Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 22:14 - 22:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Parallel to Mat_26:20-29; Mar_14:17-25; Joh_13:21-35.)
Luk_22:14. The hour.—The ὥñá of the law, Matthew and Mark ὀøßáò . Respecting the manner of celebrating the Passover, see Lange on Mat_26:20, and Friedlieb, Archäologie der Leidensgeschichte, § 18 seq. Comp. Lightfoot, Wetstein, Sepp, a. o., although it is yet very much a question whether all the usages and acts there adduced were already practised precisely in the same way in the time of Jesus; besides, we ought to consider that the Evangelical account by no means makes the impression as if our Lord had celebrated the Passover even to the minutest particulars according to the existing usages. We might rather suppose the opposite, if we consider how He, with all obedience towards the law, observed in respect to the ritual tradition a becoming freedom, and how He was here less concerned for a duly arranged celebration of the feast than for an hour of undisturbed society, composed farewell, and prayer with His own.
Reclined at table.—Although originally, Exo_12:11, a celebration of the Passover standing was prescribed, it afterwards became usual to recline at table during it as at any other meal, apparently a symbol of the freedom which Israel had obtained by the Exodus from Egypt, since only slaves were accustomed to stand during eating. In respect to the arrangement of the places for the company at the table, little can be determined with certainty. From Joh_13:23 it only appears that John has the first place, nearest the Saviour, while Peter must not be looked for immediately next to him, but only near him, since he does not speak to him, but only beckons to him (Luk_13:24), about that which he wished to inquire about of him. The place of the father of the house, who presided at the paschal celebration, our Lord here occupies, and by Luke the very moment is brought before us, Luk_22:15-18, in which He opens the celebration. Perhaps He uttered the words Luk_22:15-16, instead of the customary thanksgiving to God, who had made this day for His people.
Luk_22:15. With desire I have desired.—Hebraism: ἐðéèõìßᾳ ἐðåèὐìçóá compare the LXX on Num_11:4; Psa_106:14. This very first word gives us to know our Lord’s frame of mind, which in this whole evening remained the prevailing one. His suffering stands so clearly before His soul, that He no longer even expressly announces it, but presupposes the nearness of it as something sufficiently known. He has already, for a considerable time, desired to eat this Passover, and is thinking thereby not of the meal of the New Testament (Tertullian and other fathers), but of the Israelitish feast, which for one and twenty years had gained continually deeper significance and higher value for His heart. He has very peculiarly desired to eat it with His own, ìåè ̓ ὑìῶí ; He feels that He is not only Redeemer but also Friend of His disciples, and He has especially longed after such a reunion, on account of the institution of the Supper, which is even now to be entered upon. It is as if He forgot the presence of Judas, as if He knew Himself to be in a circle of none but sincere, faithful friends, out of whom He however was soon to depart. In the very beginning therefore He gives to the festal celebration the character of a feast of farewell, and therewith prepares His disciples for the institution of the Supper that commemorates His death.
Luk_22:16. For I say unto you.—It is of course understood that our Lord, before or in the utterance of these words, must have eaten at least something of the meal, as He indeed Himself, Luk_22:15, indicates. He declares here only that after the present one, He will no longer celebrate the Israelitish Passover, ἕùò ὅôïí ðëçñùèῆ ἐí ôῇ âáóéë . ôïῦ èåïῦ ; that is, “not until all be fulfilled which must be fulfilled in My kingdom of grace” (Starke); nor is ä êáéñüò or any such thing to be supplied, but simply ôὸ ðÜó÷á . To wish to conclude now from this that our Lord expects a literal Passover at the revelation of His Divine kingdom in glory, is purely arbitrary, since it is plain enough that He here, as often, describes the joy of the perfected Messianic kingdom under the image of a feast. The Passover is only fulfilled when the outer form, the Passover celebration, is entirely broken down, and the eternal idea, a perfect feast of deliverance, is fully realized. The Lord points “to the eternal coronation-feast of His glorified Church, the shining image of the eternal supper, the anticipatory celebration of which in the New Testament covenant meal, He is now about to establish.” Lange.
In the kingdom of God= ἐí ðáñïõóßᾳ ìïõ . As our Saviour in the paschal lamb sees the type of His own immaculate sacrifice, so does He see in the paschal celebration a symbolical setting forth of the perfect joy of heaven.
Luk_22:17. The cup.—There is no other meant by this than the first, with which the festal celebration ex officio had begun. The word åὐ÷áñéóôÞóáò appears to indicate that our Lord uttered the customary blessing: “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hast created the fruit of the vine;” perhaps we hear the echo thereof in the words, Luk_22:18, ἀðὸ ôïῦ ãåííÞìáôïò ôῆò ἀìðÝëïõ . The address: Take this and divide it among yourselves ( ἐáõôïῖò ), appears, it is true, to indicate that our Lord puts from Himself the enjoyment of the paschal wine. However, we may yet conclude from the following words, Luk_22:18, that our Lord says this after He has previously drank, even as He had in Luk_22:15-16 previously eaten, but in no case does there exist, even on the first interpretation, a ground for considering this expression of our Saviour, even at the first cup, as improbable (Meyer). The drinking of the paschal wine was at all events not prescribed by the law, like the eating of the paschal lamb, on which account our Lord might place Himself composedly above the common forms, without His act therefore having become illegal, irreligious, or offensive.—Until the kingdom of God shall have come.—That is, of course, in glory, as in Luk_22:16. That our Lord repeated the same expression in a somewhat altered form after the institution of the Supper, as is related in Mat_26:29 and Mar_14:25, cannot possibly in itself be incredible.
Luk_22:19. And He took bread.—The institution of the Supper, to the description of which Luke now already passes over, was undoubtedly preceded by the dispute about rank, Luk_22:24-27, and the foot-washing, John 13. Luke visibly makes not the Passover but the Lord’s Supper the centre of his whole delineation, and communicates the dispute about rank, Luk_22:24, apparently only by occasion of the dispute which, Luk_22:23, had arisen through the uncertainty in reference to the person of the traitor. By attentive comparison of the Evangelical accounts, we can decide only for the following arrangement of the different events in the Passover-hall: 1. Opening of the meal (Luk_22:15-18). 2. Almost contemporaneously, or even before this, the dispute about rank, Luk_22:24-27 (comp. Joh_13:1-11). 3. Further remarks of the Saviour (Joh_13:18-20; Luk_22:28-30). Meanwhile the continuation of the celebration, undoubtedly more on the part of the disciples than on the part of our Lord, and participation of the second cup, which is not expressly mentioned in the gospels. 4. The discovery of the traitor (Mat_26:21-25; Mar_14:18-21; Luk_22:21-23; Joh_13:21-30). 5. After his going out, the institution of the Lord’s Supper, in all probability to be inserted Joh_13:34-35. Although in and of itself it may be concluded, from the account of Luke literally taken, that Judas was yet present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, yet from the comparison of all the other accounts, the opposite becomes evident, so that all dogmatic debates about the enjoyment of the communion by the unworthy Judas, together with all deductions therefrom, are without any firm historical basis.
Luk_22:19. This is My body.—The institution of the Lord’s Supper took place therefore just before the third cup, which in consequence of it was hallowed as the cup of the New Covenant. The Lord takes up one of the remaining cakes of bread, and now speaks the words of institution. As respects the form of the words themselves, it appears at once that Matthew here agrees most closely with Mark, Luke most closely with Paul, 1 Cor. 2:23 seq., so that the genuinely Pauline character of his gospel in this place, also, does not belie itself. Before we quite make up our minds to the opinion that our Lord repeated the words of institution several times, more or less modified, we prefer to consider, as being thoroughly authentic, those words which He according to all the narrators uses, while that which each Evangelist gives in particular can only be judged on grounds of internal probability. With the words This is My body, Luke has ôὸ ̔ õðἐñ ὑìῶí äéäüìåíïí . These words are on internal grounds probable, even on account of the parallelism with the subsequent “which is shed for you,” and are by no means in conflict with 1Co_11:24, since êëþìåíïí is decidedly spurious. Agreeably to the connection, äéäüìåíïí can be understood only of a surrender to death, while ὑðÝñ here does not of necessity express the idea of representation, but may be translated generally: in commodum vestrum.
This do in remembrance of Me.—These words, at the distribution of the bread, are also given by Luke and Paul alone, but they have internal probability, as well on account of what immediately follows at the giving of the cup, as also of the character of the celebration, which is to be a permanent memorial institution. If we could assume (Stier, Nitzsch, a. o.) that the Pauline words: ἐãþ ãὰñ ðáñÝëáâïí ἀðὸ ôïῦ êõñßïõ point to a direct revelation, in which the glorified Saviour gave to a letter the formula of institution communicated by Him, then undoubtedly the exactness of the rendering of Luke with its Pauline coloring, would be raised above all doubt. There is however nothing in the words of the Apostle to necessitate us to understand such an extraordinary revelation, since he may have also meant thereby the evangelical tradition that had come to his knowledge.
Luk_22:20. Ìåôὰ ôὸ äåéðíῆóáé .—The third cup commonly went round for the first time after the meal was finished, and we do not therefore need, from this expression of itself, to draw the inference that now the paschal celebration for this evening had been entirely ended; on the other hand, there belong thereto a fourth and fifth cup, as well as the singing of the hymn of praise, Mat_26:30. The institution of the Supper is therefore taken up as a special act into the course of the paschal celebration, although it is not probable that this last, at least as concerns the eating, was yet continued after the reception of the communion bread. Our Lord (Matthew and Mark) now names this cup ôὸ áἱ ̈ ìÜ ìïõ ôῆò äéáèÞêçò , while He according to Luke and Paul speaks of ἡ êáéíÞ äéáèÞêç ὲí ôῷ áἵìáôé ìïõ . But whichever expression may have been the most original, yet the signification of it is not hard to understand. As the Old Covenant was not established without blood (Exo_24:8, comp. Heb_9:16), so through the blood of Christ was the New Covenant, which God now concluded with man, Jer_31:31-34, confirmed and sealed. Of this blood it is said (Matthew and Mark), that it was shed ὑðὲñ or ðåñὶ ðïëëῶí , according to Luke, ôὸ ὑðὲñ ὑìῶí ἐê÷õíüìåíïí . We might almost suppose that the latter was the original, the former, on the other hand, a later ecclesiastically established formula. But in no case is the application of the blood limited by the ðïëëῶí , as if it had taken place for many and not for all, but on the other hand the purpose is thereby as much as possible extended, as embracing not only the Apostles, but in addition many with them.
If we consider the whole formula of the distribution of the bread and wine, we believe that we must understand it so as to explain the ôïῦôï as referring to the broken piece of bread, and to the wine poured into the cup which He reaches to His disciples. That our Lord did not in His language once use the much controverted ἐóôßí , is as certain as that it must necessarily be understood to complete the sense. He means that the broken bread which He hands to them in this instant represents His body, and that that ( ôïῦôï ðïéåῖôå ) which they were just about to do,—the eating of the bread handed to them, namely,—they should do for the remembrance of Him. The same is the case with the cup, &c. From the statements of Luke and Paul it appears yet far more plainly than from those of Matthew and Mark, that our Lord here ordains a permanent meal of remembrance for those that confess Him, even in following ages. How fitting, finally, this whole symbolical act already was for the necessities of the disciples at that moment, appears at once so soon as we even in some measure transport ourselves into their state of mind, and consider what hard trials they were to experience even in the same night.
Luk_22:21. But behold the hand.—“This allusion to the traitor (according to Luke, in distinction from the rest without any more particular specification), Luke has in the wrong place.” Meyer. Evidently he is merely concerned to give a condensed reference to a particular which he will neither pass over entirely nor yet communicate in greater detail. That, in Mat_26:21-25, only a first preliminary designation of the traitor appears, which took place even before the institution of the Supper, supposed to have subsequently taken place in the presence of Judas, and which was finally succeeded by yet a second more particular designation, which Luke alone, Luk_22:22, communicates (Stier), we cannot possibly assume. The consternation and the whispering of the Eleven, Luk_22:23, is only comprehensible if they now for the first time hear anything of it. Least of all can we understand a double designation of the traitor uttered on two different evenings, or a repetition of the intimation on one and the same evening. There remains, therefore, no other choice than to assume that Luke has communicated our Lord’s declaration concerning Judas more êáôὰ äéÜíïéáí than êáôὰ ῥçôüí , as indeed appears even from the incomplete form in which he, Luk_22:22, has noted down the Woe uttered upon Judas (comp. Mat_24:24; Mar_14:21). It is especially the beginning of the discovery of the traitor, as previously the beginning of the paschal celebration, which Luke places in the foreground.
With Me on the table.
Very fine is the remark of Bengel: “mecum, non vobiscum ait. Proditorem igitur a reliquis discipulis segregans, sibi uni jam cum isto, tanquam hoste quidem, rem esse docet.” If, however, we assume that Luke relates merely the main fact, then it will hardly be necessary to paraphrase with Bengel a “manus quœ sacram cœnam sumpsit.” Quite as well may we here insert in thought: The hand which but just now, as an instrument in the eating of the Passover, was stretched out upon the table. As well the deep affliction as the displeasure of our Lord exhibits itself in these words; but very peculiarly does His long-suffering reveal itself in this, that He yet endures in His presence the traitor whose shameful plan He penetrates. As to the rest, the formula of commencement that now follows: ðëὴí ἰäïí ̓, which plainly shows that the discourse passes over to something else, of itself entitles us to give up any direct connection of Luk_22:21 with Luk_22:20. According to our view, this expression utters in a freer form the same thing which we read Mat_26:21; Mar_14:18; Joh_13:21, while Luk_22:22 (see parallel) appears again to have been spoken some moments after.
Luk_22:22. For truly the Son of Man goeth.— Ὅôé states the ground why the Lord could again, as already previously, Mat_26:2, speak of a ðáñáäéäüíáé “The Son of Man,” that is, “goes, it is true, êáôὰ ôὸ ὡñéóìÝíïí ” (Matthew and Mark, êáèὼò ãÝãñáðôáé , and that ðåñὶ áὐôïῦ ). According to the counsel of God predicted in the prophetical Scriptures, the Son of Man must necessarily die, but by no means does this take away the responsibility of him who threatens voluntarily to become the instrument of His death ( ðëὴí ïὐáß ). A word of warning for Judas before he took the decisive step, in order even on the verge of the abyss to open his eyes. With a fearful mixture of compassion and intense displeasure, our Lord is absorbed in the fate which impends over the traitor. Perfectly conscious of His own dignity, He feels that no other crime can be placed by the side of this; fully acquainted with the secrets of eternity, He sees that no restoration from this terrible wretchedness is to be expected. Too strong would the expression have been which our Lord (according to Matthew and Mark alone) yet adds, “it had been better for that man if he had never been born,” if He had seen glimmering even in the extremest distance one single ray of light, in the night of the eternal doom pronounced upon Judas. “It is the immeasurable fall and the immeasurable curse which He so designates; the Woe which He pronounces upon Judas is a deep Woe of His soul; He profoundly pities that man even back unto his birth. He is troubled so much about the time and eternity of this man, that thereat He can forget His own woe which that man is preparing for Him.” Lange. [This declaration of our Lord: “Good were it for that man if he had never been born,” is in reality the strongest argument in the whole Bible against the doctrine of a final restoration of all men, an argument which it appears to me that we have a right to regard as perfectly conclusive.—C. C. S.]
Luk_22:23. And they began.—Comp. Mat_26:22; Mar_14:19; Joh_13:22 seq. A vivid representation of the disputation which soon arose among them. That Luke does not bring the tragic scene completely to a close, is a new proof that he is by no means here concerned for the completeness of his account. Comp. further the Exegetical and Critical remarks on the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark.
2. Our Lord’s longing for the eating of this Passover with His disciples, is one of the most affecting revelations of His all-surpassing love of sinners, which are preserved to us in the Gospel. It is as if He longs for the death which is to give life to the world. But, furthermore, the prospect given on this occasion of a perfect festal celebration in the kingdom of God, encourages us also to the assertion that His own blessedness, capable of infinite increase, will only then be fully perfected when the kingdom of God shall have fully come, and that He does not less long to see His people with Him than they can ever long to be with Him.
3. Not sufficiently can we admire our Lord’s wisdom and greatness which become visible in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. This is meant to assure the disciples, who had never been able to believe in His dying, of His impending death; it is to place before them this death, which was so offensive to them, in the most comforting light, åἰò ἄöåóéí ἁìáñô . It is finally to oblige them to a continual remembrance of this death, and thus to bind them most intimately together with one another, as well as with the Lord, and with the believers of all following times. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is no fruit of a momentary inspiration, or of a sudden excitement of feeling, but is evidently the result of a previously carefully developed plan. With the sure knowledge of His approaching suffering our Lord unites the clear consciousness of the blessed effect of His death; with His love for His disciples, which causes Him entirely to forget Himself, a wisdom which determines Him even during this meal, and at the right hour of the same, to prepare a strengthening cordial for their faith, their love and hope; with His care for them a salutary institution for the maintaining, uniting, and training of His Church for all following time. Never can His Church be thankful enough to Him for the rich treasures which He bequeathed to her in this institution.
4. That the Holy Communion, which is intended for the union of all believers in Jesus Christ, has been the very cause of the most intense controversy, is certainly one of the most mournful phenomena which the history of Christendom and the Reformation has to show. Nowhere does the apple of discord make a more mournful impression than when it is thrown upon the table of love. So much the more fortunate is it that the blessing of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not necessarily dependent on the interpretation of the words of institution. In reference to this last we have only to place ourselves in the position of the disciples, and to inquire how they, it is likely, understood the Master, in order immediately to recognize the full preposterousness of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Therewith, however, we do not mean that the strictly Lutheran or the old Reformed interpretation does not yet leave many difficulties unsettled. Strauss was not wrong when he, in this respect, more impartially than many a dogmatic author, wrote: “To the writers of our gospels the bread in the Lord’s Supper was the body of Christ; but had any one, therefore, asked them whether the bread was changed, they would have denied it; had any one spoken to them of a receiving the body with and under the species of bread, they would not have understood this; had one concluded that therefore the bread merely signified the body, they would not have found themselves satisfied with that.” It could be wished that all Christians would unite in this proposition, that in the Lord’s Supper there takes place not only a symbolical celebration of the death of Christ, but a real communication of Christ Himself to believers, so that He at this table gives Himself to them to be beheld and to be enjoyed in the whole fulness of His saving love. That in John 6. the idea of the Lord’s Supper stands in the background, although the instruction there given does not refer immediately to the Communion, hardly admits of doubt, 1Co_10:16-17. If only the mystery of the real personal communion with Christ is believingly acknowledged as the mystery of the Holy Supper, then the subordinate question whether this self-communication of our Lord to His people takes place in a corporeal or exclusively in a spiritual way, need not really divide the members of the Evangelical Church forever from each other. [Compare here the Doctrinal and Ethical reflections of Dr. Lange and Dr. Schaff in the Commentary on Matthew, pp. 473–475.—C. C. S.] That the decidedly Zuinglian interpretation has its truth, but not the full truth, is recognized more and more generally by believing theology in the Reformed Church. Compare the admirable monograph of Ebrard, 1848, and on the Lutheran side that of Kahnis, 1851, to say nothing of the manifold observations on this subject in Rudelbach and Guerike’s Zeitschcrift für Lutherische Theologie. In a critical way, the doctrine of the Supper has been in the most recent period investigated with a rather negative result by L. J. Rückert at Jena. A very weighty article has been furnished by Julius Muller in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie. As to the rest, we must refer the reader to the history of doctrines.
5. That the discovery of the traitor belongs to the most affecting and extraordinary moments in the life of our Lord, we should believe even if this did not clearly appear in the Evangelical accounts, nay, even in the brief statement of Luke. So much the more adorable is His composure, long-suffering, and self-control on the one hand, His grave earnestness, His displeasure, and His wrath on the other hand. The first separation which here goes on in this circle of the disciples between light and darkness, is the beginning of a continuous process of purification, and the prophecy of the êñßóéò of the great day.
6. “He hath heartily desired to die for us—who would not heartily desire to live in Him? Christ is more eager to make us partakers of His benefits than we to receive them from Him.” Tauler.
Starke:—Bibl. Wirt.:—Oh, how great a longing hath Jesus had for man’s salvation !—Quesnel:—One communion prepares the way for another; they that have here received Christ sacramentally shall there be celestially united with Him.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—All our food we should, after Jesus’ example, hallow by prayer and thanksgiving, 1Co_10:31.—The foretaste of Divine goodness is even here so sweet and pleasant, what will the perfect enjoyment of blessedness be?—The Holy Communion must, in danger of life, and in the pains of death, be our best cordial and refreshment.—The Lord’s Supper without the cup a maimed one.—Everything, it is true, takes place according to the providence of God, but not always according to the will of God.—Genuine test of a true Christian, to do his enemies good and let them eat with him, even at his table, out of his dish, Rom_12:20.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—Nothing more necessary than self-examination.—We cannot answer for our own hearts without the grace of God.—Many a one thinks not that that shall come to pass with him which yet does come to pass.—Heubner:—When separated, let it be the spirit of Jesus that unites our hearts.—The hope of eternal communion in the presence of Jesus lightens separation to the Christian.—The righteous are ever concerned lest there should be anything evil hidden in them.—Christ Himself ascribes to His death atoning power.—Christ’s love would gather His own around Him.—F. Arens:—The Communion of our Lord: 1. The blessed mystery; 2. the rich springs of blessings; 3. the requisite condition of soul.—Florey:—The Holy Supper and feast of love: 1. Love has founded it; 2. of love does it remind us; 3. love celebrates it; 4. love blesses it.—The communion of our Lord the most admirable hour of solemnity in the house of God: 1. An hour of holy remembrance: 2. of blessed communion; 3. of loving brotherly union.—Harless:—The tree of the new creation of Christ.—Arndt:—The discovery of the traitor a revelation: 1. Of Divine omniscience; 2. of holy love; 3. of fixed resolution.—Krummacher:—Passions-buch: the denunciation of woe: 1. The awfulness of this denunciation; 2. the limits of its applicability.—J. Saurin, Nouv. Serm. i. p. Luke 45:—Sur la sentence de nôtre Seigneur contr. Judas.—Van der Palm:—The greatness of our Lord visible in the institution of the Holy Communion.—W. Hofacker:—.Where does the holy meal of the Lord place us?—Thomasius:—(Judas); The steps to the abyss: 1. The evil lust in the heart; 2. the sin against the conscience; 3. the judgment of reprobacy.—Böckel:—Jesus over against His betrayers.
Footnotes:
Luk_22:14.—The äþäåêá of the Recepta is, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] omitted, according to B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] 157, Sahid, Itala, &c.
Luk_22:16.—Van Oosterzee translates: “eat it,” reading áὐôü instead of the Recepta, ἐî áὐôïῦ , with Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, according to B., L., and various Cursives and Versions, including the Vulgate. Cod. Sin. also reads áὐôü . Van Oosterzee adduces Tischendorf’s authority, but Tischendorf in his 7th ed. has reverted to the Recepta, which Meyer also defends.—C. C. S.]
Luk_22:17.—The ôü , which A., D., K., M., U., and some Cursives read, and which is also received by Lachmann, appears to have crept quite early into many manuscripts, from the liturgical form, but not to be genuine.
Luk_22:22.—The Recepta has êáß ; Tischendorf, according to B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., &c., ὅôé . [Meyer remarks that the OTI was overlooked on account of the following ÏÔÉ , and then the lack of a connective being felt, êáß was subsequently interpolated.—C. C. S.]
[Dr. Schaff, in his book on the Sin against the Holy Ghost, considers this passage conclusive against the apokatastasis, since an endless happiness even after millions of years of pain “would be preferable to non-existence.”]