聖書注解書

CHAPTER 22

Luke 22:5. ἀργύριον] A C K U X, min. Syr. Slav. Eus. Theophyl. have ἀργύρια. See on Mark 14:11.

Luke 22:6. καὶ ἐξωμόλ.] is wanting in Lachm., in opposition to decisive evidence. The omission occurred the more readily that ΚΑΙ ΕΣ follows, and Matthew and Mark have nothing similar.

Luke 22:10. οὗ] A K M P R, min. have οὗ ἐάν. B C L א, Vulg. It. have εἰς ἥν. So Lachm. and Tisch. As the Recepta, according to this, has preponderating evidence against it, while οὗ ἐάν is grammatically erroneous (ἐάν is from Mark 14:14), we must read εἰς ἥν, instead of which was placed, in inexact recollection of Mark 14:14, οὗ (Luke 157: ὅπου).

Luke 22:12. ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) is decisively attested. Comp. on Mark 14:15.

Luke 22:14. δώδεκα] is wanting in B D א, 157, vss., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was written in the margin in agreement with the parallels, and came into the text in some authorities alongside of ἀπόστ., in others instead of it (L X). Comp. also on Luke 9:1.

Luke 22:16. οὐκέτι] is wanting in A B C*? H L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Verc. Epiph. Marcion. Rejected by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. But how easily, being in itself superfluous, it came to be overlooked between ὅτι and οὐ! If it had crept in from Mark 14:25, it would rather have found its place at Luke 22:18.

ἐξ αὐτοῦ] αὐτό is read by Lachm. [and Tisch. 8], in accordance with [א] B C? L, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. It. Vulg. Epiph. The Recepta is to be maintained. The accusative was introduced in accordance with Luke 22:15. Opposed to it, moreover, is the evidence of D, min. Cant., which have ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, wherein the preposition was altered in conformity with Luke 22:18.

Luke 22:17. A D K M U, min. Lachm. have τὸ ποτήρ. The article forced itself in here from the form used in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:20).

Luke 22:20. ὡσαυτ. κ. τ. ποτήρ.] Tisch. has κ. τ. ποτήρ. ὡσαυτ., following B L א, Copt. Sahid.; the Recepta is from 1 Corinthians 11:25.

Luke 22:22. καί] Tisch. has ὅτι, following B D L א, 157, Copt. Sahid. Rightly; ὅτι dropped out before ΟΥΙ (see subsequently on μέν), as it is still wanting in Verc. Cant. Or.; and then καί was interpolated as a connecting particle.

μέν] is, with Tischendorf, to be placed after υἱός, following B L T א** (D has it before ὁ). The usual position before υἱός is from Matthew and Mark.

In what follows read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον πορ. The arrangement in the Recepta is in accordance with the parallels.

Luke 22:30. Elz. Scholz have καθίσησθε. But Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, καθίσεσθε [Tisch. 8 has καθήσεσθε]. This was changed, on account of the construction, into the subjunctive, as though dependent on ἵνα.

Luke 22:32. ἐκλείπῃ] Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκλίπῃ, in accordance with B D K L M U X א, min.; it is accordingly to be preferred. The present offered itself more readily to the transcribers. But στήρισον instead of στήριξον is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch.).

Luke 22:34. πρὶν ἤ] B L T א, min.: ἕως. So Lachm. and Tisch. D has ἕως ὅτου; K M X, min. have ἕως οὗ. Moreover, vss. (Syr. Vulg. It. al.) have donec. πρίν (Q) and πρὶν ἤ (A E G H S U V Γ Δ Λ) were written in the margin from Matthew and Mark.

I regard ἕως ὅτου or ὥς οὗ as genuine. See on Luke 21:24.

ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με] Lachm. Tisch. have με ἀπαρν. εἰδέναι, in accordance with B D L M Q T X א [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με]. The μή was omitted as superfluous, but μέ was pushed forwards in accordance with Mark 14:30 (see thereupon the critical remarks).

Luke 22:35. On decisive evidence βαλλαντίου is to be written, and in Luke 22:36 : βαλλάντιον.

Luke 22:37. ἔτι] is not found, indeed, in A B D H L Q X א, min. vss. (except Vulg.), but after ὅτι its omission occurred too easily to be rightly suspected, according to Griesbach; rejected, according to Schulz; deleted, according to Lachm. Tisch.

Luke 22:42. παρενεγκεῖν] Lachm. has παρένεγκε, in accordance with B D, min. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Syr.p. Syr.cu. Or. Dam. Tert. Ambr.; Tisch. has παρενέγκαι, in accordance with K L M R Π א, min. Both readings were meant to help out the construction in accordance with Mark 14:36. Subsequently is to be written, with Rinck and Tisch., τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ. The order in the Recepta, τὸ ποτ. τοῦτο, is from the parallels.

Luke 22:43-44 are bracketed by Lachm. They are wanting in A B R T, Sahid. and some cursives; are marked with asterisks in E S V Δ Π, min.; in others with obelisks; in the lectionaries adopted into the section Matthew 26:2 to Matthew 27:2; and as early as Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome their omission in MSS. is observed. But they are already acknowledged by Justin. Iren. Hippol. Epiphan., etc. See Tisch. The verses are genuine. Their omission is the work of the orthodox, to whom their contents appeared objectionable in respect of the divinity of Christ. See already Epiph. Ancor. 31. According to Ewald, Luke wrote Luke 22:44 from the “Book of the higher history” only in the margin, but Luke 22:43 was excluded by the comparison with Matthew and Mark.

Luke 22:47. δέ] has so important evidence against it (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) that it seems to be a connective addition.

Instead of αὐτούς Elz. has αὐτῶν, in opposition to decisive evidence. A correction.

Luke 22:55. ἁψάντων] B L T א, Eus. Tisch. have περιαψάντων; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound verb, which is elsewhere foreign to the New Testament.

αὐτῶν after συγκαθ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a frequent addition.

ἐν μέσῳ] Tisch. has μέσος, following B L T, min. The former is an interpretation.

Luke 22:61. After φωνῆσαι Tisch. has σήμερον, following B K L M T X Π א, min. vss. The omission came from the parallels.

Luke 22:62. After ἔξω, ὁ Πέτρος is to be maintained, against Griesb. and Tisch., although it is wanting in important authorities. Being troublesome, and not occurring in the parallels, it was passed over.

Luke 22:63. Instead of αὐτόν, Elz. Matth. Scholz have τὸν Ἰησοῦν. The subject was written in the margin because another subject precedes.

Luke 22:64. ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον καί] is wanting in B K L M Π א, Copt. Vind. Corb. 22 :Colb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and Tisch. It is an expansion by way of a gloss, which in D, vss. is not the same, and which the omission of δέροντες, Luke 22:63, drew after it. The glossing process began with the writing on the margin at the first αὐτόν: αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον, as 1, 209, vss. still read instead of αὐτόν; then ἔτυπτον was added in some authorities before, in others after, because δέροντες was attracted to what preceded.

Luke 22:66. Elz. Lachm. have ἑαυτῶν; Matth. Scholz, Tisch.: αὐτῶν. The Recepta is to be retained in accordance with A Δ, min.: it was not understood.

Luke 22:68. Read, with Tisch., simply ἐὰν δὲ (even Lachm. has deleted καί) ἐρωτήσω, οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε, in accordance with B L T א, min. vss. Cyr. The addition μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε is an unsuitable expansion.

Luke 22:69. After νῦν is to be added, with Lachm. and Tisch., δέ, on decisive evidence.

Luke 22:71. The order of the words, τί ἔτι ἔχ. μαρτ. χρείαν, is to be preferred, with Tisch., following B L T. The order in the Textus receptus, τ. ἐ. χ. ἐ. μ., is from the parallels.

Luke 22:1-2. With more detail and definiteness Matthew 26:1-5 and Mark 14:1 f. (Luke follows Mark with abbreviation).

ἐφοβ. γ. τὸν λαόν] the adherents that Jesus found among the people (Luke 21:38) made them afraid; hence they endeavoured to discover ways and means to remove Him, i.e. μέθοδον, πῶς ἀνελόντες αὐτὸν οὐ κινδυνεύσουσιν, Theophyl.

Luke 22:3-6. See on Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10 f. Luke passes over the history of the anointing, having already related an earlier one (Luke 7:37).

εἰσῆλθε] The part played by the devil, who “sensus omnes occupat” (Calvin), is conceived of as an actual intrusion, as εἰσέρχεσθαι is the word constantly used to express the intrusion of demons into bodies (Luke 8:30; Luke 8:32 f., Luke 11:27). Comp. John 13:27 (in regard to John 13:2, see on the passage).

Ἰσκαρ.] See on Matthew 10:4.

ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ἀρ. τ. δ.] familiar to the reader (Luke 6:16), but a tragic addition.

Luke 22:4. τοῖς στρατηγοῖς] As ὁ στρατηγός is the chief of all the Levitical temple guards (Acts 4:1; Acts 5:26; Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3), איש הר הבית, probably the leaders of the several guards who were placed under Him are here meant also, consequently the entire Levitical body of officers. Comp. χιλίαρχοι, 3 Esdr. Luke 1:9. See Lightfoot, p. 879.

Luke 22:5. συνέθεντο] The several moments in the incident, as these are accurately traced by Luke, are: (1) Judas opens the correspondence, Luke 22:4; (2) they are pleased thereat; (3) they engage (Herod. ix. 53; Xen. Anab. i. 9. 7, Hell. iii. 5. 6; Herodian, v. 3. 23; Joseph. Antt. xiii. 4. 7; 4Ma 4:16) to give him money; and the last step is, (4) Judas makes his acknowledgment, promises (ἐξωμολ., spopondit; elsewhere only the simple form is used in this sense, as Plat. Symp. p. 196 C; Jeremiah 44:25; Joseph. Antt. viii. 4. 3), and seeks henceforth a favourable opportunity, etc.

Luke 22:6. ἄτερ ὄχλου] without attracting a crowd. The opposite is μετὰ ὄχλου, Acts 24:18. Comp. Hom. Il. v. 473: φῆς που ἄτερ λαῶν πόλιν ἑξέμεν. The word ἄτερ, frequently occurring in the poets, occurs only here and at Luke 22:35 in the New Testament. Comp. 2Ma 12:15; rarely, moreover, in the later Greek prose writers, as Plut. Num. xiv.; Dion. Hal. iii. 10.

Luke 22:7-13. See on Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16. Luke names the disciples, and makes Jesus take the initiative. The latter is a quite immaterial difference; the former is a more precise statement of the later tradition, in respect of which a special tendency is assumed (Baur supposes that the two are intended to represent the Judaism of the older apostles).

ἦλθε] there came, there appeared the day. Comp. Luke 5:35, Luke 23:29; Acts 2:20, and elsewhere.[248]

Ἡ ἩΜΈΡΑ] not Ἡ ἙΟΡΤΉ again, as in Luke 22:1, because the latter denotes the whole festival, not the single day of the feast (in opposition to Wieseler, Synopse, p. 397).

Luke 22:11. ἐρεῖτε] a future with the force of an imperative: and ye shall say.

τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ τῆς οἰκ.] See, on such pleonastic combinations, Bornemann in loc.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 536 f.; also Valckenaer, Schol. p. 264 f.

[248] Paschke is in error when he says, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1851, p. 410 ff., that ἦλθε means here: he came near; and that at Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων means: on the day before the Passover. Moreover, Ewald (Gesch. Chr. p. 459 f.) decides that, in so far as the words of Luke are concerned (not also of Matthew and Mark), the day before the Passover might be meant. But by ἑν ᾗ ἔδει κ.τ.λ., as well as by the further course of the narrative, the day is definitely enough indicated as the same as in Matthew and Mark.

Luke 22:14-18. On Luke 22:14 comp. Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17. “Describitur, Luke 22:15-18, quaedam quasi prolusio s. coenae, coll. Matthew 26:29,” Bengel.

Luke 22:15. ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα] I have earnestly longed, Genesis 31:30. See Winer, p. 413 [E. T. 584]. This longing rested on the fact (see Luke 22:16) that this Passover meal was actually His last, and as such was to be of special importance and sacredness. Thus He could only earnestly wish that His passion should not begin before the Passover; hence: πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν.

τοῦτο] pointing to: this, which is already there.

Luke 22:16. οὐκέτι κ.τ.λ.] namely, after the present meal.

ἐξ αὐτοῦ] of the Passover.

ἕως ὅτου κ.τ.λ.] till that it (the Passover) shall be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. The rationalistic interpretation: “sed aliquando vos in coelo mecum gaudiis propriis ac summis perfruemini” (Kuinoel), is purely arbitrary. Jesus means actually a Passover (specifically such a one, not merely the Messianic feasts in general, Matthew 8:11; Luke 22:30; Luke 14:15) in the Messiah’s kingdom, which should hold the same relation to the temporal Passover as that which is perfect (absolute) holds to the incomplete. This corresponds to the idea of the new world (of the ἀποκατάστασις, παλιγγενεσία), and of the perfected theocracy in the αἰὼν μέλλων. Comp. on Matthew 26:29. The impersonal view (Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius), according to which the meaning is said to be: till the establishment of the kingdom shall be brought about, is an evasion opposed to the context. Completely without foundation, moreover, Schenkel says that the adoption of the Gentiles into the divine covenant is the fulfilment of the Old Testament Passover.

Luke 22:17 f. According to Luke, Jesus, after He had spoken quite at the beginning of the meal the words, Luke 22:15-16, receives a cup handed to Him (δεξάμενος, not the same as λαβών, Luke 22:19), and after giving thanks hands it to the disciples that they might share it (the wine in it) among themselves (observe the emphatic ἑαυτοῖς), for He assures them that He should certainly not drink, etc. He therefore, according to Luke, declines to drink of the Passover wine, wherefore also in Luke 22:18 the absolute οὐ μή, but in Luke 22:16 the relative οὐκέτι οὐ μή, is used.

REMARK.

Although this refusal to drink the wine, which is not to be explained away, is in itself psychologically conceivable in so deeply moved and painful a state of mind, yet it is improbable in consideration of the characteristic element of the Passover. In respect of this, the drinking of the Passover wine was certainly so essential, and, in the consciousness of the person celebrating the rite, so necessary, that the not drinking, and especially on the part of the Host Himself, would have appeared absolutely as contrary to the law, irreligious, scandalous, an interruption which, on the part of Jesus, can hardly be credible. Since then Mark and Matthew, moreover, have nothing at all about a refusal of the wine, but rather do not bring in the assurance, οὐ μὴ πίω κ.τ.λ., until the conclusion of the meal, Mark 14:25, Matthew 26:29; and since Matthew uses the emphatic ἀπʼ ἄρτι, wherein is intimated that Jesus had just drunk with them once more,—the narrative of Luke, Luke 22:17-18, is to be regarded as not original, and it is to be assumed that Jesus indeed spoke, Luke 22:15-16, at the beginning of the meal (in opposition to Kuinoel and Paulus), but that what is found in Matthew 26:29 has been removed back by the tradition on account of the analogy of Luke 22:16, and placed after Luke 22:16, beside which Luke 22:17 easily appeared as a link, without the necessity of attributing to Luke the construction of a piece of mosaic from a twofold source (as Holtzmann wishes to do), especially as Luke 22:17 is not yet the cup of the Lord’s Supper. According to Baur, Evang. p. 482 f., Luke must have been led by 1 Corinthians 10, where, moreover, the ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας is emphatically placed first, to distinguish two acts in the Lord’s Supper (comp. also Ritschl, Evang. Marcion’s, p. 108), one with the leading idea of κοινωνία, and the other with that of ἀνάμνησις. He must have here represented the first by the help of Matthew 26:29. He must thus probably still have expressly brought in the supposed leading idea of κοινωνία, as Paul also has done in respect of the bread. In general, the use made by Luke of the Pauline Epistles, which here even Hilgenfeld (comp. Holtzmann, p. 237) considers as unmistakeable, is quite incapable of proof.

Luke 22:19-20. See on Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22 f.; 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff. Luke agrees with Paul, not, however, repeating, in the case of the cup, the expression τοῦτο ποιεῖτε κ.τ.λ., which is not found at all in Matthew and Mark.

τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον] which for your advantage (to procure your reconciliation and justification, and your Messianic salvation, comp. on Matthew 20:28) is given up. The entire context suggests the qualifying clause εἰς θάνατον. Comp. Galatians 1:4; Romans 8:32; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:15. In respect of the expression, Wetstein justly compares Libanius, Orat. 35, p. 705: καὶ τὸ σῶμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπέδωκεν, and similar passages.

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε] to wit, the breaking of the bread after thanksgiving, and the distribution and partaking of the same. On ποιεῖν, occupying the place of more definite verbs, which the context suggests, see Bornemann, and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 8. 2; Schoemann, ad Is. de Ap. her. 35.

εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμν.] for the remembrance of me.[249] See Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 192]. It is a mistake to say that this purpose of the Lord’s Supper must be appropriate only to the partaking of the real body and blood of Christ (see Kahnis, Lehre v. Abendm. p. 87). Rather in respect of such a partaking that statement of purpose appears too disproportioned and weak,[250] since it would already certify far more than the remembrance; in opposition to which the idea of the ἀνάμνησις of that which the symbols represent, is in keeping with the symbolic character of the celebration (Plat. Phaed. p. 74 A: τὴν ἀνάμνησιν εἶναι μὲν ἀφʼ ὁμοίων). Comp. Justin, Ap. I. 66, where it is said of the cup: εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ.

Luke 22:20. ὡσαύτως] to wit, λαβὼν εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς.

τὸ ποτήριον] the cup before them.

μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι] “facto transitu ad majora et ultima,” Bengel. It was, to wit, the fourth cup which made the conclusion of the whole meal. See on Matthew 26:27.

τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον κ.τ.λ.] this cup is the new covenant by means of my blood, i.e. it is the new covenant by the fact that it contains my blood, which is shed for your salvation. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 11:25. In the wine which is poured into the cup Jesus sees His (atoning, Romans 3:25; Romans 5:3) blood, which is on the point of being shed; and because through this shedding of His blood the new covenant is to be established, he explains the cup, by virtue of its contents, as the new covenant—a symbolism natural to the deeply-moved, solemn state of mind, to which no greater wrong can be done than is perpetrated by the controversies about the est, which Luke has not at all! Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:25, inserts ἐστίν after διαθήκη, and consequently also, in so far as the passage before us is concerned, forbids the affixing ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου to ἡκαινὴ διαθήκη, as many of the older (not Luther[251]) and of the more recent writers (not Kahnis, Osiander, Rückert, p. 232) do. So also even Ebrard (d. Dogma vom heil. Abendm. I. p. 113), who, besides, lays an emphasis upon μου not belonging to it, at least according to the expression of Luke, when he interprets the passage: “the new covenant made in my blood, not in the sacrificial blood of the Old Testament.”

ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη] opposed to the old Mosaic covenant, whose condition was the fulfilling of the law (in the new: faith). See on 1 Corinthians 11:25.

τὸ … ἐκχυνόμενον] belongs, although in the nominative, to τῷ αἵματί μου, as an epexegetical clause. The abnormal use of the case is occasioned by the fact that, according to Luke 22:19, the idea prevails: that the cup (in respect of its contents) is the blood of the new covenant which is shed. Consequently τὸ … ἐκχυνόμενον is applied to τῷ αἵματί μου because τὸ αἷμά μου has floated before the mind of the speaker as the logical predicate, even although it did not become the grammatical predicate. Thus the nominatival expression more emphatically brings into prominence what is declared of the blood (τὸ … ἐκχυν.) than would be the case if it were joined on in the dative. Comp. Jam 3:8 (where μεστὴ ἰοῦ is joined to the logical subject γλῶσσα, which, however, is not the grammatical subject); Revelation 3:12; Revelation 8:9; Mark 12:40; John 1:14; Kühner, § 677; Winer, pp. 471, 473 [E. T. 668–670 f.]. According to Baur’s view, τὸ … ἐκχυνόμ. comes back to a very awkward transposition of the words from Matthew 26:28. Comp. also Rückert, p. 208, and Bleek and Holtzmann. Erroneously Euthymius Zigabenus, Calovius, Jansen, Michaelis, and others, including Bornemann, read: “poculum, quod in vestram salutem effunditur.” What is this supposed to mean? Calovius answers: “Dicitur effusum pro nobis propter sanguinem, quem Christus mediante poculo praebebat.” A forcible dislocation which, moreover, occurs in other old dogmatical writers, Chemnitz, Gerhard, and others. See Kahnis, Abendm. p. 103. This reference to the cup appeared to give a support to the explanation of the actual blood.

[249] To lay a contrasted emphasis on ἐμήν (not in remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt; so Lindner, Abendm. p. 91 f., and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 218) is mistaken, because not suggested in the context. See Rückert, Abendm. p. 200 f.

[250] Kahnis says: “Only when body and blood are essentially present and essentially living can the remembrance of the death which they have passed through and swallowed up in victory and life be made prominent as a separate point, without giving rise to a feeble and bungling tautology.” But the point on which stress is laid in this assertion, “which they have passed through and swallowed up in victory and life,” does not in reality appear at all there, but is added in thought and read into the passage. Rightly does Keim bring forward in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 94, that the significance of the last supper as a remembrance cannot be maintained together with the orthodox interpretation of the words of institution. He aptly shows that the symbolical understanding of the words of institution, “this is,” etc., is the correct one, and comes to the conclusion that the essential actual body was spiritually represented by the word to faith, but was not bodily given in corporeal presence to every recipient. Comp. on Matthew 26:26, and on 1 Corinthians 11:24. How even Kahnis subsequently gave up the orthodox doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, see in his Dogmat. I. p. 616 ff. But how even to this day the Catholics make out the continuity of the sacrifice of Jesus by the priests, see in Döllinger, Christenth. und Kirche, p. 38, and Schegg.

[251] In his Gr. Bekenntn.: “for the reason that Christ’s blood is there.”

REMARK.

In the words of institution all four narrators vary from one another, although not essentially, which serves to prove that a mode of formulating them had not yet taken any fixed shape. Luke agrees the most closely with Paul, which is explained by his relation to him. The Pauline narrative, however, attains great weight, indeed, through his ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, 1 Corinthians 11:23 (see on the passage), and the ministry of the apostle makes it conceivable how his formula might fix itself liturgically; this, however, does not prevent our recovering the most primitive form of the words of Jesus in the simple narrative of Mark, which gradually underwent expansions. Wilke, Urevang. p. 142, is wrong in regarding Luke 22:20 in Luke as a later addition. The first distribution of the cup, Luke 22:17, does not indeed yet belong entirely to the Lord’s Supper, and as yet has no symbolism. According to Ewald (see his Jahrb. II. p. 194 f.), the agreement between Luke and Paul is explained by the fact that both have in this particular used one source (the oldest Gospel, probably composed by Philip the evangelist). But in general there is no proof of Paul’s having made use of a written Gospel; neither in particular is the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:23, ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, in any way favourable to that supposition.

Luke 22:21-23. Luke has this reference to the traitor (which, according to Luke, diverges from all the rest, without any more precise statement) in a wrong position, where it probably has been placed by way of transition to the following dispute about precedence. According to Matthew 26:21 ff., Mark 14:18 ff., it is to be placed at the beginning of the meal, and that in such a manner that the departure of Judas[252] ensued before the institution of the Lord’s Supper; comp. on Matthew 26:25, and see the remark after John 13:38.

πλήν] notwithstanding, although my blood is shed for you. Not a limitation of the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (Hofmann), but, without such a reflection, a contrast to that love which is on the point of offering its own life. In spite of this ̔πλήν, which carries on the Lord’s discourse, to place the departure of the traitor, even according to Luke, before the Lord’s Supper, is only possible to the greatest harmonistic arbitrariness, in respect of which, indeed, the statement that Luke does not relate according to the order of time (Ebrard, p. 522; Lichtenstein, p. 401) is the most convenient and ready resource.

ἡ χεὶρ κ.τ.λ. The hand of my betrayer, etc. It was still on the table (ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης), after the eating of the bread, for the sake of partaking of the cup (Luke 22:20), and Jesus mentions the hand as the correlative of the idea παραδιδόναι. There is contained therein a tragic feature.

Luke 22:22. ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς μὲν (see the critical remarks) κ.τ.λ. discloses the objective ground of this mournful experience, Luke 22:21—to wit, the divine appointment of the death of the Messiah, which none the less (πλὴν οὐαὶ κ.τ.λ.) leaves the person concerned under the imputation (of the subjectively free action).

Luke 22:23. συζητεῖν, to confer, disputare, and πρὸς ἑαυτούς, among themselves, as Mark 1:27.

τοῦτο] i.e. the παραδιδόναι. With the emphasis of horror τοῦτο is placed before the governing verb. On πράσσειν of traitorous transactions, comp. Thucyd. iv. 89. 3, 110. 2.

[252] According to Schenkel, Jesus allowed Judas to take part in the Lord’s Supper, which (he thinks) is a convincing proof against all external ecclesiastical discipline (even against confession)!

Luke 22:24-30. Earlier fragments of discourses (Matthew 20:25 f., Luke 19:28; comp. Mark 10:42 ff.), for whose appropriateness in this place the occasion narrated by Luke, ἐγένετο δὲ καὶ φιλονεικία ἐν αὐτ., is neither psychologically probable, nor is it, from an historical point of view, adequately accounted for. Many have considered Luke 22:24 ff. as giving occasion to the footwashing (Paulus, Kuinoel, Sieffert, Lange, and others, including Strauss), which, however, would have any probability only if Luke placed the contest about precedence at the beginning of the meal. Nay, the already past footwashing, which, according to John, is to be assumed, only makes the situation of this contest about precedence in Luke still more improbable. That, moreover, only the association of ideas between the questions of Luke 22:23 and Luke 22:24 caused Luke to insert here this contest about precedence (Strauss, I. p. 723 f.; Holtzmann) is the more unfounded that Luke has already at Luke 9:46 related one dispute about precedence. Rather, he must have followed a definite tradition, which certainly may have taken its rise from the idea embodied in the story of the footwashing, and may have attracted here into a wrong position what is historically earlier.

δὲ καί] but also, in addition to that συζητεῖν.

δοκαῖ] is esteemed, Galatians 2:6. Bengel well says: “Quis sit omnium suffragiis.”

μείζων] of higher rank; to regard ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν as understood (Kuinoel and others) is an arbitrary proceeding, according to Matthew 18:1. Comp. on Luke 9:46; Mark 9:33.

Luke 22:25. τῶν ἐθνῶν] of the Gentiles.

οἱ ἐξουσιάζ. αὐτ.] These are the magnates (Matthew 20:25), rulers of the Gentiles after their kings.

εὐεργέται, a title of honour: benefactors, i.e. of great merit in respect of the state, possibly in respect of the government (Herod. viii. 85). Comp. εὐεργέτην ἀπογραφῆναι, Herod. viii. 85; Thuc. i. 129. 3; Xen. Rep. Ath. iii. 11; Lys. Proverbs Polystr. 19. ψηφίζεσθαί τινι εὐεργεσίαν, Dem. 475.10; Wolf, Lept. p. 282; Meier, de proxenia, Hal. 1843, p. 10, 15; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 116. 6. Similarly our “Excellencies.”

Luke 22:26. οὐχ οὕτως] It is sufficient to supply ἐστέ (others take ποιεῖτε). See what follows. Ye are not to be thus, as that one should let himself be distinguished in rank from the others.

ὁ μείζων] not: “qui cupit maximus esse,” Kuinoel, but: he that is greater among you, who really is so, let him condescend so as to place himself on an equality with the younger, and claim no more than he. ὁ νεώτερος does not mean the less, and does not refer to one in the circle of the twelve, but it means one who is younger than the others, and denotes a believing youth. It must be supposed that such were present, performing the service. Comp. the parallel διακονῶν. See also Acts 5:6; Acts 5:10.

ὁ ἡγούμενος] he who rules, standing at the head. Comp. Matthew 2:6; Acts 15:22; Hebrews 13:7; Hebrews 13:17; Hebrews 13:24; Hebrews 3 Esdr. Luke 8:44; 1Ma 9:30, and elsewhere. This use, moreover, is so frequent among the Greek writers (Dem. 654. 22; Soph. Phil. 386; Polyb. i. 15. 4, 31. 1, iii. 4. 6; Herodian, vii. 1. 22; Lucian, Alex. 44; Diod. Sic. i. 72), and the designation is so general, that the expression does not need to be derived actually from later times (Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. Ep. p. 29).

Luke 22:27. To this condescending renunciation my example engages you. For although I stand to you in the relation of the ἀνακείμενος to the διακόνοις, yet I bear myself in the midst of you no otherwise than as if I were your servant. The reference to the footwashing, which has been here assumed (even by de Wette and Bleek), could not be expected by Luke to be discovered by any reader. It is, moreover, superfluous; for the present repast might of itself give sufficient occasion for the designation of the relation by means of ἀνακείμ. and διάκον., and Jesus was in the highest sense of self-surrender actually the διάκονος of His disciples, as this found its indelible expression just at this time in the distribution of the last supper. Comp. Matthew 20:28.

ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν] more significant (in the midst of you) than ἐν ὑμῖν; He did not separate Himself from them as one more distinguished than they.

Luke 22:28. ὑμεῖς δὲ κ.τ.λ.] in order now, after this humiliation of His disciples’ desire of precedence, to induce them to seek their true exaltation, to wit, by means of the assurance of their future dominion and honour in the kingdom, of the Messiah, He proceeds in such a way as to contrast with His relation to them (ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, Luke 22:27) their relation to Him (ὑμεῖς δὲ … μετ ̓ ἐμοῦ), as the recompense of which He then assures to them the Messianic glory: But ye are they who have continued with me in my temptations, etc. Erasmus aptly paraphrases the πειρασμούς: “quibus pater coelestis voluit exploratam ac spectatam esse meam obedientiam.” These were the many injuries, persecutions, snares, perils of life, etc. (comp. Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15), for the bitter experience of which neither πειρασμός nor διαμένειν are expressions too strong (in opposition to de Wette); the former in respect of its relative idea being not too strong, nor the latter, if we consider the contrast of the Messianic anticipations of the time.

Luke 22:29. κἀγώ] and I, on my part, as a recompense for it.

διατίθεμαι) I ordain for you (herewith) dominion, as my Father (in His counsel known to me) has ordained for me dominion—both in the kingdom of the Messiah. βασιλ. belongs to both verbs, not merely as a parenthesis, so that ἵνα κ.τ.λ. contains the object of διατίθεμαιὑμ. (Ewald, Bleek, and others), since Luke 22:30 contains the idea of the συμβασιλεύειν.

διατίθ. is not said of testamentary appointment (Er. Schmid, Alberti, Krebs; see Plat. Leg. ii. p. 922 B, E, 923 C; Dem. 1067. 1; Joseph. Antt. xiii. 16. 1; Arist. Pol. ii. 9), since the same meaning could not be retained in the second member, but in general dispono, I ordain for you (2 Chronicles 7:18; Genesis 15:18; 1Ma 1:11; Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 9, and elsewhere). On the idea, comp. 2 Timothy 2:12.

Luke 22:30. ἵνα] purpose of this assignment of dominion.

ἐπὶ τ. τραπ. μ] at the table takes place the eating and drinking. Comp. Luke 22:21. This is said not merely of the Messianic Passover (Luke 22:16; Luke 22:18), but of the Messianic table fellowship in general. Comp. Luke 13:29; Matthew 8:11.

According to the reading καθίσεσθε (see the critical remarks), the construction of the ἵνα does not run on, but the saying is promissory: and ye shall sit, etc., whereby this highest point comes forward more emphatically than if the future were made dependent on ἵνα (as is done by Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 202 [E. T. 234]).

ἐπί θρόνων] δώδεκα is not added, as in Matthew 19:28, on account of Judas. Christ is the divine Lord-superior of the βασιλεία till the consummation of all things (1 Corinthians 15:28), and gives to His disciples a share therein.