Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 22:14

And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

14-38. The last Supper.

14. when the hour was come ] If the meal was intended to be directly Paschal, this would be “between the two evenings” (Exo 12:6); a phrase interpreted by the Jews to mean between three and six, and by the Samaritans to mean between twilight and sunset. Probably Jesus and His disciples, anxious to avoid dangerous notice, would set forth towards dusk.

he sat down ] Rather, reclined. The custom of eating the Passover standing had long been abandoned.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

When the hour was come – The hour of eating the paschal lamb, which was in the evening. See the notes at Mat 26:20.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Luk 22:14-20

With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you

The last passover–Christs desire for it

This passover before I suffer! It tells us, surely, that there was some connection between the passover and the suffering of Christ, and a special connection in this passover at which He and His disciples were now sitting down.

Let us think of some of the reasons why the Saviour desired so earnestly to join in this last passover before He suffered.

1. One reason was, that the passover had now reached its end, and found its full meaning. The ancient covenant, which changed the slaves of Egypt into Gods servants, gives place to the new, which changes his servants into His sons, and commences that golden chain, If children, then heirs: heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, etc. And here, too, are the means of the redemption. The passover, which sprinkled with the blood of the covenant the door-posts in the land of Egypt, descends until its last victim dies beneath the shadow of the cross of Christ. Its efficacy is gone, for He has appeared who is to finish transgression, to make an end of sin, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness. At best it was a shadow, but now the great reality has come, Christ our passover, sacrificed for us. It is no unconscious victim, but one who freely gives Himself, the just for the unjust, that He may bring us to God.

2. Another reason why Christ desired to be present at this passover was, for the support of His own soul in the approaching struggle. Before I suffer! He had a terrible conflict to meet, for which He longed, and at which He trembled. We may feel startled at the thought that the Son of God should be dependent on such aid at such a moment. And yet it is in keeping with all His history–with the whole plan of redemption. The Divine and human are inseparably interwoven in the life and work of Christ.

3. We are led naturally to this further reason–that Christ desired to be present at the last passover because His friends needed special comfort. To eat this passover with you before I suffer. He desired to make His converse with them at this passover in the upper chamber a strength and consolation to them against the sore temptations they were to encounter. And may we not believe that Christ still prepares His people for what may be lying before them, and that He employs His comforts to prevent them–to go before them–in the day of their calamity. When darkness isabout to fall, God has lamps to put into the hand by anticipation. He who made His ark go before His ancient people in all their wanderings, causes the consolations of His Word to smooth the way of them that look to Him. He knows what painful steps are before us in the journey of life, what privations, what bereavements–it may be that the most solemn step of all must ere long be taken–and He desires to eat this passover with us before we suffer.

4. The last reason we give for Christs desire to be present at this passover is, that it looked forward to all the future of His Church and people. At the close of the last passover, Christ instituted that communion of the Supper which has come down through many generations–which goes forth into all the world as the remembrance of His death and the pledge of the blessings it has purchased for us. How frail this little ark which His hand has sent out on those stormy waters, but how safely it has carried its precious freight! And this presence of His, at the first communion, looks still further–on to the period when, instead of His Spirit, we shall have Himself. He desired to take His place in person at the first communion in our world, and when the great communion opens in heaven, He shall be seen in His place once more. (J. Ker, D. D.)

The Lords Supper

We need not look for great things in order to discover great truths. To those who reach after God he will reveal his deepest secrets through things insignificant in themselves, within the routine of common lives. No event occurs more regularly than the daily meal. None, perhaps, gathers around it so many pleasant associations. Its simplest possible form, in Christs time, consisted in eating bread and drinking a cup of wine. Into this act, one evening, He gathered all the meaning of the ancient sacrifices; all sacred and tender relations between Himself and His followers, and all the prophecies of His perfected kingdom.

I. THE PREPARATION. They made ready the passover. Note concerning the making ready that–

1. It was deliberate. The room was selected and secured. The hour was appointed. Two of the disciples were chosen to prepare the lamb and to spread the table. The Lords Supper is not less, but far more, rich in meaning than was the ancient passover. It requires the preparation of mind and heart made by private meditation, and by the gathering together beforehand of disciples for prayer, conference, and instruction.

2. It was exclusive, I shall eat the passover, Christ said, with My disciples. No others were invited, because no others were fitted to share in the ceremony which He was to inaugurate.

3. It was familiar. He drew closer to His disciples as the time approached in which He was to teach them how to celebrate His great act for the redemption of the world. Such times must be cherished as the warm, spring hours of spiritual growth.

4. It was solemn. The shadow of the greatest tragedy in the worlds history, close at hand, hung over them, as they went through the silent streets to the prepared guest chamber. His manner, His words, His actions, were filled with the consciousness of it.

II. THE BETRAYER POINTED OUT.

1. It leads each true disciple to self-examination.

2. It helps to reveal to Himself She false disciple. Judas knew that he was out of place in that upper chamber. The Lords table, which symbolizes the most intimate fellowship with Him, is a means of leading selfish men to begin to realize the awful and utter loneliness of sin.

3. It helps us to realize the baseness of a false confession of Christ.

III. THE SUPPER INSTITUTED.

1. A new sacrifice. Oxen, sheep, and doves had for centuries been slain as a sign that through life offered in sacrifice, human life that had been forfeited by sin might be restored. But from that night the broken bread takes the place of all these, and represents to us the body of Christ given as a sacrifice for sinners.

2. A new covenant.

3. A new kingdom, which was begun when first Christ through the Holy Spirit began to rule in one human heart. (A. E. Dunning.)

The happiness of attending The Communion

During the sunshine of his prosperity, Napoleon I. thought little of God and religious duties. But when his power had been broken, and he was an exile at St. Helena, he began to see the vanity of earthly things, and became earnest and attentive to religion. Then it was that he returned a very remarkable answer to one who asked him what was the happiest day in his life. Sire, said his questioner, allow me to ask you what was the happiest day in all your life? Was it the day of your victory at Lodi? at Jena? at Austerlitz? or was it when you were crowned emperor? No, my good friend, replied the fallen emperor, it was none of these. It was the day of my first communion! That was the happiest day in all my life! Sacramental service–

I. HOW INTENSE THE SAVIOURS LOVE FOR US MUST HAVE BEEN, in that His desire was not extinguished by the knowledge that it was to be His death-feast.

II. HOW CLOSE HIS FELLOWSHIP WITH MEN, as shown in that He desired to spend such an hour in their company.

III. HOW EAGER THE MASTER WAS TO MAKE THE DISCIPLES REALIZE THE NEARNESS OF THE HEAVENLY BLESSING HE WOULD PURCHASE FOR THEM, and to give them a pledge of it for their assurance. I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled, etc. The Lords Supper, then instituted, is thus designed to be–

1. An evidence of Christs undying love.

2. An assurance of His intimate fellowship.

3. A confirmation of His promise of the everlasting blessedness.

(Anon.)

The Last Supper

I. THE PASSOVER PREPARED. This preparation is suggestive of three things.

1. The dispensation in which Christ and His apostles still were.

2. The all-comprehensive knowledge possessed by Christ.

3. That in the midst of enemies Christ still had friends in Jerusalem.

II. The passover eaten.

1. Our Lords punctuality (Luk 22:14).

2. Our Lords intense desire in respect to this passover.

(1) Because the last He would celebrate with them.

(2) Because He would impress them with the connection between Himself as Gods Lamb, and the paschal lamb.

(3) Because He would awaken in them an intense desire for His second coming, when He would sit down with them in the Kingdom of God.

III. THE PASSOVER SUPERSEDED.

1. By the establishment of an ordinance which commemorates the true passover (see 1Co 5:7).

2. By the assurance of the better hope which this ordinance affirms Heb 7:19-22).

3. By the emblematic re-crucifixion of our Lord, which should inspire them to a constant remembrance of His personal love for them (1Co 11:24).

Lessons:

1. Retrospection essential.

(1) Bread broken.

(2) Wine poured out.

2. Introspection essential (1Co 11:28).

3. Prospection essential (1Co 11:26). (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)

The cup of sneering and of Communion

I. THAT COMMUNION BETWEEN CHRIST AND BELIEVERS WILL BE RENEWED IN HEAVEN. Even on this side heaven, seasons of pure spiritual communion are not denied us. This exhausts the Saviours idea. His words are to be taken not literally, but spiritually. The wine is put for the thing represented–the joys and the felicities of the final state, and to drink the wine newwith Him is to partake the inmost pleasure of His soul.

II. THIS COMMUNION WILL BE PERFECT AND UNMIXED. We receive only in part; and this necessarily renders every act of communion imperfect. But in heaven it will be otherwise. Our nature will be so purified and transformed, as that every power and every property will be an avenue to convey the stream of life and glory into the soul. The fellowship will be that of perfected spirits. There will be no darkness in the understanding, no error in the judgment, no guilt in the conscience, no sin in the heart.

III. THIS COMMUNION WILL RE UNINTERRUPTED AND ETERNAL. Sublime and refreshing as are the seasons of spiritual joy which we experience on earth, they are, generally speaking, but of short duration. Here perpetuity of enjoyment is impossible, but there it is certain. The union between the Saviour and the soul will never be dissolved, and therefore the fellowship will never end. Here we are overtaken by fatigue and exhaustion, but there we shall be endowed with immortal vigour; here sickness and infirmity often intervene, but there the inhabitants shall never say they are sick; here we enjoy communion at intervals, there it will be eternal.

IV. THIS COMMUNION WILL BE HEIGHTENED BY THE PRESENCE AND THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE WHOLE REDEEMED CHURCH. It is no common joy which we experience even in the most private communion; but this joy is heightened when we can blend with other souls in harmony with our own. What, then, must be the communion of the coming world, where we shall hold immediate fellowship not only with God and the Redeemer, but at the same moment, and in the same act, with angels and the whole Church of the redeemed? Delightful is the union and fellowship of minds on earth! When heart communes with heart it is like the mingling dew-drops on the flower. But this union will be heightened in heaven. There we shall find none but kindred minds, with which it will be impossible not to unite. The blessedness of the future world is in reserve for those only who belong to the kingdom of God on earth. Into the heavenly communion none will be received, but those who have here held fellowship with a risen and glorified Saviour. (R. Ferguson, LL. D.)

He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it

The Holy Communion

I. HOLY COMMUNION–WHAT IS IT?

1. It is Christs own ordinance. Being a communicant is the test of the reality of your Christian profession.

2. It is the command of the Great Master. Emphatic, plain, straightforward, definite. A test of our faithfulness RS the servants of Christ.

3. It is the dying wish of the best of Friends. You cannot disregard it, and be true to Him.

4. Its great importance is taught plainly by the teaching and practice of the early Church. It was at first the only act of united worship. And it was celebrated at least every Lords Day.

II. WHAT IS ITS NATURE?

1. It is a memorial. A picture for all time of Christs body broken and blood shed for the sins of man.

(1) A memorial to God the Father. In our prayers we say, through Jesus Christ our Lord; or some such words; i.e., we plead before the Father what He has done for us. In the Holy Communion we say, for Jesus sake not in words, but in the very acts which He Himself has taught us. Thus it is our highest act of prayer.

(2) A memorial to ourselves. How easily we forget. This refreshes our memory, and rekindles our love.

