Глава 22

1–13. Judas among the chief priests and scribes. Preparation of the Easter supper. – 14–23. The establishment of the Eucharist and Christ's prediction of Judas' betrayal. – 24–30. Dispute about primacy. – 31–34. Prediction about the abdication of the Apostle Peter. – 35–38. A word about the sword. – 39–53. Prayer on the Mount of Olives and the capture of Christ by the soldiers. – 54–71. The denial of the Apostle Peter and the condemnation of Christ. Luke 22:1. The Feast of Unleavened Bread, called Passover, was approaching. Luke 22:2. and the chief priests and scribes sought how to destroy Him, because they were afraid of the people. Luke 22:3. And Satan entered into Judas, who was called Iscariot, one of the twelve, Luke 22:4. and he went and spoke with the chief priests and rulers, how to betray Him to them. Luke 22:5. They were delighted and agreed to give him money; Luke 22:6. and he promised, and sought a convenient time to betray Him to them, not in front of the people. Luke 22:7. Now the day of unleavened bread had come, on which the Passover lamb was to be slain, Luke 22:8. and Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, Go, prepare for us to eat the Passover. Luke 22:9. They said to Him, “Where do you tell us to cook?” Luke 22:10. He said to them: Behold, as you enter the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him to the house that he will enter, Luke 22:11. and say to the owner of the house: The Teacher says to you: Where is the room in which I can eat the Passover with My disciples? Luke 22:12. And he will show you a large, furnished room; cook there. Luke 22:13. They went and found as he had told them, and prepared the Passover. Evangelist Luke speaks about Judas’s journey to the high priests and scribes in agreement with Mark, omitting only the story of the anointing (Mark 14:1–16; cf. Matt. 26:1–16). “The Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover” (verse 1). Evangelist Luke identifies both names, because in fact, unleavened bread was supposed to be eaten already on the day of Passover. “They were afraid of the people” (verse 2; see Luke 19:48, 21:38). “And Satan entered into Judas” (verse 3). It is difficult to say what the evangelist means here: whether the actual entry of Satan or only his influence on the soul of Judas. The first assumption is supported by the fact that the word “enter” (εἰσέρχεσθαι) in Luke refers to the entry of demons into bodies (Luke 8:30, 32 et seq.; Luke 11:26), and the second is supported by the consideration that Judas did not show in any way that he was possessed by Satan (cf. John 13:27). “With the rulers” (verse 4; στρατηγοῖς), i.e. with the chief of the Levitical church guard and the Levitical guards subordinate to him (in fact, only the head of these guards was called a chief, or strategist; see Acts 4:1, 5:26). “The Day of Unleavened Bread” (verse 7). Here the evangelist calls one day of Passover the day of unleavened bread. Previously (verse 1), he meant the approach of the entire holiday time, which is why he used the expression “Feast of Unleavened Bread” there, meaning all eight holiday days from Nisan 14 to 21. “And Jesus sent...” (verse 8ff.). According to the Gospel of Luke, the Lord Himself sends the disciples to prepare Easter, while according to Matthew and Mark, the disciples asked Him the question of where to prepare Easter. The difference is insignificant. Luke 22:14. And when the hour came, He lay down, and the twelve Apostles with Him, Luke 22:15. and he said to them, “I greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffered, Luke 22:16. for I tell you that I will no longer eat it until it is completed in the Kingdom of God. Luke 22:17. And taking the cup and giving thanks, he said: Take it and divide it among yourselves, Luke 22:18. For I tell you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. Luke 22:19. And he took the bread and gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying: This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. Luke 22:20. Also the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which is shed for you. In the narrative of the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Evangelist Luke differs from the first two evangelists mainly in the placement of individual moments of this event and in some details of the narrative. We can therefore say that in this case he was guided not by the Gospel of Mark, as usual, or by the Gospel of Matthew, but by some source of his own. “He lay down” (verse 14; see Matthew 26:20). “I greatly desired...” (verse 15). The Lord had such a desire to taste this Easter with His disciples because it was the last before the suffering and death of Christ, and, moreover, because the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to take place on it. “Until it is completed in the kingdom of God” (verse 16). The expression is very difficult to understand and is explained differently by interpreters. It is best to see here an indication that in the Kingdom of God the closest and most perfect communication with