G - Passion and Resurrection 14:1 - 16:8

General characteristics of the Gospel narratives about the Passion: (1)

Before interpreting the account of the Passion of Christ, we must see the general characteristics of the Gospel texts about the Passion so that we have a clear picture of these texts from the beginning. The characteristics are the following:

1- The narratives about Christ's passion and resurrection conclude our Gospels (Matthew 26-28, Mark 14-16, Luke 22-24, John 18-21), and in terms of importance they constitute the pinnacle of the Gospels. The reader gets the impression upon reading the first page that the honorable writers are preparing him for the pain that is exposed in the last.

Thus, for example, the world’s hostile reception of the newborn Jesus, especially in the Gospel of Matthew, has a crusader character; And also when the religious leaders of the Jews tried to arrest Jesus (Mark 3:6, Matthew 12:14, Luke 6:11, 13:31, 20:20 and others). These passages constitute a clear introduction to the Passion. His removal of the Sabbath holiday through his works, as well as the phrase: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45), and also: “Behold, I cast out demons and heal today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will make it complete” ( Luke 13:32), and also “when the bridegroom is taken away from them” (Mark 2:20), in addition to other expressions, foretell of the coming sufferings to which the obedient Son of God will willingly turn, even to the point of death. Of course, Jesus' three predictions about himself constitute the clearest introduction to his passion. The first prediction comes immediately after Peter's confession in Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:31, Matthew 16:21, Luke 9:22), and the second comes after the transfiguration and healing of the paralyzed young man (Mark 9:31, Matthew 17:22-23, Luke 9:44 -45), and the third in their journey towards Jerusalem shortly before the sons of Zebedee asked to sit at the right of the Messiah and at his left in the kingdom (Mark 10: 33-34, Matthew 20: 17-19, Luke 18: 31-33).

Everything we mentioned previously is justified by the statement of a foreign theologian when he says: “Our Gospels are essentially a history of the Passion of Christ with a long introduction.”. In fact, the Gospel narratives center around the main Passion, which constitutes its climax.

2- Information about the life, works, and teachings of Christ in the Gospels is fragmentary and limited, while... The Gospel accounts of the Passion are detailed and coherent. It constitutes a common ground on which the three evangelists not only meet in their Synoptic Gospels, but the fourth evangelist John also shares this, because the cross of Christ constitutes, alongside the Resurrection, the focus of the faith of the early church. It is clear to see the life of the early church emerging and expanding around this axis, as well as the first church hymns with the apostolic preaching and the first accounts of Christ’s death on the cross. All this rich information constitutes the most detailed section on the Early Missionary Church.

3- Narratives about the Passion do not constitute a “history of the Passion” in the full sense of the word; It constitutes an assessment and interpretation of pain In the church that believes in Christ crucified and risen. Of course, this does not mean that honorable evangelicals do not care about historical accuracy, but it means that they subordinate history to theology. This is how the difference between the evangelists in the sequence of the Sundays is sometimes explained, as well as the difference between them in the order of the sayings of Jesus or the sayings of others addressed to him. It is worth noting the remark of the commentator Zigavenus in this regard: “We should know that the evangelists never present Christ’s teachings and miracles in order out of concern for history. They do not respect the sequence of events at all, but rather rush to preach about them.” Evangelists do not write historical works and do not cite historical elements that led to the arrest and death of Jesus. Rather, they present the mystery of the Cross, which is laid out in history and leads to the salvation of people despite their resistance to achieving it. Therefore, we find the narratives about the Passion and Resurrection simple and brief, without an emotional focus or a tragic description of the psychological state of the working people, which aims to move the reader’s feelings. The purpose of the narratives is to highlight the salvific character of current events and to indicate their meaning for the Church.

4- Evangelists link the events of Christ's Passion with Old Testament predictions about them, citing biblical passages that were fulfilled in Christ, or reviewing current events in Old Testament terms. They want to show that current events are not separate from... God's plan to save humanity; This measure was also previously expressed in the Old Testament. Therefore, the Passion was not recorded out of historical necessity or any other global need, but rather to declare the will of God the Father to save all.

5- We can find Defensive tone In the narratives of the Passion. Here we notice two trends: it emphasizes Jesus’ voluntary surrender of himself to suffering, and his previous knowledge and acceptance of it; On the other hand, the Roman ruler's attempt to exonerate himself, placing responsibility on the Jews, emerges. In this context, the novels defend those outside the church, that is, the Roman presidents, or in the first case, the defense is for the members of the church.

6- The indicative element is: Not absent from our novels. It is not clearly stated, but it is hidden in Jesus urging his disciples to watch and pray (Mark 14:38, Luke 22:40, 46), in his words about non-resistance (Matthew 25:52, Luke 22:51), in his prayer on the cross for His crucifiers (Luke 23:34), in the last-minute repentance of one of the two thieves (Luke 23:40-43), in the appearance of an angel from heaven to strengthen Jesus in Gethsemane (Luke 22:43) and others. Through all this, he urges Christians to continue their struggle with courage and prayer, certain of God’s strengthening of them, which will lead to victory in the end.

7- Finally, we find in the narratives about the Passion An echo of the Church's liturgical tradition Within which the Gospels were written. This character allows us to arrange the use of the Gospel narratives first in our ecclesiastical liturgical life without excluding their use in apostolic preaching with those outside the Church. Here we suffice with two examples, the first of which is the Evangelist Matthew’s arrangement of Jesus’ phrases at the Last Supper (“Take, eat. This is my body... Drink from it, all of you...”). These expressions certainly have something to do with the church's liturgical service. This point of view is also supported by comparison with the liturgical order mentioned in Mark in the third presentation of those words (“And she took a cup and gave thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank from it”). The second example is the arrangement of the events of the crucifixion according to the three hours according to the three hours (Mark 15: 1, 25, 33, 42), which is most likely nothing but an echo of the liturgical service. Without its form necessarily being that taken by the Church of Rome.

In addition to these characteristics, there are features that are specific to each evangelist. Each of them emphasizes one of the common characteristics more than others, looking forward to the desired goal that serves his message. The Christian understands the evangelical narratives, through the enlightenment of the evangelists, not as historical narratives, but as historical narratives As texts announce (2) God's love in history for the salvation of humanity.

Introduction to Passion: Agreement to Surrender:

1 And the Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread were two days after. The chief priests and scribes were seeking how they could catch him by craftiness and kill him, 2 but they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be a riot.” “Among the people”….
10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests to betray him to them. 11 And when they heard it, they rejoiced, and promised to give him money. And he was asking how to hand him over to him if there was an opportunity. (Mark 14:1-2, 10-11, Matthew 26:1-5, Luke 22:1-6).

The account of Jesus' Passion begins with an account of the attempts of the Jewish religious leaders to find a way to arrest him. These attempts are known to the reader of the Gospel from previous information (Mark 3:6, 12:12) and they date back to a few days before Easter, when these events related to the Passion occurred. Concentrated attempts were made by the Jewish religious leaders to find a way to arrest Jesus in the days leading up to the Passover, specifically two days before the Passover. The day of Passover, which is the largest of the Jewish holidays commemorating the liberation of the people of God from Egyptian slavery, began on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan (the end of March - the beginning of April), with the slaughter of the Passover lamb, which was eaten after sunset, that is, at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan. The Eid continues throughout the Week of Unleavened Bread from April 15 to 21. The words Passover and Unleavened Bread were used together in the language of the people to refer to the first day of the feast and the whole week (3).

The religious leaders of the Jews, led by the “chief priests,” had long been looking for a favorable opportunity to destroy Jesus. But they feared the people whom they held in high esteem, and therefore they avoided any public action against him. Although the official high priest for that year was Caiaphas, and he retained this position from the year 18 to 36 AD due to his submission to the Romans and his characteristic indifference to the interests of the people, Annas is actively involved in the tragic events, and he is a predecessor of Caiaphas and his father-in-law, and a strong man before whom Jesus represented. First, after his arrest (John 18:11…).

It appears that the aforementioned actions of the chief priests and scribes do not take place within the framework of the legal sessions of the entire Great Council, but rather constitute private, informal discussions of some of the members of this council in order to find a practical way to arrest that teacher who is constantly and dangerously gaining the sympathy of the people. As for the opportunity to intensify these discussions and attempts, they had the opportunity, according to the Synoptic Gospels, with the incident of the cleansing of Solomon’s temple, and according to John, with the miracle of the raising of Lazarus, when the Jewish leaders feared that the Romans would strip them of power if they did not immediately take the initiative and put an end to Jesus’ activity among the people (John 11). :45, 47 et seq.).

Verses 10-11: Judas, one of the twelve disciples, responded to the desire of the chief priests and the rest of the leaders to find the appropriate way to arrest and kill Jesus, even if it was fraudulent. In the Gospels, this Judas bears the title Iscariot. Attempts by some commentators to link this name to the meaning of “man of lies” or “man of deception” or to confirm its derivation from the Latin word Sicarius have failed. It most likely indicates the source of the family since his father bore the same name (see John 6:17, 13:2). It is distinctive to emphasize that this student is one of the Twelve, “to show and deny the traitor’s mediocrity,” as Saint Cyril of Alexandria says. The fourth evangelist calls that disciple “Satanus,” adding that the teacher who chose the twelve disciples was not unaware that one of them would betray him (John 6: 70-71).

The joy of the chief priests and scribes (and the commanders of the soldiers added according to Luke) after the agreement with Judas is expressed by their promise to him that they will reward him with an amount of money equal, according to Matthew’s account, to thirty pieces of silver that he had requested. The question arises: Was it the money that prompted him to surrender? What is stated in the Gospels does not support this view. Therefore, the deeper reason for the surrender must have been to disappoint the national-political messianic hopes for which Judah shared the enthusiasm of the rest of the Jews. When it was confirmed that his/her teacher would not work effectively against the Roman leaders, as those belonging to the Zealot Party had hoped, that is, when it was confirmed that the teacher would not fulfill the hopes and expectations that many of the Jews were expecting from him, then he facilitated his arrest by the Jewish leaders. Despair, especially in a time when messianic and false messianic movements abound, is not an unimportant element in our search for the deeper motive for surrender. However, our opinion would also be justified if we said that the financial reward was an opportunity to demonstrate this deep motivation for Judas’ work. Hence, it is correct to emphasize Judas’ “greed” (love of silver) in church hymns, especially during Holy Week. Only Matthew among the Evangelists sets the amount at thirty pieces of silver according to what was stated in Zechariah 11:12 (in agreement with Jeremiah 38:6-15), which considers this amount to be the extortion that the expelled shepherd takes from tending his sheep.

After discussing the reward, Judas began looking for an opportunity to hand Jesus over (“without a crowd,” Luke 22:6, that is, away from the people, in order to avoid all unwanted demonstrations and revolts among the Romans). It is known that on the day of Passover, people flock to Jerusalem for the feast, and their number rises to approximately 200,000. Because of this number and the noise and disturbances that accompanied it, the Roman leaders moved their headquarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem. It becomes clear from here why the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be arrested away from the crowd. This is why Judas' contribution was valuable because he knew the place well (4) Which his teacher was going to in those days with the disciples in order to get away from the noise of the crowd (see Luke 21:37, 22:39, John 11:54 and 57, 18:2 “And Judas who betrayed him knew the place, because Jesus had often gathered there with his disciples.”) ). Theophilectus sees Judas’ contribution in guiding the Jews to the time when Jesus would be alone “because they were afraid to catch him teaching the people.” He promised them that he would deliver him to them in private.

Let us also notice in this narration and in many places in the narrations of the Lām the extensive use of the verb “to surrender,” which brings to mind the hymns of the suffering servant of God according to Isaiah (especially in Isaiah 52-53), where it is used frequently. Through the use of this verb, especially in the passive voice (“to deliver,” “to deliver,” “to deliver”), it is indicated, regardless of what has happened in terms of human historical facts, that Christ is handed over by God to death for the sins of the world. That is, the cross of Christ does not come as a global historical result, for example, the intersection of hatred of the Jews with the authority of the Romans, but rather it is a manifestation of God’s love for humanity.

Jesus anointed with ointment:

3 While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he reclined at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment of pure nard. So she broke the flask and poured it on his head. 4 And some were indignant within themselves, and said, Why was there this waste of the ointment? 5 For this could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they used to scold her. 6 But Jesus said: “Leave her alone!” Why are you bothering her? You have done a good deed to me! 7 For you have the poor with you at all times, and when you are willing you are able to do good to them. But I am not always with you. 8 She did what she had to do. She has gone ahead and anointed my body with ointment for the burial. 9 Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in all the world, what this woman has done will also be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14:3-9, Matthew 26:6-13).

Between mentioning the attempts of the Jewish leaders to arrest Jesus and Judas’ discussion with them, the evangelist inserts the story of the Master being anointed with ointment by a woman in the house of Simon the leper in Bethany. This account does not appear in the Gospel of Luke. The Evangelist John places that event “six days before Easter” in Bethany, and identifies the woman: Mary, the sister of Lazarus (John 12: 1-11).

The work described here constitutes one of the well-known literatures in Palestine. In our narration, we do not know exactly who the woman is, and it is not mentioned that she is wrong. As for the perfume that, after breaking the bottle, was poured on Jesus’ head, it is pure perfume, very expensive, taken from “valerian,” the Indian plant with a pleasant smell. “Some of them” were angry (Judas was angry, according to the Evangelist John) because of the destruction of the perfume, the price of which could have covered the needs of the poor. Jesus responds by saying that the woman has done a “good deed” because there is always an opportunity to do good to the poor but the Teacher will not always be with them, and he interprets the woman’s action as prior anointing his body for burial (because the perfume was used at burial to anoint the dead).

We must understand Jesus' words about the poor as follows: Doing charity is, of course, a good work, but the Christian must not forget in the name of charity, which is the first factor in charity and love, because if charity does not stem from Christ's declared love for us, it may constitute a dangerous social manifestation. With a purely human internal motive that lacks its main focus, which is Christ.

The Christian's love for his brother is a response to God's love for the world. This matter can escape the Christian's mind when, in the name of benevolence to the poor, God forgets the source of love. Therefore, after that woman’s love for him became evident, the Gospel was preached “in remembrance of her.”

Here two questions arise: First, why does Luke not mention this event? The second is: Is the event mentioned in Matthew and Mark the same as what was mentioned in John?

What justifies the absence of the event according to Luke is that he had previously mentioned in passage 7:36-50 a similar event carried out by a repentant adulterous woman, and this event occurred in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and therefore he avoids presenting another incident so that there is no duplication in the narratives. This interpretation is accepted by most commentators and is the most likely. The student may be able to add that this event may not be linked to Luke's own tradition of the Passion, or that what is said in Luke 22:3 about Satan entering into Judas is an exact reference to the incident of Jesus anointing with perfume, which he knew but did not mention in his Gospel, when Judas became displeased. To destroy the perfume, he immediately went to meet the chief priests.

Obviously, the incident in Luke 7:36-50 is quite different, and occurs much before the Passion. But how can we connect what was stated by Matthew and Mark and what was stated by John? Are the three evangelists talking about the same event? How then can we place the event six days before the Passover, while in Matthew and Mark the event occurs two days before the feast? Also, if the two events are similar but different (as some consider them based on the difference in time of their occurrence and that John is talking about Lazarus’ sister), how can we explain the same description of the spice and in the same place, i.e. Bethany? Likewise, how do we explain the dissatisfaction itself, the discussion of the disciples and their impression, and also the same interpretation given by Jesus to the work of women?

Among the followers of the point of view that there is a difference between the two women between Matthew and Mark on the one hand and John on the other, we have Origen, Zygaven, and Theophilectus. As for Saint John Chrysostom, he distinguishes the woman in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark from the woman in the Gospel of John, but he unites her with the woman in the Gospel of Luke. We believe that the location is the same and the interpretation is the same for its function as a prelude to the burial as well as the objection of the disciples (especially Judas according to John). All of this makes us tend to the point of view that the event is the same in Matthew, Mark, and John. As for identifying the woman, the fourth evangelist may have obtained more precise details. It seems that the time of the event in John (six days before Easter) is the most correct, while in Matthew and Mark the event is linked to a time closer to the death of Jesus due to the interpretation given to the woman’s work as a precursor to the burial. Hence, evangelicals, regardless of the precise historical facts of current events, are particularly concerned, above all, with the theological interpretation of events.

Preparing the Passover dinner:

12 And on the first day from unleavened bread. When they were slaughtering the Passover, his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare to eat the Passover?” 13 Then he sent two of his disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and there will meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water. They followed him. 14 And wherever he enters, say to the master of the house: The Teacher says, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? 15 Then he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared. There they prepared for us.” 16 Then his disciples went out and came into the city, and they found what he had told them. So they prepared the Passover. (Mark 14:12-16, Matthew 26:17-19, Luke 22:7-13).

The first difficulties in interpreting the passage begin with Verse 12 Where the mission of the disciples falls “on the first day of unleavened bread when they were slaughtering the Passover” (see Matthew 26:17 “the first day of unleavened bread,” Luke 22:7 “the day of unleavened bread on which the Passover was to be sacrificed”). It is known that the first day of Unleavened Bread, i.e. Nisan 15, does not coincide with the day of slaughtering the Paschal lamb, but rather the day immediately following. How then does the evangelist give the impression here that he is uniting the two days? In the language of the people, the two words “Passover” and “unleavened bread” are synonymous, and one is used instead of the other, or rather distinctly, to denote the full eight-day period from Nisan 14 to Nisan 21. We must take this into consideration to understand things as they really are.

This interpretation does not contradict the view of ancient and modern commentators that the adjective “first” is used in the sense of “former,” but rather supports it. Thus, the lamb is slaughtered on the day before the beginning of the Days of Unleavened Bread, which is consistent with reality. One of the supporters of this point of view is Saint John Chrysostom, who says: “The first day of Unleavened Bread is the day before the days of Unleavened Bread, because the counting always begins in the evening. This refers to the day on which the Passover is slaughtered in the evening, meaning they came on the Thursday before the Sabbath. He speaks here about the time when they came, which was the day before the Days of Unleavened Bread, and he says: The Day of Unleavened Bread came...etc. That is, it is near, at the gates, and he means the night before those Easter days. Likewise, Theophylectus writes: “The first of the Days of Unleavened Bread is the day before the Days of Unleavened Bread, as if he was saying that on Friday evening they should have eaten the Passover, which was also called Unleavened Bread. The Lord sends His disciples on Thursday, which the evangelist calls the first of the days of Unleavened Bread, because it falls before Friday, when they eat unleavened bread in the evening.

This interpretation is supported by:

1. Elsewhere in the New Testament the adjective “first” is used in the sense of previous;
2. In this sense, the passage is consistent with what the Jews do at Passover.
3. The fathers were closer to the text and customs of that period, and the meanings of the expression were like that.

According to the above, Jesus is sent on the night of the Jewish Passover (5) Two of his disciples (Peter and John, according to Luke’s account) went to Jerusalem to prepare the Passover supper and everything necessary for it. When they ask about the place where dinner takes place, he tells them in advance that as soon as they enter the city, they will be met by a person carrying a “jar of water” (it is known that carrying a jar of water usually belongs to women. Therefore, it is surprising to see a man carrying a jar of water). He said this and added that they should follow him until he entered the house. They ask the owner of the house where dinner is, and he shows them a large, furnished attic. In many Palestinian homes, there is a floor that contains a spacious place for meetings and services, which is a kind of salon called an “attic.” The detail given to this attic as “large” and “furnished” most likely comes from the vivid memory that was cemented in the minds of the eyewitness disciples. The passage ends with his assertion that the two sent disciples “found Jesus as he told them” and prepared the Passover.

We have no historical evidence about the house where the Last Supper took place. Tradition speaks of the house of John Mark's mother, where the first Christians most likely gathered. Some modern historians tend to say that it is the house of a relative. The question raised here: What is the meaning of Jesus’ prediction about the details related to the mission of the disciples sent to the city? Those who say that there was a prior agreement between Jesus and one of the residents of Jerusalem so that the disciples would be amazed at the fulfillment of his prophecy are far from the spirit and purpose of the text.

The meaning of prediction in Verses 13-15 According to Theophylactus, Jesus knew in advance not only the simple event, but also everything that would happen next during His Passion, and He accepted all of that by choice: “He sent them to a person they did not know in order to show that He wanted to accept the Passion. Otherwise, he who persuaded the mind of that unknown man to accept them into the house could not have accepted the suffering despite what the Jews wanted to do.”

Christ is the master of current events. He did not submit to it merely out of historical inevitability, nor is he a victim of bad historical circumstances. Rather, he is the suffering servant of God, as described by the Prophet Isaiah. Jesus is not aware that he is taking upon himself the work of the suffering servant when he is arrested, but from the beginning of his public activity (see the baptism account, where the Father acknowledges him as a “beloved son” with whom he is “mysterious”).

Conclusion:

Throughout his life, Jesus was preparing for suffering. Therefore, he completed all of this according to the will of God and not under the pressure of historical circumstances, and this is what he tries to make his students understand through various words or actions and above all by predicting some simple details.

The Last Supper before the Passion - the delivery of the sacrament of divine thanksgiving:

22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20).

The description of Jesus' last supper with his disciples is brief, and contains mainly the founding words of the sacrament of divine thanksgiving.

Before the delivery of the sacrament comes a prophecy about the one who is betraying him (Mark 14: 17-21, Matthew 26: 20-25). This prediction in Luke immediately follows the supper. The purpose of talking about the one who would betray him was to strengthen the faith of his disciples, which could have been shaken by the unexpected event (see John 13:19, “I tell you now before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he”), as well as to emphasize the truth of knowing Christ. In advance of all events, the course of events does not surprise him, but rather he accepts them voluntarily, by choice, in accordance with the saving plan of God the Father.

Christ does not refer to the one who betrays him directly, but rather through a general reference: “He is one of you,” that is, one of the participants at this table. This is the meaning of the phrase, “He who dips with me in the dish.” (verse 20) The Lord explains his surrender to death in the following: Verse 21: The surrender is not due to the activity of Judas the betrayer, but to the will of God as expressed in the Old Testament (“as it is written”). It is noteworthy that he uses the title “Son of Man” for himself, which in the Gospels is usually associated with suffering (and sometimes with his glorious second coming as Judge). And the Son of Man was delivered to God’s appointed death. He is met with punishment for “that man,” and no further clarification is given here. But what is noteworthy is the description of the Muslim as “that man,” which directly creates a distance between him and the circle of other disciples. Of course, none of the remaining disciples wanted to be that man, so they asked among themselves, “Who do you think is going to do this” (Luke 22:23). As for the dialogue that took place between Christ and Judas, mentioned in Matthew (“Is it I, Lord?” He said to him, “You said” Matthew 26:25), the disciples either did not hear it or they did not understand it.

Verbs in Verse 22 “He took”, “he blessed and he broke”, “he gave”, they have a formal and liturgical character. These actions also appear in the novel It is amazing the multiplication of breads that the Church took as a prototype (6) For the mystery of divine thanksgiving. The prayer of thanks and the breaking and distribution of bread did not cause the disciples to be surprised, for they knew the tabibakon (7) The Jew, but what caught their attention was the explanation given in Verse 22 Next to the bread provided “This is my body”. When they previously heard their teacher talking about eating his own body Bread of life They considered that to be harsh (See John 6:32-60, especially verse 60). But here, the festive atmosphere of the dinner, as well as the sanctity of the moment of the sacrament, left no room for the disciples’ resistance or hesitation. Christ's words are brief and comprehensive. The following points are striking in these words:

1. The bread offered to the disciples does not symbolize his body, but rather his body. We stress this issue in front of Protestants who talk about the symbol of bread and wine in the Eucharist (8) Or about the secret presence of Christ in all of this. The Orthodox Church believes that bread and wine are transformed in a secret way into the body and blood of Christ.
2. In the phrase “which is shed for many” (verse 24)We must see the forgiving and saving character of the sacrifice of the suffering servant of God who Isaiah speaks of in chapter 53. Christ, as a suffering servant heading to the cross, explains the death that is to be accomplished for the sins of the world “for the remission of sins” (according to Matthew 26:28) or “for the life of the world” (according to John 6:51). The Church emphasizes the forgiving character of Christ's death in her first confession of faith that remained in the New Testament (see, for example, Romans 4:25, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, 1 Timothy 2:6).
3. Finally, we draw attention to the active participle “al-Muhahraq” or the one who is used in the present continuous tense, which indicates that the sacrifice of the cross constitutes a continuous, bloodless work that is completed in the church.

Verse 25: Jesus' thinking is directed towards the Kingdom of God, which the believer lives in the church without emptying its depth. The Kingdom is constantly present in the Church and at the same time awaiting. The words of Jesus: “I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” are repeated by Luke twice (Luke 22: 16, 18), and they do not have an schistological meaning. (9) It is not specific, but has a realistic church meaning. St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “It is his custom to call the Kingdom of God justification by faith, purification by baptism, participation in the Holy Spirit, and the strengthening of worship by the Spirit. Therefore, he says, ‘I will not taste the like of that Passover, which appears to be a model in the form of food, until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, that is, at the time in which the Kingdom is heralded. Heavens.” Saint John Chrysostom believes that these words of Jesus were fulfilled after his resurrection when he ate and drank with his disciples: “I do not drink... because he was talking to them about his suffering and his cross, and he added words about the resurrection as well. When he mentions the kingdom, he means “You will see me standing.” Likewise, Theophylactus says: “I will not drink wine until the resurrection.” Because he calls the resurrection a kingdom, since he will then reign over death; After the resurrection, he ate and drank with the disciples.” From what St. Cyril of Alexandria says about the interpretation of the kingdom (purification through baptism, participation in the Holy Spirit, worship in the Spirit), and from what St. John Chrysostom and Theophylectus point out about the resurrection, we clearly conclude that the evangelist means The truth of the church In which the believer will live from now on the blessings of the coming kingdom. At the time that was recorded in these Gospel narratives, the mystery of the Divine Eucharist constituted the focus of the life of the Church, and by participating in it, the believers were “telling” of the death of Christ. (1 Cor 11:26) (10) They await his glorious coming.

There are wide discussions in contemporary studies regarding the time of the fulfillment of the Last Supper and also regarding its nature, if any Easter or not. But we should not directly link both sides of the issue. Because the Easter character is not related to the time when the Supper occurs, but rather to the meaning that Christ gives to the Supper. Let us first see if Christ's last supper with his disciples was Passover. In order to search for an answer to this question, we must give a brief description of the tipicon of the Jewish Passover supper.

        The Jewish Passover supper:

The Passover supper is performed once a year to fulfill God’s commandment stated in Exodus 12:14: “This day shall be a remembrance for you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord. You shall repeat it throughout your generations as an eternal statute.” During the completion of the service taking place in Jerusalem with the participation of no less than ten family members, the father would bless the first cup, saying the following sentence: “Blessed be the Lord, King of the world, who created the fruit of the vine.” After drinking wine and eating bitter herbs mixed with fruit juice (usually figs, apples, grapes with spices and vinegar), the head and leader of the family explains the service and the source of all the foods used (lambs, bitter herbs, unleavened bread, etc.) to the younger members of the family, and through this emphasizes Dinner on the anniversary of liberation from Egypt. After that, it is called “the little Heleuya” (Psalms 113-114). Then comes the drinking of wine for the second time, after which the main meal begins, namely the roasted lamb. The third cup, called the “Cup of Blessing,” is followed by the singing of Psalms 115 to 118, “The Great Alleluia,” accompanied by a prayer of thanksgiving, and the service ends at midnight. Jewish texts talk about a fourth cup, but we do not know if this custom continued until the time of the New Testament. However, we infer from verse 26, “Then they praised and went out...” (Matthew 26:30) that the Paschal service ended with praise.

The sporadic nature of the Gospel narratives does not allow us to conclude anything regarding the nature of the aforementioned supper. Thus, for example, the passage does not talk about the lamb, bitter herbs, etc., but on the other hand, it leads us to the gathering of the group, the use of wine, the blessing of two cups according to Luke’s account, the first at the beginning and the other “after supper,” the praise and words of Christ accompanying the drinking of the wine and the eating of the bread, and finally the description of the supper in the Gospels. The Synoptics of the “Passover” supper (“to eat the Passover,” “where I will eat the Passover with my disciples,” “and they prepared the Passover”) all lead us to think that the supper was a Passover. As for the Evangelists not speaking about the Lamb, many fathers explain it by saying that instead of the Lamb, there was the One who would soon be handed over to the slaughter, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Despite the Paschal character of the Supper, which we adopt in particular because it is clearly named in the Synoptic Gospels, a comparative study of the Gospel narratives highlights the problem of the time in which the Supper took place. That is why we are continuing to present this topic in connection, of course, with the information contained about it in the Gospel of John.

            Dinner time:

The evangelists in the Synoptic Gospels give the impression that Christ's last supper with his disciples occurred at the same time as the Jewish supper, and the crucifixion on the feast day. While from the account of the Fourth Evangelist, we conclude that the Jewish Passover occurred on the day following the crucifixion, and that the crucifixion occurred on the day before the Jewish Passover, that is, on the day when lambs were slaughtered in the Temple, and that Christ’s Last Supper occurred on the day before the Jewish Passover Supper. We will not mention here the arguments of the commentators who adopt the Synoptic timing or the timing of John, as there are studies specific to this topic. But as long as we present the point of view of the Orthodox Church that is reflected in the liturgical service, we will try to find the theological justification for what the Evangelists write, or rather for what they note, about the time of the “Last Supper,” which is how it is usually called in the liturgical tradition. (11).

Orthodox liturgy and theological tradition structure John's timing of the SupperThat is, the dinner took place the day before the Jewish dinner. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church uses leavened bread to supplement it. St. John Chrysostom's point of view seems unique and strange when he says that Jesus kept the timing of the Jewish Passover supper, but the Jews postponed their Passover by one day because of their preoccupation with the arrest of Jesus. The main passages in the Gospel of John that clearly show that the Jewish Passover occurred on the day following the crucifixion are the following:

a - John 13:29 “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Whatever you are doing, do it quickly.’ For some people, when Judas had the box, thought that Jesus had said to him, ‘Buy what we need for the feast, or give something to the poor.’”

B - John 18:28 “Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. And it was morning, and they did not enter the praetorium, lest they be defiled by eating the Passover.

C - John 19:31 “And since it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, because that Sabbath was a high day, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and that they be taken away.”

It is possible that one will find in the Synoptic Gospels some details that agree with the Johannine time, such as the following, for example:

a - It is difficult for Jesus' trial and other proceedings to take place on Passover.

B - Carrying weapons on a holiday is forbidden (however, see Mark 14:47, Matthew 26:15, Luke 22:49-50).

C - The detail about Simon of Cyrene, who was returning from the field at the moment when Jesus was walking to Calvary (Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26) testifies that that feast was not a holiday.

One could add that the timing of the fulfillment of Christ's last supper with the disciples is reflected in Orthodox iconography. Thus, for example, in drawing the Last Supper, a lamb is not drawn on the table (as happens in the West), but rather there is a fish, which carries a deeper theological meaning. (12).

In addition to all the previously mentioned arguments taken from the Gospel texts and tradition, which say that the Last Supper took place on the day before the Jewish Passover Supper, in addition to that, we note that the honorable Evangelists present the most important events for the sake of the Church’s faith, paying particular attention to their theological meaning, and taking into consideration the timing. The exact time of their occurrence is given less attention. From the beginning, the event appears in the narration of the Gospel of John, in which the Lamb taking away the sin of the world is slaughtered on the cross at the same moment in which the lambs designated for the Jewish Passover supper are slaughtered in the Temple. On the other hand, the Synoptic Gospels talk about the Paschal Supper that leads to the Passion of Christ, and by doing so, the Evangelists want to emphasize the replacement of the old system with a new system in Christ, linking the “New Testament” to the blood of Christ. At the moment when the Jewish people celebrate their liberation from Egyptian slavery, Christ completes the true Passover and brings together the new people of God, the Church, by establishing the divine sacrament of the Eucharist and subsequently handing them over to death.

Was Judas present at Christ's last supper with his disciples? Some interpreters claim that, according to the tradition of the sacrament of divine thanksgiving, they do not accept the presence of the betrayer Judas. They claim that he withdrew during the supper and before offering the sacrament and therefore did not participate in the body and blood of Christ.

We cannot ask the question on the basis of the narration of the Evangelist Luke, because in this narration the prediction of surrender comes immediately after the words of divine and foundational thanks. This assumes the presence of Judas throughout the supper, as in John’s account, where the founding words of the mystery are not mentioned, but it is mentioned that Jesus revealed who would betray him after asking the beloved disciple John, by giving him the morsel. Immediately after that, the evangelist notes: “So when he had received the morsel, he went out immediately and was By night” (John 13:30). After that, Jesus' farewell speech to his disciples before he left for the garden.

Unlike John, who mentions the departure of Judas before Jesus’ farewell speech, the first three evangelists do not speak anywhere in their Gospels about Judas’ withdrawal, not even in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, where Jesus predicts the surrender before dinner. Therefore, the reader is left with the impression that Judas legally participated in the supper. Luke’s clear statement: “But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me at the table” (Luke 22:21) leaves no room for doubt regarding the matter. Also, on the other hand, according to the Jewish recommendations regarding the Passover supper, no change was allowed to affect the gathered group participating in the supper after it began.

It is natural that Judas would have left Jesus and the remaining disciples, either immediately after dinner, or after a short time had passed, that is, after Jesus addressed him with the phrase mentioned in the fourth Evangelist: “And what you are doing, do it quickly” (John 13:27). In any case, Judas' withdrawal could not have occurred before dinner, since the discussion revolved around Jesus dipping the morsel and presenting it to Judas while the remaining disciples were around the table. But it gives the impression that he left during dinner. But since John does not include expressions of sanctification for the bread, we cannot therefore know whether Judas withdrew before or after these expressions.

The Synoptics do not mention Judas' withdrawal immediately before or after supper, thus assuming that this withdrawal occurred when Jesus went out with the disciples to the Mount of Olives. On the other hand, it is unacceptable for Judas to have withdrawn from the group after the prediction of the surrender (and after Judas’ direct response that he was the one who was betrayed according to Matthew 26:25) without this having led to the dissatisfaction of the remaining disciples and an attempt to seize him by force. Such a withdrawal had to leave an inevitable impact on the disciples that evangelicals must remember. But they show Judas again in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested, probably assuming that he withdrew from the group when they left the upper room where the Last Supper took place.

The Holy Fathers and commentators assume that Judas' participation in the Last Supper is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, they consider him condemned “because he ate with the disciples and was not ashamed” (Theophylactus), or that despite his being a “bad merchant,” the Lord accepted him “with him at the table” (St. John Chrysostom), and did not deprive him at all “of sharing in the bread and the cup.” Research has been made. “The surrendered person shares in eternal life” (Saint John Chrysostom). Through all of this, the Church’s interpreters stress, on the one hand, the goodness of the Lord who accepted “with Him at the table” the one who would betray Him shortly, and on the other hand, His acceptance of the “malice of the betrayer” and his ingratitude. This point of view has an echo in the hymns of the Church (among the many hymns of Holy Week see the following passage: “What reason did you, O Judas, make you surrender the Savior? Did he dine with those and exclude you from the table?...”; Kathasma in the seventh tune on the eve of Great and Holy Thursday).

Going out to the Mount of Olives and prophesying about Peter’s denial:

 26 Then they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus said to them, “All of you will fall away because of me this night, for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. 28 But after I rise, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” 29 Then Peter said to him, “Though all will be offended, I will not be offended.” 30 Then Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 Then he said more firmly, “Even if I had to die with you, I would not deny you.” And so also said everyone. (Mark 14: 26-31, Matthew 26: 30-35, Luke 22: 31-34, 39).

The Evangelist Luke mentions a long conversation of Jesus with the disciples after giving them the sacrament of divine thanksgiving (Luke 22: 21-38; see also John 14-17), while Mark directly mentions the exodus to the Mount of Olives (see also Matthew 26: 30). In this account, Jesus predicts the disciples’ doubt of him “on this night,” referring to the passage of Zechariah 13:7 (“I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered”), and then he precedes and announces Peter’s threefold denial. In all of that you can't concentrate Verses 26-28 On the scattering of the disciples and the denial of the teacher by one of them, but rather on their gathering again in Galilee (“But after I rise I will go before you to Galilee”). The death of Christ is explained elsewhere by the Evangelist John as being accomplished “In order to gather together the scattered children of God into one” (John 11:52), that is, to form the Church.

As for the temptation that the disciples will face, which will make them doubt, Mark talks about it in verse 38, where Jesus urges his disciples to watch and pray in order to overcome the evil one. in Verses 29-31 Jesus responds to Peter's enthusiastic expressions and to his promises that he will not doubt with the rest (“I do not doubt”) by informing him in advance of his triple denial that will happen (“Today, on this night, before the rooster crows twice”) (Mark’s statement about the rooster crowing twice, St. John Chrysostom says it comes from Peter's careful recollection of his teacher.) Peter's denial, as well as his repentance, constitute not only a painful experience for Peter, but also for the entire Church, to which evangelists turn, emphasizing that destabilizing event in order to protect Christians from accidental denials and shakes of faith in times of difficult persecutions. Peter's example indicates that self-confidence is not enough in times of temptation, but rather the issue requires summoning divine help. Saint John Chrysostom compares Peter's denial and Judas' surrender He says: “We learn from here a great example, which is that a person’s preparation is not enough if he does not receive help from above, and he does not benefit from the help from above if he does not have the preparation.” Then Saint Chrysostom mentions Peter’s mistakes, and says that they were three: his opposition to the words of the Lord, his superiority over others, and finally his great confidence in himself.

Where exactly lies the disciples’ “doubt” (the “experience” he speaks of in the following account)? If we take into account the contradiction between Satan and the work of the Messiah, it is logical to assume that the temptation is intended to raise doubts in the disciples about whether their teacher, who is directed to humiliation and suffering, is truly the Messiah. Shortly before the Passion narrative, the Evangelists teach us (see Mark 10: 35-45, Matthew 20: 20-28) that the disciples hoped that the Messiah’s King would become powerful in the world. How, then, could this powerful Messiah bear the suffering? Maybe he was not the true Messiah! Satan tries to instill this doubt in the disciples throughout Jesus' work, using as his tools the Jews who openly doubt his Messiahship, distort the interpretation of his miracles, and pose various questions to the disciples and to the Messiah himself who according to the account of the temptations (Luke 14:1-13 - Matthew 4:1-11 ) He is tried in order to move away from the path of obedience and suffering and so that his thoughts can be directed towards imposing himself easily on the people as a world leader.

In fact, this temptation is serious and harsh, so Jesus “pleaded” (Luke 22:23) to the Father. We also know from the Gospel of John (Chapter 27) that Jesus, before the Passion, prayed to the Father for his disciples.

Prayer in Gethsemane and the arrest of Jesus:

32 And they came to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 Then he took with him Peter, James, and John, and began to be astonished and distressed. 34 Then he said to them, “I am deeply saddened to the point of death.” “Stay here and watch.” 35 Then he went forward a little and fell to the ground and prayed that the hour might pass from him, if possible. 36 And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you; remove this cup from me. But not what I will, but what you will.” 37 Then he came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not stay awake for one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you do not enter into temptation. The spirit is active, but the flesh is weak. 39 And he went away again and prayed, saying the same words. 40 Then he returned and found them sleeping again, for their eyes were heavy, and they did not know what to answer him. 41 Then he came a third time and said to them: “Sleep now and rest! It is enough! The hour has come! Behold, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Arise, let us go! Behold, he who betrays me has drawn near!”
43 And immediately while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and staves from the chief priests and the king. Repent and the elders. 44 And the one who betrayed him had given them a sign, saying, “The one whom I will kiss is he. “Seize him, and go with him carefully.” 45 And he immediately came and approached him, saying, “My lord, my lord!” And he kissed him. 46 Then they laid hands on him and seized him. 47 Then one of those present drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “You are out to take me as against a thief, with swords and staves! 49 Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me! But that the scriptures might be fulfilled.” 50 Then they all abandoned him and fled. 51 A young man followed him, wearing a garment over his naked body, and the young men seized him. 52 So he left the garment and fled from them, naked. (Mark 14: 32-52, Matthew 26: 36-56, Luke 22: 40-53).

The discussion in verses 26-31 seems to be about the road to Gethsemane which is the site of the Mount of Olives (“garden” in John 18:1, 26), meaning an oil press. Jesus' struggle in Gethsemane (verse 32 et seq.) with regard to three of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, whom he took with him and separated from the rest, is described in the words of the Psalm. “My soul is sorrowful to the point of death” (Psalm 41:6 and Mark 14:34). “Until death” is a phrase that expresses the severity of the struggle, which reaches its peak in what Luke says “His sweat became like drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). Such a struggle does not come from human fear in the face of coming death, but from confronting death as “the last enemy” of God’s creative work, as the final result of sin, and as a deficiency in “so good” creation. Jesus experiences in an intense way the tragic consequences of the rule of sin in the world, and feels great confusion and sorrow over them. Saint Cyril of Alexandria attributes Jesus' grief in particular to what the Israeli people have become. The interpreting fathers here generally acknowledge the teaching about The human nature of Christ Which they stress in front of the heretics who deny it.

This teaching is supported by the content of Jesus' prayer to the Father. For example, Theophylectus writes: “He also desires to live as a human being, and he hopes that the cup will be removed from him because the human being loves life. While heresies refute his words, claiming that he became man outwardly.” We believe that the main emphasis in the Jesus Prayer lies in the second part of it, that is, in accepting God's will. If the honorable Evangelists mention Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (which was three times according to Mark and Matthew), it is not to tell us that he hesitated at a certain moment as a human being, but rather that he, as an obedient son and a suffering servant, accepted God’s will until the end. Therefore, Dionysius of Alexandria notes from the beginning: “It is clear that the phrase If you want It indicates obedience and humility, not ignorance or hesitation.”

After his fervent prayer, Jesus turns to his disciples, and most likely to the three with whom he was alone, as he was speaking to Peter and found them sleeping (“from sorrow,” Luke adds), and he advises them By staying up late and praying Lest they enter into “temptation” (see the commentary on Mark 14:26-28). In order to overcome this temptation at that important hour, Jesus repeats his prayer to the Father for the second and third time.

Verse 41: Then he announces the approach of the one who greets him, saying: “It is enough. The hour has come.” The difficulty in understanding the verb “apekhi” goes back to ancient times, as appears from the manuscript tradition, where we find the various expressions: “The matter is settled. The hour has come”; “The matter is settled, and the hour has come.” “The matter is settled. “The hour has come”; “The hour has come. "The end is near." The most common and oldest phrase is “enough.” The hour has come.” It is clear that some manuscripts correct the verse and understand it in light of what is stated in Luke 22:37: “For what concerns me has an end.”

Among the most important interpretations of verse 41 and the word apekhi:

a - This word is related to the sleep of the disciples, and Jesus says to them: Stop sleeping, the hour of my arrest has come. Wake up!

B - The verb addresses Judas: “While you sleep, he seizes me: my hour has come.” Supporters of this interpretation cite Philemon 15, where the word apekhi has the meaning of taking, receiving, and handing over, and is used to someone.

C - A question mark is placed with the verb indicating that the end is approaching: “How far is the end?” No, the hour has come.” Those who lean towards this interpretation adopt Codex D.

Dr - The expression is distorted from the Aramaic original, which says: “The end and the hour are drawing near.”

E – The verb apekhi comes from the commercial expression and means to pay. So the meaning of the sentence is that Jesus emphasizes his acceptance of the hour that he asked the Father to express for him (verse 35).

And - Matthew mentions the entire account of Mark 14:32-42 with minor changes without the word apekhi, which indicates that the word was not originally in Mark's text and was introduced to it later.

Without adopting the writing of Codex D, we believe that the verb apekhi should be related to the near end event and the near “hour” that is determined not by the Jews but by God’s will and love. In such a case, Mark’s verse 41 is similar to what was stated in Luke 22:37: “For what concerns me has an end.” Zygavnos rightly explains: “It is enough. For me, the matter is settled, that is, it has come to an end.”

Arrest of Jesus:

While Jesus is directing his words to the disciples, Judas, “one of the twelve,” comes with a large crowd and kisses the teacher. We should not find any special badness in the kiss itself, since it constitutes the usual greeting to the teacher from the disciples, but here it constitutes the previously agreed upon sign in order to know whom they should arrest.

When Jesus was arrested, one of his disciples (Peter according to John 18:10) attacked the high priest's servant with a sword and cut off his right ear. It is more likely that this slave led the delegation upon delivery. Either it is “the police chief of the city of Jerusalem” or that he means Judah, these are unlikely considerations and are not based on any evidence. Likewise, the theory that says that the student aims, through this violent act, to punish the high priest with a symbolic punishment (because cutting off the ear constitutes a shameful act according to Eastern customs) is a theory based, of course, on knowledge of Eastern customs, but it presupposes a punishment imposed after thought and study, and not an act that comes as an apostasy. A sudden action in the middle of a semi-dark atmosphere. It is most likely that the aforementioned student brandished his sword against the slave leader, but he could only cut off his ear.

Jesus tells those who came to arrest him that the way they came was consistent with the situation of one of the “thieves,” and that there was more than one appropriate circumstance to fulfill their desire as long as he taught every day in the temple. Through all of this, he wants to say, according to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, “His arrest was not carried out by their own power, but by the will of Him who accepted the sufferings voluntarily and by His own arrangement.” But what does Jesus mean behind the word “thief”? Did they arrest him because he was considered a criminal? This is the usual interpretation of the word thief by commentators. There is an attractive and worthwhile view that this phrase, as Josephus attests (History of the Jewish War 2:587-593, 4:84-97), was used to refer to zealous leaders rebelling against the Romans. Thus, according to the supporters of this point of view, the other two thieves who were crucified with Christ were from the party of the Zealots (Mark 15:27, Matthew 27:38), as well as Barabbas, whom the fourth evangelist describes as a thief. Although this point of view uses a distant reference, it is worthy of attention because it expresses the fervent atmosphere of the “Zealous” in that time period.

Before we come to the story contained in Mark about the naked young man, let us try to answer the question Who are the people who came to arrest Jesus? The Fourth Evangelist, in his similar account, gives a special impression in his use of expressions referring to the divisions of the Roman armies, such as the company “spira” and the commander of the thousand “Chiliarkhos” (John 18: 3 and 12), while the first two Synoptic Evangelists speak of the crowd in general, sent by the chief priests, scribes, and elders. (Mark 14:43, Matthew 26:47). As for Luke, he speaks at the beginning about the crowd, and then he clearly identifies those coming for the arrest as the high priests and leaders of the temple soldiers and the elders (Luke 22:52).

Some interpreters consider that John gives more accurate historical information, and they believe that Jesus was arrested by Roman force. But we believe that the Romans could not have arrested Jesus for the following reasons:

a - It is unreasonable to mobilize an entire company consisting of a thousand or 600 men in order to arrest a single individual accused by some fanatical Jews. On the other hand, this work requires an order from the Roman governor, who, according to our account, takes note of the situation later.

B - If the Romans had arrested Jesus, they would have taken him to the Roman leaders and not to the Jewish high priest.

C - The sentence that Jesus uses in front of those who came to arrest him: “Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me” is logically directed at the Jews.

Dr - If this were the case, the Evangelist Luke, who was familiar with Roman military expressions, would have shown the presence of the Romans at the scene of Jesus’ arrest.

It seems that the Evangelist John does not use the word “spira” in its own technical sense, but rather loosely in general to denote a military group. Based on a decision from the “Temple Governor,” this group could consist of 21 Levites who would guard the Temple. On the other hand, we know that Judas had negotiated with the chief priests, the temple soldiers, and the elders for the surrender, according to the account of Luke 22:4. He cooperated with the temple force, the Levitical guard, most likely servants of the great council (see John 18:3, 12, “servants of the rulers.” “Priests and Pharisees” and “Jewish servants.”

Verses 51-52: The account of Jesus' arrest by Mark ends with the news mentioned only in Mark about the young man wearing a loincloth who left the loincloth and ran away naked when they were about to arrest him (Mark 14: 51-52). Who is this young man and why does Mark mention him? Of course, the evangelist is not talking about an imaginary event inspired by Amos 2:16, “And the hard-hearted will flee on that day,” or about a previous symbol of the resurrection of Christ who avoided death, as did the young man who fled from the hands of those who came to arrest him. The event actually took place, as it appears from the non-artificial details and the natural general picture. Perhaps the reason why other evangelists do not mention it is that they consider it to be of no particular importance to the readers of their Gospel.

Many theories have been written about the identity of this strange young man. Ancient interpreters consider the young man mentioned to be the Evangelist John or James, the brother of the Lord, while modern interpreters see in this nameless young man either a strange resident of the region or, as the majority of them see it, the Evangelist Mark himself, and Mark provided this detailed news because it relates to him personally. . Therefore, we believe that the latter point of view is more likely.

What was the goal that the evangelist was looking for behind this news? Does he want to give us a personal testimony about the arrest of Christ? Rather, we must say that by mentioning this personally witnessed event, the evangelist places the seal of his own testimony on all the events presented, just as the evangelist Rabb did in one of the places in his Gospel without mentioning his name, leaving us to realize his identity.

Jesus before the Great Council – Peter’s Denial:

53 So they took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders, and scribes gathered with him. 54 And Peter had followed him afar off into the palace of the high priest, and was sitting among the servants, warming himself by the fire. 55 The chief priests and the whole council were seeking evidence against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, and their testimonies did not agree. 57 Then some people rose up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands.’ And in three days Another building, not made with hands.” 59 Nor did their testimony agree on this. 60 Then the high priest stood up in the middle and asked Jesus, saying, “Are you answering nothing? What do these people testify against you? 61 But he was silent and did not answer anything. Then the high priest asked him again and said to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 Then Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven.” 63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemies! what do you think?" They all judged him worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to punch him, and to say to him, “Prophesy.” And the servants were beating him.
66 While Peter was in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “And you were with Jesus of Nazareth!” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you say.” And he went out into the corridor, and the rooster crowed. 69 Then the maid also saw him and began to say to those standing by, “This is one of them!” 70 Then he denied it again. After a little while, those present said to Peter, “Truly you are one of them, for you are also a Galilean, and your language is similar to their language!” 71 Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak!” 72 Then the rooster crowed a second time, and Peter remembered what Jesus had said to him: “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” When he thought about it, he cried. (Mark 14:53-72, Matthew 26:56-75, Luke 22:54-71).

After his arrest, Jesus is taken by the Jewish military squad of the temple to the high priest (Caiaphas according to Matthew 26:57), who summons with him the chief priests, elders, and scribes. It is not clearly stated whether the entire Jewish Great Council was called, and it usually met in a private residence in the inner court of the Temple, called the Council (Vouli) by the historian Josephus. But it seems that the meeting took place at night in the house of the high priest, and in his courtyard Peter was present with the servants. Many commentators consider the most likely account to be Luke's account, which says that Jesus was locked up all night in the house of the high priest, mocked by the guards, awaiting the morning when the council was called to convene (Luke 22:54-71). Peter's denial of Jesus occurred during the night before the council was held. In any case, it must be said that the Gospels do not aim to give recorded facts of the trial that took place or a detailed description of the events, but rather they are religious texts that carry a special theological character. Evangelicals want to stand out Jesus' Messianic Confession Before the official Jewish leaders, this confession angered the council and led to the decision to sentence him to death. Honorable writers do not want to provide details of a legal nature about the ongoing trial. We cannot give a fundamental meaning to the attempt of some contemporary writers to collect the “errors” and legal violations in the trial committed by the Great Jewish Council. Likewise, one does not gain any profit from trying to prove that the Jews acted against the law. Evangelicals are not concerned with the illegal trial that took place, but rather the Church’s belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, who was sentenced to death by the Jews, and the belief that this death occurred in order to save humanity from sin according to the will of God.

After this clarification of the previous matters, let us come to the presentation of the incidents as reported by the Evangelist Mark. in Verses 55-59 He talks about the coming of many false witnesses whose testimonies did not agree, and then he mentions two false witnesses who claimed that they heard the accused talking about demolishing the temple and building a new temple in three days. This statement appears on the lips of Jesus only in John 2:19, where he attributes it to “the temple of his body” (see also Acts 6:14). Mark notes in a distinctive way: When the high priest called on Jesus to answer the accusations against him, the Lord remained silent. This silence brings to mind a prophecy Isaiah 53:7 “And like a lamb that is silent before those who shear it, it does not open its mouth.”.

Jesus is silent, knowing that he is a servant of God walking toward suffering, but for the first time, he publicly declares that he is the Messiah. (verses 61-62) It also foretells his glorious coming. The high priest’s question in verse 61 to Jesus, “If the Messiah is the Son of the Blessed,” gives the impression that the Messiah in the Jewish texts is not clearly described as the Son of God. Many modern commentators note here:

A - The question of the high priest was posed by the Evangelists in a way that reflects the Church’s Christological expression (pertaining to Christ).

B - Jesus’ answer is rather an expression of the church’s belief in his messiahship.

The first observation “A” is of course possible because the evangelists, when narrating the incidents related to Jesus, use Christian expressions that were formed in the embrace of the church. We can also say that the Jewish high priest, through a question, does not present the Jewish concept of the Messiah, but rather the opinion of his followers about him, or that he aims to invite Jesus to say that he is the Son of God in a way that proves his accusation of “blasphemy.” As for the second remark, “B,” we can say the following: These modern interpreters want to say that the answer given to the high priest does not come from Jesus himself, but from the church’s belief in the person of Christ as the Son of God. But we believe that Christ's positive answer, as we will explain later, constitutes a historical element because he played a decisive role in the entire trial, especially in sentencing him to death. The Jews returned and repeated it, mockingly addressing Jesus at the hour of the crucifixion (Mark 15:32).

On the other hand, if the point of view that says that Jesus’ answer to the high priest was correct was correct, the resurrection would have to be mentioned as well, because it constitutes an essential part of the faith of the early church, as appears in the confession of faith to which the New Testament attests.

Jesus' answer (verse 62) is explicitly positive. Otherwise, there is no justification for the high priest’s displeasure and accusation of “blasphemy.” The formula of the answer, as mentioned in Matthew 26:64, which according to some carries a hidden denial (“Jesus said to him, ‘You said it. From now on you will see.’”) has the following meaning: when asking the high priest if he is the Christ, or rather the political Messiah expected before. To the Jews, Jesus responds with the verses of Psalm 109:1 and Daniel 7:13 that he is not the Messiah as the Jews believe, but as a servant who suffers now and as the Son of Man who will come in glory later.

Responsibility of the Jews:

After this answer, the high priest tore his clothes and pointed out the “blasphemy” that Jesus had committed (verse 63). According to the Jews, this blasphemy is more clearly demonstrated in the fact that Jesus transcended human limits by considering himself the Son of God (see John 5:18, 10:33 and 36, 19:7). The Jewish high priest does not recognize the revelation of God in the person of Christ, and his claim that he is the Son of God and that he is about to come as Judge is considered unacceptable blasphemy.

Because of this “blasphemy,” it was decided to sentence Jesus to death (verse 64)Knowing that in Luke’s narration, the evangelist does not talk about the council’s decision and sentence of death (see Luke 22: 70-71).

The question is asked today by many whether the Jewish council condemned Jesus to death and later requested the ratification of its decision by the Roman governor, because the council did not have the right to impose the death penalty (see John 8:31b), or whether it interrogated Jesus beforehand in order to He gathers evidence against him that helps Pilate convict him. Thus, some commentators say that the council sentenced Jesus to death, wanting to place all responsibility on the Jewish leaders, while others say that the role of the council was limited to prior interrogation of Jesus in order to determine the charge against Pilate, and this in turn issued the death sentence for Jesus. These latter interpreters place the responsibility on the Romans, claiming that they are relying on Luke's narrative of events. But this argument is against them, because it is known that Luke, throughout his entire Gospel, tries to justify the Romans from all persecution against Christians. Therefore, the Gospel of Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, was considered the first defense of Christianity before the Roman rulers.

Church point of view:

Despite some attempts by modern commentators to place responsibility for the crucifixion on the Roman ruler, it is clear that evangelicals emphasize the major role played by the Jewish religious leadership in the process of condemning Jesus to death. This point of view of the Evangelists about the responsibility of the Jews has an echo in the sayings of the Apostles, especially Peter, in Acts, where we infer that it was the prevailing point of view in the early church (see, for example, Acts 2:23, “This man Jesus... was crucified and put to death by the hands of sinners”; Acts 2:26, “...this man whom you crucified”; Acts 3:13-15 “Jesus, whom you handed over and denied before the face of Pilate...”; Acts 5:30 “which you spoke by hanging him on the tree of reproach”; Stephen’s statement in Acts 7:52 “whom you are now betraying.” And kill him”; see also Acts 4:10, 10:40, 13:29...). Of course, in its preaching, the Church emphasizes the responsibility of the Jews, and at the same time attributes this responsibility to their ignorance, in order to guide them to repentance and belief that the crucified and risen Christ is their savior as well.

Immediately after the death sentence, the evangelist mentions the mockery (verse 65). It is known in the ancient East that after the court’s death sentences, the convicts were mocked and laughed at to set an example for others. If the evangelist presents us with mockery, then he wants to emphasize that Jesus Christ suffers and is mocked as it was written about him in Isaiah (especially chapter 53), and that he represents the suffering servant who walks without complaint and is obedient to God the Father. This is why the other evangelists all mention mockeries, in different places in each one's account (see Matthew 26:27-68, Luke 22:63-65, 23:11, John 18:22-23, 19:2 -3).

Peter's denial:

Peter's denial (verses 66-72) takes place in the “lower house” of the high priest while he was warming himself with the servants, sitting by the fire, where the servants gathered to escape the cold of the night and perhaps to comment on the events. Peter denies all his relationship with Jesus of Nazareth when he is asked for the first time by one of the high priest’s maids, and for the second time by the same maid (and this time she does not address his words directly to him, but rather speaks about him to those present), and for the third time by “those present.” After the third denial, the sound of the rooster comes to remind the disturbed student of his teacher’s prediction about him. Then Peter automatically compared his desire to follow Jesus to the point of death (Mark 14:31, “Even if I had to die with you, I would not deny you”) that he had expressed a while ago, with the bitter reality of denying him three times. to understand In tears. These tears were of course tears of repentance. The question of the risen Jesus to Peter “Do you love me?” Three times (see John 21:15...) is a kind of “restoration” for him, as well as his apostolic work and death for Christ. All of this indicates how deep and sincere his repentance was. The honorable evangelists mentioned this incident of denial without concealing it for educational reasons.

---

(1) References about the Passion: {“This footnote came in the book within the body of the text as the end of the paragraph (p. 233), but we thought it would be better when putting it on the Internet to put it as a footnote so as not to interrupt the context of the text.”… (The Network)}

• Antoniadou E., O Character tou televtaiou deipnou tou Kyriou kai o aetos tis thias Evcharistias, Athens, 1961

• Iannakopoulou Ioil, I Zoi tou Christou, Tome 5, Holy Week A' and B', Kalamai, 1953.

• Gratsea G., O Stravors, condensed biblical and historical treaty, OHE, Tome 11, Athens, 1967.

• Damala N., Erminia tis Kainis Diathikis, Tome 2-4, Athens, 1982.

• Doikou D., To Biblikon Ebraikon Pascha, Thessaloniki, 1969.

• Theochari A., To Chronologikon Problima ton Pathon tou Kyriou, Deltion Biblikon Meleton 1, 1971, pp. 34-51.

• Karavidopoulo, To Pathos tou Christon, Thessaloniki, 1974.

(2) Reveal (apocalyptic).

(3) See Dr. Adnan Tripoli, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Part Three, Appendix: History of the Crucifixion... (Al-Shabaka)

(4) Pasta in the Mount of Olives.

(5) That is, on Thursday.

(6) protyposis, i.e. a previous image of the mystery of divine thanksgiving (see the explanation of the passage in Mark 6:30-44, the miracle of the loaves and fishes)

(7) Typecon any service arrangement.

(8) The Eucharist is the sacrament of thanksgiving, the divine sacrifice, or the divine mass.

(9) Concerning the last days.

(10) “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.”

(11) For more on this topic, see Dr. Adnan Tripoli, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Part Three, Appendix: History of the Crucifixion... (Al-Shabaka)

(12) Check out the exhibition of Orthodox icons in the network... (Al-Shabaka)