IV. The Passion Week: Final Teachings, Luke 22-24.

A. Betrayal and Arrest: the Sorrow of the Teacher. 22:1-62.

1. Betrayal Begins, but Intimacy Remains. 22:1-38.

a. Betrayal in the Light of Salvation. 22:1-6.

Luke opened the Passion Week with a reference to time: the time of the Passover (22:1, but see also 22:7). He wanted his readers to see the connection between what Jesus was to accomplish as parallel to the themes of the Passover. It was a time of salvation. In the former salvation event and in the latter event the theme would be deliverance. It was deliverance from slavery (in the Exodus from Egypt) in the one and in the other it was deliverance from sin (in the actions on the Cross, see 24:47). Both were to be proclaimed. The first salvation event was to be remembered each year. The Israelites were commanded to celebrate the Passover (Exodus 12) and in similar fashion, the disciples were commanded to be witnesses to the second salvation event (24:48).

In both cases, God, not His followers, accomplished the act of salvation. It was God who sent the final plague (in fact, all plagues) that broke the back of Egyptian resistance, and it was God who would die and rise again to break the power of sin. The destruction of sin however, would first require the destruction of the Son of Man: to rise from the dead required first that one died. Good teaching involves death.

Salvation, as a doctrine was being taught by Luke but in typical Jewish fashion. Salvation was being taught by describing the actions of God, not by presenting carefully correct ideas. “Jesus saves” would be taught, but not by sentences that seek to give intellectual definition, but rather by helping the reader observe in action the saving actions of Jesus. The reader is allowed to see in human history, in the flesh, what it means that to Luke that God saves.

The story takes some unpleasant turns, it describe petty political intrigue. Luke 22:2 showed the reader that the religious leadership was seeking Jesus’ death, but they feared the crowd. This fear of the crowd would be repeated in 22:6, as it had already been mentioned in 19:47-48 and 20:6. Key to the calculation of the chief priest and scribes was how to deal with Jesus’ popularity with the crowds. So when Judas discussed with them how to betray Jesus they were delighted, and so they agreed to give Judas money. Luke repeatedly mentioned that Judas “betrayed” Jesus (22:4, 6, 21, 22, and 48). The story is rife with irony. Salvation from sin was accomplished via being delivered up by the leaders who led the celebration of the Passover, the first salvation event. The irony goes even deeper; it was to be accomplished with the betrayal of one of Jesus’ own disciples. The rejection by the leadership of God’s people and the betrayal by one’s own staff would seem to be the ultimate triumph of evil. It seemed that Satan had won, and, in fact, Luke said he entered into Judas (22:3). Perhaps, the most significant teaching will be done that involves the lives of the teachers in humiliating situations that appear to be triumphs of injustice or evil. To speak of God’s sovereignty and ability to save, as the Joseph story in Genesis 37-50 did, entailed the involvement of God’s servants. It was at times a painful involvement. Joseph did not learn or teach by passing on propositional statements alone, but experienced significant injustice that made his statement in Genesis 50:20 all the more impacting.

The pain of betrayal in the Joseph story would be repeated in Luke’s story. Joseph was betrayal by his own brothers and Jesus was betrayed by His own spiritual brother. Judas was titled the “Iscariot”, a reference to his fierce patriotic stance, but also termed one of “the twelve”. Judas was someone who had seen and observed the personality and teaching of Jesus up close (22:3). He saw Jesus’ courage, the tenderness, the wisdom, the lack of an egotistic nature, the incredible compassion, and he saw the miracles. It was all the more distressing that he sold out the “Son of Man” for money, and it was a small amount.

Good teaching will be betrayed. Good pastors, good teachers will be sold out. The betrayal, when it happens, can give great pain to the teacher or preacher or Christian leader and can cause great doubt to arise. Are the teachings of Christianity and the power of God’s Spirit so powerless that it cannot stop betrayal? Is the teacher that ineffective a communicator that such betrayal is not stopped by adequate instruction? Are the truths taught and the amazing character of the messenger not inspiring enough?

Luke presented an important part of the communicative event that must always be kept in mind. He showed us that the problem can be, at times, not the message or the messenger but the person hearing the message. Jesus, early in Luke, spoke of the nature of ministry and said it was not just the message, or the messenger but the audience as well that had to be healthy. It was not only the sower of the seed and the seed itself but the soil (8:4-8) that had to be good. We do not know anything of Judas as “soil”. We do not know if he refused to be “ploughed”. There is the fact of the freedom of the listener. The Gospel is not a mind-controlling message. The Scriptures reported that in the beginning of human existence there were two trees in the Garden of Eden. The first humans were given to trees in their existence that had names. They not only had the “Tree of Life” in the Garden but also given the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. The first tree gave life and the second tree gave them freewill or choice. They were given the choice, to choose what was good and what was evil. They could defer to God’s understanding or contradict it. Judas, no doubt, thought it was good to take the money and betray the Son of Man. Judas had the dignity of choice at the beginning of time. It has always been that way and always will.

It is instructive pedagogically in another manner that Luke opened the Passion Week with betrayal. Jesus’ teaching method was not that of a “benign” or disengaged teacher. Jesus was not a “talking head”. Jesus was His message. In addition, He was a person speaking to persons: He loved His audience. Rejection of the message is possible in dealing with a “talking head” teacher but betrayal is possible with those who extend themselves to others and give of themselves. If the message is part of the teacher and the teacher or preacher deeply loves his students or parishioners then betrayal, not just rejection takes place.

Betrayal is personal and is a rejection of both the message and the messenger. Many preachers or teachers choose to be distant, to protect themselves, but Jesus modeled something else as a communicator. His model entailed more risk and therefore entailed the possibility of more pain. What is amazing about the model of teaching that will emerge as we proceed through the rest of Luke is that Jesus did not harden, did not go into the “fetal position” emotionally, but stayed the course, stayed personal, stayed engaged and stayed in love with His audience, and most importantly, with His disciples. It is a choice every good and effective teacher must make. “Not a hair of His head” (19:16-19) was emotionally or psychologically harmed through out the horror of the Passion Week. It is God’s decision to involve His teachers in sorrow and pain, but it is the teacher’s decision as to how to handle it. It is not just the student that is free.

b. Getting the Upper Room: Privacy in Teaching. 22:7-13

In Luke 22:7, mention was again made that this was the Passover celebration and that the feast of Unleavened Bread approached. Jesus carefully sent out only two of the disciples (Peter and John) to prepare for the celebration and an elaborate procedure ensued. They were sent out with no specific instruction on where to prepare the feast and so they were forced to ask Jesus for further information (22:9): “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” He then gave them directions, in front of the other ten disciples, of a most vague nature: “go into the city and you will meet a man carrying a pitcher of water, follow him”. This was very similar to the instructions in 19:30-31 (in obtaining a mount for the triumphal entry to Jerusalem).

This procedure could be seen in two ways. First, Jesus was giving them additional logical reasons to believe in and trust His words about the future. God was sovereign, and they merely needed to obey. As He had done before with them with the provisions for the evangelistic efforts of chapters 9 and10, and with the finding of a mount for His entry into Jerusalem, they therefore would gain another interim fulfillment of Jesus’ words. Luke says: “and (they) found everything just as He had told them” (19:32 and 22:13). The disciples’ job was to obey (22:10c), and God would provide (22:10-12). They were to risk and then provision was to be made. They could not know the way until they acted. It was a simple act, to enter the city. Learning often does not take place until the student first begins and then things get clearer. Parishioners make little spiritual progress until they leave the church and begin to act on the truths presented in the sermon. The parishioner needs to start before they can begin to experience the truth.

The second manner to observe about this odd procedure was that Jesus was guaranteeing the privacy of the Lord’s Supper. Only the two and not the other ten (which would have included Judas) knew the location of where the feast would be held. So Jesus guaranteed that He would have privacy and intimacy with the twelve. Judas could not bring the authorities to the room where they met because he did not know where it was until he got there. Jesus had worked deliberately to have the necessary private time that such a teaching event would need. They were to be taught “at table” in an intimate fashion. Despite the treachery of Judas, Jesus was still thinking of staying close to His staff. They prepared the Passover. They prepared to celebrate the “paradigm” of salvation in the Old Testament, as it would be the model for salvation in the New.

c. The Lord’s Supper and Prediction of Betrayal. 22:14-23.

Luke recorded that they ate a meal together. The partaking of food together was an ancient symbol for intimacy, and so Luke wanted his readers to see Jesus’ attitude towards His disciples: “Jesus and His apostles reclined at table”. This section centers on this intimate meal and has four speeches: 14-16, 17-18, 19, and 20-22. It opened with Jesus telling them that He had looked forward to celebrating this Passover with them. He wanted to be with them and wanted to celebrate the “memory of God saving Israel from Egypt”. It was the celebration of “God’s saving activity”, and He was eager to partake of it with them. His students were not a nuisance; He wanted to be with them. However, His announcement carried with it an ominous nature to it. He said He would not celebrate it again with them until the ceremony would find its fulfillment in the Kingdom of God. Something had to be fulfilled, and He told them the fulfillment would be preceded by suffering (see the end of 22:15).

In the second speech, He began the passing of the cup, a normal part of the Passover, and commanded them to share it among them selves. However, again He told them He would not partake of wine again until the Kingdom of God came. He offered no explanation as of yet and so built suspense. Whether they caught the aspect of suspense at that time is not clear, but it is clear they remembered Him speaking of something to come. Something was going to come, and it had to take place before they could fellowship again. It had to do with the Kingdom of God: i.e. with God’s will being done, with God’s Kingdom coming or His reign beginning (22:17-18).

The third speech was also focused around a command. It had to do with bread. He gave thanks, broke it and distributed it before issuing the command. He told them they were to understand that bread was in some manner associated with His body and His body was being offered in their behalf. They were to take it as remembrance (similar to the remembrance associated with the Passover meal). It would be a remembrance that had something to do with His body being given (22:19). He was being vulnerable with them. He deeply desired to share with them before His ordeal. He wanted them to know He would suffer: be poured out and broken.

He had been tempted before His public ministry began to “make bread” for Himself. He had refused to miss use the gifts of God. He would not only make bread in great abundance in chapter 9 for others, but He would always focus on the “better bread”, the true need of the people He dealt with. He would not get side-tracked in proving Himself, but kept His focus on the higher agenda for the benefit of His audience. Now He was to become the bread. Similar to His decision in the desert, the bread was not for Himself but broken for others. His entire life of teaching was other centered and costly. It cost Him the cheap thrill of proving Himself with break and thus required the disciplining of his ego. Here the cost was His very life in a painful death. In both cases, it was for others.

He was the master teacher and our best teaching will be like His. There must be cost involved. We must be broken and given to our students or members of our congregation. The disciples were to remember the example of their Master Teacher, as they too were to be broken and given for those they instructed. Being a teacher like Jesus was not having a career but fulfilling a commission. They were to remember this. Before their lives were over they did. In their own way and individually unique manner, they were broken and given.

The final speech returned to the cup, but the mention of the cup was followed with some additional information. Again, the cup was tied to Him and said to be associated with His blood. It was a new covenant and like the old covenant it was tied to blood (Exodus 24:6, 8). It was His blood though, not the blood of animals, and like theirs, it was to be poured out. Blood was the symbol of life, and His life was to be poured out. This first declaration in this final speech continued the filling out of what was involved or of what type of suffering was spoken of in 22:15. It would entail the breaking of His body (22:19) and the pouring out of His blood (22:20).

The second and third declarations of this final speech bring up a new bit of information: He was going to be betrayed and the betrayer was present. He told them His betrayer was partaking with them these important symbols. He was in their intimate circle. However, the devious act of the betrayal was not the controlling factor. The focus was not to be on the success of the betrayer, because his action was part of Jesus’ destiny and the betrayer was a tool of the sovereignty of God and was to be pitied. A pronouncement of woe was spoken over Him. Jesus has used this language before in 11:42, 43, 44, 47, 52 as well as here in 22:22. In earlier parts of Luke, the recipients of those pronouncements of woe were the false leaders who did not care about those they led, and it appeared that Judas had now joined the ranks of those who were hypocrites and harmful to others.

In verse 22:23, the response of the entire group of apostles was rather typical of their portrayal in Luke. They missed the main point. There are two verses that predicted His betrayal but six verses that spoke of His coming passion. In 22:23, the disciples focused on themselves, not on Him. They wondered who He meant when He spoke of a betrayer. They were not concerned with His pain, His blood being poured out or His body being broken, or on the coming of God’ rule or reign. They focused on their issues. He had invited them to see or understand His Passion, in an intimate teaching setting, whose privacy He had guaranteed. He wanted them to perceive His role as the center of the coming new covenant. However, for the present they perceived nothing, their focus was on themselves and this self focus continued on into the next section.

d. Teaching on Greatness. 22:24-30.

Many times as teachers we get disappointed with our students not getting the point, and we wonder if we were talking to the walls or our students have “blocks for brains”. Jesus experienced all we have experienced. His disciples did not care about Him or what He was telling them but were wondering if “they were the one” who would slip up. Then to clarify for the reader the lack of depth the disciples had at that time, Luke recorded that a dispute arose among them about who would be the greatest. Jesus must have been discouraged. He then modeled for us how to approach such situations. His response was not one of anger at their lack of regard for their teacher in His attempted vulnerability nor was it a “passive aggressive” one, trying to illicit pity. It was an aggressive, creative, personal and gracious approach.

His speech opened with a contrast. He referred to the nature of “greatest” as understood among the Gentiles (the non-elect who do not have the instructions of God given in the Torah, or in present terms, the non-believers). In other words, He said, “Here is how the world sees it!” The leaders there “lord it over” others and then call themselves “Givers” or “Benefactors”. He used sarcasm with His choice of terms. He then told them: “But you are not to be like that.” He appealed to their pride of being “sons of the Torah”. Moses was not like the hypocritical leaders described above, he, at great cost to himself, served his people. Jesus’ reference to those leaders outside the covenant was also subtlety shaming them: their present attitude was beneath them. With all of this, He was telling them what not to do (22: 25-26 a).

His second approach was to give them positive instruction. He told them what to do (22:26 b-27). They were great when they were like the youngest and one who truly ruled was to be like the one who served. He then plied them with a rhetorical question asking them to think about which ones were commonly regarded as the greatest. He then asked them to openly admit that the greatest was understood to be the one who was served. This, however, He countered by reminding them of His own greatness, and that He was one who, though great, served. The key to true greatness was to see the world upside down. He called them to a radical point of view that could only be accessed by an act of faith. They had to risk on things being significantly different than what they commonly understood was the case. In addition, He was the example. He was the contradiction to the world in the flesh: He was great, but He served (22:27).

He was not angry at their insensitiveness to His coming death, but concerned where such selfish behavior was to lead them. It would lead them to denying the uniqueness of being the elect. The key was to serve, not be served. In addition, He was aware of where they were spiritually at that point in their lives.

In a unique manner, He broached the issue of what they were. They were a mixed bag, and He made a choice to highlight a different part of the mixture than what we would have expected Him to focus on. In the midst of their lack of understanding, He praised them for their loyalty. In the midst of betrayal (Judas) and up coming denial (Peter) He said an amazing thing: “You are those who have stood by me in my trials” (22:28). He praised them.

Then seemingly based on their loyalty, He declared that His Father would give them a kingdom, because He had a right to declare such things since His Father had conferred one on Him. They would eat and drink (fellowship) with Him in His kingdom and exercise authority (sit on thrones) over the elect of God (the twelve tribes of Israel). Instead of criticizing them (which, on one hand, they deserved) He praised them and gave them hope, by means of His promise of their obtaining a kingdom. He chose to emphasize the positive part of their mixed spiritual state (22:29-30). True they were selfish, self-centered, set on obtaining power which was the opposite of what He was, but it was also true that they had by and large been loyal and that counted for something. Perhaps, it was their loyalty that gave Him the hope that the rest of them would come in line with His servant nature. They were loyal to Him, and perhaps His hope was that loyalty to His Person would lead to their being conformed to His attributes. Loving vulnerability has its cost, but it has its power as well.

e. Rough Times Predicted. 22:31-38.

He knew His Father would reward him for His choice of serving those He led, in contrast with the world. He therefore based their reward on His own. Their reigning was based on His reigning. However, He was hopeful, not naïve. His hopefulness was not based on a denial of their faults and weaknesses. To prove this He moved next to predict Simon Peter’s denial. He knew that His students were under attack as our students will be. Goodness is not formed in peace, but usually forged in combat and trial. Satan desired to destroy Peter, and Jesus was aware of that. He told Peter: “Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.” His title for Peter indicated His knowledge of where Peter was at that moment. He called him “Simon”, meaning reed, instead of “Peter” which meant rock (22:31).

Jesus’ response was not to be depressed or angry but to pray. He prayed as He had taught them to do and did not give up in 18:1. He told Peter He had prayed for him that his faith would not fail. He then prophesied a word of promise: “when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers”. His wrong doings would be turned from, and then he would be one who strengthened others. It was a double prophecy: one of failure and one of subsequent strength for others (22:32).

Peter did not want to hear the negative and did not want to hear that he would fail and so challenged Jesus’ prediction: Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death” (22:33). It is always easy to be bold on our own turf: to be brave and confident while at a camp or a conference as Peter was at the Lord’s Communion Table with Jesus and with his fellow disciples. He no doubt meant all that he said. His subsequent actions would prove his good will (22:49-50).

Jesus’ response was direct and seemingly harsh but not without some measure of grace. He told Peter he would deny three times within hours, but Jesus called him “Peter” and not “Simon” (22:34). Jesus knew how to hit hard but to do so without destroying them. He gave the double prophesy, and Peter ignored one aspect of the two, and so Jesus came back more directly about the negative side. Jesus predicted precisely the timing of his failure. However, Jesus called him “Peter” this time instead of “Simon” in the earlier pronouncement. God knows our weaknesses and good teachers should know the weaknesses of their students and though hard words need to be spoken they should hold out hope when it is possible.

Jesus made one more attempt to rally all of them for the upcoming turmoil by use of a metaphor. He knew what was ahead and so tried to prepare them for the upcoming storm. They would later remember that He did this and had tried to prepare them, but they totally misunderstood what He was trying to tell them at the time. At times, that is the way with trying to warn students of coming tough times that lie ahead when they do not see it or do not want to see it coming. Jesus’ attempt was through a common way He had often taught them: through metaphor. He tried to show them that times were changing and so tried to reach into their past and use a former metaphor as a contrast to what was to come. He wanted them to see the contrast, but at the same time to see that the same Person who was in the past was going to be in their future. It was only that “how” He was going to be with them was going to be different. They did not get it.

His attempt was to recall their earlier missions when they were on their own (chapters 9 and 10). He asked them if when they were in the vulnerable situation of traveling without provisions if they lacked anything. They responded that they had lacked nothing. Their past experience was supposed to serve as an “interim fulfillment” of what was coming. He now told them to reverse their former behavior and take provisions and even protection (i.e. a sword) because they were going to need it. He let them know that the trouble was centered on their association with Him, and it was predicted in the Scriptures that He Himself was to be classified as a criminal (Isaiah 53:12). What was changing was that He had always protected them. They had been covered. He had deflected all the harassment and attacks, and they were always spared. This is proper as teachers should always protect their students or parishioners, but there comes a time when those taught must stand on their own and face the fire themselves. He was trying to predict this by the contrasting of the past adventure without Him with the upcoming adventure when He would be gone (22:35-37).

They did not hear Him, but took the metaphor literally and grabbed onto the one thing they could see to do. They responded with: “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He was not speaking about swords per-se, but the need to see that times were changing from easy provision to rough times. Again, He did not get angry, but no doubt, with a sigh, said: “That is enough”. Of course, two swords were not enough against the temple guards and a Roman cohort of trained fighting men. But when your staff just does not understand, you have to settle with knowing you told them the situation before hand, but they did not see it. (See the same reaction to their lack of understanding in 17:37.) He has at least let them know that He knew what was going to happen. He knew He had to be the suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53). They had not understood what He was trying do anymore than they understood what He tried to teach them in 22:23 and 24. They did not understand that either.

Good teachers, good parents and good pastors know that there is often a delay in the understanding of why warnings are given. The key is to not give up but to realize for your own well-being: “By your perseverance you will win your souls”. The disciples would one day attempt to teach others about how to persevere, and one day they would know the frustration He faced with them: “My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (I John 2:1). John remembered when he, with the disciples, ran away from Him but still were considered His disciples. Peter remembered, and so He reminded his flock: “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” (I Peter 2:21). Peter knew his flock would face tough times and so he predicted for them the coming difficulties as His Master had predicted for him. Finally, Peter later understood his proper position in relationship to his flock or spiritual children. “Therefore, I shall always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. And I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent…” (II Peter 1:12-14). The disciples were eventually to become like Him, teaching others what He taught them: Urging them, with great passion to strive, to remember, to obey and to know the truth. The disciples were later to learn that their own disciples had to stand without their teacher present. The teacher always leaves the student, Elisha always looses their Elijah. The student, the parishioner, the child must eventually walk on their own. Earthly, parents train their children with the understanding that they will have to succeed as adults on their own. The same is true of spiritual parents.

2. In the Garden: Prayer, Arrest, and Denial. 22:39-62.

a. Prayer in the Garden. 22:39-46.

Jesus had made His location hard to find during the time at the upper room, but then proceeded to the Mount of Olives, as “was usual”. His disciples followed and when He arrived His first words were one’s of warning: “Pray you do not enter into temptation.” Trauma will come into the lives of teachers or preachers, but what is modeled here is an amazing ability to think of others in the midst of trial. They had misunderstood His earlier warning couched in the metaphor of the swords (22:38), but instead of being bitter or angry He became even clearer: “Watch out for yourselves.” He knew the secret to handling upcoming difficulty was found in the act of prayer, so He told them to pray because He knew what was coming.

Then, as a good teacher, He demonstrated His message and went into a time of prayer Himself. He went to pray alone, knelt down and began to pray. Typical of much of Luke, Jesus’ prayer time in the Garden would be a demonstration of what He taught. How He had taught His disciples to pray would be acted out in what He did in the Garden. We pray in religious ceremonies in our private devotions but His time of prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane was in the throes of stress and impending suffering.

His prayer was instructive for His followers. It had three parts: a title of address, a request and a verbal statement of submission. He began with calling God His father. It was known to Him that it was the will of His father that He suffered, but God was still His father. When God sends us into difficult times it is good to remember that He is still our father: “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead?” God is our father and better than any father one earth, and if we do not like the circumstances He gives us in life, we still need to affirm the Fatherhood of God (“When you pray, say, `Father'”: 11:2). It is one thing to teach such thoughts and another to act upon them ourselves. Again, Jesus was His message.

In the remainder of His prayer He declared His submission to the will of His Father, but was also honest. He made a very healthy request in that He asked for the “cup of suffering” to be removed. We are not to seek suffering; God is the God of health. We are to ask for suffering’s removal, not seek it. However, if it is the will of God then we must accept it: “yet not my will, but Yours be done”. Suffering is good if it is for the sake of love. Suffering in itself is not virtue, but to accept it because of our love of our Father and for the benefit of others, it is a virtuous thing. Jesus was again demonstrating this truth for His disciples with His prayer: “Your kingdom come” (11:2).

His acceptance of God’s will for Him to die on the cross had enormous significance. He was reversing the Fall of the human race. The first battle in the Garden had been lost by Adam. The first humans had chosen to take from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and so they would know (or think they knew) what was good and what was evil, instead of allowing God to define what was good and what was evil. Jesus reversed what the first Adam chose and instead chose to let God define what was good for Him. He was in line with what He encouraged us to seek: the reign of God or the Kingdom of God.

God was pleased and “gave Him His daily bread”. Bread sustains and we are to ask for sustenance on a daily basis (11:3). In 22:43, Luke reported that an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him, and with that strength He went on with even more fervency in His prayers. “And lead us not into temptation” (11:4). We do not know the manner and depth of Jesus’ temptation, (see some inkling of His battles in Luke 4:1-13), but Luke lets us know that the exertion was enormous: “His sweat was like drops of blood, falling to the ground”. Like many have experienced, God did not remove the difficulty but sustained Him in the midst of it.

The teachings in the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11, much like its counter part in Matthew, has a series of four requests: May God’s reign come, May we be given daily sustenance, May we have forgiveness as we forgive and may we have help from temptation. Jesus had prayed in the proper manner in three of the four requests and now He would demonstrate and model the fourth. He had prayed for help in the midst of temptation. He arose from prayer, came to His disciples and found them sleeping. They had misunderstood the metaphor about swords so as to know the impending danger and change of the times, and now they had not prayed as He commanded but had fallen asleep. Had they seen His pain and slept due to exhaustion anyway? We do not know. However, we do know His response, and it was interesting. He asked one of His famous rhetorical questions: “Why are you sleeping?”, but then He commanded them to get up and pray that they would not fall into temptation. He modeled for us the third part of His prayer: He forgave (“Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us”: 11:4).

b. The Arrest. 22:47-54.

The disciples remembered His attitude towards them just before Judas and the crowd arrived. His attitude towards them was not deserved, nor earned but granted. Good teachers forgive. Good teachers model the things they teach. As He forgave His eleven disciples, the twelfth appeared with a multitude. Luke again reminded us that Judas was one of the chosen apostles, one of the twelve. He was leading them, and Judas approached Jesus to kiss Him. Judas, then in his turn, heard a rhetorical question: “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

The disciples seemed to have awakened and perceived what was taking place and they asked: “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” Without waiting for an answer, Luke reported that one of them struck the servant of the high priest cutting off his right ear. They truly misunderstood the metaphor of being ready that was imbedded in the words about taking a purse and getting a sword. Jesus’ then told them to put away the swords, and He undid the damage they had inflicted: He touched the man’s ear and healed him.

This accomplished two things. First, He stopped them from all being slaughtered by the Temple guards and the Roman cohort that was present. Jesus did not allow their misguided act of devotion to be their demise. He needed them to be whole, to preach, to minister, to fulfill what He had called and purposed them to be. Second, Jesus killed Peter’s concrete expression of love.

Like Jesus, we should not “use” students. As Jesus stopped Peter’s expression of his loyalty so should we. We are to die for them, not they for us. The parent dies for the child, not the child for the parent. The teacher, priest or pastor dies for his students or flock, not the other way around. The disciples misunderstood the metaphor, and He covered their misunderstanding with the healing of the ear. He did not penalize them for their ignorance but covered it: “love covers a multitude of sins” (Proverbs 17:9).

Such love though contains emotional cost. We often want to see some tangible expression of someone’s loyalty to us. Jesus passed up such an opportunity. It might have felt good to see it play out as the disciples desperately did their best to defend Him. However, He paid for such “covering of their actions” in another way. He had blocked Peter’s chosen manner of expressing his love. Peter’s offer was refused. His avenue of expression was blocked and not accepted. Such actions tend to dampen love. Jesus took that risk. He left Peter a traumatized, rejected loyalist. It set him up for his poor state of mind.

Had Jesus accepted Peter’s efforts to display his love, Peter might have gone down in history as a loyal and loving follower of Jesus Christ. Instead, Jesus was left with a man who was now in chaos and without an outlet for his loyalty. It seemed to be a prelude to the disaster that would follow and Peter would fail in the next situation. But the failing had already begun. The coming temptation to deny Jesus was a situation that Peter had failed to prepare for: “Pray, so that you will not fall into temptation”. Jesus knew what His action of stopping Peter’s sword play would cost. He had predicted Peter’s denial. However, it was better to suffer a bit more Himself now than to let Peter get killed. He needed Peter’s future ministry more than He needed a temporary show of affection.

Jesus was not a victim: He was in control. He was calm, collected and still in possession of His amazing and penetrating wit. He challenged those sent to arrest Him as well to think: they too were asked a rhetorical question. He challenged their whole approach. He rhetorically asked them if He was a criminal. Was He a threat that necessitated their swords and clubs? He reminded them that He was daily at their disposal in a public setting teaching in the Temple. However, Jesus had predicted that they would see him as a criminal in 22:37 by quoting Isaiah 53:12. When it happened Jesus was bold, and He brought up the fact that they had multiple opportunities to arrest Him in public. However, they did not want to arrest Him publicly and His final comment was appropriate: “But this is your hour-when darkness reigns” (22:53). They lived in the darkness and feared the crowd. Their fear made them act in a cowardly manner, and it was not surprising when they acted like they did.

They led Him away to the house of the High Priest. They led Him away to the leaders of God’s people so the leaders of God’s people could kill God. Humans have not changed, the first murder in the Bible was conceived at a religious event as Cain and Abel sacrificed. However, Luke added one final word: Peter followed at a distance (22:54). The one who had sworn loyalty even until death when at the upper room (22:33) was now following at a distance. He was loyal but at a distance now. No doubt the distance was due to Peter being frustrated to see the most important person in his life taken away and who, moments before, had denied Peter the opportunity to make good his promises of 22:33 in 22:51.

c. The Denial. 22:55-62.

Peter followed at a distance (no doubt a symbol of following Jesus, but also metaphorically representing a distance between himself and God) and then Peter sat down with the soldiers when they kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard. They sat down together. Peter sits down with those who arrested his Master. It was a subtle compromise, and it began to become less and less subtle. It was a servant girl who pushed Peter further into compromise. She looked closely at Peter and said: “This man was with him.” It was then that Peter began his series of denials and his words of denial were repeated three times: “I do not know Him”, “I am not one of them”, and “I do not know what you are talking about.”

It was as the final denial was vocalized that two things happened: the cock crowed and Jesus (no doubt being taken from one judicial venue to another) looked straight at Peter. The crowing and the look produced two things: memory and bitter weeping (22:62).

To be a teacher or a minister or even a parent exposes one to the experience of denial. Often it is, on the surface, a horrible thing. It only happens to those who truly love their students (parishioners or children) but any one who stays long enough in an intense relationship will experience it. The adage is true: “Love is for the strong”. It takes strength to love and partly because it opens one to pain.

It also is a risky thing to be loved by someone else because as fallible human beings the love if often given back in fallible fashion. Peter had meant well and had no doubt wanted to pray and avoid the temptation as he had meant to die or go to prison for Christ. His words no doubt were sincere and then the reality of who he was and what he did was crushing. Jesus had looked at him and then the process of remembering His words had begun. It started with the prophesy of his failure, not the prophesy of hope (22:31-32). Peter had at first refused to acknowledge the “prophesy of failure” but he was now forced to do so by the facts of reality. Now another part of Jesus’ teaching was brought to his consciousness. “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” The impact of the Word of God, and therefore the reign of God had gone to work on Peter, and it started with repentance. It would lead to God reigning in a powerful manner. The power of Jesus’ teaching on the life of Peter was not merely in an academic acknowledgement of intellectual teaching, but it was brought to powerful fruition by experience.

The Peter story contains another aspect of pedagogy. Failure is part of learning. As Christians it would profit us to allow this truth to surface. Luke clearly showed us that the first apostle, the leader of the disciples had failed miserably. Luke was open about the failure and carefully described the decent into denial that Peter traveled. Perhaps, our students or parish flock would be served by a careful pondering of Peter’s psychological journey. Luke showed us these insights through a story. Perhaps, as students learn about our entire story, not just the good parts, we would be more like Luke.

B. The Trial. 22:63-23:25.

1. Mockery while in Custody. 22:63-65.

Luke recorded a disturbing bit of information before the actual trial scenes began: Jesus was mocked. Those guarding Him began to mock Him and to beat Him. Then they blindfolded Him and struck Him asking Him to prophesy and identify His striker. They mocked in other ways as well, Luke tells us, but Luke quoted only their words on this one taunt: prove your ability to prophesy. It is ironic. A prophet is one who speaks forth the will of God, or one who speaks forth truth. In their very midst was the ultimate prophet or truth speaker of the world. He was the truth “in-fleshed”, incarnate. They mocked God and Luke rightly called it: “blasphemy” (22:65). But this was their hour, when darkness, when lack of insight, where blindness reigned (22:53). They did not know what they were doing. Later, the writer of Hebrews would comment on what they missed: “In the past God spoke to our fore-fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, and through Whom He made the universe” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

It can be exasperating to be treated this way, but those who would like to walk in His model of leadership and in His model of teaching should expect something similar. Part of our experience will include mistreatment, He prophesied of His disciples’ future, but He also promised the Spirit would give them utterance and if they would remain firm they would gain their soul (21:15-19). He was going to experience in full measure before they had to, what He predicted they would need to bear. In order to teach and preach true biblical perspectives requires courage. It is necessary, and students or parishioners should be challenged to have it, but then courage must be modeled by the teacher or preacher.

2. The Trial before the Sanhedrin. 22:66-71.

Luke will give us Jesus’ trial in four phases: before the Council of the Elders, before Pilate, before Herod and then finally, once more, back before Pilate. Jesus predicted His followers would be drug before religious and secular authorities and so was He (12:11 and 21:12). He also prophesied they would be given the words to say (12:12 and 21: 15), and so they were not to be anxious (12:12). It would be the Spirit that would give them utterance. Jesus had spent time in the Garden of Gethsemane and had won the battle before it all began: similar to the victory won in the wilderness before the temptations and pressures of the teaching ministry began. Pressures come with leadership and Jesus modeled for us not only how to handle ourselves in formal teaching situations and public forums but also how to handle pressure from criticism. One key method was to fight it out in prayer before it begins. It is good to decide what we want to be before we are pressured to make the decision. Perhaps, part of our conceptualization of proper education must imbibe of seeing the necessity of parishioners and students struggling with things before they enter their most active periods of their lives.

The portrayal of Jesus before threats of punishment and torture and in the midst of brutal treatment coupled with injustice was amazing. He was calm, clear thinking (even witty), other centered, confident and free of fear. It was the work of the Spirit of God.

When day broke Jesus was brought before the Council of Elders and those who had often argued with Him were there: scribes and chief priests. They had successfully separated Him from the crowds as they had had Him arrested at night. He was in their council chamber, not in a public forum. The investigation was one of a religious nature: they wanted to know if He was the Christ. They did not want to review His criticism of their poor behavior as leaders. They knew that was a losing battle, so they went after an area they hoped to win in. Indeed, He had carefully hinted that He was the Christ, but never in a way that could have been used as an excuse to let them focus on His identity claims and avoid their own clear identity as sinful leaders. Their own identity they choose to ignore, they wanted an answer to His identity.
His answer took two forms. They ignored the first. First, He told them they were not opened minded. He said this was manifested in the fact that they would not believe Him if He answered their question and by the fact that He would not be answered by them if He posed questions. It was a bold answer by a man free of fear and by a man who thought justice and a search for truth should be foundational to a Council of Elders. His second answer was to paraphrase from a text He had used publicly and openly in His Temple teaching (20:41-44): “The Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Psalm 110:1).

They now openly challenged His Psalm 110 reading and asked Him if He was the Son of God. He replied: “so you yourselves have said”. They were not willing to do this in the Temple, but now they showed they had thought out the implications of what He said in the Temple. They were intelligent men and had caught the proper implications of His Psalm reading. They had what they thought they needed: clear blasphemy. They thought there was no need for further testimony because He had incriminated Himself with His own words (22:71).

3. The First Trial before Pilate. 23:1-7.

The second phase of the trial of the Teacher began when the Council of Elders brought Jesus before Pilate (23:1). He was condemned in the first phase before the Sanhedrin of the charge of “blasphemy” but the charges changed when He was brought before a secular authority. The new charges brought were those of treason against the Roman government. He was accused of refusing to pay taxes and calling Himself a King (or an Anointed One, i.e. a Christ or Messiah). Not paying taxes and calling oneself a king were clear threats to Roman rule. The irony was that you had Israelites turning a man into the hated foreign Roman government for seeking to be a true Israelite. I am sure Pilate was amused. Pilate no doubt knew about the prophesied Messiah, and that it was a term often associated with kings and therefore such a person could be guilty of sedition. To say He was misleading the people adds to the irony.

Sad irony ruled their actions. Jesus never claimed to be a King. He usually called Himself the “Son of Man”, that enigmatic term that could mean merely “human” or a divine being. In regard to their other charges, they were the ones misleading the people with their handling of the center of Israelite faith (the Temple). Jesus had correctly cleansed their “misleading the people” actions of exorbitant price gouging as the people attempted to sacrifice and show honor to God (19:45-48). He had publicly refused to get caught in the trap of “paying taxes” with His brilliant “whose image” is on the coin controversy (20:19-26). How He carefully answered, did not counsel revolt, nor accept Roman rule, was an answer they themselves found remarkably impressive (20:26). It was the same people who heard that answer (20:19) and praised it that then lied to Pilate (22:66 and 23:1).

Jesus as a teacher was slandered because His truth had threatened those in power. However, it was His accusers’ sin that activated their actions, and yet they condemned Him in their court under the guise of religion and under the rouse that they were protecting the purity of the faith. Then these defenders of the faith boldly lied to Pilate in matters they clearly knew to be false. Good teachers and good pastors/priests will be lied about and the lies could even come from the believing community (and at times the leadership of the believing community). Jesus had predicted this would happen in the future to His followers (21:12), and it happened first to Him. It is sometimes harder to bear persecution from the believing community than it is from the outside world. Jesus predicted both for His followers and received both in His own trial.

Jesus had predicted that the attack would imbibe of attacks on our reputations without evidence. He knew it would be hard to bear. He had told His followers to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. He had told them that things would be said in the dark (in a hidden manner because of their falsehood). It would be leavened, i.e. contaminated and not seen, as leaven is not seen (12:1, 2). All that He predicted would happen to His followers, He first bore. It is hard for a teacher to teach people to be strong when the teacher has not demonstrated the art himself. Good teaching in all aspects, even the teachings about the handling of suffering must come from those who have lived the truth and suffered themselves.

Luke’s account appears to show Pilate as easily seeing through the accusations against Jesus, but in good legal fashion he sought to gain evidence and so questioned the prisoner (23:3). He point blank asked Jesus if He considered Himself as the King of the Jews. Jesus’ answer mirrored the answer given to the Sanhedrin: “You say so”. In that first instance they took it as an admission of guilt but here the same answer was taken in the opposite manner. Pilate told the leaders and the multitude gathered that he could find no guilt in the man.

The religious leaders realized they had failed so they began to ramble in their frustration. They repeated the vague phrase: “He stirs up the people”. Such a wide spread phrase no doubt convinced Pilate that this was no concern of Rome’s. Therefore when Pilate heard about Jesus’ teaching beginning in Galilee he seized on the opportunity to rid himself of the case by attempting a change of jurisdiction. He was not technically in charge of the more northern province of Galilee; that fell under the auspices of Herod and so Pilate sent Jesus to Herod as Herod was presently in town for the Passover (23:6-7).

4. The Trial before Herod: 23:8-12.

The third phase of the trial moved to Herod (23:8-12). Herod was excited to have this interview as Herod had tried unsuccessfully before to see Jesus (9:9 and 13:32), but Herod’s motives were to see one of the fabled “signs” that Herod had heard so much about. Jesus disappointed him: He was completely silent despite numerous questions from Herod (23:9). Was Jesus’ silence, in part, loyalty to John whom Herod had killed (20:8 and 7:28)? Jesus demonstrated that we did not need to be at the beck and call of the power structure. Herod did not seek truth, but a miracle or performance. When people have already said no to God and do not seek truth they will be disappointed when they seek “confirmation” of truth.

Jesus was quiet in the face of “vehement” accusations by the chief priests and scribes as it was becoming clear that their case was falling apart. Jesus was acting in complete contrast to their demeanor. He was calm, silent, knowing that you do not answer a fool (Proverbs 23:9 and 9:7, 15:12). Jesus modeled for us how to not be agitated when such mockery of justice takes place. He was silent and at peace, He had been in the Garden of Gethsemane. Prayer was to prove to be an essential part of good teaching when the teacher was under scrutiny.

Herod pronounced no verdict, but only allowed a partial implementation of an assumed guilt without any evidence. Herod allowed the soldiers to treat Jesus with contempt and then dressed Jesus in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Herod, in effect, dropped the case. Herod’ actions then placed him in the same position as Pilate. Both Pilate and Herod knew there was no case against Jesus and both knew that they were walking on thin ice legally to convict this man.

Those who close their minds are still human and humans need friends. These two men both shared a dilemma of great magnitude and the common problem, Luke said, brought their previous enmity to an end. From that day forward, they became friends (23:12). They shared a common reaction to a difficult political and legal problem.

5. The Second Trial before Pilate: 23:13-23.

Pilate opened the final phase of the trial by summoning the chief priests and rulers and the crowd. He publicly announced that his findings concluded that their accusations of Jesus inciting a rebellion had insufficient grounds (23:14), and then he publicly declared that Herod had come to the same conclusion and that Jesus had done nothing deserving death (23:15). Pilate had planned to punish Jesus no doubt with a severe beating and then release Him. However, Jesus’ accusers were so insistent that Pilate was forced for a fourth time to announce publicly that Jesus was innocent (22:4, 14, 15, and 22). However, even this attempt did not stick and so in complete contradiction to Roman justice and with increased irony Pilate released Barabbas who was indeed guilty of sedition and of the charges brought against Jesus (23:25). Insistence overruled truth and justice.

It seems that Luke wanted his readers to focus on the ironic aspect of Jesus’ condemnation. No doubt, so it was to serve as a model for those who would suffer in the same manner. He predicted that they too would be falsely condemned and falsely accused in blatant disregard for fair play. Jesus had repeatedly predicted this would happen to Himself and to His followers and Luke seems to believe that this should be the expected fate of good teachers. The “pre-word” given to the disciples and then enacted by their master teacher was designed to help them be successful in dealing with their fate. They had to hear it before it happened, and then they had to see it happen to One more righteous and pure than themselves who would demonstrate the patience necessary to fulfill the call.

Luke will continue this theme in his companion work when he described Paul’s ministry: “This man is my chosen instrument to carry My name before the Gentiles and their kings and before people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for My name” (Acts 9:15-16). Paul would later see this as the natural consequence of being a teacher of the vital truth of the Gospel (Romans 8:36; I Corinthians 4:11; II Corinthians 6:4-6, 11:23-27; I Thessalonians 2:9; II Thessalonians 3:8; Philippians 4:12, etc.). Paul saw this suffering as necessary. It was necessary for his pupils, and it was part of the privilege of being a teacher: “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24). Perhaps, those who do not suffer are not teaching the Gospel, but when it happens it naturally disturbs us and so Paul wisely counsels the Thessalonians to not be disturbed as they watched their first Christian teachers go through affliction: “so that no one would be unsettled by these trials. You know quite well that we were destined for them. In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted” (I Thessalonians 3:3-4).

C. The Cross: 23:26-56.

1. The Road to the Cross. 23:26-32.

Jesus’ was led away to be crucified. As He was, He was given help from an innocent bystander: Simeon, a Cyrenian. He had come into the city and was forced to carry Jesus’ cross. The multitudes were following Him and women were mourning and lamenting His fate. Luke recorded no words, if any were spoken, to Simeon, but as Jesus turned towards the women, the longest speech Luke puts in the mouth of Jesus during the Trial and Crucifixion was given. His words were indicative of His mental attitude: it was other-centered. He spoke of their coming sorrow and of their children’s. It was appropriate to speak of their children as what He predicted was a generation away. He predicted the coming Fall of Jerusalem and the horrific manner of death so many would then suffer. He illustrated His point with a quotation from the Old Testament prophets (Hosea 10:8). When He arrived at the place they crucified two others with Him: two criminals.

He was helped by a complete stranger (against the stranger’s choice), got pity from the women in the crowd and was associated with criminals. Good teachers are intermixed with the push and pull of a fallen world. In the company of two criminals, He shared the fate of what sinful men had done to themselves by their criminal behavior.

2. The Crucifixion. 23:33-49.

Several things happen in Luke’s recording of the crucifixion. As He was placed between the two criminals He spoke a word of forgiveness to His persecutors. He was living out His message (6:27-49, 11:4). He forgave His mockers knowing they had no idea of the magnitude of what they were doing. People who do such things seldom do. He showed us one more aspect; He spoke to His Father. His choice of the title of address in His prayer indicated that He still held to His attitude of God as His Father that was in the Garden (22:42). He had not lost a hair of His head in His tenderness towards God (21:18) despite the pain He no doubt was suffering and the horrible miscarriage of justice He had endured during His trial. He had wept for Jerusalem before His passion (19:41-44) and still had that same sorrow for others in 23:28-31. He had not hardened. He was still in love with God as indicated by His choice of calling God His Father, and He still loved humans as His speech of forgiveness towards His torturers and His words to the women demonstrated.

Many good teachers grow weary when the lack of appreciation, the misuse, etc. mount. He endured, and He endured another, very difficult test: humiliation or mocking. Criminals surround Him (23:33). Good teachers and preachers will suffer and often be associated with the lower moral levels of society. To be crucified with criminals was a humiliation, and His clothes being divided by lot emphasized that. Those guilty of treason had their estates confiscated by the State and Jesus had so little they could only take the clothes from His back to gamble for. He was cleared of the guilt of sedition four times by Pilate, but suffered, none-the-less, the penalty of sedition.

Luke said the people stood by, looking, even though it was the crowds to whom He preached and some of who had witnessed His healing power. They did nothing to help, but just looked on. Then the rulers sneered at Him. They remembered His words during His trial at the Council of Elders where Jesus predicted, “the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God”. They threw those words at Him taunting Him to save Himself (23:35). They knew He had saved others from disease, demon possession, sin and death and now they challenged Him to prove Himself to be the Anointed, Chosen One of God. The irony was that they failed to see that He was saving them. True kings “serve” Jesus had taught His disciples, and He was fleshing out His message (22:27) whether anyone present there realized it or not. He endured (21:19) perhaps partly through the “pre-knowledge” that allowed Him to face His pain before hand in the Garden where He had accepted the “cup of suffering”.

Luke went further in describing the aspect of mockery, by adding two more speeches of mockery. The first came from the soldiers who offered Him sour wine and taunted Him to save Himself if He were a king of the Jews (23:36-37). Again, the irony of it all was that in their ignorance they offered the “Maker of All Wine” sour wine. No doubt the plaque hanging above His cross encouraged their abuse for it read that He was the King of the Jews (23:38). The second speech came from one of the criminals who also hurled abuse at Jesus with the same challenge to save Himself and them as well (23:39).

All three speeches of mockery have a similar aspect to them. They called for Jesus to prove Himself. He never responded to their words. He had already dealt with the issue of proving Himself in the wilderness of Judea before He began His ministry. In the desert, the challenge to prove Himself came from the Devil as he had challenged Him to prove Himself twice to be the Son of God (4:3, 9). He did not make bread for Himself though He would do it for others. He would not cast Himself down from the Temple experience miraculous intervention and prove His divinity though many times He used miraculous power to save others from disease and death. He knew He was the Chosen One, the King, and the Savior. He was secure in who He was, but it was a hard fought security. However, His security no doubt appeared as a sign of weakness or vulnerability to those around Him, while later the disciples were to learn it was a sign of strength. It was a strength that allowed others to be blessed.

One thief joined in with the abuse, but the other rebuked his fellow criminal. Perhaps, his pain and his situation had awakened him, and he realized two things: who he was and who Jesus was. He was the opposite of those who ran Jesus’ trial. As he was facing the judgment of God he admitted he was guilty and deserving of his punishment. In essence, he repented and had set loose the choirs of heaven in joy (15:7, 10). He had reversed the Fall of Adam (Genesis 3). He realized another thing, that the man who suffered in their midst was innocent. He recognized Jesus’ innocence and then asked to be remembered when Jesus came into His Kingdom. He gained the kingdom of God in his poverty (6:20) as did the prostitute years earlier (7:50) at the dinner she had interrupted. The two had something in common. They were given the opportunity to serve Jesus and took it.

His host in chapter 7 had mistreated Jesus and the women’s intended or unintended actions were allowed to make up for that mistreatment. Jesus had been mistreated by the legal system and was then mocked, and His vulnerable state allowed the thief to make up for that mistreatment. Jesus’ refusal to answer His detractors gave the thief the opportunity to be Jesus’ defender. He served Jesus as did the prostitute. His service was with words as he was powerless to stop Jesus’ suffering, but both his efforts and the women’s efforts were accepted. Jesus’ vulnerability and seeming weakness or need had allowed these people to serve God in a practical capacity even though they were the condemned of their society by their own mistakes and sins. Perhaps, our students need our vulnerability to give them the opportunity to do the right thing.

Jesus responded with words of assurance that the thief’s salvation would take place and would take place in the immediate future (23:43). In another display of irony, the man called out Jesus’ name. It literally meant “Yahweh saves” and Jesus did as He was named. Jesus was not embittered by the statement of the first criminal so as to close His heart to the speech of the second.

Jesus was still teaching, but now in a much more difficult educational setting. He taught through His pain and helped a man find His way home, back into the covenant of God. Perhaps, we will never be in more powerful teaching settings than when we accept the sufferings He lays on us and find ourselves in a position to help some see the grace of God that attendance in a normal teaching setting could never accomplish. Jesus had taken the classroom to the criminal. He not only suffered for him but with him.

Luke ended his account of the crucifixion with one more word from Jesus. He set the scene by noting that from the sixth until the ninth hour (from noon until 3 p.m.) darkness covered the land. In the Temple the veil between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in two. Although the keepers of the house of God had rejected God, the Person in whose honor the Temple had been built, responded. Something had been accomplished. Luke recorded that Jesus cried out with a loud voice His final words: “Father, into thy hands I commit My Spirit” (23:46). Having said this He died.

Jesus still spoke of God as His Father. He did not become embittered. He endured until the end (21:19). He roughly quoted Psalm 31:15 and seemingly used a phrase that was reminiscent of the Psalms, but was more widely used as a child’s prayer spoken before bedtime. Small children at that time were taught to say at night: “into Thy hands I commit my spirit”. Those who heard those words must have recognized the phrase and saw that He was still His Father’s Son. Endurance had won and something had been won. He had done what He hoped they would do: endure and gain. Luke then recorded a trail of effects.

The first was in one of the soldiers. He began praising God and said this man was surely innocent (23:47). He might have been one of those who mocked Jesus as first and had participated in the casting of the lots or the gambling for Jesus meager belongings. However, now he saw things differently or for the first time. He then spoke of Jesus’ innocence. It was the fifth time someone from the Roman Government verbalized Jesus’ innocence. The crowds were mentioned second, and they began to leave, but beating their breasts in mourning as they returned to the city (23:48). They had passively looked on in 23:35 and now left in mourning. His disciples and the women who had stayed loyal from the early days of the Galilean ministry stood at a distance observing (23:49). No doubt, they did not understand. They did not know about the Temple curtain, they did not understand what had begun. They did not yet recognize what had happened but they soon would. Perhaps, only when the teacher or minister has gone do some of the effects sought for begin.

3. The Burial. 23:50-56.

The next effect of Jesus’ death was in one of the Religious leaders, Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin. Luke showed us that the Council was not unanimous in its decision. Luke said Joseph of Arimathea was a good and righteous man (23:50). He went to Pilate and asked for the body, took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock that had never been used. The man wanted to show respect towards Jesus’ body and made that effort. Perhaps Luke is continuing an ancient Torah tradition of noting that not all members of a class of people are similar. One member of the Sanhedrin was different, as in the book of Exodus; one Egyptian Pharaoh’s daughter was different. She saw the baby Moses and saw him righteously, appropriately, as a baby (Exodus 2:6).

The women, who had stood at a distance, followed to see where the tomb was and thus where the body was laid. They returned and in their own way attempted to show respect towards the body of Jesus by putting spices and perfumes in the grave. However, they were observant Jews, they had been with Jesus from the beginning (23:49, 55) and thus followed Torah. They rested on the Sabbath according the commandment (23:56).

Luke presented Jesus’ immediate effects on good people such as Joseph and on His followers as one of respect. Luke understood Jesus as teaching in concert with Torah not in defiance of it as the resting on the Sabbath showed.

In Joseph’s case he showed Jesus honor by giving His body a decent burial. What is remarkable is that Joseph showed such honor by imitating Jesus’ own actions. Joseph took the body down and therefore defiled himself before a holy day, much like Jesus had defiled Himself when He ministered (7:14, touching the coffin of the son of the widow of Nain, and touching the dead girl in 8:54, and not recoiling from the touch of the woman with an issue of blood in 8:48).

The crowds and His disciples had abandoned Jesus, but His humiliating and painful death seemed to have created respect in those present: the Centurion stationed at the Cross, the mourning crowds, Joseph of Arimathea and the women (23:49 and 24:1).

D. The Resurrection. 24.

1. Teaching Begins at the Tomb. 24:1-12

The same women who stood at a distance, followed to see where the tomb was, and then rested on the Sabbath. Then they attempted to show, in a concrete, tangible fashion, their respect for Jesus. As early as possible, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared. They were surprised to find the stone rolled away and were perplexed by what they encountered (24:1-3). The disciples would later mirror their surprise, as they did not get up that morning expecting to find Jesus had risen from the dead. He had told them He would, but it had never sunk in. As good of a teacher as Jesus was, and as good as the intentions of these women were, they had not really heard what Jesus had taught. He had predicted His passion and His resurrection (18:33). All good teachers (as with all good parents) have experienced the disappointment that the profound truth about life that we so clearly taught does not immediately sink in.

The women then saw two men in astonishing white clothing standing near them. The women were, at first, naturally terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men began the educational process. It began with the angels showing respect for the women. They believed the women could think. Therefore, given that respect they first challenged the women to think with the use of a rhetorical question. Was one who was alive to be found among the dead? They began by engaging the minds of these women.

Then they plainly told the women that Jesus was no longer in the tomb because He had risen. They reminded the women of what Jesus had taught from the beginning about His resurrection. Though Luke did not record Jesus’ prediction of the resurrection as early as the Galilean ministry (other Gospels do) it was assumed by Luke that He had. They reminded the women that Jesus had predicted His deliverance into the hands of sinful men, and that He had predicted His crucifixion, but that He had also predicted He would rise on the third day (24:5-7). It was then that it sunk in: they did remember His words (24:8).

The women returned to the disciples and reported their experience, but it did not meet with much approval. It appeared to them as nonsense with the exception of some, Peter being one of the exceptions. He arose, ran to the tomb, stooped inside and looked. He saw the linen wrappings, but not the body and went home marveling. He was willing to exert the effort to check out the report and willing to be defiled in going into the tomb, but he failed to remember. As teachers and preachers this must be expected and even tolerated.

2. Teaching on the Road to Emmaus. 24:13-33.

Luke gave us a story no other Gospel records: the road to Emmaus vignette. It is a teaching story that again shows us some of His methods of teaching. The teaching will take place “on the road”, much like He had often done. He could teach in formal settings but used non-formal settings as well such as a discussion format as men walked along a road. This time His audience was small (only two men), and His initial approach was subtle.

Two of the disciples, we are not told who, were walking on Easter morning Sunday, to a village called Emmaus which was about 7 miles from Jerusalem. They were talking about all that had happened the last few days, and Jesus Himself approached and began walking along with them. Luke then used the “eyes” metaphor again. Their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him. They did not perceive that the One they were speaking of was actually in their presence. Luke recorded that His first words to them were in the form of a question: “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” The question caught them off guard, and they looked down at the ground before answering with seeming irritation, no doubt due to their pain. They asked Him if He was the only visitor to Jerusalem that did not know of the things that had recently happened (24:19). He countered with another question: “What things?”

Jesus had begun to teach again, and He opened the session by fanning ignorance. This is not a new thing with God. This was done in the first quoted speech by God to human beings in Genesis 3:9. In that speech, God asked the sinful humans: “Where are you?” Of course, He knew where they were and followed with another question in 3:11. He would use similar questions with Cain in chapter 4:10-11. Grandparents and even parents use this technique when they ask small children what they have or are doing. Of course, they already know the answer, as God knew where Adam and Eve were (in more than one way) and as Jesus knew what His disciples were discussing.

God desires dialogue, relationship and fellowship and is interested in what we think and how we think. Teaching in this model is an interpersonal thing, not a mere transference of knowledge. To some degree all prayer takes this form. God wants to hear from us concerning what we want or think we need or think we think. Of course, He already knows but dialogue and communion is often aided by speech or verbalization. Jesus was priming them to speak, to express their thoughts so that dialogue could begin, and then eventually effective teaching could also begin.

They answered His question in 24:19-24. They called Jesus a prophet, powerful in word and deed (they remembered that He always did both) before God and the people. They then told the passion story and focused on the religious leaders turning Him in to be crucified and with it their hopes that He would be the redeemer of Israel. Then they added that it was the third day since His death and some women went to the tomb this morning and reported a vision of angels claiming He was alive and that some of their number had gone to the tomb and found it empty as the women had claimed but had not seen Jesus. The two disciples were as surprised as the women had been.

They had not expected the Resurrection. They did not perceive God’s agenda, but this was not the first time that had been the case. They did not perceive that God Himself was standing once again in their midst, but that was not the first time that had happened. Jesus’ response was typical of His former demeanor: patient and yet challenging. He was a master teacher.

He began with a rhetorical question asking them to ponder both their slowness to believe what the Old Testament had foreseen and what it had spoken about the Christ. His words focused on how the Anointed One had to suffer these things before entering into His glory. The emphasis was on glory, but this glory had to be preceded by the Cross. He then began to teach them again from the Scriptures (from the Old Testament) beginning with Moses and then with the prophets about all that had been said concerning Him (24:25-27).

He first got them to express their views there in the road and then began to expound the Scriptures. He taught Old Testament Theology. He was rough: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” He was also patient (explaining again all they should have seen before). He was willing to risk looking ignorant in order get them to articulate their thoughts, but as always His humility was not weakness but carefully used for their benefit, and though He had opened the conversation with humility, He proceeded with confidence. Their minds had been opened but the truth is not merely the content of propositions or the truth of doctrines. The truth is primarily personal. The truth is a Person. It was the latter that they had yet to perceive.

He then presented them with a trigger, an opportunity to affect their own prospects for Revelation. It was not a new opportunity, but an old precursor to the revelation of the Word of God seen often in the Old Testament. This opportunity was present in Genesis 18 with Abraham and the three curious visitors outside of Abraham’s tent during the heat of the day, with Lot in Genesis 19, recently used with the Centurion in Luke 7 and the Tax Gatherer in Luke 19. The trigger was hospitality. It was the key that opened their minds to His presence. It is never enough to learn the intellectual content of doctrines (James (2:19), Jesus’ brother reminds us that the devils know good theology). Good theology had to be acted upon. Abraham had to welcome the three strangers before he found out he was going to have a child at the age of 100. Lot had to offer hospitality to the two angels before he realized they were there to save him. The centurion and Tax Gatherer had to worry about Jesus’ reputation (as any good host should) before they heard the words about their own salvation. Truth from Jesus was always presented with an aspect of “incarnation” to it and similarly it had to be received as such. Belief or understanding (being able to see) had to include, learning necessitated action on the part of the learner.

He acted as if He would go further down the road as they approached the village but they strongly urged Him to accept their hospitality, as did Abraham with the three visitors. They asked Him to stay with them as the day was ending, and He consented (God in humility accepts our service). Then they sat together “at table” and then the revelation occurred. He took some bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave of it, and then it happened. Their “eyes” were opened, and they recognized Him. They then began to recount the teaching on the road and set out immediately to return to Jerusalem. They went back on the road and sought the eleven to share with them what they had seen because the purpose of revelation is to give it to others; it was to be shard, similar to His sharing of the bread.

Once they had acted in hospitality their eyes were opened, and then they recounted the burning in their hearts as He had opened the Scriptures. The Psalmist of old in Psalm 119:18 prayed: “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law.” He also prefaced his request with “I will obey Your Word” (119:17) and followed it with “for I keep your statutes” (119:22). Obedience precedes insight. It was the forgiving of his brothers in Genesis 50 that preceded Joseph’s insight into the sovereignty of God’s actions in His life (50:19-21), as it was the obedience of hospitality that preceded the insights into the death and resurrection by the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

The great teacher had taught again. He again used the Old Testament, again used rhetorical questions, and again made them blend their minds and body before full understanding would come. He did not force the obedience. They had to forcefully request Him to stay and to receive their hospitality. Like a master teacher always attempts to bring about: they were involved with their own education.

3. Teaching at Jerusalem. 24:34-49.

The two disciples returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together with others and quickly learned that their experience was not the only one with the resurrected Jesus. They learned that the Lord had appeared to Simon, and then they related their experience. It is interesting that Luke summarized their experience by telescoping it to say that they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. As they were conversing He again came among them. Despite their previous experiences they were frightened and thought they were seeing a spirit.

He began to teach again. He was the same as before: tough but patient. He opened with one of His rhetorical questions asking them to face their doubts and unsettledness: “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your midst?” He then offered them physical evidence of the fact that He was not a spirit but truly resurrected in a bodily form. He then challenged them to see His hands and feet that it was indeed He. He then challenged them to touch Him to give them more evidence beyond the witness of their eyes. Then He went even further when He asked for something to eat, and they offered, and He received and ate a piece of boiled fish (24:36-43). He began by engaging their minds and followed by interfacing their senses (the use of their body).

His teaching task was formidable. He was teaching them about something that was much beyond their present understanding of reality. His method in teaching them something beyond their present ability to grasp is amazing. First, the disciples were first allowed to have collaboration of their experiences. It was only after they had shared with one another that He appeared. They had a chance to speak their minds and learn from one another. They needed to grasp the Resurrection, which was beyond anything in their understanding. They needed to know they were not delusional; they needed each other’s experience.

Second, He then opened not with mere teaching but with addressing their present state of mind. They had doubts, all four Gospels record that the disciples had doubts. They were normal men and had never encountered something like this before. Wisely, He did not ignore this state of mind, but did what He had done on other occasions by bringing up what they would have been afraid to mention. He had done this when teaching on prayer on prayer in Luke18 by addressing their doubts about the nature of God because of the delay in God administering justice (Luke 18:1-8).

Third, after He had engaged their hidden issues and brought them to the fore, He began to deal with the truth of the Resurrection. He did so in a very authoritative manner: He used commands. He was not a timid teacher after the Resurrection, but He had never been one before the Resurrection either.

Fourth, since He was teaching about a physical Resurrection He gave them primarily physical demonstrations of what His body was. They saw the nail prints in His hands and feet and were commanded to touch Him, but they were still marveling and struggling to believe it (it was almost too good to be true). So He added more physical demonstrations, and they saw Him take from them and eat boiled fish. He again involved them in the teaching process as they were asked to be good hosts and give Him something of their own.

Finally, it was only after the physical evidence that He went on to the intellectual aspects of their education. In the same manner as He had always taught, with authority, He then reminded them of what He had already taught them before from the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. He connected their past beliefs with their new understanding. He taught them He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament (24:44-45). Their minds were opened to understand the Scriptures now, whereas before they had not been able to do so.

This aspect of delay in understanding must be expected with difficult material and patience is necessary to teach as He did. He engaged them where they were prior to the Cross and Resurrection and waited until certain of life’s experiences had run over them because that was necessary to teach certain truths. In addition, it was necessary to provide physical proofs to His student’s experience of reality to substantiate the truth of what He said. Both aspects are part of Christian teaching. Our teaching must partake of the flesh as well as the mind.

We have a mind and a body and Jesus used both to teach His disciples, as should we. This necessitates His sovereign work among us at times in a miraculous manner, but not to show off, but to help teach. To further clarify this Luke has helped us to see that Christian teachers are not showmen but sufferers. The master teacher did miracles but then in a very normal and humble manner suffered. The miracles were not used to help the teacher escape all difficulties or sorrows. “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day;( 24:46). This careful balance runs all through Luke/Acts but also through the Old Testament as well. The same Moses who was used to open the Sea of Reeds and bring manna from heaven was cruelly betrayed in the golden calf incident and severely criticized by those he had so graciously helped free from slavery. The miracles of Moses did not make him immune from criticism nor did the miracles done by the apostles free them from imprisonment and persecution. Just like their Master and the great teachers of the Old Testament before one can rise from the dead metaphorically one has first to die.

In His final teaching session recorded by Luke (24:44-49), Jesus first showed them that what He taught them was not new in 24:44 (9:22; 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 22:37; 24:27). He had predicted His passion and resurrection and then, as in previous times, He called them to do what He had done many times in His own teaching: call those they were to teach to repentance (24:47). The repentance spoken of had the same purpose He had shown many times (i.e. Luke15) which was to bring about the forgiveness of their sins through His Name. It was to be universal, like He had modeled for them, to be open to all peoples, all nations, and beginning with Jerusalem (the church or the present believing community) but then to expand (24:47). They were to be witnesses of this good news to the whole earth.

A true teacher is his message. What He wanted them to do had been repeatedly demonstrated for them. How they were to teach, to whom, with what attitude, for what purpose had all been shown them not merely in teaching seminars but demonstrated right before their eyes. You become what you see, and they had seen the best. A true teacher was his message and a true teacher teaches so that others may teach. The task does not end with their work but is to be passed on. We are to witness so that others may be witnesses (24:48).

He added one more thing before He left them. He added the one thing that rolls through all of our minds. How do we do this? The bar is set so high. To be His witnesses and to be teachers of Him in the manner in which He taught is beyond human capacity. Not to recognize this would be to live in delusion or necessitate changing the clear teachings of the Gospel texts or necessitate watering-down His manner of communicating. Our attempts to prepare ministers with mere intellectual education are inadequate from what Luke is showing us about the Master Teacher’s method. His final word (24:49) addressed our concerns.

He told them He was sending upon them the “promise of the Father”. They were to wait for it before they started. They were to be clothed with power from on high. They were to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) so they could fulfill the task. As in so much that is in Luke, it had its previous foreshadowing in the Old Testament. When Moses left, he gave to Joshua not merely the reigns of authority but oversaw the infilling of his life with the Spirit of God (Numbers 11:25-29, 27:18-23; Deuteronomy 34:9). Good teachers prepare for the next generation and lay hands of them. The laying of hands though is not mere ritual; it is conference of power, divine power.

This teaching was not merely foreshadowed in the Old Testament but also in Jesus’ time with them as well. Luke 11:13 showed what was to be asked for in our prayer life. His baptism of the Spirit or His in filling of the Spirit was an example of what we needed (3:22) and what it would look like if we received it. After its reception, it would entail going to the desert or the suffering in the wilderness and later to the struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane, but it would give us power to do miracles, insight, help us prioritize, keep us from falling away from the task and empower us to know how to teach others and to stay the course despite the hardships that lay ahead. It would enable us to be the incarnation of the Torah as Jesus was before them.

He was fully God and yet fully man. They saw the Father revealed to them in the flesh, and they saw in Him how to live the Torah out in the flesh and truly love God and love man to the fullest. He showed them the goodness of repentance, and that it was necessary to face our weaknesses and not hide in phony religious professions. They repented of their sins, left all behind, and they received forgiveness of their sins in their actual lives. They had been slow to learn, but they had begun to understand what they were to pass along. However, even their very slowness to learn was to be a guide for their own up coming teaching experience: they were to be patient but challenging.

E. The Ascension. 24:50-53.

Jesus led them out of the city as far as Bethany and like Moses of old He lifted His hands and blessed. It was in the midst of their being blessed (His final act in their physical presence) that He departed from them (24:50-51). They were to receive more revelation but as slow as they were to learn for so long, they knew that obedience preceded revelation. He told them to tarry in Jerusalem until they were empowered from on high: they obeyed. They returned to Jerusalem and they did as they were told. However, they did so with great joy and were continually in the temple praising God. They had learned much about being good students, as demonstrated by their tarrying (their obedience) by blessing and praising God (24:51-52).