Luke 22:49-71 Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer
Song

Last week Jesus introduced to the disciples that times were a changing – that where they had been taken care of in the past they should now take purse, script and to sell their garments and buy a sword.

Then Judas betrayed Jesus was a kiss.

So, remember the scene – Jesus was with Peter James and John and was in the middle of speaking with them when the armed mass come to him led by Judas.

Luke tells us earlier that these eleven men are armed with two swords and while Jesus is talking with his three about sleeping Judas and the crown come to him and Judas kisses him.

So, let’s read on beginning at verse 49 where Luke gives us some details (not present) in other gospels about what happens next.

Luke 22.48-end
June 28th 2020
Meat
Luke 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.
55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.
56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.
57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.
59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Back to verse 49 where we read after the hypocritical kiss

49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

This is unique to Luke’s Gospel that the eleven sort of asked if they ought to attack as the others make it seem as though Peter just goes off and smites off Malchus’s ear.

This makes more sense now for Peter doing what he did especially in conjunction with the fact that last week Jesus explained to them that times were changing and they would need purse and script and sword in their travels and work.

If Luke’s account is correct, and immediately following the masses come to take Jesus, the eleven could have believed that the Kingdom at this point was going to won with warfare – but once again, they misunderstood Jesus mission, which was a common occurrence in their lives.

So, after asking if they ought to attack, we read

50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

John informs us that this was Peter. The other evangelists concealed the name, probably because they wrote while Peter was living, and it might have endangered Peter to have it known that he was the attacker.

Of course, we know that Peter was carrying at least one of the two swords the apostles held in their collective possession and Josephus says that it was common for people traveling to Jerusalem to arm themselves because the way (especially in through Jericho) was filled with robbers.

I do find it fascinating that Peter would, in the face of a mass of temple guards armed with swords and staves, strike first blood.

To me, in light of what he is about to do, he was operating off a few important factors.

First, it seems that he was under the impression that Jesus had given them sort of some in-direct permission to go on the offensive physically.

This permission we covered last week when Jesus told them to arm themselves.

Secondly, I believe that Peter believed that when the armed mass came to take Jesus this would be the turning point and after three years of talking, it was now time to take the kingdom by force.

Third, I believe that Peter was beyond courageous WHILE in the presence of the Lord. He knew Jesus was the promised Messiah and had watched his powers and such at work first-hand.

He was therefore absolutely ready to war with anyone who tried to get in the way of Him taking the throne.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, Peter still misunderstood the nature of Jesus’s Messiahship. And even after having been told several times that Jesus was going up to Jerusalem to offer himself up to be betrayed and put to death, Peter seems to have believed (or could have believed) that while this might have all been truly prophesied, it could be set aside in a moment like this one.

And so he struck, amidst a crowd armed with swords and staves, chopping off the ear of the high priest right hand man whom John names, Malchus.

51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

The RSV (from the Critical Text which we learned about last week) reads, “And Jesus said, no more of this, and touched his ear and healed him.”

In either translation, the act of healing tells us how to interpret the meaning of “suffer ye thus far,” it means, “let me do this.”

Again, giving us direct proof that Peter misunderstood Jesus instructions on obtaining swords for themselves.

It is only here in Luke’s account that Jesus steps in and heals the mans ear, which is a remarkable act of love and a certain sign that he came not to kill but to save.

Matthews account includes the following after Peter lops off the ear of the man.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

I find this line really telling relative to what was going to happen to Jerusalem in the next 40 years.

See, at this time, there was peace in the Roman Empire (at least relative to Israel) but within a decade or two the Jews will get it into their heads that they could emancipate themselves from Roman rule – physically, meaning by the sword, and within the next thirty-five years, as a direct result of them thinking that they could live by the sword, Jerusalem would be sacked with over a million dying by the sword and famine.

Here we have Jesus giving them a direct command – and these men were the church at that moment – that if they choose to live by the sword they would die by it.

No, the Good News was to go out to the world without such fleshly means surrounding it. It was to be peaceable and good and longsuffering.

This was the first time an apostle of Jesus would shed blood in the name of Jesus and the reaction of Jesus was exact –

“Put your sword away” – and he healed the wounded.

The fact that Jesus had told these men to get swords in the verses before tells us that there is nothing wrong with protecting ourselves from attack in the defense of our persons, family and property.

But the cause of Christ, the Gospel, and all things attached to Jesus were to be done peaceable and not according to the ways of this world, but the ways of God. Jesus adds at verse 53

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

In other words, IF this Kingdom was to come into power by destruction and warfare don’t you think that I could do a better job calling angels down rather than by these two swords in the hands of non-soldiers? IOW . .

If he and the apostles needed to be rescued His Father would easily have furnished far more efficient aid than that of Peter–a mighty host of angels – twelve legions of angels is the number given here.

A legion was a division of the Roman army amounting to more than six thousand men – so that would be 72000 angels.

Some scholars think that Jesus chose the number twelve to represent the eleven disciples and himself, with each having six thousand angels to aid them in battle. But Jesus adds

54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

The scriptures which foretold of his dying for the world and that this had to be accomplished or fulfilled – how would they be fulfilled if we approached things with legions of angels.

There was no other way then straight through,” he says via paraphrase, “So put the sword away. It’s time to let things go the way that they were intended.”

So back to Luke’s account – verse 52-53

52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

The way they had come to take him was the way they would go out to take a robber or dangerous criminal.

Jesus, always willing to expose hypocrisy, and the heart of men, points out that he was not a dangerous criminal – and they knew it.

For he was in the temple with them, and in that setting they never lifted a finger against his person, but now they were coming out against him with a possess armed with swords and staves (clubs and or sticks)?

Jesus adds here a revealing line to them:

“but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

“But this is your hour – the power of darkness. Have at it. You are workers in the night, those who do things secretly. I was with you in the temple and you could have acted then and there. But instead under the cover of night you move, like rats, to do your bidding. Have at it. Its your hour. The power of darkness.”

Matthew adds here:

56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him and fled.

Contrast this fact with the fact that Peter had just cut off the ear of one of them and we arrive at the conclusion that these men, at this point, realized that their master, Messiah and King, was in trouble and was not going to fight.

Apparently, when they saw their Master actually taken they became terrified in the presence of these armed men and forgetting their promises not to forsake him, they all left Him to go it alone.

This too was prophesied, and in Mark’s account we get a special insight which says

(Mark 14:51) And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

Many believe that this was Mark himself, as a younger man and the one who would ultimately go on and become a traveling companion of Paul.

And at this point we are introduced to the narrative of Peter’s three denials beginning at verse 54

54 Then took they him (Jesus), and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.

John account (18:15) let’s us know that he too was present and following, and was therefore able to give more witness information to what was happening here.

The high priests house is also called a palace in John and it had a large hall where people could gather.

We also learn from Matthew that in this hall “the scribes and the elders were assembled.”

So here we have the confluence of several factors. Jesus was in custody and was taken to Caiaphas’s house which contained a hall and in that place the scribes and elders were gathered.

At the point the “trial” of the Lord before the council, and the denials of Peter, were happening at the same time.

Matthew and Mark relate the trial first with Peter’s denial afterwards and here in Luke he mentions the denial first, but in John’s account, who was a firsthand witness, we probably have the natural order of things displayed.

Also, John tells us that Jesus was first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, which was probably done out of respect since he was once High Priest.

This was a difficult case and his being informed of the fact was perhaps important.

John tells us that Caiaphas had only been High Priest for one year at the time and so Annas would have been high priest during more of Jesus ministry than Caiaphas, which might be another reason they took Jesus to him first.

Matthew’s account, in addition to telling us that Peter was following this from far off includes his motive, saying that he “wanted to see the end,“ (or the end results of it all).

The fact that Peter followed him afar off suggests a couple of paradoxical points, doesn’t it?

First of all, he had a real attachment to his Master which included a desire to be near him and to witness his trial. Secondly, Peter kept his distance so as to not be apprehended as an accomplice.

Allegiance and fear. Verse 55

55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

John informs us that Peter did not go into the hall immediately but that the other disciple, (himself – John) who knew the high priest, went in first, while Peter remained at the gate, or entrance. Then John tells us that he went out, and brought Peter in.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke have omitted this insight and it is likely that John included it because they had omitted it.

In any case, Peter is sitting down by the fire and Luke now addresses his denials straight on, saying:

56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him.
57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.

Denial number one.

58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

Denial number two.

59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest.

Denial number three.

And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

Remember that in Matthew and Marks account the Lord trial is first depicted, so by this time Jesus has been spit on, slapped and literally beaten in the face with closed fists – according to the Greek definition of the words used.

It was now about dawn, as his trial took place illegally over the course of the night. The cock crowed his morning welcomed in the pre-dawn hour, and showed that Peter had denied knowing Jesus at all.

His denials were so strong that Matthew says he was angered at the third accusation of him knowing the Lord.

Here in Luke that third accusation was tied to the notion that Peter was a Galilean, a fact made plain by his form or style of speech.

Put all this together and we arrive at something Luke adds which must have shattered the man called Peter (verse 61-62)

61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

The word translated to looked upon here is better translated to intently stared at Peter.

Peter was an admixture of devotion and fear, determination and uncertainty, brashness and cowardice.

He followed the Lord in hot pursuit but from a distance. And in that distance his courage grew cold and he decided to warm himself by the enemies fire.

His experiences here were forging in him the ultimate realization that he needed to rely solely on the Lord and not on himself with the culminating, dramatic conclusion to his flesh meeting eye to eye with His master, now beaten and bloodied.

The scene, coupled with his denial, and the crowing bird must have landed on him like a concrete block and he went out from among the crowd and wept bitterly.

We know that these responses from Peter were not commanded of him by the Lord (as some maintain) because when post his death and resurrection, Peter, according to John’s account alone, will meet back up with the Lord on the beach.

He had appeared to the apostles prior in a room with locked doors. But in the next chapter John writes:

John 21:1 After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself.
(then John describes how they caught fish, and how Peter recognized that the Lord was on the beach, and jumped in the water to see him, and they ate together – then jumping to verse 14 where John writes)

14 This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME JESUS ASKS PETER IF HE LOVED HIM

He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

And then Jesus added the following to impetuous, fleshly Peter:
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When you were young, thou dressed yourself and you walked wherever you wanted: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall dress you and carry you where you would not want to go.

And John adds
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

The message through the life of Peter, that man so emblematic of us all in our walk with the Lord, is he wants our all – not just our words, not just our actions even, he wants our hearts, and minds dedicated to following Him and doing His will, being willing to pursue him in all things – whatever they may be.
So grateful for the Lord choosing Peter, using Peter, to teach us so much about ourselves.

(beat)

At this point in Luke’s account, we pick up on the Lord’s treatment from the scribes and elders, which again, was probably going on while Peter was in the midst of his denials.
(Verse 63)

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously they spake against him.

Matthews version includes that they spit in his face too, which among the Jews, as it is among us, a significant insult, (as supported by Numbers 12:14; Isaiah 1:6; Job 30:10).

I did some cursory searches on striking, punching or hitting others in the Old Testament and couldn’t really nail anything down that suggests the Children of Israel had license to hit another person, and so I am going to step out on a limb here without much evidence and suggest that these men striking the Lord was unlawful as was the trial and everything else they were doing.
(verse 66)

66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.

Jesus knew the score and was not about to play any games with them. They had taken him by night, treated him wrongfully, and according to the other Gospel accounts, were holding him and judging him without proper witnesses (until a few showed up with a fabrication that they felt that they could hang their hats upon).

There was nothing that Jesus could say to them that would alter the course that they had already decided his life was going to take – ending.

And in the face of this he drops a bomb on them, saying:

69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

This was utterly impossible for their religiously oriented ears to hear. But they wanted a clarification (verse 70)

70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, “Ye say that I am,” which means, Yes, I am.

71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

And we will now enter into chapter 23 with the whole multitude rising and taking Jesus to Pontius Pilate.

However, Matthew’s account gives us a little more “meat for the grinder” as he writes in chapter 26 beginning at verse 59:

59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

According to the Law, as we are well aware of, at this point witnesses were required to convict a person of wrong-doing.

We can give these men the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were seeking real valid witnesses to convict Jesus – but they couldn’t find any.

Add in that in John’s account that the High Priest asked Jesus about his disciples and his doctrine and Jesus replied by saying that he had “taught openly in the temple, and in secret had said nothing; that is, he had no secret doctrines which he had not been willing openly to teach, and he referred them to those who had heard him,”

And we can see that while Jesus submitted himself to their evil, he did not allow them to act without resistance from the facts of the matter. In this approach he was allowing them to convict themselves, even to the point of when being struck says:

“If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why do you smite me?”

I think this is important – for us still today.

So, they sought for witnesses against Jesus and initially they found none. Mark 14:56 says that the reason for this was that “their witness agreed not together,” meaning, they differed about facts, times, and circumstances as false witnesses tend to do.

Two witnesses were required by their law, and they did not dare to condemn him without conforming, at least in appearance, to be appealing to the requirements of the law.

Finally, in Matthew we read a witness say:

61 This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

Mark has recorded this testimony differently. According to him, the witnesses said,

“We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.”

But Mark adds, “But neither so did their witness agree together.”

John 2:19 records what Jesus said, which was

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

But they perverted his words and added, “temple of God” and “temple made with hands” here and changed the meaning of his words with were really:

“kill me (this temple of my body) and in three days I will raise it up” were his true words.

62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

I adjure thee by the living God is a way to say, “I am putting you under oath before God.”

They wanted Jesus to speak so as to use his words against him. The witnesses couldn’t come up with anything that stuck. And so, Matthew includes this confrontation between the Lord and the High Priest.

Luke has Jesus say that they would see him, the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God” affirming that he was the Son of God which was enough, in their minds to convict him for blasphemy.

And that is why Matthew’s account concurs with Luke’s and has Jesus say at this point:

“Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

Additional insight coming from Matthew (and omitted in Luke) are the following reaction of the Hight Priest once Jesus said these words:

“Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

The Jews were accustomed to rent their clothes as an expression of grief. This was done often as a matter of form and consisted in tearing a particular part of the garment reserved for this purpose.

According to Leviticus 10:6 it was not lawful for the high priest to rent his clothing but this probably meant the priestly robes of his office.

The garment which he rents here was probably his ordinary clothes or the garments which he wore as president of the Sanhedrim–not those in which he officiated as high priest in the things of religion.

And, of course, this was done to add drama to the perceived sin of blasphemy in claiming that he was indeed the Messiah and in fact, the Son of God which was not believed by the Sanhedrim.

So the High priest says in Matthew 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Meaning that he was found guilty of a crime to which their Law annexed death.

The sentence of death was used well before the Jews became subject to the Romans when they had the power of inflicting death upon their own.

But after they were put under subjection to the Romans the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away from them.

So, they would retain the ability to condemn but had to seek out the Roman government to act the capital punishment out upon the guilty – usually.

We know that they had exceptions to this rule as they were going to stone the woman taken in adultery (if that story is legitimate)

It now only makes sense in the chronology of the narrative for Jesus to be taken before a representative of the Roman government – and his name was Pontius Pilate, which is why the very first verse of our next chapter, Luke 23 reads:

“And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

We will pick it up here next week.

Questions
Comments

Prayer