God will begin, which, so to speak, was initially accomplished in the eating of the Paschal lamb. The idea of ​​redemption contained in the celebration of Easter will find its final fulfillment only in the Kingdom of God, where the apostles will be with Christ (cf. Matt. 13:11; Luke 22:30, 14:15). “And he took the cup” (verse 17). More precisely: “having received” (δεξάμενος, and not λαβῶν, as in verse 19). This was a cup of wine, usually drunk by those present at the Passover supper. “I will not drink from the fruit...” (verse 18). This, according to Mark, is said after the Eucharistic cup (Mark 14:25). The Evangelist Matthew asserts exactly the same thing (Matthew 26:29). The Lord, in the same way, according to Luke, removes the cup from Himself without drinking from it (“divide among yourselves”). Since this was a violation of tradition - the father of the family or the host of the supper was obliged to drink wine from the Easter cup himself - this refusal of Christ should have made a strong impression on the apostles, and they should have immediately perked up in anticipation of what Christ would do next. And then came the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. “And he took bread” (verse 19; see Matt. 26:26). The Evangelist Luke is closer here to the Apostle Paul, who also talks about the establishment of the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:24 et seq.). So from here comes the expression “giving thanks” εὐχαριστήσας) and the addition to the expression “My Body”, although with some modification (“which is given for you”, and in Paul - “broken for you”), as well as the words: “do this in remembrance of Me.” However, for some reason the Evangelist Luke skips the last words when he mentions the “cup after supper,” while the Apostle Paul repeats them. “Which is given for you,” i.e. which is given in order that your redemption may be accomplished (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον). Wed. Matthew 20:28. Since the Lord here uses the present participle (διδόμενον - “given over”; more correctly, “given over”), we can conclude from this that the Eucharist performed by Christ had a sacrificial character, that already here, at the supper, the great and mysterious sacrifice of Christ’s surrender of Himself to death was performed. "Do this...". What exactly? Some interpreters (for example, B. Weiss) understand this command in the sense that the Lord establishes here the breaking of bread and the division of it by those present at the supper, and perhaps the utterance of the words “this is My Body...”, which determines the symbolic nature of the action. Thus, there seems to be no talk of “communion” here, and this is all the more necessary to admit that the Evangelist Luke releases the words found in Mark (“receive”) and Matthew (“eat…”). But Keil rightly objects to such a narrow understanding, which in this case remains completely incomprehensible: what could the apostles do with the broken bread? Should I leave it on the table or take it home with me? No, obviously, the Lord here refers mainly to the “communion” of His Body... The Evangelist Luke could have omitted the words “take, eat,” which are also given by the Apostle Paul, simply because of their well-known nature and for the sake of brevity, especially since the thought they express is partly contained in the words “which is given for you.” “In My remembrance”, i.e. in order to remember Me. These words indicate that the Eucharist in each individual case of its celebration is the actual sacrifice of Christ, offered for all people. To see here a hint only of the symbolic nature of the Eucharist (as, for example, the same B. Weiss claims) is completely unfounded and clearly contradicts the understanding of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 11:27; cf. 1 Cor. 10:16). “Likewise the cup after supper” (verse 20), i.e. just as he did with the bread: taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them (see verse 19). The Evangelist Luke borrows these words from the Apostle Paul literally (before the words “do this” - 1 Cor. 11:25), he even retained the expression: “after the supper,” although, according to his image, the supper still continued after this “cup.” However, one can also understand that the Eucharistic cup according to the Gospel of Luke was already the fourth cup and concluded the Easter supper (cf. comments on Matthew 26:27–29). Everything else that happened, according to Luke’s Gospel, at the supper no longer actually related to it. “This cup is the New Testament,” i.e. this cup is the New Covenant through My Blood, which is contained in the cup and which is poured out to save you. And here Western interpreters see only the symbol of the Blood of Christ, and not the actual Blood, but the same Epistle to the Corinthians (see above) and the tradition of the Orthodox Church, which has always asserted that the true Body and true Blood of Christ are taught in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, speaks against such an understanding. "New Testament", i.e. opposite to the Old, Mosaic, the Covenant of grace and forgiveness (Rom. 11:27), which were acquired for people through the death of Christ. "Which is shed for you." In Greek it is expressed in the form of a participle (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυόμενον) and should be translated: “shed for you.” But what does this definition refer to? To the word “cup” or to the word “in the Blood” (“blood” in Greek αἷμα is a neuter noun, like the word “cup” - ποτήριον)? Some interpreters understand that the definition of the word “chalice” is given here (for example, Euthymius Zigaben). Just as during the offering of a sacrifice in the Old Testament service, wine was poured from a cup onto the sacrifice, so here Christ speaks of His Blood, which He pours out on the altar under the guise of wine. But such an interpretation seems too artificial and belittles the dignity of the “cup”: after all, wine was poured onto the altar as an addition to the sacrifice, and the Lord here obviously gives wine or, in other words, His Blood the same meaning as His Body, supposed to be under the guise of bread. Therefore, a more correct interpretation seems to be one that combines this definition with the expression “in My Blood.” If this definition is grammatically and not consistent with the defined (one should say: “in My shed blood” - the dative, not the nominative case), but such a discrepancy is sometimes found in the New Testament books (cf. James 3:8; Rev. 3:12, 8:8; Mark 12:40) and allowed by the Evangelist Luke may not be accidental, but in order to highlight this point - "shedding (Blood) for you." Of course, the Blood was shed not for the apostles alone, but for all people. Luke 22:21. And behold, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at the table; Luke 22:22. However, the Son of Man goes according to his destiny, but woe to the man by whom He is betrayed. Luke 22:23. And they started asking each other which one of them would be the one who would do this. Evangelist Luke, in agreement with Evangelist John (John 13), clearly says that the discovery of the traitor and, consequently, his removal from the Last Supper followed after the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Lord thus used the last resort in order to return the traitor-disciple to Himself, namely, He gave him to taste His Body and Blood. Some interpreters note this as a contradiction between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, according to which the discovery of the traitor followed before the establishment of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Matthew 26:21–25; Mark 14:21). But if there is a contradiction here, then, firstly, it could arise because the Evangelist Luke found it necessary to first talk about the most important thing that happened at the evening - the establishment of the Eucharist, and then talk about the discovery of the traitor and the dispute between the disciples, and then - and this seems especially important to us - none of all three weather forecasters speaks about the removal of the traitor from the evening, and at this point there is no contradiction between them, one might even say that the first two evangelists speak only about the revelation of the traitor to John and, perhaps, Peter, but this did not prevent Judas from continuing to sit at the meal further, which is what the evangelist Luke depicts... “And behold” (πλὴν ἰδοῦ) is the usual transition to a new thought in the Gospel of Luke (cf. Luke 6:35): from the meaning of His death, Christ moves in thought to how this death will come for Him, through whom He will accept it. “Hand... at the table” - more precisely: “on the table” (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης). Judas, therefore, extended his hand across the table to receive the cup. "The Betrayer". There is some correspondence here with the expression of verse 19. “Betrayed” (Body). The body “betrays” - and here is the one who “betrays” it. "However". In the most ancient codes, instead of the conjunction “and” (καὶ), there is the conjunction “because” (ὅτι). If you accept this reading, then in the first words of verse 22 you need to see an indication that the betrayal of the Lord by Judas is not something unexpected, but in accordance with the definition of God. "But woe..." Nevertheless, it remains the free act of a traitor, for which the latter will be punished. “Ask” – more precisely: discuss, argue (συζητεῖν). They wanted to prove to each other that none of them would do such a vile thing. Luke 22:24. There was also a dispute between them as to which of them should be considered greater. Only the Evangelist Luke testifies to the dispute between the disciples for primacy. According to the explanation of Blessed Theophylact, the apostles moved on to a dispute about primacy quite naturally, starting with a discussion of the question of who could be a traitor to the Lord. Of course, the apostles argued about primacy in the Kingdom of Heaven (see Matthew 18:1). However, some interpreters claim that this was a dispute about who should sit closer to Christ at supper, and that the dispute itself took place before they sat down at the table. For more on this, see the comments on John 13. Luke 22:25. He said to them: Kings rule over nations, and those who rule over them are called benefactors, Luke 22:26. but you are not so: but whoever is the greatest among you must be like the younger, and the ruler like the servant. The Lord says that the dispute about primacy between the apostles should not even arise. It is common for pagan kings to seek exaltation above others, but the apostles should only try to serve each other (cf. Matt. 20:25 et seq.). “Those who own them” (οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες) are not kings, but special rulers appointed by kings. "Benefactors" (εύεργέται). Evergetes, as is known, were the name given to the Egyptian kings of the era closest to the time of Christ. This title marked the special services of these rulers to the state. “Which of you is greater” is not “who wants to be greater,” but “who is actually greater.” “As the youngest” - not in the sense of “insignificant”, but as “younger in age” (ὁ νεώτερος), a young man is always obliged to serve his elders (cf. Acts 5:6, 10). Luke 22:27. For who is greater: the one who reclines or the one who serves? isn't he reclining? And I am in your midst as one who serves. The Lord points to Himself as an example of self-abasement, probably referring to the washing of the disciples’ feet that He had previously performed (John 13). “I am in the midst of you,” i.e. I do not separate myself from you, I do not put Myself on a pedestal (cf. Mark 10:45). “As an employee”, i.e. like an ordinary slave serving at table. Of course, this expression is only a symbol of Christ’s self-abasement in relation to people. Luke 22:28. But you remained with Me in My troubles, However, the Lord does not deny that the apostles have real merits that place them above other people. But their merits consist only in the fact that they endured together with Christ various trials to which He was subjected during His humble service to humanity (cf. Heb. 2:18, 4:15). Luke 22:29. and I bequeath to you, as My Father bequeathed to Me, a kingdom, “And I bequeath...” I.e. and I, for My part, as a reward for your faithfulness, bequeath or assign to you (cf. 2 Chronicles 7:18; Gen. 15:18) a kingdom or dominion, dominion (βασιλείαν without any definition), just as My Father has destined dominion for Me. Of course, both of them - both the dominion of Christ and the dominion of the apostles - will take place in the Messianic Kingdom (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Tim. 2:12). Luke 22:30. that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Yes, eat and drink...”. This is the purpose for which Christ gives the apostles their sovereign rights. They must eat at the table of Christ, as they ate with Him here. This indicates their closest communication with Christ in the Messianic Kingdom (cf. Luke 13:29; Matthew 8:11). "You will sit..." (see Matthew 19:28). The word “twelve” is omitted here in comparison with the saying contained in the Gospel of Matthew, because here Christ already thinks of not 12, but 11 apostles (without Judas). Luke 22:31. And the Lord said: Simon! Simon! Behold, Satan has asked to sow you like wheat, The Evangelist Luke sets out the prediction about the abdication of the Apostle Peter in its original form, without being guided by either the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Matthew, and then places it in a different place from the place assigned to it in the first two Gospels, i.e. refers not to the time after leaving the supper, but also to the time of being in the upper room, where the supper took place. There is no reason to think (like Bishop Michael) that the Lord repeated the saying about Peter’s denial more than once, and therefore we can say that the Evangelist Luke simply found it necessary, according to the plan he had in mind, to place this prediction earlier than the first two evangelists. “Satan asked...”. Just as the devil once tempted Job (Job 1–2), he asked God for permission to persecute the apostles with various trials in order to shake their loyalty to Christ. Christ likens the action of Satan in this case to the action of a farmer who sifts the wheat with a sieve to separate it from the chaff. Luke 22:32. but I prayed for you, so that your faith would not fail; and you, having once turned, strengthen your brothers. The Lord especially and first of all prayed for Peter, so that his faith would not become weak; of course, he prayed because Peter, with his ardent, active character, was in danger of falling more than the other apostles. At the same time, the Lord also announces consolation to Peter: although he will retreat from Christ for a while, he will then turn again to Him and will even begin to affirm in the faith his other brothers, that is, probably the Jews, and not the apostles, as is interpreted mainly by Catholic exegetes, who see here the basis for the Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the papacy. Luke 22:33. He answered Him: Lord! I am ready to go with You to prison and to death. Luke 22:34. But He said: I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you do not know Me. Luke 22:35. And he said to them: When I sent you without bag and without scrip and without sandals, did you lack anything? They answered: nothing. The word about the “sword” (verse 36) is found only in one evangelist, Luke. The Lord asks about their first journey on which He sent them (Luke 9:1-6). His question itself presupposes a negative answer on the part of the apostles. Luke 22:36. Then He said to them: but now, whoever has a bag, take it, and also the scrip; and whoever does not have it, sell his clothes and buy a sword; Now a different time is coming. You need to have everything yourself; you cannot count on help from the world. “Who doesn’t?” What? It’s most natural to add: a bag of money, or simply: money. Such a person in new circumstances must certainly purchase a sword, and for this, not having money, he must sell his outer clothing. By the word about the “sword,” the Lord does not mean that the disciples during their missionary journeys will have to resort to protecting themselves with weapons, because. The Lord repeatedly inspired them that God Himself would protect them when necessary (cf. Luke 21:18, etc.). No, the Lord wants to say by this that from now on extremely difficult times are coming for His disciples, the whole world will arm itself against them, and they need to be prepared for anything. Luke 22:37. For I tell you that this which is written must also be fulfilled in Me: I am numbered with the evildoers. For what is about Me comes to an end. Why should disciples prepare for persecution from the world? Because their Lord and Teacher must now be “counted among the evildoers” (Is. 53:12), i.e. suffer the fate of criminals. His followers, of course, also cannot expect anything good for themselves (cf. Matt. 10:24 et seq.). “Must” is an indication of God’s predestination (cf. Matt. 26:54). “For what is about Me comes to an end,” i.e. My work is over, My destiny will soon be fulfilled, although the disciples still do not believe it. Luke 22:38. They said: Lord! behold, here are two swords. He said to them: enough. The disciples did not understand the word about the “sword” and think that Christ really advises them to stock up on swords in view of the threatening danger. They already had two swords, which they probably stocked up on during their journey to Jerusalem, since they had to go through unsafe places. The Lord, seeing that they do not understand Him at all, sadly says “enough,” i.e. Let's stop talking about this! Luke 22:39. And going out, he went as usual to the Mount of Olives, and His disciples followed Him. In the description of Christ's sojourn in Gethsemane, the evangelist Luke differs significantly from Mark (Mark 14:32–42) and Matthew (Matthew 26:36–46); we must think that here he followed a source unknown to us. “I went as usual” (see Matthew 26:32). Regarding the Lord’s “custom” of spending nights on the Mount of Olives, see Luke 21:37. Luke 22:40. Having arrived at the place, he said to them: Pray so as not to fall into temptation. Evangelist Luke skips here the story about the identification of three of Christ’s most trusted disciples, whom He, according to the first two Gospels, took with Him, and the remark of Christ given to these disciples (Mark 14:38), he applies to all disciples. Luke 22:41. And He Himself went away from them a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, According to the Evangelist Luke, the Lord moved away from the disciples to a short distance (standing where they remained, one could throw a stone at Him). Therefore, the disciples could see how Christ prayed and even the words of His prayer were heard. “Departed” is more correct: He was distracted from them due to His special mood, which prompted Him to be in solitude at that time (the verb ἀπεσπάσθη means “was forcibly separated”). Luke 22:42. saying: Father! Oh, that You would deign to carry this cup past Me! however, not My will, but Yours be done. According to the first two evangelists, the Lord prayed three times. Evangelist Luke summarizes these three prayers into one. “Oh, if You would favor...”. In the Greek text we have an unfinished thought - only one condition: “if you want to carry this cup past Me:” (εἰ βούλει). There is no conclusion or main sentence. Some interpreters add here: “then carry it!” But it is better not to add anything, it is clear that the desire for salvation that instantly flared up in the soul of Christ now, without having time to take shape, retreated back before a new, deeper feeling of devotion to the Father (cf. Luke 19:42): “however, it is not my will...” Luke 22:43. An angel appeared to Him from heaven and strengthened Him. One evangelist, Luke 26, speaks about the appearance of an Angel who strengthened Christ during prayer. This was undoubtedly an external phenomenon, as the addition shows: “from heaven.” The angel strengthened the spiritual strength of Christ, which, of course, Christ prayed to His Father for, because in fact His mental anguish in these hours was extreme 27 . Luke 22:44. And, being in struggle, he prayed more diligently, and His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Thanks to this reinforcement, Christ, in the difficult spiritual struggle that ensued (ἀγωνία), prayed even more fervently (cf. Heb. 5:7 et seq.). “And His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” Some interpreters (from the ancients - Blessed Theophylact, Euthymius Zigaben, and most of the new ones) attribute this comparison only to the size and density of drops of sweat. But such a phenomenon hardly forced the Evangelist Luke to especially mention it: there is nothing extraordinary about this. The best interpretation is given by those who see here an indication of the actual release of drops of blood from the face of Christ. The correctness of this understanding is also confirmed by the Greek word translated in Russian by the expression “drops” - θρόμβοι. It means not just “drops” (in Greek - σταγών, στάλαγμα, but a clot of coagulated liquid, milk or something else, and especially coagulated blood. Therefore, we can say that the mental tension of Christ, His mental suffering was so strong that drops of bloody sweat rolled from His face, so dark and thick that they could be seen from afar with the bright shine of the moon illuminating the face of Christ. Luke 22:45. Rising from prayer, He came to the disciples and found them sleeping with sadness. Luke 22:46. and said to them: Why are you sleeping? stand up and pray that you will not fall into temptation. Just as the Evangelist Luke shortened the story of the first two evangelists about the prayer of Christ, so naturally He now mentions the coming of Christ to the sleeping disciples as a one-time event, and the admonition addressed to them by Christ is a repetition of what is contained in the 40th verse. "Sleeping from sadness". It happens that deep sadness plunges a person into sleep, and this is noted by ancient classical writers. Still, despite, so to speak, the fact that sadness somewhat excused the disciples, according to the Evangelist Luke, however, he also preserved the words of Christ: “Are you sleeping?” These are words in which one cannot help but see some reproach to the disciples for succumbing to sleep at such a difficult time for their Teacher. Wed. Mark 14:37, where Simon was directly reproached for this. Luke 22:47. While He was still saying this, a crowd appeared, and ahead of them walked one of the twelve, called Judas, and he came to Jesus to kiss Him. For he gave them this sign: Whomever I kiss, He is the one. Luke 22:48. Jesus said to him: Judas! Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? Luke 22:49. Those who were with Him, seeing where things were going, said to Him: Lord! Shouldn't we strike with a sword? Luke 22:50. And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. Luke 22:51. Then Jesus said: Leave it, enough. And touching his ear, he healed him. Luke 22:52. Jesus said to the chief priests and rulers of the church and the elders who had gathered against Him, “As if you had come out against a thief with swords and staves to take Me?” Luke 22:53. Every day I was with you in the church, and you did not raise your hands against Me, but now is your time and the power of darkness. The story of the capture of Christ by the soldiers as a whole is adjacent to the story of the Evangelist Mark (Mark 14:43–52; cf. Matthew 26:47–56). "Judas! kissing..." (verse 48) This question is essentially similar to the question preserved in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 26:50; Evangelist Mark completely omits Christ’s address to Judas). The Lord points out to Judas the terrible contradiction that lies between his external action - a kiss, which should testify, it seems, to Judas’ love for Christ, and the internal purpose of Judas’s coming - the intention to betray his Lord. At the same time, the Lord calls Himself “Son of Man,” i.e. Messiah, thereby showing Judas the extreme vileness of his act, since by betraying the Messiah, he thereby goes against the cherished aspirations of his people. “Should we strike with a sword?” (verse 49). This question is preserved only in the Gospel of Luke. In the same way, only one evangelist, Luke, speaks of the healing of the ear of the high priest’s servant (verse 51). This message is considered by some critics to be a later insertion on the grounds that, strictly speaking, there was no time for Christ’s conversation with his disciples about whether it was necessary to resort to self-defense, and for the healing of the slave. They also point out that in some ancient codices of the Gospel of Luke this place is omitted (for example, in Marcion). But against such an objection, it can be pointed out that, according to the testimony of the Evangelist John, the capture of Christ by the soldiers did not take place immediately: the soldiers were greatly frightened by Christ’s statement: “It is I” (John 18:6), and, therefore, there could have been enough time for the circumstances mentioned in the Gospel of Luke to occur at that time. As for the absence of this place in some ancient codices, this circumstance has no significance in view of the fact that a huge number of ancient codices contain this place (see Tischendorf, 8th ed.). “Leave it alone” (verse 51). With these words, the Lord answers the question of “those who were with Him,” i.e. disciples (verse 49), and expresses His unwillingness to be defended with weapons. The fact that this actually contains the Lord’s answer to the disciples’ question can be seen from the Greek text, where instead of “said” (verse 51) there is “answering, he said” (ἀποκριθεὶς δὲὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν). “He healed him,” i.e. the ear, perhaps already completely cut off, being put back in its place, immediately grew back. “To the chief priests and rulers of the church and elders” (verse 52). One evangelist Luke speaks about the presence of these persons. Criticism again considers these words to be inauthentic, since it was as if it was unnatural for the representatives of the Jewish hierarchy themselves to go with soldiers to capture a criminal, and since the Gospel of John directly says that Judas took only servants and soldiers from the high priests (John 18:3), therefore, the high priests themselves did not go to Gethsemane. But all these considerations are not valid. The high priests could stand behind, hiding behind the soldiers, in order to encourage them to action if necessary. At least, from the further words of Christ (verse 53) it is clearly seen that there were not only blind executors of the will of the high priests, but also these enemies of Christ themselves. “But now is your time and the power of darkness” (verse 53). These words in the Evangelist Luke replace the words of Christ cited by the Evangelist Mark: “but let the Scriptures be fulfilled” (Mark 14:49). Here the Lord explains why they did not take before during His daily stay in the church. This hour of your night, as it were, says Christ, this hour is most favorable to your intention, which is afraid of daylight, and the power with which you are acting at this hour is the power of darkness, i.e. It was only thanks to darkness that you dared to take such a decisive step towards Me. There is no reason to see here an indication of spiritual darkness or the power of the devil... Luke 22:54. They took Him and led Him away and brought Him to the house of the high priest. Peter followed from afar. Luke 22:55. When they had lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down between them. Luke 22:56. One maid, seeing him sitting by the fire and looking at him, said: “This one was with Him too.” Luke 22:57. But he denied Him, saying to the woman: I do not know Him. Luke 22:58. Soon after, another, seeing him, said: “You too are one of them.” But Peter said to the man: No! Luke 22:59. About an hour passed, and someone else insistently said: Surely this one was with Him, for he was a Galilean. Luke 22:60. But Peter said to the man, “I don’t know what you are saying.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. Luke 22:61. Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He said to him: before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times. Luke 22:62. And, going out, he wept bitterly. The evangelist Luke reports the denial of the Apostle Peter in agreement with Mark (Mark 14:54, 66–72; cf. Matt. 26:58, 69–75). Only the Evangelist Luke conveys this as happening before the condemnation of Christ at the trial of the high priest, whereas according to the Evangelist Mark this happened after the condemnation. Luke's message seems more likely here. It is likely that Peter’s denial followed first, and then the condemnation of Christ, since such a condemnation could hardly have been pronounced earlier in the morning: the members of the Sanhedrin needed some time to gather in sufficient numbers and to properly discuss such an important matter. “Then the Lord turned and looked at Peter” (verse 61). According to the Gospel of Luke, the Lord was in the courtyard of the high priest with Peter, He was waiting to be led to the Sanhedrin. He apparently sat with his back to where Peter was, but, of course, he heard Peter's conversation with the servants, and, after the rooster crowed, He turned His sad gaze on Peter. “And this one was with Him” (verse 56). The Evangelist Mark says: “And you were with Jesus of Nazareth” (Mark 14:67). The only difference is in the use of person: here Luke has the third person, and Mark has the second. On the contrary, the second appeal (verse 58) is conveyed by the evangelist Luke as direct, and by Mark (Mark 14:69) as indirect, and the persons who asked are designated differently in both evangelists: in Luke it is a man, in Mark it is a woman. Luke 22:63. The people holding Jesus mocked Him and beat Him; Luke 22:64. and, covering Him, they struck Him in the face and asked Him: Prophesy, who struck You? Luke 22:65. And many other blasphemies were uttered against Him. The mockery of Christ, according to Mark, was committed at the trial of the high priest after the pronouncement of the sentence, and here it is depicted as the work of the guards who mocked Christ in order to occupy their time with something (cf. Mark 14:65), and took place in the courtyard. In all likelihood, the evangelists Mark and Matthew (Matthew 26:67) are talking about the mockery of Christ, which actually took place after the verdict was pronounced, and the evangelist Luke is talking about the preliminary one that took place in the yard. Luke 22:66. And when the day came, the elders of the people, the chief priests and the scribes, gathered together and brought Him into their Sanhedrin According to the Gospel of Luke, only after morning the Sanhedrin gathers and Christ is brought there. Evangelist Luke does not say where the Sanhedrin met. “Elders of the people” (τὸ πρεσβυτέριον), “high priests and scribes” are three components of the Sanhedrin, presented, however, as one whole (the article placed with the word πρεσβυτέριον refers to both of the following nouns, combining them into one whole). The circumstance that these are nouns of different genders and are placed in different numbers does not serve as an obstacle to such a unification in view of the parallels existing among classical writers. “They introduced” – more correctly: “erected” (ἀνήγαγον). The Sanhedrin apparently met in a room located on the second floor. Luke 22:67. and they said: Are you the Christ? tell us. He said to them: If I tell you, you will not believe it; Luke 22:68. even if I ask you, you will not answer Me and will not let Me go; Luke 22:69. from now on the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God. Luke 22:70. And they all said: So, are you the Son of God? He answered them: you say that I am. Luke 22:71. They said: What more evidence do we need? for we ourselves have heard from His mouth. “Are you the Christ...” More correct: “if You are the Messiah, then tell us this” (this is how the Slavic and Latin translations convey the idea of ​​the text). The High Priest obviously assumes that Christ is presenting Himself as the Messiah and wants to openly declare His dignity. “If I say...” Christ replies that He has no reason to make any statements or questions. If He declares Himself the Messiah, they will not believe, and if He asks them why they detained Him or why they do not recognize Him as the Messiah, then they, no doubt, will not want to give Him an account of the reasons for their hostility towards Him. Moreover, they could not have the desire to let Christ go - they had already decided His fate... “From now on, the Son of Man...” Still, Christ does not leave without an answer. In these words He clearly declares His high dignity as the Son of God (cf. Matt. 26:64). “And they all said: So, are you the Son of God?” The judges understood Christ’s answer in precisely this sense, and therefore they directly asked Him the question: Does He recognize Himself as the Son of God? "You say I am". Some interpreters (for example, Merckx) believe that with this answer Christ did not express anything, but only showed that He was not obliged to give an account to the judges about the secret of His life. But we cannot agree with this opinion. This answer undoubtedly has the character of confirmation. See comments on Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:72. “What more evidence do we need?” Wed. Matthew 26:65. The Evangelist Luke does not report the condemnation of Christ for blasphemy after the high priest addressed Him, who conjured Him: it was important for him to show that Christ was condemned only because he confessed Himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God. Some critics of the Gospel text consider verses 43–44 an insertion, since they are not found in many ancient codes and, by the way, in one of the oldest manuscripts - the Syrian-Sinaitic translation of the Gospel. But Justin the Martyr and other ancient Fathers of the Church already know about the existence of this place. In 1901, the famous Harnack, examining this place, spoke out for the authenticity of these verses. For information about the authenticity of this place, see Tischendorf in the 8th ed. New Testament, p. 694–696. To the question: how did the Angel strengthen Christ, Quandt answers: “First of all, by his very appearance. It was extremely comforting for the Savior to see a messenger from heaven near Him in those moments when he was threatened by the forces of hell. So a king, expelled from his kingdom, looks with joy at his subject who has come to him. Then, the Angel could bring to Christ’s memory all the prophecies of the Old Testament, which indicated that the Messiah must suffer in order that the will of God for the salvation of mankind could be fulfilled... Finally, the Angel could point out to Christ His future ascension, which was to take place on the same mountain where Christ was currently in a state of extreme spiritual dejection...” You might be interested in: