Gospel according to Saint Luke, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 22

Luke vv. 1-2 = Matt. 26, 3-5; Mark. 14, 1-2.

Luke 22.¹ The Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover, was approaching, – According to the more precise accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread was to take place two days later. Regarding the names Festival of Unleavened Bread And Easter, see St. Matthew. The second is added here by way of explanation for Christians converts from paganism, who might not have understood the former.

Luke 22.² And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Jesus to death, for they feared the people. – The princes of the priests and the scribes were searching…The imperfect tense perfectly expresses the continuity of the speculations and investigations. Similarly, St. Mark mentions the chief priests and the scribes. St. Matthew mentions the chief priests and the elders of the people. By combining the three accounts, we see that it refers to the entire Sanhedrin. – What the members of the Sanhedrin were anxiously wondering about was not whether they would get rid of Jesus: their hatred had long since condemned him to death; they were simply looking for an easy way to eliminate him, because they feared the people. See the more complete accounts in St. Matthew and St. Mark.

Luke 3-6 = Matt. 26, 14-16; Mark 14, 10-11.

St. Luke omits here, no doubt because he had recounted it earlier (7:37 ff.), a similar event, the anointing of Married, which the other synoptic Gospels insert between the plot of the Sanhedrin and the treacherous bargain of Judas.

Luke 22.³ Then Satan entered into Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve, – Satan entered Judas. This forceful expression used to condemn the traitor's crime is characteristic of St. Luke and St. John (13:2, 27). Nothing could better depict Judas's malice: it was a satanic malice, worthy of the prince of demons and developed under his influence. Nevertheless, these words should not be understood as referring to physical possession (cf. 8:30, 32 ff.; 11:26), but only to moral possession. It was in Judas's heart, not his body, that Satan had penetrated.

Luke 22.⁴ and he went to consult with the Princes of the priests and the magistrates on how to hand him over to them.  – went to agreeThis summarizes the horrific negotiation that Judas initiated with the Sanhedrin, the cynical beginning of which is given by St. Matthew: »What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?” Magistrates (Some versions add: "of the temple") is a peculiarity of St. Luke. This term referred to the leaders of the Levitical militia responsible for maintaining order in the temple. (See 2 Kings 12:9; 25:18.) In reality, there was only one commander of the temple (Nehemiah 2:8; 7:2; Jeremiah 20:1; cf. 2 Maccabees 3:4; Acts 4:1; 5:24); but he had subordinate officers under him, and they are all mentioned indiscriminately in this passage. It was natural that they should be consulted in this instance, for no one was better placed than they to describe the prevailing mood and the varying degrees of difficulty involved in the arrest of Jesus.

Luke 22.⁵ They, filled with joy, promised to give him money.  They welcomed this spontaneous, unexpected offer, which seemed to make the execution of their sinister plan easy. Only S. Marc and S. Luc mentioned this detail. They promised This implies that the matter was debated by both sides. This expression is therefore stronger than those in parallel accounts. Presumably, Judas had two meetings with the chief priests; it was at the second meeting, after he had fulfilled the condition of his infamous contract, that the thirty pieces of silver were paid to him.

Luke 22.⁶ He took matters into his own hands and was looking for a favorable opportunity to hand Jesus over to them without the crowd knowing. – He pledged He agreed to the proposed arrangement and immediately set about fulfilling his part of the agreement. Unbeknownst to the crowd That is to say, without tumult, in a completely peaceful manner. This detail is specific to St. Luke.

Luke 22⁷ Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed. ⁸ Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, «Go and prepare the Passover meal for us.» ⁹ They said to him, "Where would you like us to prepare it?"« Our evangelist alone has preserved the names of Jesus' two messengers. Since this was a mission of trust, it is not surprising that the Savior chose his closest disciples. In several other places in the Gospel or the Acts of the Apostles, we find St. Peter and St. John associated as brothers. (cf. 5:10; John 13:23-25; 20:2-10; 21:20ff.; Acts 3:1-11; 4:13-22; 8:14-25). According to parallel accounts, the initiative on this matter came from the apostles. St. Luke, on the contrary, attributes it to Jesus, and it is likely that he recounts the events in their actual order, because his account is the most complete. The other synoptic Gospels, to make a long story short, will have removed the question of the Savior, while St. Luke puts that of the apostles (where would you have us prepare it?) back into its true original context. 

Luke 22.¹⁰ He answered them, «When you enter the city, you will meet a man carrying a jug of water; follow him into the house he enters, – Upon entering the city A detail specific to St. Luke: the other narrators do not specify the location of the encounter. You will meet a man… Dr. Sepp, in his fertile imagination, deduced that this man was Nicodemus's slave. Carrying a jug : on the head, following the oriental fashion. Follow him into the house… St. Cyril of Alexandria (ap. May, p. 369) had perfectly understood the purpose of these mysterious indications. See St. Matthew. 

Luke 22¹¹ and you will say to the master of this house: The Teacher says to you: Where is the room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? ¹² And he will show you a large, furnished chamber: prepare what is needed there.» – The room This is an expression we encountered previously (2, 7); but here, instead of designating an inn, it simply means "cenacle": dining room, or upper floor where the dining room was located. In Greek, literally: an upper room. Upper room This room was to be furnished with everything necessary for the Passover celebration. Jesus wanted an apartment worthy of his Last Supper.

Luke 22.¹³ They went and found things just as he had told them, and they prepared for Passover. The encounter between the disciples and the water bearer probably took place near the Fountain Gate, located southeast of Jerusalem, not far from the Pool of Siloam. As for the house,« The most common tradition is that this house belonged to Jean, called Marc (Sylveira)..

Luke 12, 14-23 = Mth 26,20-30 Mk 17-26 Jn 13

Luke 22.¹⁴ When the hour had come, Jesus and the twelve Apostles sat down to eat, – the time having come That is to say, the legally fixed time for the Passover meal. "When evening comes," say the other two synoptic Gospels with more precision. sat down at the table. The Jews had long since ceased to eat Passover standing up and dressed as travelers. The twelve apostles with him. Regarding the seating of Jesus' guests, we only know the details preserved by St. John, 13, 23 et seq. (see commentary).

Luke 22.¹⁵ And he said to them, «I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. – This short discourse of the Savior (vv. 15 and 16), delivered at the beginning of the legal feast, is found only in the third Gospel. I desired with a great desire is a Hebraism (cf. Genesis 31:30, cf. the Septuagint translation), from which it has sometimes been inferred that St. Luke used an Aramaic document for this passage. This repetition singularly corroborates the idea (cf. Matthew 13:14; John 3(Acts 4:17, 5:18); it expresses a great intensity of desire. eat this Passover with you. “This Passover” with emphasis, this Passover above all others, either because it was the last, or because of the institution of the holy Eucharist (See Bossuet, Explanation of the Prayers of the Mass, 23). This is why the Eucharist was called by the ancients the desired. And when those who had just been baptized were brought from the holy fountain to the altar to receive the Eucharist, they recited or sang this psalm, according to the custom of the Church: "As the deer longs…". Before suffering. This, we believe, is the only place in the Gospels where this verb is used in an absolute sense, without any determiner of any kind. – The verse, after beginning with a feeling of joy, ends with a word of sadness.

Luke 22.¹⁶ For I tell you, I will not eat it again until the Passover is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.»Jesus further explains the reason for his ardent desire. The Passover lamb, which Jesus was about to eat for the last time, was a symbol; in the kingdom of God, once it has been consummated—that is, in heaven—this type will be fully realized. Our Lord is therefore alluding by these words to the eternal Passover of heaven, where there will no longer be imperfect shadows, but a magnificent reality.

Luke 22.¹⁷ And taking a cup, he gave thanks and said, «Take and share among yourselves. A rather significant debate arises here among commentators. Is the chalice mentioned at this point by St. Luke, and by him alone, identical to the one discussed in verse 20, that is, the chalice of the Eucharist? Or is it simply one of the cups of the legal feast (see St. Matthew), specifically the first or the third? Both opinions have been held by exegetes of equal renown, from antiquity to the present day. "This chalice belongs to the old Passover which Jesus wished to bring to an end," wrote Bede the Venerable. Theophylact, Cajetan, St. Luke, Dionysius Calmet, and Grotius also agree. On the other hand, Origen (in Matth. Tract. 30), St. Cyprian (letter to Caecil. 83), St. Augustine (Quaest. Evangel. l. 1, c. 42), Maldonatus (hl), Langen (die letzten Lebenstage Jesu, p. 191 ff.), etc., believe that St. Luke is already speaking of the Eucharistic cup, only to mention it a second time later (v. 20) in its proper place, with the formula used to consecrate it. The reason they give seems quite plausible to us. If the chalice of v. 17 is one of those from the legal feast, Jesus, by refraining from touching it (v. 18), will have contravened the rules of Passover on a rather serious point without apparent reason, which seems contrary to his usual practice. Undoubtedly, the double mention of the chalice of the Eucharist This seems surprising at first, because it suggests a lack of order in the narrative. But one can easily reply that St. Luke was led to anticipate by a few moments due to the symmetry that exists between Jesus' earlier words, vv. 15-16, and those of v. 18. He would therefore have followed a certain logical order, even if it meant returning later to the actual course of events. Share among yourselves : so that each one has their share. A very natural recommendation, since Jesus only wanted to dedicate one cup for all his guests.

Luke 22.¹⁸ For I tell you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.» – St. Matthew and St. Mark place this solemn assertion at the end of the Eucharistic supper: according to the opinion we have just adopted concerning verse 17, it was indeed then that it was pronounced. Those who hold the opposite view sometimes suppose that it concluded the prescribed meal, and sometimes that Jesus repeated it twice. See the explanation in St. Matthew. The parallelism noted above between this verse and the 16th is truly striking.

Luke 22.¹⁹ Then he took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, «This is my body, which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me.» – He took some bread «In his holy and venerable hands,» most liturgies add. «These hands which had worked so many wonders, given sight to the blind, healed the sick, and multiplied the loaves in the desert,» Lebrun, Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Mass, Paris 1777, vol. 1, p. 458. The liturgies mention another gesture of Jesus: «his eyes raised to heaven.» He broke it. «The bread was so thin among the Hebrews, as well as among other Orientals, that it was always broken with the fingers to be distributed, without using a knife.» Lebrun, loc. cit., p. 460. By saying…Before consecrating the bread in his body, Jesus said to his disciples, «Take and eat» (Matthew 1 Corinthians 11), words omitted by St. Luke. – The words of consecration differ according to the accounts of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul. The accounts are grouped in pairs: there is a very strong similarity between St. Matthew and St. Mark, and between St. Luke and St. Paul, his master (cf. the Preface, § 3). The latter give the formula in a much more complete form, evidently as it was spoken, for while it is understandable that it might have been shortened, it is inconceivable that the sacred writers would have presumed to add anything of their own accord. Who is given for you“Which is given for you (in the present tense), because it was already a true sacrifice, in which Jesus Christ was truly present, and which he offered in advance to his Father…” D. Calmet. Or again, the use of the present tense can signify the proximity of Jesus’ bloody offering on the cross, an offering prefigured in the institution of the divine Eucharist. – Do this…Another distinctive feature of St. Luke and St. Paul. These are marvelous words, by which Jesus created the Christian priesthood, just as he had created the sacrament of the altar. «Do this,» that is to say: In your turn, take bread, say that it is my body, and, in your hands as now in mine, it will be changed into my flesh. This sacred power is not limited. Do this tomorrow, always, you and your successors. This is how the early Church rightly understood it, where, from the earliest times, we see the Mass celebrated by virtue of this command of the Savior. Cf. Council of Trent, Session 20, ch. 1; Bellarmine, Controv. de Sacrif. Missae, l. 1, etc. In memory of me. The Jewish Passover had been instituted as a memorial of the deliverance from Egyptian slavery: "That day shall be a memorial for you," Exodus 12:14. cf. 13:9. The news will also be commemorative, but of a higher deliverance, the deliverance from the slavery of the devil, accomplished on the cross by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 22.²⁰ He did the same for the cup after supper, saying, «This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. – «In mentioning the chalice, by establishing a will signed in his own blood, he confirms the substance of the body. For blood cannot belong to any other body than a fleshly one,» Tertullian. – Likewise : in the same way as bread, that is, with thanksgiving and blessing. After supper. Likewise, St. Paul, 111; that is, after the legal supper. This chalice is… Compare the formulas of consecration in the accounts of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul. Here we find our two groups, with their characteristic nuances; but the differences are more pronounced. The first part of the formula is less clear in the versions of St. Luke and St. Paul; therefore, it is probable, according to the principle that «the more difficult reading should be preferred,» that these were truly the words of Jesus. “This cup that I offer you,” Jesus said, “is the new alliance in my blood. The Old Covenant was sealed from its beginning by shed blood (Genesis 15:8ff.). Later, in Exodus 12:22ff. and 24:8, it was again renewed by the shedding of blood. The New Covenant is likewise ratified by shed blood, but it is the precious blood of the Savior (cf. Hebrews 15:18-22). Now, since the Eucharistic cup, once consecrated, truly contained the blood of Jesus, it is evident that the phrase "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" is equivalent to this: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant" (Matthew 1:16, Mark 1:17). For you. In the other two synoptic Gospels: "for the multitude." The Roman liturgy says, combining the two expressions: "for you and for the multitude." Which one is paidThis proves that the contents of the cup were therefore blood, not wine. From this consecrated wine, as from transubstantiated bread, Our Lord solemnly affirms the propitiatory power and moral union with his sacrifice the following day. According to St. Paul's account, Jesus repeated at this point the final injunction of verse 19: "Do this in remembrance of me." – Based on the words of the Savior, we believe in the Real Presence as we believe in the Incarnation and in the ResurrectionLet us note the formulas of consecration used in the principal liturgies. They are all closely linked to the Gospel narratives, sometimes combining variants and sometimes adding further details. Roman Liturgy: For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal covenant, the mystery of faith, which will be poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark: This is my body, which is broken for you and given for the remission of sins. This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for you and for many, and given for the remission of sins. Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom: This is my body, which is broken for many for the remission of sins. This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. Ethiopian Liturgy: This is my body which is given for you for the remission of sins. Amen. This is the chalice of my blood which is shed for you and for the redemption of many. Amen. Coptic Liturgy: For this is my body which is broken for you and for many for the remission of sins. For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Liturgy of St. Cyril: This is my body which is given for you and for many for the remission of sins. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Armenian Liturgy: This is my body which is distributed for you in atonement for sins. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many in atonement and for the remission of sins. Mozarabic Liturgy: This is my body which is given for you. This is the chalice of the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. See Lebrun, Explanation of the Mass, vols. 2 and 3, passim.

Luke 22.²¹ However, here is the hand of the one who betrayed me, with me at this table. – However It serves as a transition to a painful subject, the betrayal of one of the Twelve (vv. 21-23). St. Luke notably shortens this episode, the full details of which are mainly provided by St. Matthew, 26:21-25, and by St. John, 13:18-30. Here is the hand…strongly highlights the appalling nature of the crime revealed by Jesus. The same is true of the contrast established by the following words: «He who betrays me is with me at this table. It was by the hand that the betrayal took place. It is with the hand that someone is handed over to the enemies. It is also with the hand that food was taken to be eaten. It is as if he were saying: this hand with which he puts the food from my table into his mouth is the very same hand that will betray me to my enemies,» F. Luke.

Luke 22.²² As for the Son of Man, he will go according to what has been decreed, but woe to the man by whom he is betrayed!» – The Son of Man is leaving. Most exegetes consider this "va" to be a euphemism for "va mourir" (will die), which is very much in line with classical usage. One could, however, retain the verb's ordinary meaning here. – Saccording to what has been decreedA beautiful expression, beloved by St. Luke. cf. Act 223; 10, 42; 16, 26, 31: according to what was fixed from all eternity by divine decrees. The thought is more restricted in the parallel narratives: "as it is written." But woe to man…A terrible but just sentence of damnation pronounced against Judas. The decrees of Providence did not prevent him from being free: therefore, he bears all the responsibility for his appalling betrayal. [Let's make a comparison. The fact that God, in his foreknowledge, knows which door you will take to leave a room with two exits does not influence your freedom to leave by the right or left door. The same is true for Judas. God knew that he would betray, despair, and therefore be damned, but Judas had received all the graces sufficient to escape damnation.]

Luke 22.²³ And the disciples began to ask one another which of them should do this. – St. Luke's account, despite its brevity, vividly describes the intense emotion that this unexpected prediction produced among the apostles. Which one of them was it?…These details reveal the skill with which Judas had concealed his true intentions, since his colleagues' suspicions do not appear to have fallen on him rather than anyone else. – Regarding the traitor, we must briefly examine here a question that is neither without interest nor without difficulty. It concerns whether he attended the Eucharistic supper like the others, or whether his departure from the Upper Room (cf. John 13:30) took place before the institution of the divine sacrament at the altar. Most of the Fathers (Origen, St. Cyril, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Leo, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine; see Cornelius Lapidus, in Matthew 26:20) and ancient exegetes and theologians accepted the first of these two interpretations. The second view, which prevailed at the end of the 19th century, to such an extent that commentators are almost unanimous in adopting it, is nevertheless far from being a modern creation. One can cite in its favor a tradition which, while less glorious than the former, nonetheless has real value, especially on a point that is not directly concerned with either faith or morals. Tatian, Ammonius, St. James of Nisibis, the Apostolic Constitutions, and St. Hilary already excluded Judas Iscariot from the Eucharistic banquet. Theophylact asserts that, in his time, many shared this opinion. Later, it was supported by Rupert of Deutz, Peter Comestor, and others. pope Innocent III, Turrianus, Salmeron, Barradius, Lamy, etc. For such a dissenting opinion to have arisen, the Gospel text must certainly exhibit a certain degree of freedom. We must therefore compare the various accounts to see if they favor one opinion over another. According to St. Matthew (26:21-30) and St. Mark (14:18-26), Jesus first celebrated Passover in the Jewish manner; then, before proceeding to the institution of the holy EucharistHe predicted to his disciples that one of them would betray him. Judas asked him, like the others, “Is it I, Lord?” And received an affirmative answer. Only then did Our Lord consecrate the bread and wine and give communion to those present. We have seen (vv. 15-23) that St. Luke coordinates the events in a different way. Following the prescribed meal, Jesus institutes the Eucharistwhich he distributes to the guests; then he speaks of the traitor who will soon betray him to his enemies. As for St. John (13:21-30), he has, as is known, omitted the Eucharistic Last Supper. His version shows us Jesus washing the feet of the apostles, becoming troubled, and announcing that he will soon be betrayed. The beloved disciple leans on the Savior's breast and begs him to reveal the traitor; Jesus indicates him by giving a dipped piece to Judas, to whom he says at the same time: What you are doing, do more quickly. The wretch immediately leaves to commit his crime. – It is clear from this summary that St. Luke seems to settle the question clearly in favor of the first opinion, since he places only after the institution of the Eucharist the prediction concerning the traitor, which, according to the other three accounts, was uttered in the presence of Judas. But 1) doesn't the authority of the first two evangelists, one of whom was an eyewitness, counterbalance that of the third? 2) Between verses 17 and 30, St. Luke seems not to have been concerned with strictly following chronological order. It seems that he proceeds in fragments, merely arranging the various events he recounts one after the other, almost without transition. This is why verses 17 and 18 appeared to us to be out of place, and we will say the same of verses 24-30 shortly. Based on this, we can believe that he anticipated, in recounting the institution of the holy Eucharist before the betrayer's denunciation. 3. According to St. John, Jesus, wanting to dismiss the betrayer, gave him a morsel. This morsel was nothing other than a small piece of Passover lamb, which the head of the household sometimes presented to one or more guests toward the end of the liturgical meal (see our commentary on John 13:26 and 27). Now, since the legal supper and the Eucharistic supper were completely distinct, so that the latter began only after the former had been completed, we are entitled to conclude that Judas received the morsel and left the banquet hall before the consecration of the holy species. 4. If one wishes to appeal to reasons of propriety, it seems difficult to admit that Jesus would have allowed one of his greatest mysteries to be profaned from the very first moment of its institution. For these various reasons, we consider the view that Judas did not attend the establishment of the Christian Passover to be more probable.

Luke 22.²⁴ A dispute also arose among them as to which of them should be considered the greatest. – An argumentThe Greek word properly denotes a quarrel of ambition. One would hardly expect to see a dispute of this kind arise among the apostles at such a moment, that is to say, immediately after the institution of the holy EucharistThis is why most exegetes assume, and rightly so, we believe, that here again St. Luke somewhat reversed the historical order of events in order to logically unite various sayings of Jesus. Without agreeing with Maldonat that the quarrel in question dated back at least a week (Matt. 20:20 and parallels), which seems exaggerated to us, we will say, following Salmeron, “ The question being raised is not far from plausible: did this take place before the washing of the feet?». Similarly, D. Calmet. Perhaps it was caused by the seating of the guests (Bede the Venerable, Hofmann, Keil, Langen, etc.) at the beginning of the meal. The largest was to be estimated A sophisticated formulation, common among Roman and Greek classics. – Moreover, this was not the first time the apostles had been sensitive on this point of honor. Cf. 9:46; Matthew 18:1; Mark 9:34.

Luke 22.²⁵ Jesus said to them, «The kings of the nations rule over them, and those who command them are called Benefactors. – Jesus puts an end to this sad discussion right from the start, offering his friends a point that clearly demonstrates how far they were straying from the Christian spirit. (cf. Matthew 24:35; Mark 10:42, and the commentary.) Benefactors. Around the time of Jesus, the title of Euergetes (benefactor) was indeed bestowed with surprising ease upon kings and rulers. Cyrus, two Ptolemies, Antigonus Doson of Macedon, Mithridates V of Pontus, Artavazdes of Armenia, and many others bore it: even tyrants had received it. (cf. Diod. 2, 26; Athen. 549).

Luke 22.²⁶ But you should not do so, but let the greatest among you be like the least, and the one who rules like the one who serves. – Don't do that The customs of paganism must not be allowed to infiltrate the apostolic body. But let the greatest… become the smallest. A picturesque expression. In families, the youngest child has the lowest place, and, especially in the East, most of the small domestic chores fall to him, so that he is often like everyone's servant. And the one who governs…it's the same thought in a different guise. See in 1 Peter 53, to what extent Jesus' lesson was understood by his followers. The Church will therefore have its aristocracy, which will be both an aristocracy of grandeur and ofhumility.

