it necessary to criticize this great book by Mr. Chandler, and that does not touch the merits of the law of the case he discusses. I refer to that part of his second volume where, after bearing his most generous testimony to the many excellencies of the Jewish character and its many illustrious men and women in history, whether as prime ministers, financiers, philanthropists, or as contributors to special forms of literature, and after denouncing the persecution to which the Jewish people have been subjected by all nations, except the United States, he then seems to deny national responsibility to God and, particularly, any connection of the worldwide sufferings of the Jews with their national sin of rejecting the Messiah.
All my life shows my abhorrence of the persecutions of Jews and my admiration for their great men and women who have conferred lasting benefits on the race. The only point upon which I would raise a criticism is that he does not write as a lawyer when he seems to deny that nations, like individuals, are under responsibility to God for what is done by them, and through their acknowledged leaders. That part of his book cannot be sustained in either nature, law, or revelation. To sustain his contention on this point he must repudiate the univocal testimony of the entire Jewish Bible, whether law, prophets, or psalms, as well as the entire New Testament, Christ and the apostles, universal history, and nature as interpreted by true science.
Among the general works on the trial of Jesus (i.e., not confined to the legal phases of the case), I commend Edersheim’s Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah , a part of Farrar’s Story of a Beautiful Life, with Broadus’ Commentary on Matthew. It would cover the limits of a whole chapter to even name the books on the cross.
It was a strange episode of the young man in the linen garment: “And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth and fled naked” (Mar 14:51-52 ). Commentators have supposed that this young man was John Mark, who alone recounts the fact. They account for his presence and state thus: The upper room in which the Lord’s Supper was established was the house of his mother. When Judas gathered his arresting force he could not yet know that Jesus had left that room, and so first, he led his armed force to that house. This aroused the house, and Mark, himself a Christian, threw a linen robe about him and followed to Gethesame and so was present at the arrest of Jesus.
It is at least worthy of notice, that Melville, a great Scotch preacher, preached a sermon on the passage (Mar 14:51 f), contending that the young man in the linen robe was the antitype of the scapegoat (Lev 16 ). The sermon is a classical model in diction and homiletics, but is absolutely visionary. There is not a hint anywhere in the New Testament that his conjecture is at all tenable. I cite this fact to show you that preachers, in their anxiety to select texts that have the suggestion of novelty in them, will sometimes preach a sermon that will be sensational in its novelty, and yet altogether unscriptural in its matter, and to warn you against the selection of texts of that kind.
The next thought is the manner in which Judas identified the person of Christ, that he might be arrested. They were sure that some of the disciples would be with him, and they wanted to get the right man. So Judas gave this sign: “When we get to them I will step out and kiss the One that we want to arrest: that will be the sign to you. When you see me step out from you and kiss a certain Man in the group, that is the Man you want.” Christ submitted passively to the kissing of Judas, but said to Judas, “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And that has gone down into history. Traitors betray with a kiss. It is to that incident Patrick Henry refers in his famous speech before the House of Burgesses in Virginia, when he said to them, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss,” that the English government would furnish bouquets in compliments, while mobilizing armies and fleets for conquest.
The incident of the sword. Some-find, it difficult to reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 . The explanation seems to be simple. In his charge (Mat 10 ), while he was alive and they were in his service, they must depend upon him for defense and support. But while he was dead they must defend and support themselves. This, of course, could apply only after his death and until his resurrection. Peter was both too soon to fight, for he was not yet dead, and too late to go back to his fishing, for Christ was then risen.
Only those preachers whose Christ is dead should use the sword or resume self-support.
When Christ was arrested, all the disciples, without any exception (and there were eleven of them), forsook him and fled, and now at midnight he is led through the silent streets of Jerusalem, hemmed in by a cohort of Roman soldiers, who are attended by officers of the Sanhedrin and their servants. They bring him, strange to say, first to the house of Annas. This man Annas is one of the most remarkable men in Jewish history. He had himself been high priest; his son-in-law, Caiaphas, is high priest at this time; six of his sons became high priests. It made no difference to him who was official priest, he, through sons and sons-in-law, was the power behind the throne. He was very wealthy, lived in a palatial home, and was a Sadducee, like Dr. Eliot, and believed in neither angel, spirit, nor resurrection of the dead. He believed also in turning everything over to the Romans. That is, he aligned himself with what is called the “Herod party,” or “Roman party.” The patriot Jews hated him. Josephus draws an awful picture of him.
Mr. Salvador, in alleging that Christ was tried according to the forms of Jewish law, forgets that the Jewish law forbade the employment of spies in their criminal trials, and yet they brought Judas. He forgets that Jewish law forbade a man’s being arrested at night that it forbade any trial of the accused person at night. He forgets that an accused person should be tried only before a regular court. And yet the first thing they did was to bring Jesus to the house of Annas for a private examination, while the guard waited outside at the door till Annas got through with him. On page 190 of the Harmony we have an account of what took place in the house of Annas. The high priest catechised Jesus. Annas is called the high priest as well as Caiaphas. He asked Jesus about his disciples and about his doctrines. Jesus said, “I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the Temple, where all of the Jews came together; and in secret spake I nothing. Why asketh thou me? Ask them that have heard me.” So to conduct an examination of that kind at all; to conduct it at night; to conduct it not in the presence of a full court; to allow the prisoner to be struck, were all violations of the Jewish law concerning the administration of justice.
Notice what the Jewish trial is. Dr. Broadus shows the preliminary examination before Annas; second, the trial before the Sanhedrin that night, in the house of Caiaphas; third, the meeting of the Sanhedrin the next morning. It was not proper that a man should be tried except in the place of meeting, the Sanhedrin, and in this they violated the law. It was not proper that he should be tried at night, as Jesus is tried this night in the house of Caiaphas.
Let us now see what were the developments that night at the house of Caiaphas. “Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together” (Joh 18:24 ; Mat 26:57 ). That constituted the Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes. The chief priests were Sadducees; the scribes were Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, according to a Jewish account, consisted of seventy-two twenty-four chief priests, twenty-four elders, and twenty-four scribes. The Sanhedrin was the supreme court in matters ecclesiastical and criminal. They had some lower courts that were appointed by the Sanhedrin. Any town of just 100 or 200 population had a court of three. If it was a larger population it had a court of twenty-three, but the Sanhedrin was the high or supreme court in all matters ecclesiastical and criminal. When the Romans conquered Judea, as was usual with the Romans, they took away from the people the right of putting anybody to death by a sentence of their own courts. They refer to this, saying, “We are not allowed by the Romans to put a man to death under sentence of our law.” That is, when Pilate had said to them, “Why do you not try him before your own law?” they said, “We are not permitted to put a man to death under our law.” That night there were assembled the Sanhedrin, as the record says: “Now the Sanhedrin was seeking [imperfect tense, denoting continued action, not only sought, but were seeking] false witnesses against Jesus.” They were seeking these witnesses with a view to putting him to death. They had previously decreed his death; and now they were simply trying to find somebody that would swear enough to justify them. Not even that Sanhedrin, when they heard the multitude of these false witnesses, could find two of them agreed upon any one point. And the Mosaic law solemnly declared that there must be two witnesses to every fact. But at last there came two false witnesses, and here is what they testified: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.’ “
That is the sum of the evidence, and all the other testimony was thrown out as incompetent. Both these men lied. He never said that, but away back in his early ministry, when he first cleansed the Temple, and when he first came into conflict with these people, he had said these words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” He was speaking of the temple of his body, but he never said that he would destroy that Temple (of Jerusalem) and in three days build another.
But they were not satisfied with that, so the high priest violated the law by asking Jesus to speak. It was a principle of the Jewish law that one should not be forced to testify against himself. A man might testify for himself) but he is protected by the judge who sits on the bench from giving evidence against himself. Jesus knew all that, so he paid no attention. So the chief priest had to get at that matter in another way He did have a right in certain cases, to put a man on oath before God, and this is what he did: “I adjure thee [which means to swear by the living God, the highest and most solemn form of the judicial oath put thee on thy oath] before the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” To that Jesus responded.
Under the solemn oath before God he swore that he was the Messiah, and that hereafter that very crowd of people would see him sitting at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven.
I preached a sermon once from this text: “I adjure thee by the living God.” A young lawyer was present. He had never heard such a thing before. In the sermon I presented the character of Christ, against whom no man could prove an accusation; the devil himself found nothing in him; all the enemies of the great doctrines of the New Testament admitted the spotless character of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet this Man swore by the living God that he was the Messiah. All of the latent infidelity in the lawyer disappeared under that sermon. To this day he will testify that there got on his mind in the discussion of that single fact that Jesus was the Son of God. Would such a man swear to a false-hood? Is it credible that he would? He knew what “Messiah” meant that it meant he was the God-anointed One, to be the Prophet, the Sacrifice, the Priest, and the King, and he swore that he was. After his oath they should have tried his claims by the law, the prophets, and the facts of his life.
When he had given that testimony under oath the high priest rent his robe. The law required that whenever they heard a blasphemy they were to rend their clothes, and unless Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; unless God was his Father, while Mary was his mother; unless he was the God-anointed Prophet, Sacrifice, Priest, and King, then it was blasphemy. And therefore Mr. Greenleaf, who is the author of The Law of Evidence, a law book which passes current in all the law books on this continent and in Europe, in mentioning the trial of Jesus Christ, says, No lawyer of any reputation, with the facts set forth in the Gospels, would have attempted to defend Jesus Christ, except on the assumption that he was the Messiah and divine, because all through the Book that is his claim. If he was not divine, he did blaspheme. Therefore when he took that oath, that court should have investigated the character of his claim as the Messiah, but instead of that they assumed the thing that they should have investigated and called it blasphemy.
Another great violation of the law takes place: “What further need of witnesses have we? We have heard the blasphemy; what think ye?” And now they vote that he is worthy of death; they condemned him to be worthy of death. Their law declared that a vote of condemnation should never be taken the day of the trial. There had to be at least three intervening days, and here at night they pass sentence on no evidence but the oath of Jesus Christ, and that without investigating the matter involved. Then they allowed the following indignities: They spat in his face and buffeted him; they smote him with the palms of their hands after they had blindfolded him. Then one would slip up and slap him, saying, “Prophesy who hit you.”
I shall omit in my discussion here all this testimony concerning the denial of Peter, because I want to bring all of the history of Peter together. I pass that point for the present. I merely remark that the case of Judas and the case of Peter, connected with the arrest and the trial of Jesus Christ, have an immensity of pathos in the tragedy of the twelve the first one and the last one on the list.
That is the Jewish trial except this one additional fact: When it was morning, or as soon as it was day, they held their final meeting, and confirmed their night decision. They had a law that the Sanhedrin must come together for a final meeting in a case of this kind, and that if anybody had voted to acquit in the first meeting he could not change his vote, but if anybody had voted to condemn in this meeting he might ratify or he might change his vote and acquit. There were to be three days between these meetings. Having thus finished the Jewish trial, which was in violation of all the forms of the law, as soon as daylight comes they carry Jesus to Pilate.
The first trial of Jesus, then, was before the Jewish Sanhedrin; the accusation against him was blasphemy; the penalty under that law was to be put to death by stoning, but they had not the power to put to death. So now they must bring the case before the court of Pilate. And here Mr. Salvador says that the Jewish Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus Christ on the charge of blasphemy was confirmed by Pilate. There never was a statement more untrue. Pilate declined to take into consideration anything that touched that Jewish law. When he tried him he tried him ab initio, that is, “from the beginning,” and he did not consider any charge that did not come under the Roman law. Therefore, we see this people, when they bring the case before Pilate, present three new charges. The other case was not touched on at all, but the new charges presented were as follows: First, “he says that he himself is King”; the second is, “he teaches that Jews should not pay tribute to Caesar”; and third, “he stirreth up the people,” which was one of the things that the Roman was always quick to put down anywhere in the wide realm of the Roman world. A man who stirred up the people should be dealt with in a speedy manner. Treason was a capital offense. So they come before Pilate and try him in this court on the threefold charge, viz.: “He says he is King; he forbids this people to pay tribute to Caesar,” interrupting the revenue coming into Rome, which was false, for he taught to the contrary; and “he stirreth up the people.” We have had, then, the history of his case, so far as his trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin is concerned. In the next chapter we will take up his first trial before the court of Pilate.
QUESTIONS 1. What two facts concerning the arrest of Christ are evident from John’s supplemental story?
2. Why the presence of the Roman legionaries and their participation in the arrest of Jesus?
3. What illustration in Acts of the intervention of the chiliarch to protect a prisoner?
4. What unique and powerful literature on the trials of Jesus is mentioned?
5. What question do they answer?
6. What three books from the viewpoint of the lawyer commended?
7. What are the six distinct parts of Greenleaf’s Testimony of the Evangelists?
8. On what one point does the author dissent from Mr. Chandler?
9. What general works on the trials of Jesus commended?
10. Who was the young man spoken of in Mar 14:51-52 , and how do the commentators account for his presence and state on this occasion?
11. What noted Scotch preacher preached a sermon on this incident, what was his interpretation of this young man and what the lesson here for the preacher?
12. How did Judas identify Christ as the one to be arrested, what saying originated from this incident and what reference to it in the early history of our country?
13. How do you reconcile Luk 22:22 with Mat 26:51-55 ; Luk 22:51 ; Joh 18:10-11 ; Joh 18:24 ?
14. Upon Christ’s arrest what prophecy of his was fulfilled?
15. After his arrest where did they lead him, why to him, and what were the characteristics of this man?
16. Of what did the Jewish trial consist?
17. Give an account of what took place at the house of Annas.
18. Where did they take Jesus when they left the house of Annas, by what body was he tried there, of what was that body composed, and what were the limitations of its power under the Roman government?
19. Describe the trial of Jesus before this court.
20. What was the testimony of Jesus under oath, what should have been their course after his oath, what charge did they bring instead, and under what circumstances would their charge have been sustained?
21. What indignities did Jesus suffer in this trial?
22. What two pathetic cases connected with the arrest and trial of Jesus?
23. What the last act of the Jewish trial?
24. After the Jewish trial where did they lead Jesus, how did Pilate try him, what the threefold charge brought by the Jews against Jesus, and what the legal name of these offenses?
25. In what great particulars did the Jews violate their own law in the arrest and trial of Jesus as defined by Mr. Salvador?
47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
Ver. 47. See Mat 26:47 ; Mar 14:43 ; Joh 18:3 .
47 53. ] BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. Mat 26:47-56 . 2Jn 1:2-112Jn 1:2-112Jn 1:2-11 . Our narrative is here distinguished even more than before by minute and striking details (see on the whole the notes to Matt.).
The first of these is the address to Judas Luk 22:48 , calling the traitor by name, and setting before him the whole magnitude of his crime in the very words in which the treason had lately (Mat 26:45 ; Mar 14:41 ) and so often (Mat 26:2 ; Mat 20:18 ; Mat 17:22 ) been announced.
Another is in Luk 22:49 , where the disciples seeing , ask , . ; which question refers to, and is the filling up of their misunderstanding of our Lord in Luk 22:38 .
Again Luk 22:51 is peculiar to Luke.
Luk 22:47-53 . The apprehension (Mat 26:47-56 , Mar 14:43-52 ).
Luk 22:47 . ., to kiss Him; that the traitor’s purpose, its execution left to be inferred, also that it was the preconcerted signal pointing out who was to be apprehended.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 22:47-53
47While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him. 48But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” 49When those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” 50And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51But Jesus answered and said, “Stop! No more of this.” And He touched his ear and healed him. 52Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? 53While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”
Luk 22:47 “a crowd” Luke often mentions the crowd of people who followed Jesus to hear His teaching and observe His miracles. It is ironic that now in this verse and Luk 23:4 they are enemies, but in Luk 23:48 (the cross) the crowd who came to watch, grieves and disperses.
“and he approached Jesus to kiss Him” This was a typical greeting of a student for his rabbi (cf. Mar 14:45). It was a sign of affection (cf. Luk 22:48), but here it was a way of pointing to Jesus so that He could be arrested (cf. Mar 14:44; Mat 26:49).
Luk 22:50 Joh 18:10 names the disciple (Peter) and the High Priest’s slave (Malchus).
Luk 22:51
NASB”Stop, no more of this”
NKJV”Permit even this”
NRSV”No more of this”
TEV”Enough of this”
NJB”that is enough”
This is a present active imperative. This has three possible meanings.
1. if He is addressing the disciples, it means allow this to happen to Me
2. if He is addressing the crowd, it means we will put up no more struggle
3. the NASB (1970) footnote relates this phrase to Jesus’ healing of the severed ear, also implying no more violence
“and He touched his ear and healed him” Matthew, Mark, and John all mention that Peter cut off the High Priest’s slave’s ear. Only Luke records the healing. It is uncertain whether Jesus (1) stopped the bleeding or (2) restored the ear. Luke the physician is interested in this.
I wonder whether Malchus became a believer. This must have been a very dramatic moment for all of these men sent to arrest Jesus!
Luk 22:52 “chief priests” The reason for the plural is that since the Romans occupied Palestine, the High Priesthood had been a political plumb purchased by a family. It is doubtful that the High Priest himself came to the garden, but probably his representatives from the Sanhedrin (elders).
“with swords and clubs” The Romans would have had swords and the Temple police (officers, see note at Luk 22:4) would have had the clubs.
Luk 22:53 This verse relates to the temple police and the representatives of the Sanhedrin. It is a penetrating question and accusation. As Jesus had His prophetic “hour” (definite article, cf. Mat 26:45; Mar 14:35; Mar 14:41), so too, did these forces and pawns of evil (authority of darkness). Jesus’ arrest, trials, death, and resurrection were all part of God’s plan of redemption.
yet spake = was yet speaking.
multitude = crowd.
went = was going. Jesus. See App-98.
47-53.] BETRAYAL AND APPREHENSION OF JESUS. Mat 26:47-56. Mar 14:43-52. Joh 18:2-11. Our narrative is here distinguished even more than before by minute and striking details (see on the whole the notes to Matt.).
The first of these is the address to Judas Luk 22:48, calling the traitor by name, and setting before him the whole magnitude of his crime in the very words in which the treason had lately (Mat 26:45; Mar 14:41) and so often (Mat 26:2; Mat 20:18; Mat 17:22) been announced.
Another is in Luk 22:49, where the disciples seeing , ask , . ; which question refers to, and is the filling up of their misunderstanding of our Lord in Luk 22:38.
Again Luk 22:51 is peculiar to Luke.
Luk 22:47. ) Some read . But the same phrase occurs in Mar 6:33, they outwent them: by comparing this passage with the present, it is evident that the traitor reached our Lord more quickly than the band which accompanied him.
Luk 22:47-53
7. THE ARREST OF JESUS
Luk 22:47-53
47 While he yet spake,-A “multitude” led by Judas at this hour of the night came into the garden. This “multitude” consisted, first, of “the band” (Joh 18:3; Joh 18:12), or Roman cohort, which consisted of from three to six hundred armed men; they were kept in the tower of Antonia, overlooking the temple, and were kept ready to put down any tumult or arrest any disturber. It is not known whether the entire band was present. Then there were the “captains of the temple” (verse 52) with their men who guarded the temple and kept order; it is not known how many of these were present. Also there were some of the chief priests and elders (verse 52), and finally some servants, such as Malchus and others (Joh 18:10), who had been commissioned by the Jewish authorities. “Judas, one of the twelve,” led the company; he had agreed to betray Jesus into their hands; it is an ugly picture to see this apostolic criminal leading this mob at night into the garden of sorrow to arrest Jesus. Judas “went before them” as their guide and leader. (Joh 18:3.) When they arrived, Judas “drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.”
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas,-This verse is found only in Luke; the kiss of Judas is here placed in strong contrast with the betrayal which it subserved, in order to show how devoid of all noble and generous feeling was the traitor, who could prostitute to so vile a purpose, that which among all nations was regarded as the pledge and token of intimate friendship. There seems to be sympathy with the rebuke which Jesus used when he said: “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” Do you dare to bring those pulluted lips in contact with mine and play the hypocrite? Away with your hypocrisy! Do your fiendish work! (Joh 18:4-9.)
49, 50 And when they that were about him saw-Those who were “about him” were his disciples; they now seem to sense the danger , they thought that Jesus would enable them to defeat the mob and vindicate him by means of the “two swords” which they had. How little did they understand the situation! They asked: “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” They had not learned the lesson at this time. After the agony had passed, Jesus with Peter, James, and John whom he had chosen to accompany him (Mat 26:37; Mar 14:33), returned to the eight disciples, whom he had left at the entrance of the garden. It seems that immediately after he had joined them the band sent to take him with Judas as their guide, and probably a little in advance of the main body, was discovered approaching. It was at this time that the disciples asked if they should use the sword; and “a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.” It seems that Judas was stung by the words of Jesus, and understood that his treachery was known; he seems to have fallen back again to his band (Joh 18:5) so that when they came to Jesus they were somewhat at a loss to identify him (Joh 18:4-9). This shows that Judas so cowered beneath the searching glance and calm, severe language of Jesus that he retreated from his side, where he had probably intended to remain until the band came fully up, in order that there might be no possible mistake in regard to the apprehension of the right person. In the midst of this confusion, the disciples may have asked whether they should smite with the sword; they stood ready against such fearful odds to defend their Lord. Peter, still impetuous, rushed forward and smote off the right ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. Peter struck at his head, and miss his aim, and cut off his ear. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the incident without naming Peter; John alone says that the disciple that cut off Malchus’ ear was Peter. Some think that when the first three wrote, perhaps it would have unduly exposed Peter to have named him, but when John wrote, Peter had probably already suffered death, so that no harm would follow from giving the name.
51 But Jesus answered and said,-There has been some controversy as to whom Jesus addressed this language; some think that it was addressed to the captors, and meant that they should allow his disciples to go away, and he would heal the man. Others think that it was addressed to his disciples to restrain them, and meant that his disciples should permit, without defense, the band to take him. It seems from the full account as given by Matthew and John that Jesus addressed this to his disciples. Jesus “touched his ear, and healed him.” Of course, Jesus could have healed the ear without the touch, and the decided reproof of the disciples for the rashness of this act closely follows the act, and indicates that all his conversation was addressed to them.
52 And Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains- “The chief priests” were so eager to take Jesus that they had accompanied Judas and the band of Roman soldiers. Jesus now rebuked them and the Jewish officers for their cowardice and wickedness; they had come secretly and were basely hounding his footsteps to arrest him by night as though he were a common robber or desperate character. If they really believed that he was a bad man, why did they not take him in the daylight while he was in the temple? They had come out against him “as against a robber, with swords and staves.” It was an indignation that Jesus with such peaceful habits should be surrounded with a band of soldiers and others with an array of weapons of all sorts, as though he were a robber to be hunted down and captured like a wild beast. They were armed with “swords and staves”; that is, they were armed with all sorts of sticks and cudgels.
53 When I was daily with you in the temple,-The last week had been spent by Jesus in the temple teaching; at night he would retire to Bethany or to the Mount of Olives. This was a rebuke to them for coming secretly by night, when they could have come to him while he was in the temple teaching daily; this was an indictment against them for their cowardice. They made no attempt to arrest him while he was in the temple; they feared the multitude. “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” The time predicted had arrived; it was now permitted of God that the powers of evil should vent their rage against Jesus, and for a time triumph in the apparent success of their plans to crush Jesus and his disciples. Some think that Jesus had reference to the time of night, hut this inference does not justify the statement.
The Power of Darkness
Luk 22:47-53
It may have been about midnight when the lights and movement of feet indicated the approach of Judas and his band. The kiss of Judas was probably intended to hide his treachery from his fellow-disciples; but it did not deceive his Master, who even in that sad hour sought to touch his heart, Luk 22:48.
When Malchus ear was almost severed from the body, it was needful that our Lord should interpose, because, if Peter had been arrested, the gaze of mankind would have been diverted from the spectacle of Christs atonement, and a struggle might have ensued at the gate of the garden which would have justified the worst accusations of the high priest.
The quiet remonstrance with which the Lord met that ruffian band, reminding them of their cowardice in the daylight and amid the crowds, was followed by His submission to be led as a lamb to the slaughter.
Chapter 46
The Betrayal
That which is contained in these verses is both sad and solemn. It is a subject full of serious warning to every hypocrite. Yet, it is a subject that is instructive and comforting to believing sinners. Here the Holy Spirit describes the betrayal of our Saviour by Judas Iscariot, showing us how our sovereign God and Saviour used the deeds of the most infamous man in history to accomplish his purpose of grace in the redemption of his elect and to fulfil the scriptures in his death.
Judas Iscariot
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot. First, let me tell you something about this horrible man, Judas Iscariot. There were four men named Jude, or Judas, in the New Testament.
Jude, the brother of James and half brother of our Saviour, who wrote the Epistle of Jude (Mat 13:55). This man was the Judas who asked the Saviour, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? (Joh 14:22).
There is another Judas mentioned in Act 9:11, who lived on Straight St. in Damascus, at whose house Ananias met Saul of Tarsus, after the Lord Jesus had revealed himself in that man chosen of God to be the apostle to the Gentiles.
There was a third Jude, or Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas. He was sent by the apostles to the church at Antioch, after the conference at Jerusalem (Act 15:22-30).
And here is Judas Iscariot, the traitor, the betrayer of our Lord. His name was Judas; but he was, by divine providence, surnamed Iscariot, which means the man of murder. It had been better for this man if he had never been born. Of him our Saviour said, The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born (Mar 14:21).
Then
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot. It is important to notice the time God the Holy Spirit identifies for us when Satan is here said to have entered into Judas. This was two days before the passover. It happened while our Saviour was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper (Mat 26:2-17; Mar 14:1-11). In fact, Marks account seems to indicate that the thing Satan used to trigger Judas wickedness was the devotion of the woman who anointed the Saviour with precious spikenard for his burial, and the Masters commendation of her good work. Immediately after our Saviour commended this woman and her work, Judas went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them (Mar 14:10).
John tells us that this happened before the supper in Simons house ended (Joh 13:2). While they were at the table in Simons house, you will remember, the Lord Jesus arose from the supper and washed his disciples feet. (This was not at the Lords Supper, but at the supper in Simons house in Bethany.) Then, the Saviour told the disciples that one of them would betray him. When they wondered which of them would do the horrible deed, he said, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly (Joh 13:26-27). Though the Lord Jesus had spoken very plainly, the disciples failed to realize that he had identified Judas as the betrayer. But Judas having received the sop went immediately out to betray him (Joh 13:30).
Immediately following the supper at Bethany, while Judas was making his dastardly deal with the chief priests, the Lord Jesus sent Peter and John into Jerusalem to prepare for the passover. Then, when the appointed hour arrived, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him, to keep the passover feast (Luk 22:14; Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17). Our Saviour kept the passover feast with his disciples, as was required by the law (Luk 22:15-18). In Luk 22:19-20 he established the gospel ordinance of the Lords Supper, by which Gods saints in this gospel age remember the Saviour and symbolically show the Lords death, till he come (1Co 11:26).
Judas At The Table
I have said all that because I want you to see, and to see clearly, that Judas was at the table with the Lord Jesus and his disciples when the Lords Supper was established. In Luk 22:21-22 we are plainly told that after making his hellish deal to betray the Son of God, Judas was present with the twelve and kept the first observance of the Lords Supper with them. The Lord Jesus said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! What a base, crass, hard-hearted hypocrite Judas must have been! Apparently, he came only to cover his tracks; but there he is sitting with the Son of God and his apostles as the Saviour established the blessed ordinance of sweet communion, just as though he was part of the communion!
This is important because there are multitudes who would have us fence the table, or not observe it at all, lest someone eat the bread and wine with us who is an unbeliever. Some would even keep other believers from the table. Such practices are terribly evil.
Be sure you understand what the scriptures teach regarding the Lords Supper. Like believers baptism, it is a blessed, gospel ordinance of worship; and, like baptism, it is an ordinance to be observed by believers only. If you do not trust Christ as your Saviour, if you do not discern the Lords body (That is to say, If you do not know why Christ came into this world and what he accomplished, if you do not know your need of him as your sin-atoning Substitute.) you must not join Gods children at the Lords Table. The ordinance is not for you. To eat the bread and drink the wine without such God-given discernment is to eat and drink damnation to yourself.
But, if you are a believer, if you do trust Christ alone as your Lord and Saviour, the Table is prepared and set for you. No believer is unworthy to receive the bread and wine in remembrance of the Saviour. In fact, every believer is specifically told to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of the Saviour, and to do so often (Mat 26:26-28). The observance of the Lords Supper is no more optional than believers baptism. It is just as evil to refuse one of the Lords children their place at the Table, as it would be to refuse baptism to one to whom he has given faith in Christ.
Who makes the decision? Who decides who shall eat the bread and drink the wine? The scriptures tell us plainly. Each person must examine himself. You, and you alone, are to determine whether you are a sinner whose only hope of salvation and eternal life is the crucified Son of God. It is not the pastors responsibility, or the responsibility of the churchs elders or deacons. It is the responsibility of the individual, and no one else, to determine whether he does or does not trust Christ as his Saviour.
The Lord Jesus knew that Judas was a devil from the beginning, and knew that he had already made arrangements to betray him for thirty pieces of silver. He spoke so pointedly to Judas about these things, that he had no excuse for his hellish hypocrisy. But the Master did nothing to keep that devil from eating the bread and drinking the wine.
One Of The Twelve
We are told that Judas was of the number of the twelve (Luk 22:3). He was one of the twelve (Luk 22:47). Those twelve men formed the most elite group of men ever to walk across the face of the earth. Yet, one of the twelve apostles of Christ was Judas Iscariot, Judas the murderous traitor. When the Lord chose Judas to the office of an apostle, he knew he was a devil (Joh 6:70-71). When the Lord Jesus commissioned the others, Judas was commissioned with them. When our Saviour sent out the twelve to cast out devils, heal the sick, and preach the kingdom of God, Judas was among them (Luk 9:1-6). It seems to me that Judas must have even performed the same miracles that the other apostles performed; else he may have been detected by them.
Gracious Designs
All this was done, though the Lord Jesus knew exactly who and what Judas was. Rather than questioning these things, we ought to immediately recognize that our Saviour had wise and gracious designs in them. Judas was a man specifically raised up to stand as a glaring beacon to warn all men, telling all that outward religion without inward grace is not only useless, but damning. Judas was chosen to be a preacher and even an apostle. No doubt, he preached exactly the same doctrine as Peter, James, and John, the very doctrine that Christ preached. But Judas was a devil. He was never born again. He was never called to life and faith in Christ by God the Holy Spirit. Judas was never made a partaker of Christ and a partaker of the grace of God.
He was nothing but an outward, empty hearted professor of faith in Christ, not a possessor of grace. He was an apostle (a messenger of God) in name only. Peter said he was numbered with the apostles and had obtained part of their ministry (Act 1:17). He obtained part, just an outside part of the apostles ministry, no more. He had the name and the office, the duties and the doctrine, the fame and the functions of an apostle, but nothing more. He had no grace in his heart and no gifts of the Spirit. Those who heard him preach heard cold, dry, empty echoes of a cold, dry, empty heart.
I fear there are multitudes like Judas today who fill the pulpits of churches. They are ordained by men, but not by God the Holy Spirit. They are talented, but not gifted with grace. They are forceful, but not faithful. Their doctrine may be profound and precise, but it is not pure. It may elevate your thinking, but it will not edify your soul. It may swell your head, but it will not sanctify your heart.
Such a man was Judas. He was a devil from the beginning and remained a devil to the end, though he was numbered with, and constantly associated with the apostles to the end of his days, until the measure of his iniquity was filled. Then, he went to his own place (Act 1:25). We should never be surprised by the appearance of such men, or surprised that they go undetected, even by the faithful (Mat 7:22-23).
No Harm
Judas also stands as a constant, blessed beacon of light, proclaiming forever that all Satans devices and all the deeds of even the most malicious men shall never hurt Gods cause, injure his people, or hinder the gospel. The Apostles were not hindered in their work because Judas was among them. The disciples were not harmed by his presence at the Table. Our Saviour was not hindered, but only helped in his determination to redeem us by Judas betrayal. In fact, it was Judas fall from the number of the twelve that made room for the twelfth true apostle, the apostle Paul.
In choosing Judas to be an apostle and allowing a devil to sit at the Lords Table with his disciples our Saviour assures us that his saints are not polluted or harmed in anyway because a Judas is among them. The Lords true disciples did not lose a thing because Judas was among them. They had Christ with them. Their joy was not diminished because Judas was there.
If, indeed, the Lord Jesus meets with us when we gather to worship him as he promised (Mat 18:20), we will suffer no loss if a devil dares try to hide himself from God among the sons of God (Job 1:6). If God the Holy Spirit will lead us by the footsteps of the flock, where the Good Shepherd feeds his sheep (Son 1:8), our souls shall be blessed with his flock, though there may be a goat or two among the sheep, or a lion lying in wait. He will prepare a table for us, even in the presence of our enemies, anoint our heads with the oil of grace, and cause our cups to run over.
Wheat And Tares
Yes, our Saviour had wise and gracious designs in his use of Judas. He knew that his church, so long as we are in this world, would never be free from false apostles, false preachers, and false prophets. And he knew that tares would grow together with the wheat until the harvest. Goats will ever be found among his sheep in this world. Wherever the good fish are gathered by the gospel net, carps will be gathered, too. And this is exactly according to his purpose. Yet, the precious and the vile are still perfectly distinct, and between them there is a great gulf fixed. Tares will never become wheat. Goats will never become sheep. And bad fish will never become good fish. The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent cannot be mixed.
Betrayed With A Kiss
Skip down to Luk 22:47. The Lord Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane. He has finished praying. When he arose from prayer, he found Peter, James, and John sleeping for sorrow (Luk 22:45). When he did, he said, Rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation (Luk 22:46). Read Luk 22:47-54.
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priests house.
A Multitude
Here is a multitude of Roman soldiers armed with swords and spears, and Jews with the chief priests, with Judas leading the way. Judas was guide to them that took Jesus (Act 1:16). But, why would such a huge multitude come to arrest one unarmed man? Were they afraid of him? It appears that they were. It is obvious that the soldiers, as well as the Jews, had heard that this man claimed to be more than a mere man. He claimed to be God in the flesh; and his disciples all worshipped him as God. We know that the soldiers were aware of this, because one of them later declared, Truly this man was the Son of God (Mar 15:39).
It is certain that none of the princes of this world really knew him, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1Co 2:8). Yet, these men knew that he openly claimed to be the Lord of Glory, and feared that he might be. And he showed them that their fears were justified (Joh 18:4-8). It is obvious that though Judas was determined to betray him, he was terrified of him. Matthew tells us that he told the soldiers as soon as they saw him kiss the Lord Jesus, they should hold him fast (Mat 26:48).
Total Depravity
Why did he use such precautions? There was in that devil of a man a terrifying conviction that Christ was more than man. He could not have forgotten the miracles of Christ. He had seen the Master escape from the hands of his enemies, when they sought to throw him over the hill of the city (Luk 4:29-31). Therefore, he told them to bind him and lead him away securely (Mar 14:44).
These men, all of them, must have been terrified as they led the Saviour out of Gethsemane. They all had seen and heard enough that night to convince them that this man is God. Our Lord took the initiative, approaching them with not the slightest twinge of fear. He had declared, I AM, and they fell away backward before him. He picked Malchus right ear up off the ground and replaced it before their eyes.
They knew who they were dealing with, and must have been nervous and afraid. Yet, such is the deadness and depravity of the human heart that sinners cannot act contrary to the evil determination of their own wicked hearts and wills, unless they are graciously compelled to do so by God the Holy Spirit. Even when stricken with terror, they cannot and will not repent, except God give them repentance. If we know, by the sweet experience of his grace, what it is to repent, what it is to trust Christ, our hearts ought to constantly bow before him with gratitude and dance before him with joy!
Christ In Control
Though bound like a criminal, our Lord Jesus Christ was in absolute control, even of this mob. He was overruling their malice for his own glory that the scriptures might be fulfilled. Our sovereign Saviour was, by the use of these wicked men, accomplishing the prophecies of the Old Testament scriptures. He was taken by force, but not by the force of these men. He was taken captive by them by the force of his own determination to die in our place upon the cursed tree, and to do so exactly according to the scriptures.
According to the scripture, he had to be betrayed by one who was familiar with him and called his friend, one in whom he confided, one who had eaten of his bread (Psa 41:9). According to the scripture, the sacrifice for sin had to be bound. Therefore, our Saviour voluntarily stretched out his hand to be bound by sinners (Psa 118:27). As Isaac was voluntarily bound and laid upon the altar, our blessed Saviour was, by his own voluntary will, bound by these wicked men that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Jews And Gentiles
This wicked band of murderous men was a mob of rebels, composed of both Jews and Gentiles. Though utterly unconscious of the fact, they were visibly and undeniably fulfilling that which was written of them in the 2nd Psalm hundreds of years earlier. We know that the actions of these men was the fulfilment of the 2nd Psalm, because the Spirit of God specifically tells us that is the case in Act 4:24-28.
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Brought To The High Priest
In Luk 22:54 Luke says, Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priests house. When they came to arrest our Saviour in the Garden, it was the intention of this mob to deliver him up to the Romans, to give him a mock trial, and murder him. These soldiers did not come representing the Jews or their high priest. They were Roman soldiers. Why, then, did they take him first to the high priest?
Again, though they had no idea what they were doing, they acted directly contrary to their own inclinations to fulfil the purpose of our God. Roman soldiers would not willingly do anything just to please the despised Jews over whom they ruled. And they probably acted in direct disobedience to their orders. These men were the Roman governors soldiers. It is highly unlikely that the governor sent them out with orders to arrest the Lord Jesus and take him to the high priests house. It seems to me that he would have ordered them to bring the Lord Jesus directly to him.
Why, then, do you suppose they took him to the house of the high priest? If you will read the 1st chapter of Leviticus, you will see that the sacrifice for sin had to be brought first to the priest. Why did they bring Christ first into the high priests house? They did it that Christ might die for our sins according to the scriptures, that the scriptures might be fulfilled.
Christ our Passover, our Sin-offering, our Sacrifice, had to be bound and led away, as all sacrifices under the law were, to the high priest. And both Jew and Gentile had to be involved in the great work. So they dragged the Lord Jesus to the high priest, then to the Governor, and then to Pilate, and at last to Mount Calvary, where he was crucified by the hands of wicked men, according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, according to the scriptures (Isa 53:5-12).
His Own Place
When he had done that for which he was ordained, that for which his vile, base heart lusted, this hard, impenitent rebel, Judas, the man of murder, went to his own place in hell, and that by his own hand. We are specifically told, Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place (Mat 27:3-5; Act 1:18-25).
What a horrible death Judas died! Being condemned in himself, he committed suicide, hanging himself. Then, falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out. What a spectacle! How just! Then he went to his own place in hell. Imagine if you dare, what has followed. Throughout the unimaginable miseries of eternity, Judas is forced to endure, to the everlasting torment of his soul, the unceasing condemnation of his own guilty, damning conscience. In the screeches of the damned, this fire burns in his soul and this worm never dies, Judas own conscience ceaselessly screams, Would God I had never been born! Would God I had never been born! I am justly damned forever! I am the man who betrayed the Lord of life and glory with a kiss!
Christs Appointed Place
Yet, it was by the hand of Judas, the man of murder, that the Lord Jesus Christ, our blessed Saviour, went to his appointed place, at his appointed time, and finished his appointed work as our Saviour. Here he justified us with his own blood, forever put away our sins by the sacrifice of himself, and obtained eternal redemption for us, dying for our sins according to the scriptures.
Our Own Place
The end result of all this is glorious. Because Christ took our place at Calvary, because he was made sin for us, we have been made the righteousness of God in him; and soon we shall be brought, by his omnipotent grace and immaculate mercy, into our own place with him in heaven at last!
What will be your place? Will you be brought down to your own place in hell by your own hands, by your wilful, obstinate rebellion refusing to bow to the Son of God? Oh, may God graciously save you from yourself by his grace, give you life and faith in his darling Son, and sweetly force you to enter into life eternal by Christ the Door. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Trust the Son of God now; and soon he will bring you to your own place, the place prepared for you from the foundation of the world, and present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.
while: Mat 26:45-47, Mar 14:41-43, Joh 18:2-9
Judas: Luk 22:3-6, Mat 26:14-16, Mat 26:47, Mar 14:10, Mar 14:43, Act 1:16-18
Reciprocal: 2Sa 20:9 – to kiss him Psa 55:13 – mine acquaintance Psa 109:5 – hatred Pro 26:23 – General Jer 41:1 – they did Mat 10:4 – and Mat 27:3 – Judas Mar 14:20 – It is Joh 18:3 – Judas Act 1:17 – he Act 4:27 – the people 2Pe 2:3 – with
7
Judas had left the company of Jesus and the other apostles just after eating of the Passover. See the comments at Mat 26:47.
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
[To kiss him.] Our Saviour had to do with a frightful and terrifying devil; but this traitor seems possessed with a tame and gentle one. He converses with the apostles, and there is no token of a devil dwelling in him. He is present at the Passover, at the eucharist, and the very lips of Christ, and still no sign of Satan being his inmate. But when once the devil hath done his work by thee, then, Judas, take heed of thy devil.
As to this treacherous contrivance of Judas, let us frame the most gentle opinion of it that the matter can bear: for instance, that he might perhaps think with himself, that it was not possible for Christ to be apprehended by the Jews, having already seen him working such stupendous miracles, and more than once strangely delivering himself from them: and grant further, that when he said to them, “Whomsoever I shall kiss; that is he, lay hold of him,” he said it scoffingly, as believing they could not be able to lay hold on him: grant we, in a word, that when he saw him condemned, he repented himself, having never suspected that matters would have gone so far, presuming that Christ would easily have made his escape from them, and himself should have got thirty pieces of silver by the bargain: let us grant, I say, that this was his contrivance, and colour it over with as plausible excuses as we can; yet certainly was there never any thing so impiously done by mortal man, than for him thus to play with the Holy of Holies, and endeavour to make merchandise of the Son of God. However, I suspect much worse things hatched in the breast of this traitor: viz. that Christ did really not please him; and, with the great chiefs of that nation, though he supposed him the true Messiah, yet not such a one as answered their carnal expectation.
The Rabbins distinguish between lawful kisses and kisses of folly; saying, that “all kisses are kisses of folly excepting three”: which they there reckon up. But what kind of kiss was this? a kiss of folly? Alas! it is too low and dwarfish a term for this gigantic monster.
WE should learn, for one thing, from these verses, that the worst and most wicked acts may be done under a show of love to Christ. We read that when the traitor Judas brought the enemies of Christ to take Him, he betrayed Him “with a kiss.” He made a pretense of affection and respect, at the very moment when he was about to deliver his Master into the hands of his deadliest enemies.
Conduct like this, unhappily, is not without its parallels. The pages of history record many an instance of enormous wickedness wrought out and perfected under the garb of religion. The name of God has too often been pressed into the service of persecution, treachery, and crime. When Jezebel would have Naboth killed, she ordered a “fast to be proclaimed,” and false witnesses to accuse him of “blaspheming God and the king.” (1Ki 21:9-10.) When Count de Montfort led a crusade against the Albigenses, he ordered them to be murdered and pillaged, as an act of service to Christ’s Church. When the Spanish Inquisition tortured and burned suspected heretics, they justified their abominable dealings by a profession of zeal for God’s truth.-The false apostle Judas Iscariot has never wanted successors and imitators. There have always been men ready to betray Christ with a kiss, and willing to deliver the Gospel to its enemies under a show of respect.
Conduct like this, we need not doubt, is utterly abominable in the sight of God. To injure the cause of religion under any circumstances is a great sin, but to injure it while we pretend to show kindness is the blackest of crimes. To betray Christ at any time is the very height of wickedness, but to betray Him with a kiss, proves a man to have become a very child of hell.
We should learn, for another thing, from these verses, that it is much easier to fight a little for Christ, than to endure hardness and go to prison and death for His sake. We read that when our Lord’s enemies drew near to take Him, one of His disciples “smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.” Yet the zeal of that disciple was very short-lived. His courage soon died away. The fear of man overcame him. By and bye when our Lord was led away prisoner, he was led away alone. The disciple who was so ready to fight and smite with the sword, had actually forsaken his Master and fled!
The lesson before us is deeply instructive. To suffer patiently for Christ is far more difficult than to work actively. To sit still and endure calmly, is far more hard than to stir about and take part in the battle. Crusaders will always be found more numerous than Martyrs. The passive graces of religion are far more rare and precious than the active graces. Work for Christ may be done from many spurious motives, from excitement, from emulation, from party-spirit, or from love of praise. Suffering for Christ will seldom be endured from any but one motive. That motive is the grace of God.
We shall do well to remember these things in forming our estimate of the comparative grace of professing Christians. We err greatly if we suppose that those who do public work, and preach, and speak, and write, and fill the eyes of the Church, are those who are most honorable in God’s sight. Such men are often far less esteemed by Him than some poor unknown believer, who has been lying for years on his back, enduring pain without a murmur. Their public efforts perhaps will prove at last to have brought less glory to Christ than his patience, and to have done less good than his prayers.
The grand test of grace is patient suffering. “I will show Saul,” said the Lord Jesus, “what great things he shall suffer for my name.” (Act 9:16.) Peter, we may be sure, did far less good when he drew his sword and cut off a man’s ear, than he did when be stood calmly before the council as a prisoner, and said, “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (Act 4:20.)
We should learn, lastly, from these verses, that the time during which evil is permitted to triumph is fixed and limited by God.-We read that our Lord said to His enemies when they took Him, “This is your hour and the power of darkness.”
The sovereignty of God over everything done upon earth is absolute and complete. The hands of the wicked are bound until He allows them to work. They can do nothing without His permission.-But this is not all. The hands of the wicked cannot stir one moment before God allows them to begin, and cannot stir one moment after God commands them to stop. The very worst of Satan’s instruments are working in chains. He could not touch Job’s property or person until God allowed him. He could not prevent Job’s prosperity returning, when God’s designs on Job were accomplished. Our Lord’s enemies could not take and slay him, until the appointed “hour” of His weakness arrived. Nor yet could they prevent His rising again, when the hour came in which He was declared the Son of God with power, by His resurrection from the dead. (Rom 1:4.) When He was led forth to Calvary, it was “their hour.” When He rose victorious from the grave, it was His.
The verses before us throw light on the history of believers in ages gone by, from the time of the apostles down to the present day. They have often been sorely oppressed and persecuted, but the hand of their enemies has never been allowed entirely to prevail. The “hour” of their trials has generally been succeeded by a season of light. The triumph of their enemies has never been entire and complete. They have had their “hour,” but they have had no more. After the persecution about Stephen, came the conversion of Paul. After the martyrdom of John Huss, came the German Reformation. After the Marian persecution, came the establishment of English Protestantism. The longest night has had its morning. The sharpest winters have been followed by spring. The heaviest storms have been changed for blue sky.
Let us take comfort in these words of our Lord, in looking forward to our own future lives. If we are followers of Christ, we shall have an “hour” of trial, and it may be a long hour too. But we may rest assured that the darkness shall not last one moment longer than God sees fit for us. In His good time it shall vanish away. “At evening time there shall be light.”
Finally, let us take comfort in these words of our Lord, in looking forward to the future history of the Church and the world. Clouds and darkness may gather round the ark of God. Persecutions and tribulations may assail the people of God. The last days of the Church and world will probably be their worst days. But the “hour” of trial, however grievous, will have an end. Even at the worst we may boldly say, “The night is far spent and the day is at hand.” (Rom 13:12.)
==================
Notes-
v49.-[What would follow.] The Greek expression so translated is literally “the thing about to be, or about to take place.”
v50.-[One of them smote the servant.] We know from John’s Gospel, that the servant’s name was Malchus, and the disciple who smote him was Peter. The two names are not given by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, though all three mention the fact. This cautious silence of the three first Gospel-writers is easily accounted for. John’s Gospel was probably not written till many years had passed away after the crucifixion. There was then no necessity for keeping back names from motives of prudence.
[Cut off his right ear.] Theophylact sees an allegorical meaning in this incident. He regards the high priest’s servant as a type of the whole Jewish priesthood, who were from that time to become slaves and lose their right ear. (Deu 15:17.)
Barradius takes another allegorical view, and regards the servant as an emblem of the whole Jewish nation, which had no ears to hear Christ and the prophets, and was deservedly punished by judicial deafness. But as Malchus was mercifully healed and had his ear restored, so was it to be with many of the Jews.
Strange as these views may seem, it is fair to say that Major quotes a passage from a modern writer, containing an elaborate attempt to maintain much the same theory, the main point of it being that the cutting off of the ear typified the abolition of the Levitical priesthood.
For my own part I am unable to see that these allegorical views are sound, and according to the mind of the Spirit.
v51.-[Suffer ye thus far.] The meaning of these words is a point on which commentators are not agreed. The following are the three principal interpretations.
1. Some think that the words were addressed to our Lord’s enemies, and had special reference to His disciples. “Bear with them. Suffer them to go away quietly. Let them go away.” This is the view of Whitby, Scott, and Henry.
2. Some think that the words were addressed to our Lord’s disciples, and were intended to calm them, and restrain them from fighting. “Suffer them to take me. Permit them to lay hands on me. Do not attempt resistance. Let them carry out the will of God, by taking me.” This is the view of Calvin, Brentius, Gerhard, Bengel, Major, Olshausen, Burgon.
3. Some think that the words were addressed to our Lord’s enemies, but with special reference to the case of Malchus. “Suffer me to heal this wounded man. Before binding me, let me do an act of kindness, to repair the wrong done by my hasty disciple.” This is the view of Bullinger, Barradius, Doddridge, Clarke, Alford.
The first and second views are certainly in harmony with the account given by the other evangelists. The last is perhaps the one most in accordance with the simple view of the Greek words.
[He touched…ear…healed him.] There are several remarkable things about this miracle.
It is the only instance in the Gospels of our Lord healing a fresh wound caused by external violence.
It is a striking instance of a miracle worked on an enemy, unasked for, without faith in the person healed, and without any apparent thankfulness for the cure.
It is an extraordinary proof of the wickedness and hardness of our Lord’s enemies, that so wonderful a miracle as this could be wrought without any effect being produced on them. Some think that in the darkness the miracle was not seen by any one except those immediately round Malchus.
v52.-[The chief priests.] Let it be noted, that so much importance was attached to making our Lord a prisoner, that men of the rank and dignity of high priests were not ashamed to go out at night to accompany the soldiers who went to arrest Him.
v53.-[Your hour…power of darkness.] Two parties seem to be brought in here,-the wicked Jews, who were about to deliver our Lord to Pilate, and the devil, under whose instigation they were acting. It was the brief “hour” of triumph which the unbelieving Jews, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, were to enjoy. It was the little season, during which the prince of the darkness of this world was to have “power,” and to all appearance to prevail over the second Adam, as he had prevailed over the first. And yet neither wicked men nor a malicious devil could go a hair’s breadth beyond the limit appointed by God, or triumph over the Son of God a minute beyond the time decreed by the eternal counsels. They knew it not, but so it was. Even now, our Lord would have them know they were only able to take Him prisoner because God permitted them a little season of “power.”
Luk 22:47-53. THE BETRAYAL. See on Mat 26:47-56; comp. Mar 14:43-52; Joh 18:3-11. We notice only the new and striking details.
It was the lot and portion of our blessed Saviour here, we find, to be betrayed into the hands of his mortal enemies, by the treachery of a false and dissembling friend.
And in this sad relation before us we have observable, the traitor, the treason, the manner how, and the time when, this treasonable design was executed.
Observe, 1. The traitor, Judas: all the evangelists carefully describe him by his name, Judas, Judas Iscariot, lest he should be mistaken for Jude, the brother of James; and by his office, one of the twelve. Lord, now ought the greatest professors to look well to themselves, and to the grounds and principles of their profession: for a profession begun in hupocrisy will certainly end in apostasy.
Observe, 2. The occasion of the treason, covetousness, or the inordinate love of worldly wealth; and accordingly the devil lays a temptation before him exactly suited to his temper and inclination, and it instantly overcame him.
Learn hence, that persons are never in such imminent danger of falling into sin, as when they meet with temptations exactly suited to their master lust. Oh pray we, that God would keep us from temptations suited to our predominant lust and corruption.
Observe, 3. The treason of Judas, he led on an armed multitude to the place where Christ was, gave them a signal to discover him by, and bids them lay hands upon him and hold him fast; which treason of Judas was attended with these black and hellish aggravations: he had been a witness of our Saviour’s miracles, and hearer of our Lord’s doctrine; what he did was not by solicitation; the chief priests did not send to him, but he went to them.
Lord, how dangerous it is to allow ourselves in any secret sin! None can say how far one sin may in time lead us. Should any one have told Judas that his covetousness would at last make him deny his Lord, and sell his Saviour, he would have said with Hazael, Is thy servant a dog, that I should do this thing?
Observe, 4. The endeavor made by his disciples for their Master’s rescue. One of them (St. Matthew says it was Peter) drew a sword, and cut off the ear of Malchus. But why not the ear of Judas rather? Because, though Judas was most faulty, yet Malchus might be most forward to arrest and carry off our Saviour. Oh how does a pious breast boil iwth indignation at the sight of an open affront offered to its Saviour!
Yet, though St. Peter’s heart was sincere, his hand was too rash; good intentions are no warrant for irregular actions; and accordingly, Christ, who accepted the affection, reproved the action. To resist authority, even in Christ’s own defence, is rash zeal, and discountenanced by the gospel. Peter did well to ak his master, If he should smite with the sword? but he ought to have stayed his hand till Christ had given him his answer. However, Peter’s sin occasioned a miracle from our Saviour; Christ heals that ear miraculously, which Peter cut off unwarrantably; yet the sight of this miracle converted none.
Oh how insufficient are all outward means of conversion, without the Spirit’s inward operation!
Luk 22:47-48. And while he yet spake, behold, a multitude had entered the garden, consisting of persons of very different stations and offices in life; and Judas went before them To lead them to the place, and show them the man they wanted, by kissing him. See on Mat 26:47-56; Mar 14:43-49. Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? Dost thou make my condescending kindness the occasion of thy base treachery, and use that as the signal of it, which, among men, is the usual token either of love or homage? And dost thou thus betray him who is thy Lord and Master, and whom thou canst not but know to be the Messiah, entitled in the Scriptures, the Son of man? And dost thou think that he can be imposed upon by this poor artifice? or that God, who has promised him so glorious and triumphant a kingdom, will not punish such baseness and cruelty to him? There is great reason to believe, says Dr. Doddridge, that our Lord uses this phrase of the Son of man to Judas on this occasion, (as he had done the same evening at supper, twice in a breath,) in the sense here given. And it adds a spirit to these words that has not often been observed, which the attentive reader will discern to be attended with much greater strength and beauty, than if our Lord had only said, Dost thou betray me with a kiss?
1. The Arrest of Jesus: Luk 22:47-53.
Three things are included in this piece: 1 st. The kiss of Judas (Luk 22:47-48); 2 d. The disciples’ attempt at defence (Luk 22:49-51); 3 d. The rebuke which Jesus administers to those who come to take Him (Luk 22:52-53).
Vers. 47 and 48. The sign which Judas had arranged with the band had for its object to prevent Jesus from escaping should one of His disciples be seized in His stead. In the choice of the sign in itself, as Langen remarks, there was no refinement of hypocrisy. The kiss was the usual form of salutation, especially between disciples and their master. The object of this salutation is not mentioned by Luke; it was understood. We see from John that the fearless attitude of Jesus, who advanced spontaneously in front of the band, rendered this signal superfluous and almost ridiculous.
The saying of Jesus to Judas, Luk 22:48, is somewhat differently reproduced in Matthew; it is omitted in Mark. In memory of this kiss, the primitive Church suppressed the ceremony of the brotherly kiss on Good Friday. The sole object of the scene which follows in John (the I am He of Jesus, with its consequences) was to prevent a disciple from being arrested at the same time.
Vers. 49-51. The Syn. name neither the disciple who strikes, nor the servant struck. John gives the names of both. So long as the Sanhedrim yet enjoyed its authority, prudence forbade the giving of Peter’s name here in the oral narrative. But after his death and the destruction of Jerusalem, John was no longer restrained by the same fears. As to the name of Malchus, it was only preserved in the memory of that disciple who, well known in the house of the high priest, knew the man personally. What are we to think of the author of the fourth Gospel, if these proper names were mere fictions?
According to Luk 22:49, the disciple who struck acted in the name of all (…, shall we smite?). This particular, peculiar to Luke, extenuates Peter’s guilt.
John says, with Luke: the right ear. This minute coincidence shows that the details peculiar to Luke are neither legendary nor the inventions of his own imagination.
The words supply in Luke the place of a long and important answer of Jesus in Matthew. Should this command be applied to the officers: Let me go to this man (Paulus); or to the spot where this man is? But this would have required , let me go. Or should we understand it, with De Wette, Riggenbach: Leave me yet for a moment? The , till, does not lead very naturally to this sense. Besides, the , answering, shows that the words of Jesus are connected with the act of the disciple rather than with the arrival of the officers. It is not till Luk 22:52 that Jesus turns to those who have arrived ( ). Here He is addressing the apostles. The meaning is therefore either, Let these men (the officers) go thus far (the length of seizing me), or (which is more natural), Stop there; strike no such second below; this one is quite enough. This act of violence, indeed, not only compromised the safety of Peter, but even the Lord’s cause. Jesus was all but hindered thereby from addressing Pilate in the words so important for His defence against the crime with which the Jews charged Him (Joh 18:36): My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. Nothing less was needed than the immediate cure of Malchus to restore the moral situation which had been injured by this trespass, and to enable Jesus to express Himself without the risk of being confounded by facts.
This cure is related only by Luke; Meyer therefore relegates it to the domain of myth. But if it had not taken place, it would be impossible to understand how Peter and Jesus Himself had escaped from this complaint.
Luk 22:52-53. Among those who came out, Luke numbers some of the chief priests. Whatever Meyer and Bleek may say, such men may surely, out of hatred or curiosity, have accompanied the band charged with the arrest. Besides, is not the rebuke which follows addressed rather to rulers than to subordinates? As to the captains of the temple, see Luk 22:4. As to the officers, comp. Joh 7:45; Act 5:22-26. John speaks, besides, of the cohort, Luk 18:3; Luk 18:12; this word, especially when accompanied by the term , tribune (Luk 22:12), and with the antithesis , can only, in spite of all Bumlein’s objections, designate a detachment of the Roman cohort; it was, as Langen remarks, an article of provincial legislation, that no arrest should take place without the intervention of the Romans.
The meaning of the rebuke of Jesus is this: It was from cowardice that you did not arrest me in the full light of day. The other two Syn. carry forward their narrative, like Luke, with a but; only this but is with them the necessity for the fulfilment of the prophecies, while with Luke it is the harmony between the character of the deed and that of the nocturnal hour. Darkness is favourable to crime; for man needs to be concealed not only from others, but from himself, in order to sin. For this reason, night is the time when Satan puts forth all his power over humanity; it is his hour. And hence, adds Jesus, it is also yours, for you are his instruments in the work which you are doing; comp. Joh 8:44; Joh 14:30.
Luke omits the fact of the apostles’ flight which is related here by Matthew and Mark. Where is the malevolence which is ascribed to him against the Twelve?
Mark also relates, with great circumstantiality, the case of the young man who fled stripped of the linen cloth in which he was wrapped. As, according to Acts 12, the mother of Mark possessed a house in Jerusalem,as this house was the place where the Church gathered in times of persecution, and as it was therefore probably situated in a by-place,it is not impossible that it stood in the vale of Gethsemane, and that this young man was (as has long been supposed) Mark himself, drawn by the noise of the band, and who has thus put his signature as modestly as possible in the corner of the evangelical narrative which he composed.
CCXXIV.
JESUS BETRAYED, ARRESTED, AND FORSAKEN.
(Gethsemane. Friday, several hours before dawn.)
aMATT. XXVI. 47-56; bMARK XIV. 43-52; cLUKE XXII. 47-53; dJOHN XVIII. 2-11.
d2 Now Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. [See 2Ki 6:8-12). Jesus asked, “Whom seek ye?” (1) To openly and manfully declare his identity; (2) to make the Jewish rulers fully conscious that they were arresting him, an innocent man; (3) to confine the arrest to himself and thus deliver his disciples. The older commentators regard the falling to the ground as a miracle, but modern scholars look upon it as a result of sudden fear. Jesus merely manifested his dignity and majesty, and the prostration followed as a natural result.] a48 Now he that betrayed him gave {bhad given} them a token, aa sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him. band lead him away safely. cand he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. 48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? b45 And when he was come, astraightway he came to Jesus, and said {bsaith,} aHail, Rabbi; and kissed him. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, do that for which thou art come. [Some place this event before the preceding paragraph. It comports better with the fitness of things to place it here. Jesus made Judas feel his utter nothingness, and his worthlessness even as a betrayer. Before Judas can in any way identify Jesus, the Lord had twice declared himself to be the party whom they sought. When he approaches to carry out his contract, the Lord’s question exposes him before all as a betrayer, and not a disciple as he wished to appear to be (for kissing was the common mode of salutation between men, especially between teacher and pupils), and when Judas brazenly persists in completing the sign, Jesus bids him do it, not as a friend, but as a traitor. Little did the betrayer think that the kiss of Judas would become a proverb in every nation.] Then they came [690] and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. [The sight of Judas touching him no doubt reassured them, and they laid hands on Jesus.] c49 And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? b47 But {a51 And} behold, d10 Simon Peter ba certain one of them that stood by athat were with Jesus dtherefore having a sword astretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote {dstruck} athe servant of the high priest, and struck {dcut} off his right ear. [We have seen that the apostles were but scantily armed, there being only two swords in their possession. See Joh 18:16). He knew Malchus by name, and he also knew his kindred– Joh 18:26.] c51 But Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye them thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. [Some think that Jesus spoke these words, “Suffer ye thus far,” to those who held him, asking them to loose him sufficiently to enable him to touch the ear of Malchus. But the revision committee by inserting “them” make Jesus address his disciples, commanding them not to interfere with those who were arresting him, making it a general statement of the idea which the Lord addressed specifically to Peter in the next sentence.] a52 Then d11 Jesus therefore said {asaith} dunto Peter, aPut up again thy {dthe} sword into the sheath: aits place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. dthe cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? [By the healing of Malchus’ ear and the words spoken to Peter, Jesus shows that the sword is not to be used either to defend the truth or to advance his kingdom. Had he not thus spoken and acted, Pilate might have doubted his words when he [691] testified that his kingdom was not of this world ( Joh 18:36). While we know better than to rely upon the aid of the sword for the advance of truth, we are often tempted to put undue trust in other “carnal weapons” which are equally futile. Wealth and eloquence and elaborate church buildings have but little saving grace in them. It is the truth which wins. By using the word “cup” John gives us an echo of the agony in Gethsemane, which suggests that he expects his readers to be conversant with the other Gospels. The other Evangelists, having shown that Jesus was fully resolved to drink the cup, do not regard it as necessary to repeat these words.] a53 Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? [Jesus still addresses Peter. Had it accorded with the divine purpose that Jesus should resist this arrest, angels and not men would have been his proper and infinitely more effective rescuers. But, on the contrary, it was God’s purpose that he should be arrested, as the Scripture had foretold.] 55 In that hour bJesus answered and said unto them athe multitudes, cthe chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, that were come against him, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? ato seize me? c53 When aI sat {bwas} daily with you in the temple teaching, cye stretched not forth your hands against me: band ye took me not: cbut this is your hour, and the power of darkness. a56 But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. [The party which came to arrest Jesus was large. The word “band” used by John to describe part of it is speira, which is the Greek name for the cohort, a division of the Roman army which in the time of Augustus contained 555 men. Ten cohorts, or a legion, were usually quartered in the castle Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple enclosure. That the whole cohort was present is not likely ( Mat 27:27), but there was a large enough body to represent it. The [692] Evangelists therefore properly style it a great multitude. Moreover, it was a motley crowd. Its strength and diversity suggest the fear that Jesus might miraculously defend himself. Each part of the crowd found courage in the strength possessed by the other part, the priests relying upon the solidity of the soldiers, the soldiers superstitiously trusting to some spiritual power residing in the priests, etc. Now, because of these fears, the preparation was as great as if some band of robbers was to be taken. The questions of Jesus, therefore, show two facts: 1. By their extensive preparation the rulers bore an unintentional testimony to his divine power. 2. By their failure to arrest him openly in the temple, they bore witness to his innocence. With his divinity and his innocence, therefore, Jesus challenges them, referring to their own conduct for testimony thereto. In conclusion, he cites them to the Scriptures which they were fulfilling. Our Lord’s dual reference to the Old Testament at this sacred time should cause us to handle them with awe and reverence.] b50 And aThen all of the disciples left him, and fled. b51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; 52 but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked. [All the predictions of Jesus had failed to prepare the apostles for the terrors of his arrest. Despite all his warnings, each apostle sought his own safety. The young man who fled naked is usually presumed to be Mark himself, and it is thought that he thus speaks impersonally after the manner of Matthew and John. The manner of his description shows that he was not an apostle. As Mark’s mother resided in Jerusalem ( Act 12:12, Act 12:25), Canon Cook advances the theory that the Lord’s Supper was eaten in the upper room of her house, and that when the disciples retired with Jesus from thence to Gethsemane, Mark slipped from his bed, threw his sindon about him, and followed after them. The sindon, or linen vestment, was very costly, not being worn even by the middle classes: no apostle would be thus attired.] [693]
[FFG 689-692]
THE ARREST
Mat 26:47-56; Mar 14:43-52; Luk 22:47-53;Joh 18:2-12. And Judas, the one betraying Him, knew the place, because frequently, Jesus, with His disciples, had resorted thither. Then Judas, taking a band and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, comes thither with lanterns, torches, and arms. The lantern was a closed- up light of some kind, fortified against the wind, while the torches were large, blazing flambeaux. Though the moon was very bright, as she was nearly full, it was exceedingly important to have plenty of light as a fortification against the liability of mistaking the wrong person, as they surmised that an effort would be made on the part of the disciples to elude them in that way; their great confidence, however, being in Judas, who was so intimately acquainted with Him. Thus they had taken every precaution to make sure that they arrested the One whom they had been pursuing these three years, and who had baffled them so frequently by rendering Himself invisible, and in various ways eluding their grasp till His work was done.
Mar 14:43 : And immediately, He speaking, Judas, being one of the twelve, comes, and a great multitude with him, with swords and clubs, from the chief priests, scribes, and elders. A huge club, four or five feet long, is an exceedingly common weapon in that country now. I saw persons incessantly thus armed quite a formidable weapon in the hands of a stalwart man.
Joh 18:4-9. Then Jesus, knowing all things which are coming upon Him, having gone out, said to them, Whom do you seek? They responded to Him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus says to them, I am He? Never did the world see another such a man as Jesus. When they came to crown Him King, He fled away; but when they came to kill Him, He went out to meet them. Judas, the one betraying Him, also stood with them. Then, when He said to them, I am He, they went back, and fell upon the ground. This is His last miracle, except healing the amputated ear, which speedily followed. Though He boldly comes out from the dense shade of those great olive-trees into the clear light of the moon, shining so brightly from that cloudless, Palestinian sky, and also into the strong light of a hundred flambeaux, so that it was as bright as day, and there was no trouble about recognition, yet, lo! an awful panic strikes them, so they retreat back and fall upon the ground like dead men. How easily He could have utterly baffled and defeated them, striking them all with the paralysis of incorrigible terror! But the time has come for Him to meet the bloody avalanche from the bottomless pit, and lay down His life for a lost world.
Then again He asked them, Whom do you seek? And they said, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus responded, I said to you that I am He. If then you seek Me, let these retire in order that the word which He spoke may be fulfilled, That I lost none of them whom Thou hast given Me. They did not consider His disciples sufficiently important to deserve their attention at that time, as they were satisfied if they could only get the One who had given them so much trouble, and whose life they had so long been seeking in vain. Really, all their energies, aspirations, and wits were laid under contribution to secure the arrest and execution of Jesus.
Mat 26:48-50. And the one having betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, Whom I shall kiss is He; hold Him fast. And immediately coming to Jesus, he said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him copiously. Jesus said to him, Comrade, for what do you come? Then they, coming, laid hands on Jesus, and bound Him. Joh 18:12. Then the band, the chiliarch, and the officers of the Jews took Jesus and bound Him. Such was their fear, solicitude, and anxiety for success that they all united in arresting and binding Him. Joh 18:10 : Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the servant of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name to that servant was Malchus. Mat 26:52 :
Then Jesus said to Peter, Put up thy sword into its place; for all taking the sword shall perish by the sword. (Gen 9:6.) Of course, those who use the sword are all liable to perish in that way. Luk 22:51 : Jesus said, Hold on a little, and touching his ear He healed it. The moment Peter smote Malchus, Jesus ordered him to put up his sword, stepped instantly to the wounded soldier, touched his ear and healed it, thus in His last miracle manifesting His loving kindness even to His enemies, who had that moment arrested Him, and He knew they were going to take His life. You see in the assault Peter made on the enemies of Jesus a brilliant manifestation of his native heroism. He feared the face of no man, but was brave enough to fight that whole army. It is a great mistake to conclude that he was deficient in natural courage because in the subsequent events of that awful night he displayed so signal cowardice. All this was because Jesus would not let him fight, and consequently he felt he was at the mercy of His enemies, who knew no mercy.
Mat 26:53-56. Do you not think that I am able now to call on My Father, and He will send Me more than twelve legions of angels? How then can the Scriptures be fulfilled, because it behooveth it thus to be? Those angels were ready, hovering around, and eager for the opportunity to snatch Him away from the cruel manacles of the bloodthirsty rabble and bear Him on pinions of light to the home of the glorified. Right there at Jerusalem a solitary angel had slain a hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrian soldiers in one night. Doubtless the same angels who ministered to Him when tempted in the wilderness were hovering round. At that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, You have come out as against a thief with swords and clubs to take Me. I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you laid not hands on Me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled. Then all of His disciples, leaving Him, fled. When the mob first came they surrounded them altogether. Now that they have secured the only One they wanted, they break ranks, leaving an opening for the others all to run away, as they did not want to be encumbered with them at that time. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, thus creating a great popular sensation and weakening the hands of His enemies, they would have arrested and executed every one of His apostles, except Judas, as accomplices in the criminality in which they had falsely implicated Jesus. Now the apostles see that He is arrested and bound, completely in the hands of His enemies; hence, yielding to desperation and affright, they flee away.
Luk 22:53. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. His enemies had repeatedly tried to arrest Him, stone Him, and destroy Him in any way they could; but invariably suffered utter defeat till now, when He is turned over to the powers of earth and hell to execute their vilest venom against His innocent person, and He thus becomes the vicarious substitute for every guilty sinner.
Mar 14:51-52. And one certain young man follows Him, clothed with a linen cloth on his naked body. The young men arrest him; but he, leaving the linen cloth fled from them in a state of nudity. It is believed that this young man was none other than the Apostle John and it is said that he fled away to the house of Rabbi Amos in the city, and there procured the robe of a Jewish priest, invested in which he returned, and remained with the Savior in all of His troubles, walking by His side to the tribunal of Annas, thence to the judgment-hall; of Caiaphas, thence to Pilates bar and to Herods tribunal, then back to Pilate, and on His way to Calvary. Standing by His side when He hung bleeding on the cross all this time hoping that He would revive, exercise His wonderful power, and extricate Himself from the hands of His enemies, till the Roman soldier came along and plunged the spear into His side, thus tearing His heart to pieces. It is said that when this cruel deed was done, all hope of His reviving taking its flight, John, yielding to despair, fainted. Let this be as it may, we see here that John was with Him after the flight of the other ten.
Luk 22:47-53. The Arrest (Mar 14:43-52*, Mat 26:47-56*).In Lk.s account Jesus prevents Judas from giving the kiss. The resistance precedes the arrest (contrast Mk., Mt.).
Luk 22:51. Suffer ye thus far: if spoken to the officers, Excuse this act of resistance; it will not be repeated, or Allow me to heal the wounded man: if to the disciples, Let them go on with the arrest, or Let what you have done suffice.
Luk 22:52. Lk. makes the chief priests and elders themselves present.
Luk 22:53. this is your hour, etc. A Johannine thoughtcf. Joh 3:19-21; Joh 12:35. The hour is predestined; you are children of the night and under cover of darkness do the works of darkness, i.e. of evil. Lk. is not following Mk., hence the omission of the disciples flight and the incident of the young man.
22:47 {16} And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
(16) Christ is willingly betrayed and taken so that by his obedience he might deliver us who were guilty of betraying God’s glory.
2. Judas’ betrayal 22:47-53 (cf. Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; John 18:2-12)
All the synoptic evangelists noted the close connection between Jesus’ praying and the arrival of the soldiers. It was very important that Jesus pray. Judas preceded the arresting mob (Gr. ochlos, crowd) as Jesus had preceded His disciples, namely, as their leader (Luk 22:39). Luke stressed Judas’ hypocrisy in betraying Jesus with a kiss, the sign of friendship (cf. Gen 27:26-27; 2Sa 15:5; 2Sa 20:9; Pro 7:13; Pro 27:6), plus the fact that Jesus knew Judas’ purpose. Disciples of rabbis often greeted their teachers with a kiss on the hand. [Note: E. F. F. Bishop, Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents, p. 246.] Luke described Judas as "one called Judas," a way of keeping him at a distance while viewing him. "Son of Man" stresses Jesus’ identity as the divine ruler whom God had sent. The word order in the Greek text that indicates emphasis is "kiss," "Son of Man," and "betraying."
Chapter 25
THE PASSION.
Luk 22:47-71 – Luk 23:1-56
WHILE Jesus kept His sad watch in Gethsemane, treading the winepress alone, His enemies kept theirs in the city. The step of Judas, as he passed out into the night, went verberating within the house of the high priest, and onwards into the palace of Pilate himself, awaking a thousand echoes, as swift messengers flew hither and thither, bearing the hurried summons, calling the rulers and elders from their repose, and marshalling the Roman cohort. Hitherto the powers of darkness have been restrained, and though they have, again and again, attempted the life of Jesus, as if some occult spell were upon them, they could not accomplish their purpose. Far back in the Infancy Herod had sought to kill Him; but though his cold steel reaped a bloody swath in Ramah, it could not touch the Divine Child. The men of Nazareth had sought to hurl Him down the sheer precipice, but He escaped; Jesus had not come into the world to die at Nazareth, thrown off, as by an accident, from a Galilean cliff. He had come to “accomplish His decease,” as the celestials put it upon the mount, “at Jerusalem,” and that too, as He indicated plainly and frequently in His speech, upon a cross. Now, however, the hour of darkness has struck, and the fullness of the time has come. The cross and the Victim both are ready, and Heaven itself consents to the great sacrifice.
Strangely enough the first overture of the “Passion music” is by one of the twelve-as our Evangelist names him, “Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve”. {Luk 22:3} It will be observed that St. Luke puts a parenthesis of forty verses between the actual betrayal and its preliminary stages, so throwing the conception of the plot back to an earlier date than the eve of the Last Supper, and the subsequent narrative is best read in the light of its program. At first sight it would appear as if the part of the betrayer were superfluous, seeing that Jesus came almost daily into the Temple, where He spoke openly, without either reserve or fear. What need could there be for any intermediary to come between the chief priests and the Victim of their hate? Was not His Person familiar to all the Temple officials? And could they not apprehend Him almost at any hour? Yes, but one thing stood in the way, and that was “the fear of the people.” Jesus evidently had an influential following; the popular sympathies were on His side; and had the attack been made upon His during the day, in the thronged streets of the city or in the Temple courts, there would have been, almost to a certainty, a popular rising in His behalf. The arrest must be made “in the absence of the multitude,” {Luk 22:6} which means that they must fall upon Him in one of His quiet hours, and in one of His quiet retreats; it must be a night attack, when the multitudes are asleep. Here, then, is room for the betrayer, who comes at the opportune moment, and offers himself for the despicable task, a task which has made the name of “Judas” a synonym for all that is treacherous and vile. How the base thought could ever have come into the mind of Judas it were hard to tell, but it certainly was not sprung upon him as a surprise. But men lean in the direction of their weakness, and when they fall it is generally on their weakest side, the side on which temptation is the strongest. It was so here. St. John writes him down in a single sentence: “He was a thief, and having the bag, took away what was put therein”. {Joh 12:6} His ruling passion was the love of money, and in the delirium of this fever his hot hands dashed to the ground and broke in pieces the tables of law and equity alike, striking at all the moralities. And between robbing his Master and betraying Him there was no great distance to traverse, especially when conscience lay in a numb stupor, drugged by opiates, these tinctures of silver.
Here, then, is a betrayer ready to their hand. He knows what hour is best, and how to conduct them to His secret retreats. And so Judas “communed” with the chief priests and captains, or he “talked it over with them” as the word means, the secret conference ending in a bargain, as they “covenanted” to give him money. {Luk 22:5} It was a hard and fast bargain; for the word “covenanted” has about it a metallic ring, and opening it out, it lets us see the wordy chaffering, as Judas abates his price to the offer of the high priests, the thirty pieces of silver, which was the market price of an ordinary slave. Not that Judas intended to be a participator in His death, as the sequel of his remorse shows. He probably thought and hoped that his Master would escape, slipping through the meshes they so cunningly had thrown about Him; but having done his part of the covenant, his reward would be sure, for the thirty pieces were already in his possession. Ah, he little dreamed how far-reaching his action would be! That silver key of his would set in motion the ponderous wheel which would not stop until his Master was its Victim, lying all crushed and bleeding beneath it! He only discovered his mistake when, alas! it was too late for remedy. Gladly would he have given back his thirty pieces, aye, and thirty times thirty, to have called back his treacherous “Hail,” but he could not. That “Hail, Master,” had gone beyond his recall, reverberating down the ages and up among the stars, while even its echoes, as they came back to him in painful memories, threw him out of the world an unloved and guilty suicide!
What with the cunning of the high priests and the cold calculations of Judas, whose mind was practiced in weighing chances and providing for contingencies, the plot is laid deeply and well. No detail is omitted: the band of soldiers, who shall put the stamp of officialism upon the procedure, while at the same time they cower the populace and repress any attempt at rescue; the swords and staves, should they have to resort to force; the lanterns and torches, with which to light up the dark hiding-places of the garden; the cords or chains, with which to bind their Prisoner; the kiss, which should be at once the sign of recognition and the signal for the arrest, all are prearranged and provided; while back of these the high priests are keeping their midnight watch, ready for the mock trial, for which the suborned witnesses are even now rehearsing their, parts. Could worldly prudence or malicious skill go farther?
Stealthily as the leopard approaches its victim, the motley crowd enter the garden, coming with muffled steps to take and lead away the Lamb of God. Only the glimmer of their torches gave notice of their approach, and even these burned dull in the intense moonlight. But Jesus needed no audible or visible warning, for He Himself knew just how events were drifting, reading the near future as plainly as the near past; and before they have come in sight He has awoke the three sleeping sentinels with a word which will effectually drive slumber from their eyelids: “Arise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth Me”. {Mat 26:46}
It will be seen from this that Jesus could easily have eluded His pursuers had He cared to do so. Even without any appeal to His supernatural powers, He could have withdrawn Himself under cover of the night, and have left the human sleuth-hounds foiled of their prey and vainly baying at the moon. But instead of this, He makes no attempt at flight. He even seeks the glades of Gethsemane, when by simply going elsewhere He might have disconcerted their plot and brought their counsel to naught. And now He yields Himself up to His death, not passively merely, but with the entire and active concurrence of His will. He “offered Himself,” as the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, {Heb 9:14} a free-will Offering, a voluntary Sacrifice. He could, as He Himself said, have called legions of angels to His help; but He would not give the signal, though it were no more than one uplifted, look and so He does not refuse even the kiss of treachery; He suffers the hot lips of the traitor to burn His cheeks; and when others would have shaken off the viper into the fire, or have crushed it with the heel of a righteous indignation, Jesus receives patiently the stamp of infamy, His only word being a question of surprise, not at the treachery itself, but at its mode: “Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” And when for the moment, as St. John tells us, a strange awe fell upon the multitude, and they “went backward and fell to the ground,” Jesus, as it were, called in the outshining glories, masking them with the tired and blood-stained humanity that He wore, so stilling the tremor that was upon His enemies, as He nerved the very hands that should take Him. And again, when they do bind Him, He offers no resistance; but when Peters quick sword flashes from its scabbard, and takes off the right ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest, and so one of the leaders in the arrest, Jesus asks for the use of His manacled hand-for so we read the “Suffer ye thus far”-and touching the ear, heals it at once. He Himself is willing to be wounded even unto death, but His alone must be the wounds. His enemies must not share His pain, nor must His disciples pass with Him into this temple of His sufferings; and He even stays to ask for them a free parole: “Let these go their way.”
But while for the disciples Jesus has but words of tender rebuke or of prayer, while for Malchus He has a word and a touch of mercy, and while even for Judas He has an endearing epithet, “friend,” for the chief priests, captains, and elders He has severer words. They are the ringleaders, the plotters. All this commotion, this needless parade of hostile strength, these superfluous insults are but the foaming of their rabid frenzy, the blossoming of their malicious hate; and turning to them as they stand gloating in their supercilious scorn, He asks, “Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the Temple, ye stretched not forth your hands against Me; but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” True words, for they who should have been priests of Heaven are in league with hell, willing ministers of the powers of darkness. And this was indeed their hour, but the hour of their victory would prove the hour of their doom.
St. Luke, as do the other Synoptists, omits the preliminary trial before Annas, the ex-high priest, {Joh 18:13} and leads us direct to the palace of Caiaphas, whither they conduct Jesus bound. Instead, however, of pursuing the main narrative, he lingers to gather up the side-lights of the palace-yard, as they cast a lurid light upon the character of Simon. Some time before, Jesus had forewarned him of a coming ordeal, and which He called a Satanic sifting; while only a few hours ago He had prophesied that this night, before the cock should crow twice, Peter would thrice deny Him – a singular prediction, and one which at the time seemed most unlikely, but which proved true to the very letter. After the encounter in the garden, Peter retires from our sight for awhile; but his flight was neither far nor long, for as the procession moves up towards the city, Peter and John follow it as a rear-guard, on to the house of Annas, and now to the house of Caiaphas. We need not repeat the details of the story-how John passed him through the door into the inner court, and how he sat, or “stood,” as St. John puts it, by the charcoal fire, warming himself with the officers and servants. The differing verbs only show the restlessness of the man, which was a life-long characteristic of Peter, but which would be doubly accentuated here, with suspecting eyes focused upon him. Indeed, in the whole scene of the courtyard, as sketched for us in the varying but not discordant narratives of the Evangelists, we may detect the vibrations of constant movement and the ripple-marks of intense excitement.
When challenged the first time, by the maid who kept the door, Peter answered with a sharp, blunt negative: he was not a disciple; he did not even know Him. At the second challenge, by another maid, he replied with an absolute denial, but added to his denial the confirmation of an oath. At the third challenge, by one of the men standing near, he denied as before, but added to his denial both an oath and an anathema. It is rather unfortunate that our version renders it, {Mat 26:74, Mar 14:71} “He began to curse and to swear”; for these words have a peculiarly ill savor, a taste of Billingsgate, which the original words have not. To our ear, “to curse and to swear” are the accomplishments of a loose and a foul tongue, which throws out its fires of passion in profanity, or in coarse obscenities, as it revels in immoralities of speech. The words in the New Testament, however, have meaning altogether different. Here “to swear” means to take an oath, as in our courts of law, or rather to make an affirmation. Even God Himself is spoken of as swearing, as in the song of Zacharias, {Luk 1:73} where He is said to have remembered His holy covenant, “the oath which He sware unto Abraham our father.” Indeed, this form of speech, the oath or affirmation, had come into too general use, as we may see from the paragraph upon oaths in the Sermon on the Mount. {Mat 5:33-37} Jesus here condemned it, it is true, for to Him who was Truth itself our word should be as our bond; but His reference to it shows how prevalent the custom was, even amongst strict legalists and moralists. When, then, Peter “swore,” it does not mean that he suddenly became profane, but simply that he backed up his denial with a solemn affirmation. So, too, with the word “curse”; it has not our modern meaning. Literally rendered, it would be, “He put himself under an anathema,” which “anathema” was the bond or penalty he was willing to pay if his words should not be true. In Act 23:12 we have the cognate word, where the “anathema” was, “They would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.” The “curse” thus was nothing immoral in itself; it was a form of speech even the purest might use, a sort of underlined affirmation.
But though the language of Peter was neither profane nor foul, though in his “oath” and in his “curse” there is nothing for which the purest taste need apologize, yet here was his sin, his grievous sin: he made use of the oath and the curse to back up a deliberate and cowardly lie, even as men today will kiss the book to make Gods Word of truth a cover for perjury. How shall we explain the sad fall of this captain-disciple, who was first and foremost of the Twelve? Were these denials but the “wild and wandering cries” of some delirium? We find that Peters lips did sometimes throw off unreasoning and untimely words, speaking like one in a dream, as he proposed the three tabernacles on the mount, “not knowing what he said.” But this is no delirium, no ecstasy; his mind is clear as the sky overhead, his thought bright and sharp as was his sword just now. No, it was not a failure in the reason; it was a sadder failure in the heart. Of physical courage Simon had an abundance, but he was somewhat deficient in moral courage. His surname “Peter” was as yet but a fore-name, a prophecy; for the “rock” granite was yet in a state of flux, pliant, somewhat wavering, and too easily impressed. It must “be dipped in baths of hissing tears” ere it hardens into the foundation-rock for the new temple. In the garden he was too ready, too brave. “Shall we smite with the sword?” he asked, matching the “we,” which numbered two swords, against a whole Roman cohort; but that was in the presence of his Master, and in the consciousness of strength which that Presence gave. It is different now. His Master is Himself a bound and helpless Prisoner. His own sword is taken from him, or, which is the same thing, it is ordered to its sheath. The bright dream of temporal sovereignty, which like a beautiful mirage had played on the horizon of his thought, had suddenly faded, withdrawing itself into the darkness. Simon is disappointed, perplexed, bewildered, and with hopes shattered, faith stunned, and love itself in a momentary conflict with self-love, he loses heart and becomes demoralized, his better nature falling to pieces like a routed army.
Such were the conditions of Peters denial, the strain and pressure under which his courage and his faith gave way, and almost before he knew it he had thrice denied his Lord, tossing away the Christ he would die for on his bold, impetuous words, as, with a tinge of disrespect in his tone and word, he called Him “the Man.” But hardly had the denial been made and the anathema been said when suddenly the cock crew. It was but the familiar call of an unwitting bird, but it smote upon Peters ear like a near clap of thunder; it brought to his mind those words of his Master, which he had thought were uncertain parable, but which he finds now were certain prophecy, and thus let in a rush of sweet, old-time memories. Conscience-stricken, and with a load of terrible guilt pressing upon his soul, he looks up timidly towards the Lord he has forsworn. Will He deny him, on one of His bitter “woes” casting him down to the Gehenna he deserves? No; Jesus looks upon Peter; nay, He even “turns” round toward him, that He may look; and as Peter saw that look, the face all streaked with blood and lined with an unutterable anguish, when he felt that glance fixed upon him of an upbraiding, but a pitying and forgiving love, that look of Jesus pierced the inmost soul of the denying, agnostic disciple, breaking up the fountains of his heart, and sending him out to weep “bitterly.” That look was the supreme moment in Peters life. It forgave, while it rebuked him; it passed through his nature like refining fire, burning out what was weak, and selfish, and sordid, and transforming Simon, the boaster, the man of words, into Peter, the man of deeds, the man of “rock.”
But if in the outer court truth is thrown to the winds, within the palace justice herself is parodied. It would seem as if the first interview of Caiaphas with Jesus were private, or in the presence at most of a few personal attendants. But at this meeting, as the High Priest of the New was arraigned before the high priest of the Old Dispensation, nothing was elicited. Questioned as to His disciples and as to His doctrine, Jesus maintained a dignified silence, only speaking to remind His pseudo-judge that there were certain rules of procedure with which he himself was bound to comply. He would not enlighten him; what He had said He had said openly, in the Temple; and if he wished to know he must appeal to those who heard Him, he must call his witnesses; an answer which brought Him a sharp and cruel blow from one of the officers, the first of a sad rain of blows which bruised His flesh and made His visage marred more than any mans.
The private interview ended, the doors were thrown open to the mixed company of chief priests, elders, and scribes, probably the same as had witnessed the arrest, with others of the council who had been hastily summoned, and who were known to be avowedly hostile to Jesus. It certainly was not a properly constituted tribunal, a council of the Sanhedrim, which alone had the power to adjudicate on questions purely religious. It was rather a packed jury, a Star Chamber of self-appointed assessors. With the exception that witnesses were called (and even these were “false,” with discrepant stories which neutralized their testimony and made it valueless), the whole proceedings were a hurried travesty of justice, unconstitutional, and so illegal. But such was the virulent hate of the hierarchy of the Temple, they were prepared to break through all legalities to gain their end; yea, they would even have broken the tables of the law themselves, if they might only have stoned the Nazarene with the fragments, and then have buried Him under the rude cairn. The only testimony they could find was that He had said He would destroy the temple made with hands, and in three days build another made without; {Mar 14:58} and even in this the statements of the two witnesses did not agree, while both were garbled misrepresentations of the truth.
Hitherto Jesus had remained silent, and when Caiaphas sprang from his seat, asking, “Answerest Thou nothing?” seeking to extract some broken speech by the pressure of an imperious mien and browbeating words, Jesus answered by a majestic silence. Why should He cast His pearls before these swine, who were even now turning upon Him to rend Him? But when the high priest asked, “Art Thou the Christ?” Jesus replied, “If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God”; thus anticipating His enthronement far above all principalities and powers, in His eternal reign. The words “Son of man” struck with loud vibrations upon the ears of His enraged jurors, suggesting the antithesis, and immediately all speak at once, as they clamor, “Art Thou, then, the Son of God?” a question which Caiaphas repeats as an adjuration, and which Jesus answers with a brief, calm, “Ye say that I am.” It was a Divine confession, at once the confession of His Messiah-ship and a confession of His Divinity. It was all that His enemies wanted; there was no need of further witnesses, and Caiaphas rent his clothes and asked his echoes of what the blasphemer was worthy? And opening their clenched teeth, his echoes shouted, “Death!”
The lingering dawn had not broken when the high priest and his barking hounds had run their Prey down to death-that is, as far as they were allowed to go; and as the meeting of the full council could not be held till the broad daylight, the men who have Jesus in charge extemporize a little interlude of their own. Setting Jesus in the midst, they mock Him, and make sport of Him, heaping upon that Face, still streaked with its sweat of blood, all the indignities a malign ingenuity can suggest. Now they “cover His face,” {Mar 14:65} throwing around it one of their loose robes; now they “blindfold” Him, and then strike “Him on the face,” {Luk 22:64} as they derisively ask that He will prophecy who smote Him; while, again, they “spit in His face,” {Mat 26:67} besmearing it with the venom of unclean, hissing lips! And amid it all the patient Sufferer answers not a word; He is silent, dumb, the Lamb before His shearers.
Soon as the day had fairly broke, the Sanhedrists, with the chief priests, meet in full council, to give effect to the decision of the earlier conclave; and since it is not in their power to do morel they determine to hand Jesus over to the secular power, going to Pilate in a body, thus giving their informal endorsement to the demand for His death. So now the scene shifts from the palace of Caiaphas to the Praetorium, a short distance as measured by the linear scale, but a far remove if we gauge thought or if we consider climatic influences. The palace of Caiaphas lay toward the Orient; the Praetorium was a growth of the Occident, a bit of Western life transplanted to the once fruitful, but now sterile East. Within the palace the air was close and moldy; thought could not breathe, and religion was little more than a mummy, tightly bound by the grave-clothes of tradition, and all scented with old-time cosmetics. Within the Praetorium the atmosphere was at least freer; there was more room to breathe: for Rome was a sort of libertine in religion, finding room within her Pantheon for all the deities of this and almost any other world. In matters of religion the Roman power was perfectly indifferent, her only policy the policy of laissez faire; and when Pilate first saw Jesus and His crowd of accusers he sought to dismiss them at once, remitting Him to be judged “according to your law,” putting, doubtless, an inflection of contempt upon the “your.” It was not until they had shifted the charge altogether, making it one of sedition instead of blasphemy, as they accuse Jesus of “perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar,” that Pilate took the case seriously in hand. But from the first his sympathies evidently were with the strange and lonely Prophet.
Left comparatively alone with Pilate-for the crowd would not risk the defilement of the Praetorium-Jesus still maintained a dignified reserve and silence, not even speaking to Pilates question of surprise, “Answerest Thou nothing?” Jesus would speak no word in self-defense, not even to take out the twist His accusers had put into His words, as they distorted their meaning. When, however, He was questioned as to His mission and Royalty He spoke directly, as He had spoken before to Caiaphas, not, however, claiming to be King of the Jews, as His enemies asserted, but Lord of a kingdom which was not of this world; that is, not like earthly empires, whose bounds are mountains and seas, and whose thrones rest upon pillars of steel, the carnal weapons which first upbuild, and then support them. He was a King indeed; but His realm was the wide realm of mind and heart; His was a kingdom in which love was law, and love was force, a kingdom which had no limitations of speech, and no bounds, either of time or space.
Pilate was perplexed and awed. Governor though he was, he mentally did homage before the strange Imperator whose nature was imperial, whatever His realm might be. “I find no fault in this Man,” he said, attesting the innocence he had discovered in the mien and tones of his Prisoner; but his attestation only awoke a fiercer cry from the chief priests, “that He was a seditious person, stirring up the people, and preparing insurrection even from Galilee to Jerusalem.” The word Galilee caught Pilates ear, and at once suggested a plan that would shift the responsibility from himself. He would change the venue from Judaea to Galilee; and since the Prisoner was a Galilean, he would send Him to the Tetrarch of Galilee, Herod, who happened to be in Jerusalem at the time. It was the stratagem of a wavering mind, of a man whose courage was not equal to his convictions, of a man with a double purpose. He would like to save his Prisoner, but he must save himself; and when the two purposes came into collision, as they did soon, the “might” of a timid desire had to give way to the “must” of a prudential necessity; the Christ was pushed aside and nailed to a cross, that Self might survive and reign. And so “Pilate sent Him to Herod.”
Herod was proud to have this deference shown him in Jerusalem, and by his rival, too, and “exceeding glad” that, by a caprice of fortune, his long-cherished desire, which had been baffled hitherto, of seeing the Prophet of Galilee, should be realized. He found it, however, a disappointing and barren interview; for Jesus would work no miracle, as he had hoped; He would not even speak. To all the questions and threats of Herod, Jesus maintained a rigid and almost scornful silence; and though to Pilate He had spoken at some length, Jesus would have no intercourse with the murderer of the Baptist. Herod had silenced the Voice of the wilderness; he should not hear the Incarnate Word. Jesus thus set Herod at naught, counting him as a nothing, ignoring him purposely and utterly; and stung with rage that his authority should be thus contemned before the chief priests and scribes, Herod set his Victim “at naught,” mocking Him in coarse banter; and as if the whole proceeding were but a farce, a bit of comedy, he invests Him with one of his glittering robes, and sends the Prophet-King back to Pilate.
For a brief space Jesus finds shelter by the judgment-seat, removed from the presence of His accusers, though still within hearing of their cries, as Pilate himself keeps the wolves at bay. Intensely desirous of acquitting his Prisoner, he leaves the seat of judgment to become His advocate. He appeals to their sense of justice; that Jesus is entirely innocent of any crime or fault. They reply that according to their law He ought to die, because He called Himself the “Son of God.” He appeals to their custom of having some prisoner released at this feast, and he suggests that it would be a personal favor if they would permit him to release Jesus. They answer, “Not this man, but Barabbas.” He offers to meet them half-way, in a sort of compromise, and out of deference to their wishes he will chastise Jesus if they will consent to let Him go; but it is not chastisement they want-they themselves could have done that-but death. He appeals to their pity, leading Jesus forth, wearing the purple robe, as if to ask, “Is it not enough already?” but they cry even more fiercely for His death. Then he yields so far to their clamor as to deliver up Jesus to be mocked and scourged, as the soldiers play at “royalty,” arrayed Him in the purple robe, putting a reed in His hand as a mock scepter, and a crown of thorns upon His head, then turning to smite Him on the head, to spit in His face, and to kneel before Him in mock homage, saluting Him, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And Pilate allows all this, himself leading Jesus forth in this mock array, as he bids the crowd, “Behold your King!” And why? Has He experienced such a revulsion of feeling towards his Prisoner that he can now vie with the chief priests in his coarse insult of Jesus? Not so; but it is Pilates last appeal. It is a sop thrown out to the mob, in hopes that it may slake their terrible blood-thirst, a sacrifice of pain and shame which may perhaps prevent the greater sacrifice of life; while at the same time it is an ocular demonstration of the incongruity of their charge; for His Kingship, whatever it might be, was nothing the Roman power had to fear; it was not even to be taken in a serious way; it was a matter for ridicule, and not for revenge, something they could easily afford to play with. But this last appeal was futile as the others had been, and the crowd only became more fierce as they saw in Pilate traces of weakening and wavering. At last the courage of Pilate breaks down utterly before the threat that he will not be Caesars friend if he let this man go, and he delivers up Jesus to their will, not, however, before he has called for water, and by a symbolic washing of his hands has thrown back, or tried to throw back, upon his accusers, the crime of shedding innocent blood. Weak, wavering Pilate-
“Making his high place the lawless perch Of winged ambitions”;
overriden by his fears; governor, but governed by his subjects; sitting on the judgment-seat, and then abdicating his position of judge; the personification of law, and condemning the Innocent contrary to the law; giving up to the extremest penalty and punishment One whom he has thrice proclaimed as guiltless, without fault, and that too, in the face of a Heaven-sent warning dreamt In the wild inrush of his fears, which swept over him like an in-breaking sea, his own weak will was borne down, and reason, right, conscience, all were drowned. Verily Pilate washes his hands in vain; he cannot wipe off his responsibility or wipe out the deep stains of blood.
And now we come to the last act of the strange drama, which the four Evangelists give from their different stand-points, and so with varying but not differing details. We will read it mainly from the narrative of St. Luke. The shadow of the cross has long been a vivid conception of His mind, and again and again we can see its reflection in the current of His clear speech; now, however, it is present to His sight, close at hand, a grim and terrible reality. It is laid upon the shoulder of the Sufferer, and the Victim carries His altar through the streets of the city and up towards the Mount of Sacrifice, until He faints beneath the burden, when the precious load is laid upon Simon the Cyrenian, who, coming out of the country, met the procession as it issued from the gate. It was probably during this halt by the way that the incident occurred, related only by our Evangelist, when the women who followed with the multitude broke out into loud lamentation and weeping, the first expression of human sympathy Jesus has received through all the agonies of the long morning. And even this sympathy He gave back to those who proffered it, bidding these “daughters of Jerusalem” weep not for Him, but for themselves and for their children, because of the day of doom which was fast coming upon their city and on them. Thus Jesus pushes from Him the cup of human sympathy, as afterwards He refused the cup of mingled wine and myrrh: He would drink the bitter draught unsweetened; alone and all unaided He would wrestle with death, and conquer.
It is somewhat singular that none of the Evangelists have left us a clue by which we can recognize, with any certainty, the scene of the Crucifixion. In our thoughts and in our songs Calvary is a mount, towering high among the mounts of God, higher than Sinai itself. And such it is, potentially; for it has the sweep of all the earth, and touches heaven. But the Scriptures do not call it a “mount,” but only a “place.” Indeed, the name of “Calvary” does not appear in Scripture, except as the Latin translation of the Greek “Kranion,” or the Hebrew “Golgotha,” both of which mean “the place of the skull.” All that we can safely say is that it was probably some rounded eminence, as the name would indicate, and as modern explorations would suggest, on the north of the city, near the tomb of Jeremiah.
But if the site of the cross is only given us in a casual way, its position is noted by all the Evangelists with exactness. It was between the crosses of two malefactors or bandits; as St. John puts it, in an emphatic, Divine tautology, “On either side one, and Jesus in the midst.” Possibly they intended it as their last insult, heaping shame upon shame; but unwittingly they only fulfilled the Scripture, Which had prophesied that He would be “numbered among the transgressors,” and that He would make His grave “with the wicked” in His death.
St. Luke omits several details, which St. John, who was an eye-witness, could give more fully; but he stays to speak of the parting of His raiment, and he adds, what the others omit, the prayer for His executioners, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” an incident he probably had heard from one of the band of crucifiers, perhaps the centurion himself.
With a true artistic skill, however, and with brief touches, he draws for us the scene on which all ages will reverently gaze. In the foreground is the cross of Jesus, with its trilingual superscription, “This is the King of the Jews”; while close beside it are the crosses of the thieves, whose very faces St. Luke lights up with life and character. Standing near are the soldiers, relieving the ennui with cruel sport, as they rail at the Christ, offering Him vinegar, and bidding Him come down. Then we have the rulers, crowding up near the cross, scoffing, and pelting their Victim with ribald jests, the “people” standing back, beholding; while “afar off,” in the distance, are His acquaintance and the women from Galilee. But if our Evangelist touches these incidents lightly, he lingers to give us one scene of the cross in full, which the other Evangelists omit. Has Jesus found an advocate in Pilate? Has He found a cross-bearer in the Cyrenian, and sympathizers in the lamenting women? He finds now upon His cross a testimony to His Messiahship more clear and more eloquent than the hieroglyphs of Pilate; for when one of the thieves railed upon Him, shouting out “Christ” in mockery, Jesus made no reply. The other answered for Him, rebuking his fellow, while attesting the innocence of Jesus. Then, with a prayer in which penitence and faith were strangely blended, he turned to the Divine Victim and said, “Jesus, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom.” Rare faith! Through the tears of his penitence, as through lenses of light, he sees the new Dawn to which this fearful night will give birth, the kingdom, which is sure to come, and which, coming, will abide, and he salutes the dying One as Christ, the King! Jesus did not reply to the railer; He received in silence his barbed taunts; but to this cry for mercy Jesus had a quick response – “Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise,” so admitting the penitent into His kingdom at once, and, ere the day is spent, passing him up to the abodes of the Blessed, even to Paradise itself.
And now there comes the hush of a great silence and the awe of a strange darkness. From the sixth to the ninth hour, over the cross, and the city, and the land, hung the shadow of an untimely night, when the “suns light failed,” as our Evangelist puts it; while in the Temple was another portent, the veil, which was suspended between the Holy Place and the Most Holy, being rent in the midst! The mysterious darkness was but the pall for a mysterious death; for Jesus cried with a loud voice into the gloom, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,” and then, as it reads in language which is not applied to mortal man, “He gave up the ghost.” He dismissed His spirit, a perfectly voluntary Sacrifice, laying down the life which no man was able to take from Him.
And why? What meant this death, which was at once the end and the crown of His life? What meant the cross, which thus draws to itself all the lines of His earthly life, while it throws its shadow back into the Old Dispensation, over all its altars and its passovers? To other mortals death is but an appendix to the life, a negation, a something we could dispense with, were it possible thus to be exempt from the bond we all must pay to Nature. But not so was it with Jesus. He was born that He might die; He lived that He might die; it was for this hour on Calvary that He came into the world, the Word being made flesh, that the sacred flesh might be transfixed to a cross, and buried in an earthly grave. Surely, then, it was not as man that Jesus died; He died for man; He died as the Son of God! And when upon the cross the horror of a great darkness fell upon His soul, and He who had borne every torture that earth could inflict without one murmur of impatience or cry of pain, cried, with a terrible anguish in His voice, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” we can interpret the great horror and the strange cry but in one way: the Lamb of God was bearing away the sin of the world; He was tasting for man the bitter pains of the second death; and as He drinks the cup of the wrath of God against sin He feels passing over Him the awful loneliness of a soul bereft of God, the chill of the “outer darkness” itself. Jesus lived as our Example; He died as our Atonement, opening by His blood the Holiest of all, even His highest heaven.
And so the cross of Jesus must ever remain “in the midst,” the one bright center of all our hopes and all our songs; it must be “in the midst” of our toil, at once our pattern of service and our inspiration. Nay, the cross of Jesus will be “in the midst” of heaven itself, the center towards which the circles of redeemed saints will bow, and round which the ceaseless “Alleluia” will roll; for what is “the Lamb in the midst of the throne” {Rev 7:17} but the cross transfigured, and the Lamb eternally enthroned?
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
I.
II. THE CHARACTERISTIC OF HIS TREASON. Betrayed Lord into cruel hands of foes. Professed followers of Christ may betray Him to the scorn of the world, giving the sceptic arguments for his infidelity, and the worldly excuses for rejection of Christ.
III. THE MANNER OF THE BETRAYAL. A kiss.
IV. THEY BETRAY THE SON OF MAN WITH A KISS WHO–
I. BY WHOM CHRIST WAS BETRAYED. Judas, one of the twelve. Not an occasional disciple who had fastened himself upon the Lords company, not one of the seventy who had been sent forth by two and two; one of the called, the chosen; one singled out from the great mass of mankind for the office of a foundation-stone in the Church of God.
II. Let us consider SOME OF THE AGGRAVATIONS OF THIS PERFIDIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF JUDAS. Judas was not only equal with the rest of the apostles, but he was allowed to carry the bag, which would certainly appear to invest him with a sort of official superiority.
III. THE ENDS FOR WHICH CHRISTS BETRAYAL WAS PERMITTED. That it was of mere permission we know. God has abundance of snares for taking the wise in their own craftiness; He has ten thousand accidents at command by which to mar a well-concerted plot. Yea, even after the capture had been effected, twelve legions of angels waited the bidding of Christ to rescue Him from the traitors power. But God will not avail Himself of these means.
IV. Let us now consider some of the MORAL LESSONS which seem to be conveyed to us by this history.
I. LET US TARRY AWHILE, AND SEE OUR LORD UNGRATEFULLY AND DASTARDLY BETRAYED.
II. Grant me your attention while we make an estimate of the man by whom the Son of Man was betrayed–JUDAS THE BETRAYER.
I. Observe, THE PERSON ADDRESSED–Judas. One on whom the Saviour had conferred many benefits, and who had made an open profession of His name. Betrayest thou!
II. Observe, the PERSON SPEAKING–Jesus. The title which Jesus here assumes, in calling Himself the Son of Man, may teach us the following things–
III. THE QUESTION WHICH JESUS PUTS TO THE TRAITOR: Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss? Improvement:
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. He pointed Him out, so as to secure His apprehension.
(2) compromised the cause of his Master, both by manifesting a spirit antagonistic to His and by giving occasion for the charge of resisting the officers of justice being made against Him.
II. How Christ blesses His enemies, even while manifesting intensest opposition!
III. Christ teaches us that in doing good the need is the claim.Hastings.
2. He had oftentimes been within their grasp, but they had not had courage to seize Him.
2. A time strictly limited, and short.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Scripture
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary