Luke included more information about what Jesus said and did on this occasion than Matthew or Mark did. John's account is the fullest of all (John 13-17).
Luke's account stresses Jesus' linking of His self-giving with the bread and His giving Himself for the disciples specifically, instead of for the "many"generally (Matt. 24:28; Mark 14:24; cf. Jer. 31:31-34; 32:37-40). According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus announced that He would not drink the fruit of the vine until He did so in the kingdom after instituting the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25). Perhaps Jesus repeated this announcement then. If so, this would have been Jesus' third reference to the coming kingdom (cf. vv. 16, 18). On the other hand, Luke probably rearranged the order of events and recorded Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper after His promise not to drink again.
Luke's account is more similar to Paul's in 1 Corinthians 11 than it is to Matthew or Mark's. This seems to be one indication that Paul influenced Luke as he wrote his Gospel as well as Acts. Alternatively Luke may have influenced Paul.
Jesus invested the common elements of unleavened bread and diluted wine with new significance. The bread represented His body given sacrificially for His disciples. The disciples were to eat it, as He did, symbolizing their appropriation of Him and their consequent union with Him. The cup, representing what was in it, symbolized the ratification of the New Covenant with Jesus' blood (Jer. 31:31-34; cf. Exod. 24:8).474
". . . Jesus meant that the new covenant would take effect through that which the contents of the cup signified, namely, his sacrificial death."475
Much of the New Testament is an exposition of the significance of Jesus' sacrificial death to which He referred so cogently here. Luke stressed that Jesus gave His body and poured out His blood "for you."However "in remembrance of me"encouraged the disciples to focus on the person of Jesus Christ and not just the benefits of His death for them.476Jesus commandedHis disciples to remember Him. This is not optional for us (cf. 1 Cor. 11:24-26).
Luke placed Jesus' announcement of His betrayal after the institution of the Lord's Supper whereas Matthew and Mark located it before that event in their Gospels. The effect of Luke's placement is that the betrayal appears as especially heinous in view of Jesus' self-sacrifice for His disciples. The connecting link is the reference to Jesus' death.
22:21 Jesus shocked His disciples with the announcement that one of them would betray Him. The reference to his hand being on (or at, Gr. epi) the table with Jesus' hand highlights their close relationship and the sinfulness of the betrayal.
22:22 Jesus then affirmed again that He was going to die and thereby fulfill God's plan (cf. Acts 2:23; 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 1:4). Luke used a strong word (Gr. horismemon, "determined"or "decreed") to stress God's sovereignty in these affairs. The title "Son of Man"helped the disciples to appreciate that this was part of God's will for the Messiah who would reign. Jesus pronounced woe on the betrayer as He had on the religious leaders and on Jerusalem for rejecting Him. There is a play on the word "man"(Gr. anthropos). The worst of men would betray the best of men. Note also the reference to both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in this verse (cf. Acts 2:23).
22:23 Luke is the only evangelist who recorded this conversation. It reveals the disciples' concern and the extent of Judas' hypocrisy. Judas still had an opportunity to repent, but he did not. It was especially despicable for Judas to share a meal with Jesus, which implied mutual commitment, and then to betray Him.
Again Luke apparently rearranged the chronological order of events in the upper room to make certain points.
5. Jesus' announcement of Peter's denial Luke placed this event next probably because of its logical connection with Jesus' preceding comment about the disciples remaining faithful to Him during His past trials. That would not continue. However, he did not record Jesus' announcement that all the disciples would desert Him (Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27). Perhaps he did not do so because it presents a negative picture of disciples generally. They all proved unfaithful, but only temporarily. Luke wanted to encourage his disciple readers, not discourage them.
22:31 Jesus apparently put Peter's testing, which Jesus knew was coming in view of His own arrest and trials, in a cosmic setting because Satan was ultimately responsible. Jesus viewed what would happen to Peter similarly to what had happened to Job (Job 1:6-7). Sifting as wheat pictures Satan's attempt to separate Peter's faithfulness to Jesus from him. The Greek word translated "you"(hymas) is in the plural indicating that Simon was not the only disciple whom Satan desired to sift. Probably Jesus used the name "Simon,"Peter's given Jewish name, because it pictured Peter in his natural state, not as Peter the rock. He probably repeated it in pathos anticipating the sad consequence of Satan's testing.
22:32 Jesus had already counterattacked Satan by praying to God for Peter (singular "you,"sou) and presumably for all the other disciples (cf. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25). Jesus described Peter's faith as being stretched to its limit. He was confident that Peter would survive this attack with God's help. His confidence indicates the superior power of Jesus over Satan in spiritual warfare. When he did turn back (Gr. epistrepho) to Jesus, Peter would need to help his brother disciples whose faith Jesus' betrayal, arrest, trials, crucifixion, death, and burial would challenge (cf. John 21:15-17; 1 Thess. 3:2, 13; 1 Pet. 5:10; et al.). Jesus implied that Peter would turn away from Him temporarily. When Peter objected to this assumption, which he considered insulting (v. 33), Jesus said frankly that Peter would deny Him (v. 34). Evidently Jesus singled Peter out from the other disciples, all of whom needed God's help in withstanding temptation, because of his leading role. He would be able to help the other disciples recover (cf. Acts 1:15; et al.).
Peter had a responsibility even though Jesus prayed for him. Prayer and action are not mutually contradictory but complimentary.
22:33-34 Peter's commitment to Jesus was admirable. Luke alone recorded that Peter promised to die with Jesus, and he made no reference to the other disciples. Nonetheless, Peter overestimated his own ability to remain faithful when persecuted. Luke is also the only evangelist who mentioned that Jesus told Peter that he would deny that he even knew Jesus. "Rocky"would hardly behave as a rock. His overconfidence should be a warning to every disciple.
This last part of Jesus' conversation with His disciples in the upper room is unique to Luke. It continues the theme of Jesus' rejection leading to death and what the disciples could expect in view of that rejection.
22:35 Jesus reminded the disciples that when he had sent them out on two previous missions they had lacked nothing that they needed (cf. 9:1-3; 10:1-3). In view of Peter's failure that Jesus had just revealed, it seems that Jesus intended this question to remind the disciples to trust in Him in the up-coming crisis rather than in themselves.
22:36 Previously they had not equipped themselves for their ministry but had trusted other people to provide for them. However they were not to trust in other people now. They were to fortify themselves for the conflict that lay ahead shortly, namely Jesus' arrest and crucifixion. Probably Jesus used the purse, bag, and sword metaphorically rather than literally to symbolize the disciples' personal resources. Apparently Jesus wanted His disciples to arm themselves with personal preparedness including dependence on God and His Word for the impending crisis. He was calling them to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice.480
Some commentators took Jesus' command literally.481The purse and bag may indicate that they should provide for their own subsistence since no one else would. However this was not the case in the early days of the church or even during Jesus' passion. There were still other believers who looked out for one another (e.g., Acts 1:3, 15; 2:44-47). Some take the command to sell one's outer garment to purchase a sword literally as well. However, Jesus later rebuked Peter for using a sword to defend himself (Matt. 26:52). Furthermore Jesus never taught His disciples to arm themselves so they could defend themselves much less take active aggression against those who might oppose them (cf. 6:35-36; 22:52; et al.).
22:37 Jesus quoted Isaiah 53:12 to help His disciples realize that others would regard Him as a criminal. Therefore it would be very difficult for His disciples. They would face intense opposition, as Peter experienced in the high priest's courtyard. Jesus did not want them to underestimate the strength of the opposition that they would face so they would depend on God and not on themselves to remain faithful.
22:38 The disciples evidently took Jesus' words about buying swords literally. They produced two that they had already acquired. They had understood Jesus' earlier warnings about what lay ahead of Him in Jerusalem and had armed themselves to this extent. This was not Jesus' intention.
Some interpret "It (or That) is enough"as meaning two swords would be adequate in view of the coming conflict. This does not seem to be what Jesus meant since He later rebuked Peter for using even one sword to defend Him (vv. 49-51; cf. Matt. 26:52). Furthermore two swords would not be enough to defend Jesus against arrest. Others interpret Jesus as having meant that the possession of two swords was enough to identify Jesus and the disciples as criminals and so fulfill Isaiah 53:12.482However it was not the possession of swords that identified Jesus as a criminal but the false charges that He had claimed to be a king opposed to Caesar. Probably Jesus meant that He wished to pursue the discussion no further.483The disciples had misunderstood Him. They would only learn what He meant later as they would learn the meaning of many other things that He had taught them that they had failed to perceive. The expression occurs often in the Old Testament in this sense (cf. Gen. 45:28; Exod. 9:28; Deut. 3:26; 1 Kings 19:4; 1 Chron. 21:15).
Luke probably included this part of Jesus' conversation with His disciples because it is a sober warning to all disciples of our need for personal spiritual preparation. We all face essentially what the Eleven did. We must not rely on physical defenses in spiritual warfare but make responsible preparations and arm ourselves with the resources that only God can provide (cf. Eph. 6:10-20). The disciples slept in Gethsemane when they should have been praying (vv. 40, 46). Likewise we often fail to ask God to help us and instead rely on our own resources.