(3) A memorial to an unthinking or unbelieving world. A witness to men that we believe in Jesus, who lived and died and still lives for us.

2. It is a means of grace. Jesus Himself is pleased in this ordinance of his own appointment to give us Himself.

3. It is a bond of union between ourselves and others. In partaking together one sacred food we, made one with Jesus, are brought nearer to one another.

(1) A bond of union between those who belong to the same earthly family.

(2) A bond of union between those who belong to the same congregation.

(3) A bond of union between all Christians who love the Lord Jesus.

(4) A bond of union between those who are resting in paradise.

III. WHO OUGHT TO COME?

1. Those who know how poor their love is, and want to love God more.

2. Those who are trying to serve God, and fail because they are weak, and need strength.

3. Those who are sinful, but desire to become holy.

4. Those who are careful and troubled about many things, and long for rest.

IV. WHO OUGHT NOT TO COME?

1. Those who are sinning, and do not want to give up their sin.

2. Those who think themselves good enough. The selfsatisfied obtain no blessing, for they seek none.

V. HOW TO COME.

1. Humbly. Why? Because we are not worthy to come.

2. Trustingly and simply. Taking God at His word, and not asking questions.

3. Earnestly. Meaning what we are doing. Not because others come, but because we realize that in our sinfulness and our unworthiness we find the strongest reason why we ought to come.

4. Reverently. Humbly realizing the presence of Jesus, and earnestly desiring His blessing.

5. Regularly. Have a fixed rule about it. Do not leave it to be done at any time when it is convenient or suits you.

6. More and more frequently. As you grow older you ought to be more earnest, and in order to serve God better you must seek more help. The grown-up man is not content with the same amount of food as the child; and the man who is desirous to grow up into the full measure of the stature of Christ, needs more spiritual nourishment than the man who is only a babe in Christ.

7. Early. When your thoughts are fresh, your heart free from cares and worries, your mind undisturbed by worldly things. Give to God the best you can. Let Him have the first of the day. (C. J. Ridgeway, M. A.)

The Holy Communion

I. THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.

II. ITS CHARACTERISTICS.

1. A Divine ordinance.

2. A perpetual ordinance.

3. A binding and obligatory ordinance.

4. It should be a frequent ordinance. No Lords Day without the Lords Supper.

III. THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED.

1. Deep humility of mind.

2. Grateful love to Jesus.

3. Faith.

4. Love to all mankind.

5. Joyous hope.

IV. THE ADVANTAGES ARISING FROM OBEDIENCE TO THIS COMMAND OF CHRISTS.

1. The soul will be strengthened.

2. Christ will be increasingly precious.

3. Holiness will be increased.

4. Heaven will be desired.

Application:

1. Address regular communicants. Come in a right spirit. Be watchful, humble, prayerful, etc.

2. Address irregular communicants. Why so? It is disobedience, inconsistency, injurious to yourselves, Church, world.

3. Those who never commune at all.

(1) The conscientiously doubtful. Do you hate sin? Believe in Christ, etc. Are you willing to obey him? Then draw near, etc.

(2) Those who are really unfit for the Lords table, are also unfit for death, judgment, eternity. (J. Burns, D. D.)

The Sacrament of Holy Communion

In preserving this festival, we are urged alike by affection and duty.

I. THE ACT.

1. To stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance, we may point out the simplicity of this act.

2. But though simple it is significant. The material forms and visible things, represent spiritual and invisible realities.

3. The participation of this Sacrament is a manifestation of

Christian unity (1Co 10:16-17).

4. This act is commemorative.

5. This ordinance is also sealing. A pledge of Divine mercy. A covenant act.

6. This Sacrament is also prospective. Till He come.

II. THE COMMAND. This do.

1. Unanimously.

2. Frequently.

3. Gratefully.

4. Reverently.

5. Worthily. Discerning the Lords Body. (R. M. Willcox.)

The Lords Supper

The Lords Supper–what a title! How full of memories, how it carries us back into the very heart of the past! What a solemn night it tells of–what a meeting–what a parting! The Lords Supper, however often it is celebrated, always ought to carry us back to the institution. For the little company of the disciples it was a night of gloom. The week had opened amid Hosannas; for a moment it had seemed as if the Saviour was to be the hero and the idol of the multitude. But the acclaims died away. The bitter hostility of the rulers reasserted itself in a series of angry or crafty assaults; and now we are on the very eve of that other and most opposite cry–Away with Him; crucify Him. His blood be on us, and on our children. The fortunes of the new gospel, as man must judge, were that night at the very lowest ebb. As the event advances it is made quite evident that this is a parting meeting, and that the Lord and Master knows it. He speaks of Himself as departing, not on a temporary journey, but by a violent death. People who are bent upon explaining away everything that is remarkable, still more everything that is superhuman in the Gospels, have denied that the words Take, eat, this is My Body; Drink ye all of this, for this is My Blood, were words of institution at all. They say that they were merely a pathetic way of typifying to the disciples His approaching death, and had nothing to do with any future commemoration of it when He should be gone. It is not necessary to argue this point, because we have the clearest testimony from the earliest date rationally possible; the testimony of friends and foes; of Christians and Pagans; of St. Paul and St. Luke; of Pliny no less than Justin Martyr, that those who heard the words did understand them as words of institution, and did act upon them as such. The breaking of the bread, the coming together to eat the Lords Supper were phrases of perpetual recurrence as soon as there was any Church founded, and wherever that Church spread itself over Asia and Europe; and that custom, always, and everywhere, explained itself by going back to the scene in the guest-chamber the night before the Crucifixion. But now, if the words had this meaning, the thought comes upon us with great force, how wonderful is it that our Lord, knowing that tiffs was His last night upon earth as a man in flesh and blood, instead of regarding it as an end, looks upon it as a beginning, speaks of it as a preliminary, a necessary preliminary to results foreseen and foreknown, in particular to what He calls the remission or dismissal of sins, and gives directions for the perpetual remembrance of His approaching baptism of blood, in an ordinance which is to have for its marked feature the symbolic eating and drinking of His own Body and Blood. Brethren, this is a great thought. Our Lord in the same night in which He was betrayed, the very night before tie suffered, did not look upon that betrayal or upon that passion as a disaster, as a blow struck at His work, or His enterprise, but rather as its necessary condition. It is the fore-ordained consummation. The same night in which He was betrayed, and in the clearest foresight of His Crucifixion, He founds an ordinance, He institutes a sacrament in express recognition, and for the everlasting remembrance, of His death of violence and torture, of ignominy and agony. Well, now let us pass on to the very words of the institution, so much more surprising and startling than if they had merely spoken of commemorating His death–Take, eat, this is My Body; Drink ye all of this, for this is My blood. It would not have been at all startling, and not at all surprising, if our Lord had hidden His disciples to come together from time to time to meditate upon His cruel and suffering death. A mere man might have thought of this, might even have made it a religious service to go over the particulars of His passion, partly as a memorial to a lost friend, and partly for the encouragement of serious, devout, and humble living. But this cannot be said of the expressions before us–Take, eat, this is My Body. Drink this, for it is My Blood. So far from this being the common language of a dying friend, it would be language of which all would shrink from the hearing or the uttering. Brethren, it speaks for itself, that they must have regarded Him who said, Take, eat, this is My Body, as one altogether different from any common, or any merely human person. It would be cruelty, it would be impiety, it would be insanity in any friend, living or dying, to use such expressions concerning himself. They say this, if they say anything, My death shall be your life; My body is given, My blood is outpoured for you. In that death is involved the life of the world. In that separation of flesh and blood which is the act of dying, the sins of the world are taken away; yet this is not as a single isolated fact just to be accepted, just to be relied upon, without corollary or consequence–not so. I, the dying, the once dead, shall be alive again after death, and be your life, not as a dead man, but as one alive after death; so must you deal with Me. You must receive Me into your hearts, you must, as it were, eat Me and drink Me, so that I may enter into your very being, and become a part of you; not as a man in human form treading upon the earth, companying with you as a man with his friends, but in a totally different manner, as one that died and was dead, but who now liveth to die no more; as one that has died and risen again; as one that is now in heaven; as one that has the Holy Spirit, and sends Him forth for perpetual indwelling in the hearts of His people. So eat, so drink, for refreshing, and for sustentation. The flesh profiteth nothing; no, not though you could hold in the hand and press with the teeth the very body of the Crucified. The flesh, even the sacred flesh, profiteth nothing; it is the Spirit that quickeneth. One moment of spiritual contact with the risen and glorified is worth whole centuries, whole millenniums, of the corporeal co-existence. (Dean Vaughan.)

The advantages of remembering Christ

I. We are to inquire, first, WHAT IS IMPLIED IN REMEMBERING CHRIST.

1. There is evidently implied in this remembrance a knowledge of Him, a previous acquaintance with Him. He must have occupied much of our thoughts, have entered into our hearts, and been lodged in the deepest recesses of our minds.

2. Hence to remember Christ implies a heart-felt love for Him.

3. Hence to remember Christ implies also a frequent and affectionate recalling of Him to our minds.

II. Let us proceed to inquire why CHRIST HAS LEFT US THIS COMMAND TO REMEMBER HIM.

1. He has done this for a reason which ought greatly to humble us tie has said, Remember Me, because He knows that we are prone to forget Him.

2. But our proneness to forget Christ is not the only reason why He has commanded us to remember Him. He has given us this command, because He desires to be remembered by us.

3. The great reason, however, why Christ has commanded us to remember Him, is this–He knows that we cannot think of Him without deriving much benefit to ourselves.

III. WHAT, THEN, ARE THE ADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM AN HABITUAL REMEMBRANCE OF JESUS? This is our third subject of inquiry; let us proceed to consider it.

1. The first of these benefits is comfort to the soul, when wounded by a sense of sin.

2. An habitual remembrance of Christ has a tendency also to elevate our affections.

3. This heavenly-mindedness would lead us to a third benefit resulting from this remembrance of Christ–patience and comfort in our afflictions.

4. The remembrance of Christ tends also to keep alive within us a holy hatred of sin. Nothing makes sin appear half so hateful, as the cross of Christ; nothing so effectually checks it when rising in the soul, as the thought of a dying Saviour. O let me never crucify the Son of God afresh!

IV. BUT IF WE WOULD HABITUALLY REMEMBER CHRIST, LET US NOT FORGET THE COMMAND GIVEN US IN THE TEXT. This do in remembrance of Me. We soon forget objects which are removed from our sight; and our Lord, who knows and pities this weakness of our nature, has given us an abiding memorial of Himself. He has appointed an ordinance for this very purpose, to remind us of His love. (C. Bradley, M. A.)

Christ wanting to be remembered

The Holy Communion is the memorial of our Redeemers sacrifice.

I. CHRIST WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR US. We never must forget the past, or lose sight of Calvary. Great Prophet, we must ever think of what He has done to teach; Great Priest, what He has done to atone; and Great King, what He has done to win the allegiance and devotion of our hearts.

II. OUR LORD WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED IN WHAT HE IS DOING FOR US. He lives to carry on and to carry out His work of grace in our hearts and lives.

III. CHRIST WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR WHAT HE IS UNDER PLEDGE TO DO. We anticipate the coronation of our King, and the marriage-supper of the Lamb. Veils hide Him now; we long for the vision of His face. (R. Tuck, B. A.)

The Holy feast

1. A feast of charity.

2. A feast of commemoration.

3. A feast of sanctified communion.

4. A feast of hope. (J. B. Owen, M. A.)

The Sacrament of Holy Communion

I. A DIRECTION FROM CHRIST–Do this.

1. Addressed by our Lord

(1) to the apostles, and

(2) through them to the whole catholic Church.

2. Spoken as a Friend to His friends.

3. Spoken instructively. As our Prophet.

4. Spoken authoritatively. As our King, Christ expects us to keep this our military oath with Him. If an earthly commander had but to say to his servant, go, and he went; and come, and he came; how much more ought we to be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? See then, oh believer, that ye refuse not Him who speaketh. Do not come to the Holy Table–

(a) formally;

(b) grudgingly, or of necessity.

But come–

(a) humbly;

(b) reverently;

(c) faithfully.

II. AN EXPLANATORY MOTIVE–In remembrance of Me. (R. S. Brooke, M. A.)

The cup of reconciliation

Warburton and Tucker were contemporary bishop and dean in the same cathedral. For many years they were not even on speaking terms. It was on a Good Friday, not long before Warburtons death; they were at the Holy Table together. Before he gave the cup to the dean, he stooped down, and said in tremulous emotion, Dear Tucker, let this be the cup of reconciliation between us. It had the intended effect; they were friends again to their mutual satisfaction. (Christian Age.)

The Lords Supper

I. THE INSTITUTION OF THIS HOLY RITE. This do–that is, do what I am doing. To do what Jesus did we are to take bread and wine. And we are to take this bread and wine, not for an ordinary meal–for they had supped; and St. Paul says, If any hunger, let him eat at home,–but for a sacramental feast, a means of feeding in our souls upon the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour. Again, if we would do what Jesus did, we must, before we eat that bread and drink that wine, have them consecrated: Jesus blessed; and, as St. Paul says, the cup of blessing which we bless. Next, we are to have a minister to consecrate them. We do not find that any disciples meeting together could consecrate the elements, for in Matthew we are told, that Jesus blessed it and brake it, and then gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat, this is My Body. Again we find, that in doing this, our Lord accompanied it with prayer.

II. THE PURPOSE OF THE LORDS SUPPER–do this in remembrance of Me. The remembrance of Jesus may be considered actively or passively–this do in remembrance of Me–that is, to remind Jesus of us, or to remind us of Jesus. The expression may be applied both ways, and may be profitably considered in either view. We have need of reminding Christ of us, of our necessities, our wants, our joys, and our sorrows, as in Is

43:26. In Num 10:9, we have the same truth of reminding God of us set before the Jews, and so s gain in Mal 3:16-17. In this view of these words, we have then this truth set before us that, in that holy ordinance, we remind Jesus of His covenanted mercy, of His dying love, the price it cost Christ to purchase our souls, the greatness of His promises, the reality and truth of our faith in Him, the necessity we have to bring before Him our weakness and our woes. We remind Him that we do indeed believe in Him, and that, believing in Him, we cling to His precious covenant. In taking of the memorials of His dying love, we remind Him that we are those of whom He has said, He that believeth on Me, though He were dead, yet shall he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth on Me shall never die. But again, the remembrance of Jesus, taken passively, implies that we remember Jesus; our remembrance of Jesus implies, not merely a remembrance of one act of the Saviour, of one truth, or one fact connected with His gospel or His life, but a remembrance of Himself. He does not say, do it in remembrance of the cross-do it in remembrance of the garden, but, do it in remembrance of Me–My person–My offices–My qualities–My whole being–Christ Jesus our Redeemer–ourFriend. Remembrance of Jesus must vary in intensity, and affection, and character, in proportion to our knowledge of His love, His grace, His kindness, and His truth, and of our habitual abiding in Him in our own souls.

III. WHO ARE THE PERSONS THAT OUGHT TO PARTAKE OF IT?

IV. THE DUTY OF OBSERVING IT. It was given for disciples. (J. Baylee, D. D.)

The Lords Supper an emblem and memorial

I. It is AN EMBLEM. The question is, then, what unseen things do these simple objects represent?

1. The human nature of Christ; His incarnation.

2. The death of Christ, too, is shadowed forth in this ordinance. We have more than bread before us in it, it is bread which has been broken; and more than wine, it is wine which has been poured forth.

3. The consecrated elements are emblematical also of the great end and design of our Lords incarnation and death.

II. Let us now go on to another view of this ordinance. IT IS A MEMORY. This do, He says, in remembrance of Me. But it is not Himself simply considered, that our Lord calls on us here to remember; it is Himself as these emblems set Him forth, given and bleeding for us; it is Himself in His humiliation, sufferings, and death. Why the institution of an ordinance to bring things like these to our remembrance?

1. Partly, perhaps, on account of the joy Christ Himself feels in the recollection of them. His heart overflows with joy at the thought of His cross and passion, and He would have us think of them and sympathize with Him in His joy.

2. The remembrance of Christs incarnation and death is of the utmost importance to us; therefore also He may have established this memorial of them among us. All our fresh springs are in our crucified Lord, and therefore He brings Himself frequently before us as our crucified Lord that we may go to Him as the great source of our mercies, and take of His blessings.

3. There is another reason to be given for the setting up of this memorial of our Lords sufferings–it is our liability to forget them. (C. Bradley, M. A.)

Christs vicarious death

A single verse, written on paper, now yellow with age, hangs on the wall of a noblemans study in London. It has a remarkable history, and has, in two notable instances, at least, been blessed of God to conversion. The verse was originally composed by Dr. Valpy, the eminent Greek scholar and author of some standard school books. He was converted late in life, and wrote this verse as a confession of faith:–

In peace let me resign my breath,

And Thy salvation see;

My sins deserve eternal death,

But Jesus died for me.

On one occasion Dr. Marsh was visiting the house of Lord Roden, where he held a Bible reading with the family. He mentioned Dr. Valpys conversion by way of illustration in the course of his remarks, and recited the verse. Lord Roden was particularly struck with the lines, wrote them out, and affixed them to the wall of his study, where they still are. Lord Rodens hospitable mansion was often full of visitors, among whom were many old army officers. One of these was General Taylor, who served with distinction under Wellington at Waterloo. He had not, at that time, thought much on the subject of religion, and preferred to avoid all discussion of it. But soon after the paper was hung up he went into the study to talk with his friend alone, and his eyes rested for a few moments upon the verse. Later in the day Lord Roden upon entering his study came upon the general standing before the paper and reading it with earnest face. At another visit the host noticed that whenever General Taylor was in the study his eyes rested on the verse. At length Lord Roden broke the ice by saying, Why, General, you will soon know that verse by heart. I know it now by heart, replied the general, with emphasis and feeling. A change came over the generals spirit and life. No one who was intimately acquainted with him could doubt its reality. During the following two years he corresponded readily with Lord Roden about the things which concerned his peace, always concluding his letters by quoting Dr. Valpys verse. At the end of that time the physician who attended General Taylor wrote to Lord Roden to say that his friend had departed in peace, and that the last words which fell from his dying lips were those which he had learned to love in his lifetime. A young relative of the family, an officer who served in the Crimea, also saw it, but turned carelessly away. Some months later Lord Roden received the intelligence that his young acquaintance was suffering from pulmonary disease, and was desirous of seeing him without delay. As he entered the sick-room the dying man stretched out both hands to welcome him; at the same time repeating Dr. Valpys simple lines. They have been Gods message, he said, of peace and comfort to my heart in this illness, when brought to my memory, after days of darkness and distress, by the Holy Ghost the Comforter.

The ordained memorial

I. THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SUPPER IS A PERSONAL MEMORIAL. In remembrance of Me. We are to remember not so much His doctrines, or precepts, as His person. Remember the Lord Jesus at this Supper–

1. As the trust of your hearts.

2. As the object of your gratitude.

3. As the Lord of your conduct.

4. As the joy of your lives.

5. As the Representative of your persons.

6. As the Rewarder of your hopes. Remember what He was, what He is, what He will be. Remember Him with heartiness, concentration of thought, realizing vividness, and deep emotion.

II. THE MEMORIAL ITSELF IS STRIKING.

1. Simple, and therefore like Himself, who is transparent and unpretentious truth. Only bread broken, and wine poured out.

2. Frequent–as oft as ye drink it, and so pointing to our constant need. He intended the Supper to be often enjoyed.

3. Universal, and so showing the need of all. Drink ye all of it. In every land, all His people are to eat and drink at this table.

4. His death is the best memory of Himself, and it is by showing forth His death that we remember Him.

5. His covenant relation is a great aid to memory; hence He speaks of–The new covenant in My Blood. We do not forget Adam, our first covenant-head; nor can we forget our second Adam.

6. Our receiving Him is the best method of keeping Him in memory; therefore we eat and drink in this ordinance. No better memorial could have been ordained.

III. THE OBJECT AIMED AT IS ITSELF INVITING. Since we are invited to come to the holy Supper that we may remember our Lord, we may safely infer that–

1. We may come to it, though we have forgotten Him often and sadly. In fact, this will be a reason for coming.

2. We may come, though others may be forgetful of Him. We come not to judge them, but to remember Him ourselves.

3. We may come, though weak for aught else but the memory of His goodness.

4. It will be sweet, cheering, sanctifying, quickening, to remember Him; therefore let us not fail to come. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Sacrament better than a sermon

Frequently to me the Supper has been much better than a sermon. It has the same teaching-power, but it is more vivid. The Lord is known to us in the breaking of bread, though our eyes have been holden during His discourse. I can see a good meaning in the saying of Henry III., of France, when he preferred the Sacrament to a sermon: I had rather see my Friend than hear Him talked about. I love to hear my Lord talked about, for so I often see Him, and I see Him in no other way in the Supper than in a sermon; but sometimes, when my eye is weak with weeping, or dim with dust, that double glass of the bread and wine suits me best. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The ends for which the Holy Communion is appointed

1. It is appointed to be a memorial of Christ.

2. It is a standing evidence of the truth of Christianity.

3. It furnishes an opportunity of the open profession of the Christian religion in general, and, especially, of our trusting in the sacrifice of Christ for forgiveness and acceptance with God.

4. Another end of the Lords Supper is to be an act of Church fellowship, or communion.

5. The Lords Supper gives an opportunity of covenanting with God, and engaging to be the Lords. He who partakes of the Communion is, by that very act, as completely and voluntarily bound to serve the Lord, as if he had engaged aloud to do so in the plainest terms of speech, or subscribed, with his own hand, a written deed to that effect. It follows, too, by necessary consequence, that, though he is not bound to anything to which he was not in duty bound before, yet, if he abandon himself to sin, he is justly chargeable with breach of engagement. This argument does not rest on anything peculiar to the Supper; but it applies to it with particular force.

6. Another very comprehensive end of this ordinance is to be a means of cherishing all the graces of the Divine life. We say of cherishing them, not of implanting them; for, though the grace of God is not to be limited, and may reach the heart, for the first time, in any circumstances, those who partake of the Lords Supper ought already to be possessed of the Christian character in some degree.

7. Once more, this ordinance is intended to lead our thoughts forward to our Lords second coming. It is not only retrospective, but prospective. It is not only a remembrance of something past, but an anticipation of something future. (James Foote, M. A.)

Remembering Jesus

In remembrance of Him! What a flood of recollections comes back to us as we think on these words. To every class, age, and character amongst us those words are spoken. To you babes and children He says, Do this in remembrance of Me, the Child Jesus, who for you once lay as a babe in the manger at Bethlehem, who for your sakes grew as a child in favour with God and man, who was obedient to His parents, a gentle, holy Child; do this, be obedient, be gentle, be loving, keep your baptismal vow in remembrance of Me. It speaks to you, young men, and says, Do this, keep yourselves pure, flee fleshly lusts which war against the soul, be helpful, be earnest, not slothful in business, labour honestly in your appointed task, do this in remembrance of Me, who as a young man was pure and earnest and helpful, who laboured patiently and obscurely in lowly Nazareth. He speaks to all Who have money or time or influence at their disposal, He says, Do this, go about doing good, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the fatherless and the widow; never turn your face from any poor man; if thou hast much, give plenteously, if thou hast little do thy diligence to give gladly of that little, do this in remembrance of Me, the Man Christ Jesus, who went about doing good, who gave up all time, glory, honour, wealth, life itself, for others, who sought out the ignorant and those who were out of the way, who dried the widows tears, who ministered to the sick, who was not ashamed to help and comfort even the publican and the fallen woman, who suffered hunger and thirst, and want, and insult for His people; O you, who are called by My name, do this in remembrance of Me, for in that ye do such things unto the least of My people, ye do it unto Me, and verily ye have your reward. To you who are anyways afflicted and distressed lie speaks and says, Do this in remembrance of Me, bear this cross meekly in remembrance of that bitter cross of Mine, for what sorrow is like unto My sorrow, what night of agony can equal that night in Gethsemane, what grave can now be without hope since that one grave in the Garden which was unsealed on Easter morning? (H. J. Wilmot Buxton, M. A.)

The memorial of Jesus

I. THE INJUNCTION OF A DEEPLY DEVOTED FRIEND.

II. THE INJUNCTION OF A DEPARTED FRIEND.

III. WHAT DO WE SPECIALLY COMMEMORATE BY OUR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COMMAND? His death, as a sacrificial atonement for our sins, and as the most remarkable display of His love for us, though sinners.

IV. In commemorating Christs death by this ordinance, WE RECALL THE IGNOMINY, REPROACH, AND SHAME HE ENDURED ON OUR BEHALF.

V. Reflect that THESE THINGS, MORE THAN ALL OTHERS, ARE WORTHY OF BEING HELD IN EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE.

VI. HERE, TOO, WE KEEP IN REMEMBRANCE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH EVERY GENERATION HAS THE SAME INTEREST, AND WHICH PRESENT TO ALL THE SAME MOST INVITING AND SOLEMN ASPECTS.

VII. Once more, in the same direction of thought, we observe that, IN THE CELEBRATION OF DEEDS OF PROWESS AND PATRIOTISM, THE REMOTER THE PERIOD OF THEIR PERFORMANCE, THE LESS IS THE INTEREST AWAKENED BY THEM, while in relation to the great event which we this day commemorate, THE REMOTER THE AGE AND GENERATION, THE DEEPER WILL BE THE INTEREST FELT IN IT, AND MORE NUMEROUS WILL THEY BE WHO CELEBRATE IT.

VIII. IN THIS ORDINANCE CHRISTIANS ARE CALLED UPON TO REMEMBER AN UNSEEN FRIEND, UNTIL THE APPOINTED PERIOD OF HIS REAPPEARANCE.

IX. FROM THE SIMPLE NATURE OF THE SYMBOLS EMPLOYED, WE INFER THAT THIS COMMEMORATION IS TO BE UNIVERSAL AS THE CHURCH, AND EXTENSIVE AS THE WORLD.

X. Notice the PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THIS COMMAND AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ALL OTHERS ENJOINED BY DIVINE AUTHORITY. This commemorative command is not issued to us so much in the manner of a Lord and lawgiver, as in the character of a claim of gratitude and affection. The Creator commands thus, Do this and live; or, fail to do, and die. So does the Lawgiver command–Thou shalt do this in fear of Me, and of the penalties of disobedience. But our Lords command in the text speaks to us in a very different manner. He does not say, Do this in fear of Me as God, but Do this in remembrance of Me, as Redeemer–Do this, I beseech you, as you love Me, and as I have loved you. I have done My work–It is finished. Now do your part in remembrance of this finished work. In obeying this command, we obey it as having especial and peculiar reference to the Mediator. Other commands, like those of the moral law, respect the providence and moral government of God, and the benefit of man–this one directly issues from, and gives glory to, the dying Redeemer, the God-man, the Author and Finisher of our faith. In His other commands Christ addresses us as our Master, our Shepherd, our Divine and Supreme Teacher–in this He instructs us in our duties to God, to our neighbour, and to ourselves. All His other commands appear to point OUTWARDS in the direction of various rights and duties; this command only points REWARDS: others, away from Himself–this, to Himself, Do this in remembrance of ME–in remembrance of My body, My blood, My death. That death which I endured for your sakes, do you at least remember for My sake. (J. R. Leifchild, M. A.)

Design of the Lords Supper

I. COMMEMORATIVE.

1. In remembrance of Me–the end.

2. Do this–the means.

II. REPRESENTATIVE.

1. The bread, or Christs body, represents His personality, or the Incarnation.

2. The wine, or Christs blood, represents His work, or the

Atonement.

3. The bread and wine, the body and blood, represent the incarnate career.

III. PROCLAMATIVE. An immortal witness to the crucifixion (1Co 11:20).

IV. COVENANTIVE (Luk 22:20). The engagement both Divine and human.

V. COMMUNICATIVE (1Co 10:17).

VI. ASSOCIATIVE. Personal membership in Christ is universal co-membership of Christs people.

VII. ANTICIPATIVE (Mat 26:29). The dirge glides into the paean. Hint of the new heavens and new earth. Bridegroom and bride at the same marriage-supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-9). (National Baptist.)

The blood of the new covenant

I. THE NEW COVENANT OF FORGIVENESS AND LIFE. The new reminds of the old. From the old we may learn what to look for as essential features of the new. Take three illustrations:

1. The covenant with Noah, on leaving the Ark.

2. The covenant with Abraham, on entering Canaan.

3. The covenant with Moses, on leading the people from Egypt. The new covenant is an engagement between God and man, through Christ, who acts as representative of God to man and of man to God. It implies mutual pledges. On Gods side is pledged forgiveness; remission of sins; and life, in its fullest, highest meaning. On mans side is pledged the obedience of faith.

II. THE BLOOD WHICH SEALS AND SANCTIONS THE COVENANTS. Look again at the three cases mentioned. Each covenant was sealed with blood. Noah took of the clean beasts for his offering, which devoted the spared lives to the service of God. Abraham divided the creatures, when he entered into his covenant. And Moses sprinkled with blood both the book and the people, when the covenant was ratified. Why always with blood? Because the blood is the symbol of the life, and, so, shedding blood was a symbolical way of taking a solemn vow to give the whole life to obedience. Then see how Christs blood becomes the seal of the new covenant. Take Christ as Mediator for God. He condescended to our weakness, and pledged His very being, His very life, to His faithfulness towards us. In this sense He is Gods sacrifice. Take Christ as mediator for man. And in this He is mans sacrifice. Then two things come to view.

1. He seals our pledge that we will spend life in obedience, serving God up to and through death. In accepting Christ as our Saviour, we acknowledge that He has taken this pledge for us.

2. In giving His blood, His life, to us to partake of, Christ would give us the strength to keep our pledge. Illustrate by the Scottish Covenanters, opening a vein, and, signing with their life-blood the Covenant on the gravestone, in Greyfriars Church, Edinburgh. What, then, is the pledge which we take afresh in each sacramental act? Obedience unto death. The obedience of faith. What is the pledge we receive afresh in every sacramental act? The assurance of Divine forgiveness, and eternal life. Why do we take the sacramental emblems together? In order that we may be mutual witnesses; and then true helpers one of another in keeping our pledge. (The Weekly Pulpit.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 14. And when the hour was come] That is, the evening. See Mt 26:20, and Mr 14:17.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

14-18. the hourabout six P.M.Between three and this hour the lamb was killed (Ex12:6, Margin)

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And when the hour was come,…. When it was evening, the last of the two evenings, when it was dark, at least after six o’clock; [See comments on Mt 26:20].

he sat down; or lay along on a couch, as was the custom; see the note, as before:

and the twelve apostles with him; for Judas, after he had made his bargain with the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, came and took his place with the rest of the apostles, both to cover his sin, and to watch the best opportunity of betraying his master.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Sat down (). Reclined, fell back (or up). Second aorist active of .

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The apostles. Both Matthew and Mark have the twelve.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And when the hour was come, he sat down,” (kai hote egeneto he hora anepesen) “And when the hour came in the evening, (to observe it) he reclined,” in the traditional manner, Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17-18. The first passover was observed standing; The last passover was observed sitting down, Exo 12:11.

2) “And the twelve apostles with him.” (kai hoi apostoloi sun auto) “And the apostles in close colleague with him,” Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(14-18) And when the hour was come.See Notes on Mat. 26:20; Mar. 14:17. The other Gospels name the evening. St. Luke uses simply the hour as referring to the appointed time, in the evening (literally, between the two evenings, i.e., the close of twilight; see Exo. 12:6), for the killing, the lamb being eaten afterwards as soon as it was roasted. It is characteristic of the comparatively late date of St. Lukes narrative that he speaks of the twelve Apostles, while the other two reports speak of the disciples. (Comp. Luk. 9:10; Luk. 17:5; Luk. 24:10.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

122. JESUS SITS DOWN WITH THE TWELVE AMBITIOUS

CONTENTION AMONG THEM, Luk 22:14-18; Luk 22:24-30.

Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17.

14. Sat down It must never be forgotten, in reading descriptions of the ancient meals, that there was no sitting in chairs, but reclining on couches at the table. The best commentators, assuming that Luke has changed the order, place the strife of the twelve (Luk 22:24-30) immediately upon their sitting down. Then, in reproof of that strife, follows the washing of the apostles’

feet, given by John.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Road To The Cross: Jesus Prepares For What Is To Happen And It Inevitably Happens (22:14-23:33).

We now come to a group of passages which form a remarkable sequence within the above sequence already described covering from Luk 22:14 to Luk 23:33. In them Jesus first prepares His disciples in some detail for what lies ahead and then all unfolds in fulfilment as what He has said is fulfilled. It is possible that this chiasmus is to be seen as the work of Luke’s source which he has incorporated in his overall scheme for it is not part of the usual sequences and there is much non-Marcan material here. It is again in three stages.

It begins with the hour having come and Jesus reclining at table with His disciples, preparing them for the night ahead, and drinking the cup of blessing.

The night then unfolds in the fulfilling in detail of what He has revealed.

It ends with Him being hustled around and drinking the cup of suffering.

It is thus in itself a unity as the analysis will demonstrate.

Analysis.

a Jesus manifests the danger that lies before Him and the fact of His coming death, providing the symbol of what its significance will be for His disciples in the bread and the cup. They drink the cup of blessing (Luk 22:14-20).

b Jesus reveals the hand of a betrayer at His own table (Luk 22:21-23).

c The disciples are not to seek greatness, but the opportunity of humble service, a service which will be granted to them as they carry on His work, just as they have shared with Him in His trials (Luk 22:24-30).

d Peter will deny Jesus, but through his experience will be strengthened to serve others (Luk 22:31-34).

e Jesus makes clear the danger of the hour, it is a time for swords. But this need for swords is symbolic rather than real, for it is not through swords that triumph will come (Luk 22:35-38).

f Jesus prays in Gethsemane that He might be spared the cup of suffering that He is being called on to drink (Luk 22:39-46).

e The hour of danger approaches, and the disciples seek to defend Jesus with their swords, but fail (Luk 22:47-53).

d Peter fails and denies Jesus and ends up temporarily crushed and broken (Luk 22:54-62).

c Jesus is debased and humiliated to the lowest level of servitude (Luk 22:63-65).

b Jesus is betrayed by the leaders of the Jews in His own country (Luk 22:66-71).

a Jesus is sentenced to death by the rulers of the Gentiles and drinks the cup of suffering (Luk 23:1-31).

We note that in ‘a’ Jesus reveals through symbols His coming death, and its significance, and in the parallel that death is brought about. In ‘b’ Jesus is betrayed by a disciple reclining at His own table, and in the parallel He is betrayed by the leaders of His own people (compare Joh 1:11). In ‘c’ Jesus tells His disciples that they are called to servitude, and in the parallel He is subjected to something that is below even servitude, to the deepest humiliation. In ‘d’ Jesus forecasts the denial of Peter, and in the parallel Peter denies Him. In ‘e’ Jesus warns of coming danger which means that they will require swords, although the requirement for swords is symbolic. In the parallel the danger comes and their ‘two swords’ are not enough. Centrally in ‘f’ Jesus prays that He might be spared the cup of suffering, but chooses above all to follow the will of God.

By means of this chiasmus the symbols at the last supper are directly paralleled with their fulfilment on the cross, and the warnings of Jesus about Peter’s denial and the need for swords are directly connected with their fulfilment, first in the use of swords, and then in the threefold denial by Peter. And central to all is the cry of Jesus in Gethsemane, the place where by His obedience He submits to the awesome will of God (Heb 10:5-10). Here it is given a central place.

That being said this chiasmus now divides up into smaller chiasmi, the first covering the activities in the Upper Room.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘And when the hour was come, he sat down (reclined), and the apostles with him.’

The lack of any preparatory words with reference to His arrival (compare Mar 14:17) suggests that Luke intends us to see a deeper significance in ‘when the hour was come’ than simply as a reference to the time of the usual Passover meal, or the time that Jesus had fixed. It rather suggests that solemn hour that had to come when Jesus would begin His preparations for certain death. We must remember that to Luke this is now at the end of His prophetic ‘journeying towards Jerusalem’ to die as a true prophet (Luk 13:33; Luk 18:31). And now He had come to that hour. Compare here also Joh 13:1. From this moment on His course was set. This solemnity would seem to be confirmed by the next verse.

There is an indication of firm courage behind the words here. Death was approaching, but He would carry on as normal. He was prepared for what would come, and was able to relax in the face of it. The Rabbis said that one reason why the Passover had to be celebrated in a reclining position was as an expression of joy and rest. It was in order to reveal that all was well. Symbolically at least it indicated that, unlike at the first Passover, there was no longer any need to be ready to move on. And yet Jesus was well aware that His hour was come and that this night He would commence the path of suffering that would end in a cruel death. But in spite of that He was quite ready to recline among His disciples.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Proclaims His Coming Death By Means Of The Passover Symbols. His Coming Suffering Is Now An Assumption. He Is To Be The Passover Lamb Introducing the New Covenant (22:14-20).

Analysis.

a When the hour was come, He sat down, and the apostles with Him, and He said to them, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luk 22:14-15).

b “For I say to you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of God” (Luk 22:16).

c He received a cup, and when He had given thanks, He said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves (Luk 22:17).

b “For I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingly Rule of God shall come” (Luk 22:18).

a And He took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and gave to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of Me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you (Luk 22:19-20).

Note that in ‘a’ He desires to eat the Passover with them, and in the parallel He eats with them the new Passover revealed in the giving of His body and the pouring out of His blood. In ‘b’ He will no longer eat the Passover until it has come to its true fulfilment in the Kingly Rule of God, and in the parallel He will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingly Rule of God comes. Central to all is the cup of oneness and unity in blessing, which points ahead to their future hope, which is to be divided among them that all might partake.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Crisis Point Is Reached In The Guestchamber (22:14-38).

In this passage we have described what occurred in the Guestchamber. This divides up into five sections.

Overall Analysis.

a Jesus manifests the danger that lies before Him, the suffering that He is to face, and the fact of His coming death, providing the symbol of what its significance will be for His disciples in the light of the fact that the Kingly Rule of God is coming (Luk 22:14-20).

b Jesus reveals the hand of a betrayer, wrought upon by Satan, whose life will end in woe (Luk 22:21-23).

c The disciples are not to seek greatness, but the opportunity of humble service, and this will finally be granted to them by their ruling in the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 22:24-30).

b Jesus reveals the hand of one who, wrought upon by Satan, will deny Him, but who through it, and through His intercession, will be strengthened to serve others (Luk 22:31-34).

a Jesus makes clear the danger of the hour, it is the time for swords, but these swords are symbolic rather than real. It is not through swords that they will triumph (Luk 22:35-38).

Note that in ‘a’ the darkness of the hour is symbolised, and the same occurs in the parallel. Both indicate that He is now about to be taken. In ‘b’ the fact of betrayal by a friend is revealed, and in the parallel the fact of denial by a friend, both as a result of Satan’s activity. One will end in woe for the party involved, and the other in restoration. For one had sinned through deliberate and continuing intent, the other at a bad three moments in an hour of deep apprehension and tension through weakness. And central in ‘c’ is the whole motive force for the future, the way of service which will lead to triumph. By this they will succeed.

At this point we should also possibly consider the emphasis in the passages on what He has to face:

Jesus was to suffer to the limit. The time had come for Him ‘to suffer’ (Luk 22:15) and the bread and the wine are both said to point to the suffering of death.

Jesus’ betrayal by a close friend and professed loyal follower (Luk 22:21) must have caused Him great grief of heart, thus increasing His suffering.

He then draws attention to the temptations and afflictions that He has had to face. And He informs the disciples that they have continued with Him in His temptations and afflictions (Luk 22:28), and have experienced these with Him, and the implication is that these will continue.

He faces up Peter with the fact that he will deny Him (Luk 22:34). While He does understand the reasons for it, it could hardly be anything less than a great grief of heart to Him.

He declares that they are now entering a period of conflict and danger such as they have never faced before, so that they are to arm themselves against it (Luk 22:36).

So the passage begins, continues and ends with the emphasis on suffering. He is aware that the darkness into which He is entering is growing, and there is no relief from His suffering which is pouring in on Him from all sides.

What Is To Be Seen As Jesus’ Main Emphasis In This Passage?

One further thing we must consider before looking in detail at this passage, about which there is much controversy, is the significance of some of the ideas used in it. And as we consider them we must constantly remember Jesus’ love of the apt parable and His use of vivid illustration. For this passage can be seen as having one of two emphases, depending on our interpretation of it.

1). On the one hand it can be seen as describing the future service on earth which lay ahead for the Apostles in the present Kingly Rule of God being established on earth, with a strong reminder of what will be required of them in it, and the continuing fellowship that they will have with Him. This would fit well with the connection of this passage with the following words of Jesus to Peter concerning strengthening his ‘brothers’ which would be a part of his duty in watching over and serving the people of God.

2). Or on the other hand it can be seen as looking beyond the present to His return and to the final Kingdom and blessing. In this case He will be seen as directing their eyes to their final reward, and avoiding the mention of what immediately lies ahead.

We must remember in this regard that the disciples were imbued with the ideas of their times. These included the coming of the Messiah, the enjoyment of a Messianic Banquet of rejoicing and triumph, and the prospect of Israel ruling over the nations. But what Jesus will now seek to do is reinterpret these ideas so as to reveal that while they will be fulfilled, it is in a very different way than Israel envisaged. These ideas all fixed their attention on the prestige and power and glory that would be Israel’s. Jesus wants to fix His disciples’ minds on the opportunities for humility and humble service that they presented. In a sense He wants to turn the ideas upside down. It was Gentile kings like the King of Babylon who sought to climb higher and higher (Isa 14:13-14). But His disciples are to follow His own example and seek to become lower and lower (Luk 14:7-11; Luk 18:14). They are not to seek ‘what they shall eat and drink’, but to ‘seek the Kingly Rule of God’ (Luk 12:29; Luk 12:31).

But before looking at these questions, let us, in order to put it all in context, ask ourselves what we would expect of Jesus here at this hour of crisis, especially in view of what lies ahead? For He knew that this hour would result in His suffering, and His resurrection, which would then be followed by His sending forth of His disciples to all nations, commencing at Jerusalem (Luk 24:46-47). At this stage this was something that the disciples did not even dimly conceive of. So it was surely necessary for Jesus to prepare them for it in terms that they understood, but which later they would understand more deeply. We must remember that their thoughts were on, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the Kingly Rule to Israel?’ (Act 1:6). His thoughts were on, ‘You will receive power after the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you will be witnesses both in Jerusalem — and to the uttermost parts of the earth’ (Act 1:8). How then was He to convey the idea of the latter to those who were looking for the former? He does it, in fact, by a brilliant use of parable and symbolism which they will not come to fully understand until much later.

This is the view of many who feel that it is inconceivable that He would not in some way say something about all this in His final words to them at this feast, especially as He stresses the need for them to eat and drink of Him. They therefore see Him as wanting to dynamically prepare them for their future, only dimly understood, ministry on earth. But others see Him as rather pedantically putting all His emphasis at the feast on what lies beyond their future ministry, looking rather to the final consummation, and virtually omitting any mention at all of the near future and the task that lay ahead. Their view is that He wants to fill their minds with the splendour and glory that will one day be theirs. But what is problematic in this view is that it overlooks His emphasis on humble service and the kind of attitude that the disciples should have, and turns their thoughts towards ideas which in context He specifically rejects as being unworthy of them. For as we shall see this latter interpretation appears to indicate that He is offering to them the very thing that He at first rejects.

In the eyes of these latter interpreters it is as though at this meal, at which He is seeing His disciples for the last time before He leaves them, He is only interested in the consummation and what will be enjoyed by them then, and not in the process that will lead up to it, a process in which they will be so actively engaged. Their view is that He leaves dealing with the latter until after the resurrection, while here He lays all His emphasis on the glory that is to be theirs, even though in Luk 22:25-26 it is the seeking of this glory which He in specifically eschews. Thus they claim that He emphasises the future under the coming heavenly (or Millennial) Kingly Rule of God, when they will all celebrate with Him in His triumph, and virtually ignores their truly glorious future when they will achieve their great triumphs in the spreading of the Kingly Rule of God on earth, prior to going to be with Him. But in our view this error comes about because they have failed to recognise that Jesus has to present the one in terms of the other because of the continual failure of the disciples to grasp the realities that He has brought, and above all the fact that it is contradictory when compared with His words about service and seeking the lowest place..