Luke 22.²⁷ For who is greater, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. Jesus here interjects an experiential argument to better instill his earlier assertion. He says, “Here are two men, one reclining languidly on a sofa before a well-laden table, while the other, standing, serves the first: who is the superior? No one could be mistaken. And yet,” the Savior continues, summarizing all the relationships he had had with his apostles since his public ministry, “I, your leader (emphatic), have made myself your servant.” Consider the washing of the feet, which was to follow, or, according to others, which immediately preceded these words.

Luke 22.²⁸ You have remained with me in my trials, – After this gentle rebuke, Jesus bolsters the apostles' courage by praising their faithfulness in his service and promising them glorious places in his kingdom. You stayed with me through my trials. The Savior uses this name to refer to the various tribulations and persecutions he had constantly endured since the beginning of his ministry; yet the Twelve remained faithful to him nonetheless, even though they exposed themselves to the scorn and hatred of their fellow countrymen. With what kindness Jesus thanks them for this! Soon, it is true, they were to flee and abandon him in his hour of greatest distress; but this momentary lapse did not erase so many acts of devotion and noble courage.

Luke 22²⁹ And I am preparing a kingdom for you, just as my Father has prepared it for me., ³⁰ so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.» – And I'm preparing you… «The pronoun »I’ and the conjunction ‘and,’ which are found in the antithesis between Christ and his disciples, have a singular significance. You did this for me: you remained with me in my temptations. I, in return, am doing this for you: I will prepare a kingdom for you.”, Maldonat. The verb "prepares" should not be taken here in the sense of a testamentary disposition, as the context contradicts this (as my Father prepared it for me); it contains at least a solemn promise. Obviously, the conjunction as It expresses similarity, not equality. So that you may eat and drink. Jesus describes the splendors of the kingdom he has just promised to the apostles with two vivid images. The first is that of a magnificent feast, as in other passages of Scripture (Psalm 16:15; 35:9; Luke 14:15, etc.). The words at my table seem to indicate a special privilege reserved for the Savior's most faithful friends. "Since not all those who reside in a royal household take their meals at the king's table, but only those of the highest nobility, it is only to them that the king grants this honor," writes Maldonat with his usual precision. Seated on thrones. The second metaphor, which expresses the power reserved to the apostles in heaven, just as the previous one was the emblem of their eternal joys. Shortly before, the Savior had already spoken to his followers in the same terms about this judicial power. (cf. Matthew 19:26 and the commentary.) – What words! And it was on the eve of his ignominious death that Jesus distributed thrones and crowns.

Luke 22.³¹ And the Lord said, «Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked to sift you like wheat, – The Lord said again (cf. 8, 13). Although omitted in manuscripts B, L, T, and several versions, this sentence is sufficiently attested by most of the ancient witnesses. It introduces the second part of the conversation, vv. 31-34. Simon, Simon. A solemn repetition. Jesus is about to make a grand promise to St. Peter, worthy of being associated, both in its subject matter and its importance, with Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17. Satan has demanded your attention.. Be very careful. Hell and its ruler (cf. Mark 1:13) were in great turmoil that day, but the ruin of Judas was not enough for them. The word claim is an energetic expression. It is probably an allusion to the first page of the Book of JobSatan is said to have asked the Lord, without whose permission he cannot act, for carte blanche to tempt St. Peter and the other faithful apostles. To sift you like wheat. Another forceful expression, which aptly describes the violence of the means the devil will employ to shake the faith of the group of 12 apostles and thus annihilate the Church of Jesus at its foundation. cf. Amos 9:8 and 9. The sieves of the ancients were made sometimes of sheets of papyrus or parchment in which a large number of small openings had been made, sometimes of silk fabric, or of horsehair.

Luke 22.³² But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers. – «Having shown them the danger, he shows them the remedy,» Maldonat. I prayed for you. What majesty in this "I have"! Jesus contrasts his divine person and all-powerful intercession with the person and request of Satan. Already, as the tense of the verb indicates, Jesus' prayer has ascended to God, since Jesus is God made man. Earlier, in verse 31, the Savior announced that Satan's snares threatened all the apostles; now he declares that his prayer was formulated in a special way on behalf of Simon. This detail is truly remarkable. But here is the explanation: so that your faith may not fail. Therefore, it is of particular importance that St. Peter's faith not suffer a total, absolute failure. Let us note in passing: 1) that this prayer of Jesus was necessarily answered (cf. John 11:42. "A defense in court is preferable to an attempt to disturb the order," St. Ambrose); 2) that St. Peter's denial was not truly an abandonment of the faith, although it was a grave sin (see Sylveira, Maldonatus, and even Grotius, hl) [It was only from Pentecost onward that the apostles were confirmed in grace and never again fell into mortal sin]. When you are converted…There is no less emphasis in this «And you» than in the «I have.» You too, do to your brothers as I have done to you. The word converted It means "repentant, returned to penance," as it has always been generally understood; it therefore alludes to the temporary fall that Jesus will soon foretell in explicit terms to Simon, v. 34, and also to his prompt conversion. Strengthen your brothers : that is to say the other apostles, as is very clear from the context. The corresponding Greek verb expresses an unshakeable solidity. cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Peter 510; 2 Peter 1:12; etc. What a beautiful parallel to "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the forces of hell will not prevail against it." On both sides, the dogmatic conclusions are the same. First, the primacy of St. Peter: "It is evident that this entire discourse of the Lord presupposes that Peter is the first of the apostles"; Bengel admits this, along with many other Protestants. Second, the privilege of infallibility for the prince of the apostles: "Who can doubt that St. Peter received through this prayer (from Jesus) a constant, invincible, unshakeable faith, and one so abundant, moreover, that it was capable of strengthening not only the common people, but also his brothers the apostles and the shepherds of the flock, preventing Satan from sifting them?" Bossuet, Meditations. On the Gospel, 70th day. Christ promised Peter what he did not promise to the others. For he did not say, "I have prayed for you," as he had said to them before, "I am preparing a kingdom for you." It was to Peter alone that he said, "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail." And to make it clear that a privilege of infallibility was attributed to Peter as head of the Church, he added, "And when you have converted, strengthen your brothers." Peter could not have strengthened his brothers if he had not been unwavering in his faith. From all these things… we understand that Peter received from Christ the singular privilege of infallibility. Thirdly, the popes who succeeded St. Peter naturally share in this twofold privilege. "This word, Strengthen your brothers, This is not a commandment that Jesus gives specifically to St. Peter; it is an office that he erects and institutes in his Church in perpetuity… An eternal succession was destined for St. Peter. There was always to be a Peter in the Church to confirm his brothers in the faith.» Bossuet, 11th, 72nd day. That is to say, each Roman pontiff possesses primacy, either of honor or of jurisdiction, and infallibility. See St. Robert Bellarmine, Controversies 3, on Roman Pontifical Book 4, chapters 2-7; Billuart and Perrone, in their treatises «De Ecclesia»; Charles-Amable de La Tour d'Auvergne-Lauraguais, The Catholic Tradition on Papal Infallibility, vol. 1, p. 54 ff.

Luke 22.³³ “Lord,” Peter said to him, “I am ready to go with you and in prison and to death.» – St. Peter understood that, while bestowing glorious prerogatives upon him, Jesus was calling into question his complete fidelity; therefore, heeding only the impulse of his love, he replied with a courageous statement, which the near future might well contradict, but which a more distant future would fulfill literally. With you is emphasized. I'm ready. Alas. He overestimated his strength, for he was not yet truly prepared. In prison and to death. A beautiful gradation: even unto death. The prison and death, these were the two forms under which Simon Peter represented the dangers that then threatened Our Lord.

