article59

§53 The Betrayal and Arrest (Luke 22:39–62)

The Passover meal is now over. In this section we see Jesus’ ministry come to an end with his betrayal and arrest. The moment of testing for Jesus and for his disciples is now at hand. The section under consideration consists of three parts: (1) Jesus’ Prayers on the Mount of Olives (vv. 39–46); (2) Jesus’ Betrayal and Arrest (vv. 47–53); and (3) Peter’s Denials of Jesus (vv. 54–62). Luke has derived his material from Mark 14:32–50, 53–54, 66–72.

22:39–46 / As has been his practice (see 21:37) Jesus went … to the Mount of Olives (see note below) with his disciples. In keeping with Lucan interest, the emphasis of the passage falls on prayer. In v. 40 Jesus admonishes his disciples, Pray that you will not fall into temptation, and in v. 46 he states this again to his drowsy companions. Prayer is necessary at this moment because the hour of sorest testing will shortly come upon them. The test is to be so severe that Jesus prays to God the Father that if willing would he take this cup of suffering away (see note below). Jesus knows what is coming and he does not like it. If it were possible to accomplish God’s purposes some other way, he would only be too happy to do it. We see in Jesus’ request genuine sorrow and dread. “Nowhere else in the gospel tradition is the humanity of Jesus so evident as here” (Fitzmyer, p. 1442). Nevertheless, Jesus is willing to do his Father’s will. Throughout his ministry Jesus insisted that following him was no easy task (9:57–62). Now he himself faces a difficult task that calls for the utmost commitment to God’s will. Some manuscripts insert vv. 43–44 here, which surely reflects an early Christian scribe’s desire to show an immediate and dramatic answer to Jesus’ prayer. Fitzmyer (p. 1444) gives several reasons why he thinks that these verses should not be regarded as part of the original Gospel of Luke (Marshall [p. 832] accepts the verses as original, “but with very considerable hesitation”; Ellis [p. 258] thinks that they are part of a “genuine extra-canonical tradition,” but are not Lucan).

In stark contrast to the agonized Jesus, the disciples are asleep, although Luke excuses them to some extent by adding that they were exhausted from sorrow (a detail not found in the other Gospel accounts, see note below). Instead of remaining alert, sober, and prayerful, the disciples sleep. Once again Jesus urges them to pray so that they will not fall into temptation. Now more than ever they need to be praying (cf. 1 Thess. 5:4–8).

22:47–53 / Luke tells us that while Jesus was still speaking a crowd came up (which, according to v. 52, included chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders) led by Judas, one of the Twelve. Judas approached Jesus to kiss him (according to Mark 14:44–45 he does kiss him, for it was the sign by which Jesus would be identified to his enemies). Jesus’ question in v. 48 (found only in Luke and possibly inspired by Mark 14:44, which Luke otherwise does not have) underscores the treachery of Judas’ act. With a kiss, a sign of great affection and loyalty, Judas betrays his Master, the Son of Man. The disciples who possess the “two swords” (22:38) react, thinking that this is the time to use force. (Verse 49 also has no counterpart in Matthew or Mark and is inserted here by Luke to link vv. 35–38 to the act of striking the slave.) One of them (John 18:10 tells us that it was Simon Peter) struck the servant of the high priest (or chief priest), cutting off his right ear. Only Luke notes that it was the right ear and only Luke tells us that Jesus healed the man’s wound. (Do we have here a hint of Luke’s medical interest?) Here we see Jesus’ last act of healing, and it is ironic that the one healed was one of those about to arrest him.

In vv. 52–53 Jesus scolds those who would arrest him for approaching him with swords and clubs, as though he were leading a rebellion. Since at least two of Jesus’ disciples were armed, and since one of them actually attacked a member of the arresting party, Jesus’ rebuke initially seems odd and unjustified. However, Mark 14:43 states that the approaching crowd was, so to speak, “armed to the teeth” (a point that has gone unmentioned in Luke), so it is likely that this menacing crowd provoked and frightened the disciples into a rash act. Accordingly, Jesus scolds those who have approached (in Matt. 26:53 Jesus scolds his disciples as well). Violence will not be necessary, for Jesus has never preached inaugurating God’s kingdom through violence. Jesus reminds his captors that every day he had been with them in the temple courts (21:37), but then, in broad daylight, they had not laid a hand on him. But this is their hour—when darkness reigns. The darkness of night symbolizes the moral and spiritual darkness of the moment. When Jesus taught in the temple during the daylight hours the religious authorities were afraid to act, but now, under the cover of darkness, and away from the purified temple, they act.

22:54–62 / Significantly Luke omits Mark’s reference to the disciples’ flight (14:50), but he does go on to narrate Peter’s three denials. Perhaps nowhere else in the gospel tradition does the careful reader encounter more discrepancies in matters of detail and chronology than in the account of Peter’s denials and Jesus’ trial. (For a discussion of the problems pertaining to Jesus’ trial see the commentary on 22:63–23:25 below.) Peter’s denials present the greatest difficulties, as illustrated by the following points: (1) Whereas Matthew (26:57), and presumably Mark (14:53) and Luke (22:54), has Peter deny Jesus all three times at the house of Caiaphas the high priest, John (18:13, 17, 24) has Peter first deny Jesus at the house of Annas, a former high priest and father-in-law of Caiaphas, and then deny Jesus the other two times at the house of Caiaphas (18:25–27). This discrepancy is not serious, for it reads as though the evangelist John has digressed after mentioning Caiaphas in 18:14. In all likelihood the fire by which Peter stood warming himself in 18:25–27, where he denied Jesus a second and third time, is the same fire mentioned earlier in 18:18, at which time Peter had denied Jesus the first time (18:17). John’s narrative is clumsy, but it is not at real variance with the Synoptic tradition at this point. (2) Of greater difficulty is the identity of the various persons who either question or accuse Peter. Similarly, (3) there are significant divergences in Peter’s various denials themselves. The questions and responses may be viewed synoptically as follows:

Denial One

Matt. 26:69–70

… a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said. But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.

Mark 14:66–68

… one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. When she saw Peter.… “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus,” she said. But he denied it. “I don’t know or understand what you’re talking about,” he said.

Luke 22:56–57

A servant girl saw him … and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said.

John 18:17

“Surely you are not another of this man’s disciples?” the girl at the door asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.”

Denial Two

Matt. 26:71–72

… another girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.” He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”

Mark 14:69–70

When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, “This fellow is one of them.” Again he denied it.

Luke 22:58

… someone [masc. gender] else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied.

John 18:25

… Simon Peter … was asked, “Surely you are not another of his disciples?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.”

Denial Three

Matt. 26:73–74

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them, for your accent gives you away.” Then he began to call down curses on himself and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”

Mark 14:70–71

After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, “I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

Luke 22:59–60

About an hour later another [masc. gender] asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!”

John 18:26–27

One of the high priest’s servants [masc. gender], a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the olive grove?” Again Peter denied it.

As can be readily seen from the above synopsis, the discrepancies are numerous. But before examining them, several points of agreement should be noted: (1) All four evangelists agree in having three accusations and denials; (2) all four agree that Peter denied Jesus at the house of the high priest; and (3) all agree that the first to put the question to Peter was a female servant. Beyond these agreements the accounts vary widely: (1) Whereas in the second denial Mark claims that it was the same female servant who spoke to Peter, Matthew says that it was “another” (female servant), while Luke says that it was a man. John has the second question framed by a group. (2) Matthew’s account of the third denial follows Mark’s “those standing near,” while Luke and John select individual men as Peter’s questioners. (3) The differences in the actual wording of the questions put to Peter and his replies are too numerous to examine exhaustively for our purposes, but a few examples should suffice. In the first question Matthew refers to Jesus “of Galilee,” while Mark has Jesus “that Nazarene.” Matthew brings “Nazareth” into the second question (probably from Mark’s first question), while the other three evangelists have their respective questions refer to the disciples, not to Jesus. In the third question Peter is recognized as a Galilean (Mark and Luke), which is also the idea presupposed by Matthew, who explains how the questioners knew Peter to be a Galilean (i.e., by his speech). In John, however, Peter is recognized as one of Jesus’ disciples, not because anyone thinks he is from Galilee, but because he was seen in the garden where Jesus was arrested and where Peter cut off the ear of one of the high priest’s slaves. Peter’s answers also vary. Matthew, following Mark’s lead, has Peter “curse and swear” the third time; but John and Luke say nothing of this. In the first denial Mark and Matthew have Peter say that he does not know what his accuser is talking about, but in Luke, Peter denies Jesus. Of all the evangelists, the Johannine Peter’s replies are the briefest; in the third denial no utterance is even provided.

How are all of these discrepancies to be understood and accounted for? There are at least two factors that must be taken into consideration. First, the four evangelists may have had (and probably did have) access to various sources, whether oral or written, of which we today know little or nothing. The sources underlying the Marcan and Johannine accounts are literarily independent and yet are similar. (Only a few scholars have ever argued that John utilized one or more of the Synoptic Gospels as a source, and even if the evangelist did, it would not preclude the possibility of the use of a non-Synoptic source.) Whereas Matthew has followed Mark fairly closely, there is enough variation in the Lucan account to lead some scholars to suspect that Luke may have had access to passion traditions other than those before him in Mark (see Marshall, pp. 839–40). Those various sources may account for the presence of some of the discrepancies now readily apparent when the four Gospels are read synoptically. Second, some discrepancies are probably due to the respective evangelists’ (and here I am thinking primarily of Matthew and Luke) desire to tell the passion story differently from the way it was told in their source(s) (such as in Mark and whatever else they may have had). In the case of Luke, reference to Peter’s cursing and swearing (Matt. 26:74; Mark 14:71) was perhaps omitted (Luke 22:60) out of respect for the apostle and out of a desire to present him in a better light, especially in view of his coming role of prominence in Acts. Also, Luke’s shift from a “female servant” to a “man” in the second denial (cf. Luke 22:58 with Matt. 26:71 and Mark 14:69) allows the evangelist to confirm the accuracy of the report of the denials by showing that men, who alone would be regarded as trustworthy witnesses, were involved in at least two of the denials (see Fitzmyer [p. 1460] who cites Deut. 19:15).

It should be readily acknowledged that all four accounts of Peter’s denials (as well as the respective accounts of the passion) cannot be harmonized on the basis of the materials that we have. A complete, thorough harmonization that omits no detail is impossible, unless one wishes to entertain naive proposals in which, for example, it is claimed that Jesus warned Peter of his impending denials twice (once in the upper room and once later in the garden) and that Peter denied Jesus six times, in two sets of three each, with a rooster crowing once after each set of three. (For an attempt to harmonize the four Gospels along such lines see Johnston Cheney and Stanley Ellisen, The Life of Christ in Stereo [Portland: Multnomah, 1984].) The results of this approach are unrealistic, even comical, and frequently lead to a distortion of the Gospel portraits themselves.