Luke 22.³⁴ Jesus answered him, «I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me.» – Jesus no longer limits himself to a mere insinuation; he affirms it categorically. This time, perhaps with a touch of irony, he uses the messianic name he himself had given to his future vicar (Peter instead of Simon), v. 31. The rooster will not crow…A picturesque way of saying: Before the next dawn you will have denied me three times. See St. Matthew, and the Gospel according to St. Mark. – The nuances that exist between the Gospel accounts concerning this sad prediction made by Jesus to St. Peter, and the different places they seem to attribute to it, have given rise to several interpretations. St. Augustine thinks that Our Lord repeated it up to three times in the evening; others are for a single prediction, variously related; still others, in considerable numbers (Cornelius a Lapide, Noël Alexandre, Luke of Bruges, etc.), suppose that it was uttered at least twice, first in the Upper Room according to St. Luke and St. John (12:36-38), then on the road to Gethsemane, according to St. Matthew (26:30-35) and St. Mark (14:26-31).

Luke 22³⁵ He also said to his disciples, «When I sent you out without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?» “Nothing,” they said to him. ³⁶ He added: «But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise the one who has a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. – When I sent you. An allusion to the first mission of the apostles, 9:3 ff. and parallel. Jesus, seeing his friends so full of confidence, judges it right to bring them back to the painful reality of the situation. Without a bag, without a purse. cf. 9, 3; 10, 4. The "bag" refers to the purse, the "purse" to the suitcase where provisions were kept. Did you miss something? Those were happy times, which would never return for the apostles. They themselves, in their response ("nothing"), acknowledge that Providence had then amply provided for all their needs. But nowCircumstances have now changed considerably, as Jesus explains in colorful language. In the future, there will be no morehospitality generous, spontaneous, offered to the envoys of the revered Prophet; they must therefore equip themselves with money and provisions. Furthermore, as they will face serious dangers, having become objects of hatred for most men, it would be wise for them to prepare for combat, even to the point of arming themselves with a sword. Let he who has not… Some exegetes (Kuinoel, Olshausen, etc.) take these words in an absolute sense: He who has nothing; others (quite a large number nowadays) imply «a sword»; still others (following Euthymius), and this, we believe, is the best explanation, translate: That he who has neither purse nor money, etc. – Selling his coat, This refers to the outer garment, which one can do without if necessary. Besides, one does without many things to save one's life; yet here, the issue is precisely having a protective sword, and Jesus assumes that one will only obtain the money to buy it on the condition of selling part of one's clothing. – Buy a sword. A strange recommendation, which must have greatly surprised the apostles. It is true that we will not imitate them by taking it literally (v. 38). It was a concrete, figurative, and very expressive way of saying: Expect hatred, struggle, and peril (see D. Calmet, hl).

Luke 22.³⁷ For I tell you, this Scripture must still be fulfilled in me: »He was numbered with the transgressors.” For what concerns me is drawing to a close.» – Jesus explains his recommendation. The disciple is no more than the master; but the master will soon be insulted and persecuted: it is therefore natural that the disciples should also expect persecution. We still need. Two emphatic words: that again, like everything else. This word from Scripture : by Isaiah in chapter 53 (v. 12), which is one of the high points of his prophecy, and which deals so admirably with the sufferings and humiliations of the Messiah. See the commentary by Mr. Trochon, and the Biblical Manual by Mr. Vigouroux, vol. 2, pp. 525 and 526. We still need to....: it is a necessity according to the divine plan. He was placed on the list of criminals.. In the Greek text: "lawless," and consequently, "scoundrel," a man who disregards the law. This prophecy was fulfilled a few hours after Jesus applied it to himself. Indeed, we will see Our Lord treated as a scoundrel, crucified between two bandits. Indeed introduces an explanation of the last words. Why is Isaiah's prediction about to be fulfilled? Answer: As far as I'm concerned, this is coming to an end.. There are two ways to interpret this answer. 1. Everything written about me in the Holy Scriptures must come to pass; 2. What concerns me is nearing its end. We prefer the second meaning, which is more literal and more natural (cf. Euthymius, etc.).

Luke 22.³⁸ They said to him, "Lord, there are two swords here." He replied, "That is enough."« – There are two swords here., «Oh!» exclaimed the disciples naively, misunderstanding, as on a previous occasion (Matthew 16:6-12), the meaning of Jesus’ words. Where did these two swords come from? Perhaps they were in the house; perhaps the apostles had brought them from Galilee in anticipation of the dangers that their master and they themselves would face in Jerusalem. At least it is unlikely that they were, as St. John Chrysostom believes, two large knives that had been used to sacrifice the Passover lamb. We will see one of these swords in the hands of St. Peter in a few moments. “Some have explained these two swords as representing the temporal and spiritual power of the Church; but this explanation is purely allegorical and in no way proves this power.” D. Calmet, hl cf. Maldonat. That's enough. Not: two swords will suffice (with or without irony; Theophylact, Meyer, Sevin, etc.), but "That's enough." cf. 1 Maccabees 2:33. This formula is sometimes used to avoid a conversation in which one prefers not to fully engage.

Luke 22, 39-46 = Mth. 26, 36-46 Mk. 14, 32-42.

Luke 22.³⁹ Having gone out, he went, according to his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. – Having gone out. A detail specific to our Gospel; it probably refers to the departure from the Upper Room (cf. John 18:1). He left, as was his custom.. On this custom, see 21:37, and especially John 18:2. The imperfect tense perhaps denotes a solemn and slow walk, for we know from St. John (14:31; 17:1; 18:1) that, along the way, Jesus spoke at length to the apostles and also addressed a touching prayer to his Father. His disciples followed him. Judas alone was missing. It could well be that, hidden in the shadows, he had ascertained for himself the direction the Savior was taking.

Luke 22.⁴⁰ When he arrived at that place, he said to them, «Pray that you will not fall into temptation.» – When he arrived at this place to the place he had in mind. The location is clearly identified in the other accounts: it was the Garden of Gethsemane. See Matthew. He told them. St. Luke abridges and omits the fact that Jesus, upon entering the garden, had separated himself from most of his disciples, keeping only St. Peter, St. James the Greater, and St. John with him (see the parallel accounts). It was to these last two that he said: "Pray that you may not fall into temptation." The mention of these words before the agony is a peculiarity of St. Luke.

Luke 22.⁴¹ Then he moved away from them to a distance of a stone's throw, and having knelt down, he prayed, – He moved away from them… The Greek verb means to separate, to tear oneself away; it therefore marks the repugnance that Our Lord felt as a man at separating himself from his friends to go alone to face extreme anguish. At a distance of a stone's throw. cf. Genesis 21:16. A picturesque detail peculiar to St. Luke, like the preceding one. Jesus being only a short distance from his three privileged apostles, they, as long as they were able to resist sleep (v. 45), were able to witness the main details of his agony. Having knelt down : a phrase often used by St. Luke (cf. Mark 15:19). Among the Jews, "The usual way of praying was standing. One prayed on one's knees under the pressure of an urgent need," Grotius.

Luke 22.⁴² saying, «Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. Yet not my will, but yours be done.» – Jesus' prayer is presented with slight variations in our three parallel narratives. Father, if you wish. «He humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross,» Philippians 2:8. Obedience was Jesus’ perpetual and sole motive. Cf. John 5:30; 6:38. Take this cup away from me. See Matthew 1:19 and the commentary. May it not be my will that be done, but yours be done.…

Luke 22.⁴³ Then an angel appeared to him from heaven and strengthened him. Everything is new in this verse and the following one: the facts they describe belong to the most precious details with which St. Luke enriched the biography of the Savior. It is true that doubts have been raised about their authenticity, 1) because they are omitted by important manuscripts (A, B, R, T. Moreover, E, G, V, Δ, which contain them, mark them with asterisks), 2) because this omission is already noted by St. Hilary and St. Jerome. Nevertheless, it is scarcely believable that they were fraudulently inserted into the original text of the third Gospel. Indeed, we find them in the vast majority of manuscripts (especially in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is perhaps the Nestor of this kind), in the oldest and most famous versions, with a few rare exceptions (a single manuscript of the Itala, some manuscripts of the Armenian translation, etc.), in the writings of the early Church Fathers, notably St. Justin (Dial. c. Tryph, 103), St. Irenaeus (3, 22, 2), St. Hippolytus, etc. So much for the extrinsic evidence. Intrinsically, there is nothing, either in style or in fact, that contradicts the authenticity of the narrative. Moreover, no motive can be assigned to explain such a serious interpolation, whereas it is easy to imagine that dogmatic prejudices were powerful enough in various places to cause our two verses to be omitted. The appearance of the angel and the sweat of blood were deemed incompatible with the divinity of Jesus, and the passage containing the account was not hesitated to be dismissed as apocryphal. See Galland, vol. 3, p. 250; Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, 1, 16. Nicono had already reproached the Armenians, and Photius the Syrians, for having omitted verses 43 and 44 from their translations. An angel appeared to himThe Greek verb denotes the external nature of the appearance: it was not a purely internal event, as Olshausen claims. The angels They had, so to speak, brought Our Lord into this world (cf. 1:26 ff., 2:9-13; Matt. 2:13, 19); they had assisted him in the first days of his public ministry (Mark 1:13); they would bear witness to his Resurrection and Ascension: is it not natural that we should find them with him at the moment of his most agonizing suffering? But what a sign of indescribable anguish, intolerable for human nature left to its own devices. At the same time, what humiliation for the Incarnate Word! Yet, he could well "receive the consolation of an angel, he who by his humanity had made himself inferior to the angels" (D. Calmet). which strengthened him. This word indicates the nature of the consolation brought from heaven to Jesus: it consisted of an outpouring of courage so that he would not bend under his terrible burden. Several exegetes have supposed that this episode took place only at the end of the Savior's agony, as if it were not precisely in view of this very agony that he had received an increase of strength from on high; others have asserted in an even more arbitrary manner that the appearance was renewed three times, that is to say, after each of Jesus' prayers.

Luke 22.⁴⁴ And being in agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like drops of blood flowing to the ground.  – Lying in agony. The Greek word corresponding to agony This comparative is used only in this passage of the New Testament: it indicates a violent, supreme struggle, and vividly depicts the sufferings of Jesus at this terrible moment. But the Savior, comforted by the heavenly apparition, countered the repeated assaults of his agony with ever more sublime bursts of prayer and resignation: he prayed more earnestly. The comparative refers either to the appearance of the angel (following this, Jesus' prayer was even more fervent than before), or to each new trance of the agony (the more violent they were, the more the Lord prayed). See in the Letter to the Hebrews, 5, 7 and following, a beautiful development of this incomparable detail. – And his sweat became…«A detail that betrays the doctor,» van Oosterzee. But how should this be interpreted? We need not concern ourselves with the facile theories of Strauss, Schleiermacher, etc., who see here either a myth or a poetic embellishment: the only question is whether the sweat wrung from Jesus’ sacred body by the tortures of his agony consisted of thick, broad drops like drops of blood, or whether St. Luke’s expressions refer to a completely extraordinary sweat, in which blood played a significant part. Theophylact, Euthymius, Bynaeus, Olshausen, Hug, etc., adopt the first opinion because, they say, the evangelist himself shows, by using the particle “like,” that he did not mean to speak of a true sweat of blood. We will answer them 1) that the essential word of this passage is blood The way it is used proves this, since all the other expressions in the verse refer to it; but this word loses its main purpose if it does not designate the very nature of sweat: as Bengel rightly says, "If the sweat had not been blood, one could have done without mentioning blood, for the word 'drops' was sufficient in itself to describe the flow of sweat." » ; 2. The comparison here concerns neither color nor quantity, but quality: the phrase "his sweat was like blood" therefore implies that there was blood, and a significant amount at that, in Jesus' sweat. 3. Their interpretation gives a very weak meaning and completely obscures the detail. Moreover, the most ancient and distinguished exegetes, such as St. Justin, St. Irenaeus (whose thought is formulated as clearly as possible: he would not have sweated drops of blood, adv. Haer, 3, 22, 2), St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, Theodoret, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Erasmus, Maldonatus, Don Calmet, Sylveira, and almost all contemporaries, Catholic, Protestant, and rationalist, unhesitatingly side with the second opinion, the truth of which we believe to be indisputable. Furthermore, numerous facts, observed from the most remote times, demonstrate beyond any doubt the possibility of sweating blood under conditions similar to those experienced by Our Lord, that is, amidst mortal anguish. (cf. Aristotle, *Histories of Animals*, 3, 19; Theophrastus, *De Sudore*, ch. 12; Diodorus Siculus, *Sicilian History*, l. 17, ch. 90). Finally, let us recall that it was a physician who took care to record this fact, a circumstance that adds considerable weight to the testimony of the third Gospel. It is now scientifically established that under the pressure of extreme anguish, a human being can sweat blood. Which sank to the ground So abundant was the sweat, he sweated to the ground. «Let the drop of blood he sweated in his agony fall upon the earth, let the earth open its mouth, drink it, and cry out to the Father: »Better than the blood of Abel.«» (Drago Ostiensis, 4 Genesis n. 10). “He had gone there to pray. And he prayed in his agony. And it seemed then that he wept not only with his eyes, but with all his limbs.” (St. Bernard, Sermon 3 on Ramis).

Luke 22.⁴⁵ After praying, he got up and came to the disciples, whom he found asleep from sorrow. – Asleep from sadness. St. Matthew and St. Mark merely mention the fact; St. Luke indicates its cause, and this cause, entirely physiological, still reveals the physician. Although sadness is often a cause of insomnia, it also often produces a tension that soon numbs the senses and plunges one into a deep sleep. Cf. Jonah 1:5. «Weakened by the anxiety of his soul, sleep oppressed his body even more,» Q. Curt. 4, 13, 17. «Disconcerted by the pitiful lamentations, torpor oppressed his numb soul,» Apul. 2.

Luke 22.⁴⁶ And he said to them, «Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray, so that you will not fall into temptation.» – Again, St. Luke shortens and combines words that were spoken at various intervals. Compare the parallel accounts. Jesus has now, so to speak, regained full possession of himself: he has emerged victorious from his terrible agony.

Luke 22, 47-53 = Matt. 26, 47-56; Mark. 14, 43-52; John 18, 2-11.

Luke 22 ⁴⁷ While he was still speaking, a group of people appeared, with the one called Judas, one of the Twelve, leading the way. He approached Jesus to kiss him. ⁴⁸ And Jesus said to him, «Judas, you are betraying the Son of Man with a kiss.» – This is the description of the infamous kiss of Judas. St. Luke's account is vivid and rapid. This pack of raging wolves, as they have been aptly called, which suddenly fell upon the divine Lamb, was composed of Roman soldiers, sergeants-at-arms of the Great Council, onlookers, fanatics, and even members of the Sanhedrin. See verse 52. He moved closer to kiss her. Judas kissed Our Lord, as is clear from the context and the other two synoptic Gospels. Judah… Only St. Luke mentions these words of Jesus. See Matthew 26:50, another short address which must have preceded this one. You betray… with a kiss : striking contrast. The kiss, an ordinary sign of affection, has become the signal of the blackest betrayal, towards the sacred person of the Messiah.

Luke 22.⁴⁹ Those who were with Jesus, seeing what was going to happen, said to him, «Lord, should we strike with the sword?» – The details of this verse are unique to St. Luke. – Two consecutive incidents delayed the Savior's arrest: the four evangelists recount the first together (vv. 49-51); we will find the second in St. John 18:3-9. Those who were with Jesus That is to say, the eleven faithful apostles, who had gathered around their Master as Judas' henchmen approached. If we were to strike with the sword cf. 13, 23; Act 16; 19, 2; 21, 37, etc. The disciples remember "the training of the sword" and believe the time has come to use their weapons. "The Galileans had a warlike spirit," as D. Calmet aptly reminds us (cf. Flavius Josephus). The War Jews, 3, 3).

Luke 22.⁵⁰ And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.  – One of them struck the servant…Although futile, this act was full of valor. The Savior's opinion had been sought; but the ardent and generous St. Peter (cf. John 18:10) struck without waiting for an answer. And he cut off his right ear. The Greek word refers to the entire ear, not just the fleshy lobe at its end. RIGHT is a detail specific to St. Luke and St. John.

Luke 22.⁵¹ But Jesus said, «Stay there.» And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. – Leave it at that. This saying, somewhat ambiguous in the Greek text, has received very diverse interpretations. Many believe that Jesus was addressing it to the Jews who had come to arrest him. They translate it sometimes as "excuse this resistance"; sometimes as "allow me to approach the wounded man to heal him"; sometimes as "leave me free for a moment so that I may heal him." But these explanations are contrived, unnatural, and moreover refuted by the words Jesus speaking, which prove that Our Lord then wished to speak to his disciples (cf. v. 49). With regard to the apostles, a double meaning is possible: «let my enemies have their way» («do not oppose what is about to happen, for I must allow my enemies to intensify their hatred toward me, even to the point of seizing my person, so that the Scriptures may be fulfilled,» St. Augustine, Agreement of the Evangelists, Book 3, Chapter 5, 47; cf. Maldonatus, Luke of Bruges, Cajetan, etc.), or: «do not resist any longer» (Cornon and Lapis, Noël Alexandre, Erasmus, etc.). We prefer the latter interpretation, which is already found in the Syriac version. St. Luke omits here a short address that Jesus gave in order to explain to his followers why he surrendered without resistance; cf. Matthew. 26, 51: And behold, one of those who were with Jesus, drawing his sword, struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. A medical peculiarity, which St. Luke certainly deserved to point out. This was the last miracle of healing performed by Jesus: kindness The divine Master is admirably manifested there.

Luke 22 ⁵² Then, addressing the Princes of the priests, the officers of the temple, and the Elders who had come to take him, he said to them: «You have come as after a robber, with swords and clubs. ⁵³ »I was with you in the temple every day, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.” While refusing to respond to violence with violence, the Savior firmly protests against the cowardly and unjust methods of his adversaries. In this passage, common to the Synoptic Gospels, three details are specific to St. Luke. 1. In verse 52, the presence, among the ranks of the soldiers, guards, and fanatical crowd, of a number of chief priests, captains of the Levites (see note to verse 4), and elders of the people. It is upon them that the Savior's proud rebuke falls directly. Some rationalists (Bleek, Meyer, etc.) have found this presence unnatural; we, on the contrary, find it perfectly natural that Sanhedrin members and other influential figures should have come to oversee a delicate operation, which was of such great importance to them. 2. In verse 53, the picturesque words you haven't got your hands on me, instead of "you did not arrest me" (St. Matthew and St. Mark). cf. Jeremiah 6:12. 3. The final sentence But this is your time.which is of such great energy, in whatever sense one takes it. There are indeed two ways of interpreting it, literally or figuratively. Literally, it would mean that the Sanhedrin, in coming to arrest Jesus in the middle of the night, were behaving like bandits and other criminals, who usually take advantage of the darkness to perpetrate their crimes. cf. John 320. Figuratively, according to a more elevated meaning, the words the power of darkness, which are linked to "your hour" in the form of an apposition, would designate Satan with his dark empire (cf. Colossians 113). Your hour, such would then be Jesus' thought, is the very hour of the devil; my Father has granted him this time to harm me, and now you are making yourselves his accomplices. cf. John 8:34, 44. We prefer to follow this explanation, along with Euthymius, Maldonat, D. Calmet, Keil, etc.

Luke 22.⁵⁴ Having seized him, they led him away and brought him into the house of the high priest, Peter following at a distance. Luke 22:54-62 = Matthew 26:57, 58, 69-75; Mark 14:53, 54, 66, 72; John 18:12-18, 25-27. The four accounts bear a striking general resemblance; but each likewise has "its delicate nuances and particular details… St. Matthew is the one who best brings out the gradation of the three denials," Godet. See the detailed explanation in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.  Having seized him, in the sense of seizing violently, taking prisoner. – In the high priest's house. St. Luke alone states that Jesus was led to the "house" of the high priest. It was located on the northern slope of Mount Zion. The high priest in question was Caiaphas, according to Matthew 26:57. On the apparent contradiction between St. John and the Synoptic Gospels, see our explanation of the fourth Gospel, 11:1-12. Pierre was following from a distance "To see how it would end," adds S. Matthieu.

Luke 22.⁵⁵ Having lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard, they sat around it and Peter sat among them. – Having lit a fire : a charcoal fire, perhaps in a brazier in the oriental style. In the middle of the courtyard That is to say, in the middle of the quadrangular, open-air courtyard that occupies the center of the wealthy dwellings of the Orient. They sat around : new graphic detail. "They" refers, according to the context, to the guards of the Sanhedrin.

Luke 22⁵⁶ A servant girl, who saw him sitting by the fire, stared at him intently and said, "This man was also with him."« ⁵⁷ But Peter denied Jesus, saying, "Woman, I do not know him."« – First denial. All four narrators agree that it was prompted by a question from a servant. Sitting in front of the fire, That is to say, near the fire, whose glow clearly outlined the profiles of those warming themselves around it. He stared The Greek verb indicates a prolonged, penetrating gaze. Cf. 4, 20. Him too The four evangelists use this emphatic form, although they differ in the continuation of the servant girl's words. The apostrophe "Woman" has been preserved only by St. Luke.

Luke 22.⁵⁸ Shortly after, another man saw him and said, "You are one of them." Peter replied, "Man, I am not."« – Second denial. The chronological detail with which it is introduced, a little later, is specific to the third Gospel. Another, having seen it…He was probably one of the guards of the Great Council. Other accounts still speak of a servant. See the reconciliation in Matthew 11:11 and in our commentary on John 18:27. – Man: special detail, as previously «woman».

Luke 22⁵⁹ An hour had passed when another man began to say confidently, "Surely this man was with him, for he is from Galilee."« ⁶⁰ Peter replied, "Man, I don't know what you mean." And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. – Third denial. About an hour later is yet another valuable detail of St. Luke. – Another one claimed He was a relative of Malchus, according to St. John; others soon joined him, according to St. Matthew and St. Mark. The Greek word corresponding to "affirmed" is very forceful; it is found only here and in Acts 12:15. Certainly is emphasized: certainly this man is a disciple of Jesus; the reason for certainty is then expressed: because he is from Galilee. He was also, like most of Jesus' followers, a Galilean. St. Peter had betrayed his nationality by his accent. See Matthew 26:73 and the commentary. I don't know what you mean. This third protest was accompanied by oaths and anathemas intended to make it more striking, Matthew 26:74. And immediately The four accounts note this circumstance; but St. Luke alone adds, in an emphatic manner: as he was still speaking.

Luke 22.⁶¹ And the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word that the Lord had spoken to him: «Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.» ⁶² And having left the house, Pierre wept bitterly. – A truly touching detail, one that St. Luke alone has the merit of having preserved. But doesn't it diminish its significance and beauty to say, with St. Augustine: «These words refer solely to an interior act accomplished in the intellect and the will. In his infinite mercy, the Lord secretly came to the aid of his apostle, touched his heart, awakened his memory, visited him with an interior grace, moved him to the point of shedding outward tears, and inflamed him with immense repentance» (Grace of Jesus Christ and Original Sin, Book 1, 49)? Or, with St. Lawrence Justinian (Lib. de triumphali Christi agone, c. 8): «He looked at Peter not with the eyes of the body but with the gaze of his piety.” » (like Nicholas of Lyra, etc.)? We fear so. The Greek verbs corresponding to look These refer to external events, and we have no reason here to attribute a metaphorical meaning to them. Luke of Bruges objects, it is true, that the Lord could not have seen Peter with his physical eyes, since the former was inside the palace, the latter in the courtyard. But the objection falls away if we admit, as is generally done, that this moving and rapid scene took place when, after his first interrogation before the Sanhedrin, Jesus was being led to the apartment that was to serve as his prison until morning. Then, crossing the atrium, he turned as he passed the faithless apostle and fixed a penetrating gaze upon him, tacitly reproaching him for his sin. cf. St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc. And Pierre remembered. «For it was not possible for him whom the light of the world was looking upon to remain in the darkness of denial,» St. Jerome, in Matthew 26. How surprising that St. Peter’s heart was pierced by that look of Jesus! – Morally, according to the beautiful application of St. Ambrose, he wept and sobbed. The sin certainly deserved it. If we consider it in the light of St. Peter’s vocation, it is inexcusable; nevertheless, when considered in light of the apostle’s character, it is understandable; when considered in light of the circumstances of the time, it loses its gravity; finally, if we compare it to our own sins, will not the accusation expire on our guilty lips? (van Oosterzee)

Luke 22:63-65 = Matthew 26:67-68; Mark 14:65. St. Luke is the most complete of the three.

Luke 22.⁶³ But those who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him. – Those who were holding Jesus That is to say, the attendants of the Sanhedrin, who had been given to Jesus as guardians. cf. St. Mark, 11:11 They made fun of him. The imperfect tense denotes continuity, the repetition of outrages, as in the two following verses. they were hitting him. The Synoptic Gospels use four different expressions to describe the cruel acts of violence that Jesus then had to endure.

Luke 22.⁶⁴ They blindfolded him and, striking him in the face, questioned him, saying, "Guess who hit you."« – They blindfolded him. See Mark 14:65 and the commentary. Fra Angelico reproduced this detail admirably. By an innovation that required something more than genius, he covered the Savior's eyes with a transparent blindfold, through which one sees shining, besides the majesty of his features, the gentle authority of his gaze. hitting him in the face. This sentence is omitted in the Sinaitic manuscripts, B, K, L, M, etc. Guess or prophesy (St. Matthew adds: "Christ")... A hateful parody to mock Jesus' divine power to perform miracles. Now that he has allowed himself to be arrested and mistreated, many see it as proof that what was said about him—his miracles and his charisma of reading the human heart—was nothing but lies.

Luke 22.⁶⁵ And they hurled many other insults at him. – This is a precious feature of St. Luke. It shows us how much Jesus had to suffer during the last night of his life. 

Luke 22.⁶⁶ As soon as it was light, the elders of the people, the chief priests, and the scribes gathered together and brought Jesus into their assembly. They said, «If you are the Christ, tell us.» – Luke 22:66-71 = Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1a – Various authors (Maldonatus, Cornelius Lapidus, Jansenius, etc.) identify this passage from St. Luke with Matthew 26:57-66 and Mark 14:53-64; but the common opinion among exegetes is that our evangelist is speaking here of a second interrogation of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. The first trial, recounted at length by the other Synoptic Gospels, took place during the night and shortly after the Savior's arrest: it corresponds to verse 54, although it is not explicitly mentioned there. But, according to the laws then in force, it was null and void (see St. Matthew). To give it a semblance of legality, the Great Council held another session early in the morning, in an unknown location, and set about ratifying its nocturnal sentence. St. Matthew (26:57-59; 27:1) and St. Mark (14:53-55; 15:1) clearly distinguish the two sessions of the Sanhedrin; St. Luke, while saying nothing of the first, alone has preserved the details of the second, so that by combining the three accounts we obtain a fairly complete account of the conduct of the great Jewish tribunal toward Our Lord. The elders of the people. See Acts 22:5. Ordinarily, the elders of the people are named only after the other two sections of the Sanhedrin; they begin the list at this point. They brought Jesus to their assembly. The Greek verb (lit. They led up) is said by some commentators to allude to the elevated position of the room where the assembly met; but it is not necessary to force the meaning in this way, as this verb sometimes simply designates the action of leading a prisoner before his judges. If you are the Christ…The judges of Jesus, who are also his accusers, go straight to the main point in this morning session. They want to be quick, that much is clear at first glance, even though one of the famous «Prescriptions of the Fathers» was: Act slowly in judgments; Pirkei Avot, 1, 1. The Sanhedrin was generally renowned for its leniency (cf. Salvador, Institutes of Moses, 2; Life of Jesus, vol. 2, p. 108); but currently a fierce and blind rage drives it.

Luke 22.⁶⁷ He answered them, «If I tell you, you will not believe, ⁶⁸ And if I question you, you will not answer me and you will not release me. – In this first part of Jesus' response, truly divine wisdom and calm shine forth. It is a dilemma that the members of the Sanhedrin would have struggled to answer. And so they did not. Both parts of the argument were all too well grounded in recent experience. If I tell you, you won't believe it.. cf. John 8, 59; 10, 31; Matt. 26, 63-66. If I ask you, you won't answer me.. (cf. 20:1-8; Matt. 22:41-46). Thus, whether Jesus had openly revealed his heavenly mission to the Jewish magistrates at their request, or whether he had tried to reason with them, he found only willful obstinacy among these passionate, hateful men. In these words of Jesus, there is a strong, albeit indirect, protest against the unjust practices of his judges.

Luke 22.⁶⁹ "From now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."» – Jesus, however, grants, albeit in threatening terms, what he had at first seemed to refuse. As at the end of the first interrogation (cf. Matt. 26:64, Mark 14:62; see the commentary), he evokes before his enemies the glorious and terrible image of the Son of Man, seated at the right hand of God, and endowed with a power that nothing can resist.

Luke 22.⁷⁰ Then they all said, "Are you then the Son of God?" He answered them, "You say so, and I am."« – Then they all said. This expression is both emphatic and picturesque. In short: in a tumultuous manner. So you are the Son of God? They understood, and it wasn't difficult, that Jesus meant to refer to himself when speaking of the Son of Man. (See Psalm 109, where the Messiah is depicted as enthroned at the right hand of God his Father.) You say so, I am!. An oriental formula that is equivalent to a solemn affirmation.

Luke 22.⁷¹ And they said, "What further need do we have of testimony? We ourselves have heard it from his own lips."« – The story is no less dramatic than the scene itself. What more testimony do we need? It does not appear that the Sanhedrin called any witnesses for the prosecution during this morning session: these words therefore allude to the night session, during which numerous depositions were received against Jesus. (cf. Matthew 26:60 ff.; Mark 14:56 ff.) As for witnesses for the defense, the Talmud may claim that, for forty consecutive days, heralds summoned all those who believed they could uphold Jesus' innocence to appear before the Sanhedrin, but no one responded to the call: these crude fables are irrelevant. – As we can see, the morning assembly closely resembled the night assembly in its various details: we find on both sides almost the same questions, the same answers, and ultimately the same condemnation. Here and there the judges resort to the most odious methods; here and there the divinely accused displays an attitude worthy of the Messiah; only, in the final session, things proceed with greater speed. There is no real debate: they simply make the Savior repeat his previously incriminating words and ratify the death sentence.