The verses which are seen as giving this impression are as follows:

‘I say to you I will not eat of it (this Passover) until it be fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of God’ (Luk 22:16).

‘I say to you I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine until the Kingly Rule of God shall come’ (Luk 22:18).

‘And I appoint to you a Kingly Rule, even as My Father has appointed to Me, that you may eat and drink at My table under My Kingly Rule, and you shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Luk 22:29-30).

Setting these three statements together does seem at first, until they are considered more carefully, to give a strong emphasis on the final consummation (or, for those who believe in it, the Millennial kingdom). He will not eat — or drink — until they eat and drink with Him at His table and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It would seem that He is putting all the emphasis on the glory that is to be theirs, that He is lifting up their hearts to consider the power and authority that they will one day enjoy so that His crucifixion will not be too much of a jolt.

But there is one major problem with this interpretation, and that is that it stands in complete and utter contrast with the attitude that He is seeking to inculcate in them in Luk 22:25-27. For there He inveighs against those who seek the higher place and urges rather that they must think in terms of lowly humility and humble service. He there tells them that they must seek the lowest place, that of the youngest. They must not seek to be chiefs (to sit on thrones), but to serve. They are not to be like the Gentile kings who want to lord it over people and be called Benefactors. And He then gives from the example of His own life the way in which they are to walk. They are not to seek to be sitters at table, but to be servers at table. Is it really likely then that in the next breath He would seek immediately to implant in them ideas which totally contradict this previous exhortation? And this is reinforced by Luk 12:37 where we learn that at the consummation He will gird Himself, and make them sit down to meat, and come and serve them. Thus this is the kind of attitude that He wants them to have, the idea of humble service, not that of lording it over a great banquet.

Some would reply, yes, that is to be their attitude while serving God on earth, but the other picture is also given to them so that while serving they can look with confidence to the day when they will be lifted out of service in order to share His glory. Humility first, glory afterwards.

But this explanation assumes two things:

The first is that the disciples had the same clear distinction in their minds that we have between their period of active service to come, in which they would serve humbly on earth, and the Kingly Rule which would follow when they would be lifted up and glorified. But this is in fact patently untrue. If there is one thing that is certain it is that their minds were in fact still very much in a whirl.

And the second is that they would thus instantly be able clearly to distinguish in His words to them in the Upper Room the difference between the period of humble service described by Jesus and the period of glory that would follow and would consider that for them it would be different from what it would be for Jesus.

A few moments thought will make us aware that that is actually far from the truth, for the truth is that they were, right up to the end, still very much taken up with the question as to who would be the greatest (Luk 22:24). Thus by far the most likely scenario for the understanding of Jesus’ words is that we are to see Him as emphasising how they are to approach their future with humility, and with the recognition of the need for humble service, even though in parabolic terms, rather than emphasising the glory that was to be theirs, which in view of their thoughts at that time would simply perpetuate their error.

For if there is one thing that is certain it is that the disciples did not have everything about the future sorted out in their own minds. Their minds were not on their future as depicted in Acts, which was something that would have to be explained to them after the resurrection. For even after His resurrection, and after the words He has given to them about going out with the Good News (Luk 24:47-48), their question and their interest was expressed in the terms of, ‘Lord, do you at this time restore the Kingly Rule to Israel?’ (Act 1:6). It is quite clear therefore that in their minds there was considerable confusion (which given the situation is not surprising). Thus it is equally clear that they would be treating all His words at the Last Supper as running together with the situation described later and as all speaking about the same situation. For Jesus makes very clear that God’s purposes with regard to the Kingly Rule in the future was none of their business. So Jesus therefore very much had to take their thoughts away from this and demonstrate that what they must look forward to, while describable in terms of His coming Kingly Rule, was actually a life of humble and dedicated service.

And we may add to this the further point, that psychologically it would hardly have been helpful to them if on the one hand He had emphasised the need to humble themselves, and follow His example of humble service, and avoid the attitude of Gentile kings, while at the same time pointing to the glory that lay ahead for them when they too would rule over the nations. To ask them to keep both ideas in mind, and keep them separate, and properly interpret and apply them and live by them, would surely have been asking far more than they were capable of grasping. We would suggest that it would not have been at all helpful, without making the situation much clearer, to combine the two ideas together with any hope of being properly understood. For Jesus was well aware that one of the great problems of the disciples was their desire for greatness (Luk 22:24). Would He really then encourage that desire by glistening promises, while at the same time trying to urge on them the need for total humility? It really does not seem likely. One would almost certainly have had to give way to the other in their minds, and we would suggest, knowing our own hearts, that it would be the way of humility that would go. Indeed when preachers follow this interpretation that is what they tend to emphasise, the glory and privilege and authority that is to be ours, something which goes in complete contrast with Jesus’ words in the passage about humility. They are inculcating in us the very attitude that Jesus deprecated.

Furthermore, how could He possibly, when on the verge of leaving them, have not given them at least some instruction concerning what now currently lay ahead for them in the not too distant future? And would such instruction, and assurance of its success, not in fact have been much more encouraging than promises concerning a more distant future? (This is especially so as that is precisely what He does in John’s Gospel, although that would not be recorded in writing for many years).

In the light of all this let us now consider His words as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, and especially in Luke, in preparation for what is to come, and see whether or not they agree with this suggestion once considered carefully..

Note Concerning Jesus’ Words At The Last Supper About The Kingly Rule of God And the Idea of Eating At His Table And Sitting On Twelve Thrones Ruling The Twelve Tribes of Israel In Luk 22:14-30 .

The first question that arises with regard to this matter is as to what Jesus is referring to when He speaks of ‘the Kingly Rule’ in this passage. They will after all shortly be going out to proclaim the Kingly Rule of God to the people of God (and then to all nations) as the Book of Acts will make very clear (Act 1:3 in the light of Luk 22:6-8 where it is made clear that He is not opening their minds about a coming permanent earthly Kingdom; Act 8:12; Act 14:22; Act 19:8; Act 20:25; Act 28:23; Act 28:31). Are we then to see Him in Luke 22 as totally ignoring this fact, and simply concentrating on the everlasting Kingdom? Or does He rather have in mind in His words the message concerning the Kingly Rule of God that they will soon be taking out and proclaiming?

In order to determine this let us consider carefully what He says in Luke 22 about the coming Kingly Rule of God.

The Coming Kingly Rule of God In Luke 22 .

What Jesus in fact says is that:

1) He will not eat of the Passover until it is fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of God (Luk 22:16).

2) He will not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingly Rule of God will come (Luk 22:18).

Clearly the significance of these verses will depend very much on whether we interpret them in the light of the coming spreading of the Kingly Rule of God through the spreading of the word, as depicted in Acts, which Luke intends to go on to deal with in Acts, or whether we do it in terms of the everlasting (or Millennial) Kingdom which in Act 1:7 He dismisses as irrelevant to them.

Mark has here the words, ‘I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingly Rule of God’ (Mar 14:25). Matthew has ‘I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s Kingly Rule’ (Mat 26:29). We should note that all these are probably translations from the Aramaic, as well as each possibly being an abbreviation of what He actually said. So Mark adds the expanded thought of ‘drinking it new’. Matthew also has this but further adds ‘with you’.

Why then does Luke abbreviate the wording in Luk 22:18 and describe it in terms of ‘the coming of the Kingly Rule of God’? Based on what we have seen previously it would be in order to make clear a Jewish idiom to his Gentile readers. Let us then consider what Luke normally indicates when he speaks of the ‘coming of the Kingly Rule of God’ elsewhere in his Gospel. The idea occurs a number of times.

‘And heal the sick who are in it, and say to them, The Kingly Rule of God is come near to you’ (Luk 10:9).

‘Even the dust of your city, which adheres to our feet, we wipe off against you. Notwithstanding be you sure of this, that the Kingly Rule of God is come near’ (Luk 10:11).

‘But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, no doubt the Kingly Rule of God is come upon you’ (Luk 11:20).

And being asked by the Pharisees, when the Kingly Rule of God comes, He answered them and said, “The Kingly Rule of God does not come with observation, neither will they say, Lo here, or Lo there, for the Kingly Rule of God is within (or ‘among’) you” (Luk 17:20).

It will be noted that in every case of the mention of ‘the coming of the Kingly Rule of God’, it was present among them or ‘near’ so that they could come in contact with it for themselves. Furthermore it did not come in openly outward form, but was within or among them.

On the other hand, in the case where the Kingly Rule of God is spoken of as in the future it is men who come to the Kingly Rule of God, and not the Kingly Rule of God that comes to them. “And they will come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and will sit down in the Kingly Rule of God” (Luk 13:29).

The same can also be said of the other two Synoptic Gospels.

“But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the Kingly Rule of God is come to you” (Mat 12:28).

‘And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, That there are some of those who stand here, who will not taste of death, until they have seen the Kingly Rule of God come with power” (Mar 9:1).

In the first case the Kingly Rule of God has already come on them. In the second the Kingly Rule of God will come with power within the lifetime of some of those present. In both cases the words have in mind participation now, or definitely in the very near future, in the Kingly Rule of God, in the latter case revealed in terms of power.

Thus our conclusion must be that when Luke speaks of the ‘coming of the Kingly Rule of God’ he has in mind its present manifestation. Indeed in the light of his previous words his readers could hardly have seen it in any other way.

We should also note that later in Luke’s account in chapter 22 He then declares that “I covenant to you a Kingly Rule, even as My Father has covenanted to Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My Kingly Rule and you will sit on thrones judging (ruling over) the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luk 22:29-30).

(Some would, however, translate this as meaning that even as His Father covenants to Him a Kingly Rule, so does He covenant to His disciples that they may eat and drink at His table in His Kingly Rule, and that they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In this translation the disciples are not themselves actually covenanted a Kingly Rule. Either translation is feasible and the difference is not really very great. The Kingly Rule of God in which they are to have a part is unquestionably involved whichever is chosen).

A large number of commentators take all these references in Luke 22 to signify that He is referring to the final coming of God’s Kingly Rule in the everlasting (or Millennial) Kingdom. They thus refer to the eating and drinking as referring to the future triumphal Messianic banquet which is described in Scripture (compare Isa 25:6) where the idea is of coming triumph and wellbeing, and which is referred to in later Apocalyptic literature which concentrates on the glory that is to be Israel’s. This Banquet is seen by them as the reward for all those who have been faithful to Him (in their terms), something to be looked forward to as bestowing honour and prestige and a great level of superiority, as well as abundant joy. Those who interpret like this therefore tell us that in these last moments of His presence with them Jesus completely ignores their near future, and the important task that is to be theirs, about which they must have been so concerned, and concentrates all His thoughts on when they will see Him again in the more distant future, when they will enjoy positions of prestige and authority, and does it in similar terms to these apocalyptic writers who so misrepresent the situation (such an idea is not found in Isaiah). In the light of what we have already seen it is, of course, possible. But it seems to us very unlikely. And this unlikelihood is even more so when we consider the context of the statement, which is that of seeking humility and humble service. You do not encourage men to be humble by telling them of the greatness that awaits them.

However, before discussing this question more fully let us also consider one or two other references in Luke to God’s Kingly Rule and the equivalent. In Luk 23:42, for example, the dying thief calls on Jesus and says, ‘Remember me when you come in your Kingly Rule’. Jesus replies to this, ‘Truly I say to you. Today you will be with me in Paradise’. It may, of course, be that Jesus was simply ignoring the repentant thief’s statement, and that His reply was not directly related to it, but many would see it as much more likely that Jesus actually saw His Kingly Rule as immediately commencing in some way in ‘Paradise’, and as something in which the thief would be able to partake. If not we might have expected some indication of the fact.

(Whichever way we take it ‘today’ must probably signify ‘at this time, very shortly’ as it does in Aramaic. For it was already within a short few hours of sunset when the literal day would end. It may, however, be that what He meant was that both He and the thief would be immediately transferred in spirit into what Jesus calls ‘Paradise’, the more pleasant side of Hades. It would be dangerous for us to be dogmatic about the question).

Furthermore at His trial Jesus is revealed as saying in reply to the question as to whether He is the Messiah, ‘from henceforth will the Son of Man be seated at the right hand of God’ (Luk 22:67-69). The Son of Man being seated at the right hand of God can only here indicate that He has received His Kingship by approaching the throne of God in accordance with Dan 7:13-14. This can thus only signify that ‘from this time on’ He considers that He will have been enthroned and will therefore be ruling over His sphere of Kingly Rule. He clearly considers that He will by this have entered on Kingly Rule.

Mark has it as, ‘you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of Heaven’ (Mar 14:62). As this can hardly consistently indicate His immediate second coming, this must again be seen as referring to the Son of Man’s ‘coming’ to the throne of God to receive Kingship in Dan 7:13-14, where He approaches God on the clouds of Heaven and takes His kingly throne. Matthew has something similar, ‘Henceforth you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of Heaven’ (Mat 26:64). And in Matthew’s case we have the later depiction of the risen Jesus as looking back on this event and saying, ‘All authority has been given to me in Heaven and on earth’ (Mat 28:18). So all agree that shortly after the crucifixion Jesus will receive Kingly Rule and will be reigning in Heaven. This can be seen as further confirmed in Act 2:33; Act 2:36 where Peter declares that Jesus has been exalted and has been made both Lord and Christ.

Again prior to the Transfiguration Jesus had said, ‘There are some standing here who will not taste of death until they see the Kingly Rule of God’ (Luk 9:27), which as we have seen Mark puts as ‘see the Kingly Rule of God come with power’. This thus must be seen as indicating that as far as Jesus was concerned the establishing of the Kingly Rule of God would occur within the lifetime of many who heard Him. Matthew and Mark in their own different ways agree, Mark declaring that the ‘Kingly Rule will come with power’ and Matthew referring to it in language which relates to Daniel 7. As far as these words were concerned therefore the coming of the Kingly Rule of God (in power) was to be seen by that generation.

Again, in Luk 19:12-15, in a parable about the kingdom, the king receives kingly rule and then returns. But as no specific timetable is given this does not tell us anything more, although it does agree in the sense that it distinguishes the receiving of kingly rule from his later return. He receives His kingly rule before His return, not at it.

In contrast with all this, however, in Luk 13:28-29 there is the idea of a heavenly Kingly Rule of God which follows the second coming of Jesus Christ into which gather all the believers of the past from all parts of the world, but as we have already seen in that case it is the people who come to the Kingly Rule of God, not the Kingly Rule of God that comes to them. And in Luk 21:31 there is the idea of the Kingly Rule of God being near, which will follow the fulfilment of the signs of His coming. Both of these relate the Kingly Rule of God to His second coming. But neither actually speak of the coming of the Kingly Rule of God, and they are in contrast to the many verses in Luke where the Kingly Rule of God is depicted as being already present or as ‘near’ to the people of that day (Luk 6:20; Luk 7:28; Luk 10:9; Luk 10:11; Luk 11:20; Luk 16:16; Luk 17:21), and as ‘coming’. Neither of the verses that refer to the Kingly Rule of God at the consummation actually speak of it as ‘coming’.

So we can summarise all this as follows:

1). The Kingly Rule of God is already present among them in Jesus, and at work in their hearts (Luk 6:20; Luk 7:28; Luk 10:9; Luk 10:11; Luk 11:20; Luk 16:16; Luk 17:21; Joh 3:2-3).

2). The Kingly Rule of God is about to be revealed in power as a consequence of His resurrection and as a result of His enthronement and subsequent receipt of all authority in Heaven and earth (Luk 9:27; Luk 22:67-69; Luk 23:42; Mar 9:1; Mar 14:62; Mat 26:64; Mat 28:20; Act 2:33; Act 2:35).

3). The Kingly Rule of God will one day be revealed in Heaven, and in that day all will enter it who are His (Luk 13:28-29; Luk 21:31).

But we would stress again that with regard to these it is only the first and the second which are spoke of in terms of ‘the coming of the Kingly Rule of God’.

When, however, we come to Acts the Kingly Rule of God is unquestionably the message that is offered through the preaching of the word (Act 14:22; Act 19:8; Act 20:25; Act 28:23; Act 28:31), and furthermore, in Act 28:23; Act 28:31 the preaching of the Kingly Rule of God is said to be specifically the equivalent of preaching Jesus. None of these references, however, specifically speak of its ‘coming’, although in fact the suggestion would appear to be that it has come and may be entered into by all who will respond.

So when we ask the question ‘Do the references to the coming Kingly Rule of God by Jesus in Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18 have in mind the Kingly Rule of God that comes at Pentecost, or does it refer to the Kingly Rule of God which comes to fruition at the final consummation? there would only seem to be one answer. And if we ask ‘Was Jesus simply giving an indication that the Kingly Rule of God would not be long in coming because it would be the result of His resurrection and enthronement, or was He talking about what would be the final position when the future had come to its consummation?’, the weight of the evidence lies with the former. So the same conclusion seems to apply to both questions. The ‘coming of the Kingly Rule of God’ as such was seen as something that that generation would experience.

With regard to the further statements in the verses, the Passover could certainly be seen as ‘fulfilled’ in the deliverance of men and women through the cross at Pentecost as they were thus brought into the Kingly Rule of God with power (see 1Co 5:7). Here was a greater deliverance by far than that at the Exodus. Although it is true that it could also be seen as fulfilled at the consummation when the saved were finally gathered in. And in the same way it could be that the reference to drinking the fruit of the vine was an indication that there was only a short period between His drinking with them then and the coming of the Kingly Rule of God, although again it may be seen as having in mind a longer term view.

So overall we would suggest that in exegetical terms as well the references to the Kingly Rule of God in Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18 must be seen as suggesting that when Jesus spoke of it, He had in mind the coming of the Kingly Rule of God which would result from His approaching enthronement following His resurrection, and through the work of the Holy Spirit, as in Acts. This would, however, not exclude the fact that it would finally result for all who were thus ‘saved’ in the everlasting Kingdom. For in Jesus’ eyes the one ran into the other, for elsewhere when speaking of blessing to be given to His own He says, ‘Both now in this time — and in the life to come’ (Mar 10:30).

Having come to this conclusion let us now consider whether it is supported by the context.

The Context: The Lord’s Supper.

The next thing that we note is that while Jesus declares that He Himself will cease eating the Passover and drinking the fruit of the vine for a period of time, His disciples are to continue to do so. This could indicate a short term abstinence for Himself while they continued with their eating and drinking, or it may have been in order to indicate that they were to eat and drink of it constantly in the future in a new form. In the longer text of Luke, (which we consider is unquestionably correct, see later), this is made more explicit, even though no mention is actually made of eating and drinking, for the bread is given ‘in remembrance of Me’ and the cup is offered. Both of these ideas include the thought of eating and drinking. Thus there is an emphasis on the fact that while Jesus Himself will for an unstated period cease eating and drinking, the Disciples will go on eating and drinking in remembrance of Him, and that what they will eat and drink will be a reminder of His body and blood. Even in the shorter text this is implied, for Luke’s readers would certainly there understand these words or similar as following ‘this is My body’, due to their own celebration of the Lord’s Table (compare 1Co 11:23-25).

One thing that arises from the reference to Jesus as ‘not eating and drinking’ is as to whether the purpose of that is in order to suggest how soon the Kingly Rule of God will come (‘it is so near that I will abstain from eating and drinking until then’, for remember those who heard His words did not know what was coming), or whether the idea is rather that He will meanwhile shortly be active in such a way that the taking of food and wine would be improper, that is, that He sees the abstention from wine as necessary because He sees Himself as about to act as a serving priest (Lev 11:10) as in Hebrews, and because He is consecrating Himself to what lies ahead as the equivalent of a Nazirite (Numbers 6) as John the Baptiser did (Luk 1:15). That is, that He wants them to know that He is totally devoting Himself to an important ministry that lies before Him, the ministry of the cross and resurrection and enthronement. Like the mention of the swords later it could be seen as a reference to preparation for the events that now lay ahead. In His case the point would be that He was preparing Himself for the offering up of Himself as the perfect and fully consecrated offering, for abstinence from food and drink was a regular way of preparing for some especially important task ahead (compare Act 23:12; 1Sa 14:24-28). If this is so then it is clear that He sees the task as fulfilled by Luk 24:43.

In indirect contrast with Jesus’ statement about not eating and drinking, however, is the fact that His people will in the future be eating and drinking because they will be partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This might be seen as suggesting therefore that His abstinence will only be until then, at which point He will again eat it and drink it with them at His Table. (Compare how He does break bread with the two disciples at Emmaus after His resurrection – Luk 24:30). And we should note that here in chapter 22 this eating and drinking is immediately connected with ‘the Table’, for immediately afterwards we are told that ‘the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me on the Table ‘ (Luk 22:21). The point here would seem to be that on the very table at which Jesus had dispensed the bread and the wine, the betrayer was planning to betray Him. But that shortly He would again (spiritually) be eating and drinking with them at His Table once His Kingly Rule had begun after His resurrection. We should note how in His resurrection appearance He specifically goes out of His way to eat with them – Luk 24:41-43, compare Joh 21:13.

This is then followed shortly afterwards by Jesus’ illustration of Himself as One Who humbly serves, where He declares, ‘Which is greater, he who sits at the meal or him who serves? Is not he who sits at the meal? But I am in the midst of you as Him Who serves’ (Luk 22:27). Unless this is just an illustration taken out of the blue, (which is one possible way of looking at it), we might see this as referring to what He will do in future at The Lord’s Table. There He will serve those who come to that Table to partake of the bread and the wine. Or alternately it could be seen as having reference to what has gone before, and therefore to Jesus as presiding over the Passover. The problem then is that it would not be a good illustration of humility, for the one who presided at the Passover was usually someone who was seen as important. But if His point is that He will in fact from now on, as the One Who is here to serve, be serving them continually by giving them His body and blood, and will thus in the future be present at the Lord’s Table in order to apply it to His people as the Servant Who gave His life a ransom for them (Mar 10:45), then it does illustrate in His case a humbling of Himself for His people.

But however that may be, what is unquestionably true is that the purpose of this illustration is in order to demonstrate the humility, and the ambition to serve in a humble capacity, that should be the lot of those who follow Him. Indeed He stresses that fact. He says that His disciples should not be like the kings of the Gentiles whose desire it is to lord it over everyone (Luk 22:25), but should be like Him in His desire solely to benefit others by humble service. They should not have the hearts of earthly kings, but the heart of the heavenly King, the heart of a servant. They should not be seeking to sit on the High Table, but should be seeking to serve at the lowest table. He is by this seeking to inculcate in these men who have such a dangerous tendency to think in terms of attaining greatness, a desire rather for humility and humble service, with no thought of obtaining greatness.

That being so what follows must, if interpreted as signifying the glory that awaits them at His future Table under His coming glorious Kingly Rule, be seen as quite extraordinary. For what follows is a statement which is then so at variance with what He has previously said that it is difficult to think of anything more contradictory that could have been said. He would be saying, ‘although I am calling you to the humblest of humbles service, nevertheless I am going to sit you on twelve thrones as rulers’. Now that would be fine to someone theologically trained who could make the distinctions that we make, but it could only be totally confusing, and worse, to people as muddled as the Apostles were. It would give them two contradictory ideas.

Let us consider it further. Depending on how we translate it this following statement could be:

1) Either the statement that He has covenanted them a kingly rule, as a result of which they will eat and drink at His table in His Kingly Rule, and will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

2) Or the statement that He has covenanted for them to eat and drink at His table in His Kingly Rule, the one God has given Him by covenant, where they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Now whichever of these two translations is accepted this is often taken to mean that they will join Him in the Kingly Rule of God at the Messianic Banquet at which they will be privileged guests, as a result of which they will also sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and in terms of Jewish thinking lording it over the Gentiles. They will be there as those who have been exalted and raised to positions of authority in the everlasting (or Millennial) Kingdom. Can you think of anything that would more fill the disciples in their present state with pride and joy at being exalted, and with a feeling of superiority, and with a renewed interest in who would be the greatest? We must ask therefore, ‘How could this possibly immediately follow on an exhortation to seek the lowest level of humble service such as we have previoulsy seen?

Can you therefore see why we have suggested that it is quite extraordinary? For it would appear that at the same time as He is seeking to lure them away from their attitude of seeking greatness, to being truly humble, and urging them to desire not to sit at table as someone important, but to serve at table as one who is least, and as one who serves others, He is also at the same time trying to fix their minds on their coming greatness. With their previously dangerously arrogant desires for greatness this is surely so contradictory that it is unbelievable. Indeed it might be seen as encouraging hypocrisy. It would be saying, ‘be humble now with a view to being rewarded with greatness. Earn your greatness by making a show of being humble’. Let us confirm this further by looking at His two parallels. Firstly consider:

‘The kings of the Gentiles, have lordship over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors, but you shall not be so, but he who is greater among you, let him become as the younger, and he who is chief, as he who serves.’

And compare it with:

You will sit on thrones ruling over (judging) the twelve tribes of Israel.’

It is surely immediately apparent that Jesus is here seemingly going against His own dictum. On the one hand He appears to be saying, ‘You are to eschew power and authority,’ while on the other He is bolstering them up with the very thought that they should be looking forward to a similar kind of power and authority. He is saying, ‘seek to be humble’, and at the same time saying ‘look forward to the fact that you will be made great.’ Given the dangerously wrong ideas that the disciples had revealed that they already had, this is surely, to say the least, extremely unlikely. Is He not really asking too much of them? How can He hope to inculcate an attitude of such humility and yet at the same time, in the same breath, promise such greatness as an incentive? If He is He is surely taking the cutting edge off His urging.

Now had He as an incentive compared being like the Gentile kings now, with being like a Messianic prince in the future that would have been understandable. He would be comparing earthly greatness with heavenly greatness. But the exhortation to eschew the  attitude  of the Gentile kings, and to follow the way of humility and humble service, is, we suggest, totally incompatible with seeking to arouse in them a desire for a similar future glory at the same time in the state of their knowledge at that time, especially as, as far as they were concerned the latter could be fairly soon (as Act 1:6 demonstrates). The first promise thus makes this view of His final saying very improbable indeed we might say impossible. You can make a contrast between the pride of Gentile kings and the humility of a servant, and you can make the contrast between the glory of Gentile kings and the glory of being a Messianic prince, but you cannot do both at the same time, for in the same context they are flatly contradictory attitudes.

And this is especially so in the light of what follows. Consider again:

‘Which is greater, he who sits at the meal, or him who serves. Is not he who sits at the meal? Yet I am among you as one who serves,’

And compare it with:

‘I appoint to you, even as my Father has appointed me a kingly rule, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingly rule.’

If this latter means the Messianic Banquet where they feast in triumph and glory, then it is in complete contradiction with the former. He would appear to be encouraging at the same time two different attitudes of mind. How can this latter possibly fit in with the idea that they are to be like the One Who serves? They are two different approaches altogether. Either they set their hearts on the way of humble service, desiring not to sit at table, except in the same way as Jesus has as a servant, but to serve, or they set their hearts on the enjoyment of sitting at table with the Messiah in the glory of the Messianic banquet. But they cannot genuinely and honestly be expected to have both aims in mind at the same time, especially as the latter has been a constant temptation to them. (It is even worse if there is the thought of the Messiah serving them at His coming as in Luk 12:37). Separately, in different contexts, the two aims might be compatible, humility now, glory later, but not as two aims asked for in the same breath, especially when it is asked of those who have a tendency to seek greatness, and even more especially as He has been warning them against arrogance and boastful pride. In the light of the earlier self-seeking of James and John He would surely here be in grave danger of encouraging a similar arrogance and boastful pride. Are they really then to be asked to seek the lowest place, while keeping one eye on the highest place? It is hardly possible to think so. It would surely not be inculcating the right attitude (which he has just described) at all.

But if it is not to be taken like this, how then are we to take it?

Before we answer that question let us remind ourselves again of something else, and that is that during this time in the Upper Room, apart from the brief reference to bread and wine, Jesus on this view has apparently said absolutely nothing about the future that lies ahead for His disciples prior to His return, contrary to what we find in John.

That being so these self-contradictions and obvious misapplications described above must surely suggest that somehow we are misinterpreting these verses by seeing in them a picture of their future exaltation, rather than a picture of present service. For how could someone who has just derided Gentile kings because of their attitude, and has put His behaviour as a servant forward as the ideal of humble service, then talk as though His disciples should be seeking the highest place, and should be looking forward to life on their own thrones, and be shown to be completely ignoring all words about their coming service (which John shows that He did talk about in the Upper Room)? It is surely simply not conceivable. But how else then can we see them?

Taking the question of eating and drinking at His table first, we can relate it back to Luk 22:19-20 and also to Luk 22:27. There His table is the one at which He serves. Thus we might see the significance of the Table here as referring not to the Messianic Banquet which is to come in which they will exalt on their glory, but as His feeding of them at His Table in such a way that they serve humbly along with Him at the true Messianic banquet on earth, as in the feeding of the five thousand, by feeding His people, as he commands Peter in Joh 21:15-17. In the light of what we have seen before, this would signify His activity on their behalf as they partake in the Lord’s Supper, and as they thereby work humbly within the Kingly Rule of God as He does. This would then not be indicating a feasting in triumph at the Messianic feast in some future glory, but a feasting in humility in the Kingly Rule of God as they partake of Christ and then go out to serve others, sharing in His present glory. This fits precisely with Jesus’ urging to behave like humble servants.

But how then are we to think of their being given thrones from which they will rule the twelve tribes of Israel? One thing we can be sure of, and that is that this is surely to be seen as in clear contrast with the Gentile kings who lord it over their people and want to be called benefactors. The point is not that they will achieve better than the Gentile kings, for the attitude of the Gentile kings was to be abhorred. Rather it is that they are to seek to be the very opposite. If one thing is certain it is that it cannot mean that they should be looking forward ambitiously to sitting on thrones ruling the people. It would here be arousing in them all the wrong motives, and contradicting His warning about being like Gentile kings.

That being so it is clear that Jesus must have some other idea in mind than that, the idea of acting as His humble deputies in establishing the Kingly Rule of God among people on earth so that these people might finally inherit the everlasting kingdom. Rather than seeking to lord it over people, He will be saying, they must instead be seeking to humbly serve God’s people in the same way as Jesus Himself has done, bringing them into the Kingly Rule of God and building them up in Christ. This would also then tie in perfectly with His following words to Peter where He describes him, as a result of his being sifted by Satan, as being prepared for this very task. But how then are we to obtain this idea from the words that Jesus uses?

At this point reference must be made to Psa 122:4-5, for that is the passage for which Jesus obtained the idea. In that Psalm we read of, ‘Jerusalem — whither the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord, for a testimony to Israel, to give thanks to the name of the Lord, for there are set thrones for dispensing righteousness, the thrones of the house of David’. This Psalm refers to the fact that when ‘the tribes’ went up to Jerusalem they were to find justice at the hands of those who sat on ‘the thrones of David’, that is, those who were representing the son of David who was current at the time, by acting as his deputies and judiciaries. It may even indicate princes of the royal house who have this function. This would fit in admirably with what occurred in Acts. There the Apostles in Jerusalem were seen as acting in the name of the greater son of David Who was enthroned in Heaven (Act 2:29-36; Act 4:24-30), and were bringing justice and righteousness to the people as they themselves symbolically sat ‘on the thrones of David’, that is, were acting in Jesus’ Name. They were, as it were, to be seen as acting in the name of the Greater David, and could thus be seen as sitting on the metaphorical thrones of David acting in His name. This would also then tie up with their following Him by ‘ruling’ in humility and humble service over the people of God, as Jesus had while on earth, and with their eating and drinking at the Lord’s Table. In other words they were to ‘rule’ over His people with all humility.

But it might be asked, can the church be called ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ in this way? The answer is in fact a resounding, ‘yes’. For ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ is merely in the end a phrase indicating ‘all Israel’, having in mind its founding fathers. At varying times there had been a varying number of tribes of Israel, especially early on (see Judges 5), and always, after Ephraim and Manasseh had split up, there were at least thirteen tribes, and yet even in Jesus’ day most pure Jews identified themselves with one of ‘the twelve tribes’. We can compare how Paul described himself as a Benjaminite. It was thus a general phrase, not one that was specifically applicable. It pictured an ideal.

However, apart from very few Jews, this identification would not go back many generations. Large numbers were originally linked with their tribes by adoption rather than by birth, and the number of Jews who were actually descended from the patriarchs, and certainly any who could prove it satisfactorily, would have been very, very few. The main exception would be the descendants of the royal house. Thus the phrase ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ really signifies ‘all who professed themselves as Israel and were bound in the covenant’.

That the church was seen as the new Israel, the new covenant community, the genuine fulfilment and continuation of Israel, comes out regularly in the New Testament. Jesus had from the beginning set out to establish a new congregation of Israel (Mat 16:18). And almost from the beginning the unbelieving Jews were seen as having been cut off from the true Israel, and the believing Gentiles as grafted in (see for example Joh 15:1-6; Rom 11:17-33; Gal 3:29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; 1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 7:1-8). And Peter in a letter which is clearly to all Christians, both in its content, and in the fact that whenever he refers to ‘Gentiles’ it is always as those who are unbelieving, writes to ‘the exiles of the Dispersion’ (1Pe 1:1), those who are strangers and pilgrims (1Pe 2:11) dispersed around the world, clearly referring this to the whole believing people of God, and therefore seeing them as Israel. In the same way James writes to ‘the twelve tribes in the Dispersion’ (Jas 1:1), and again is writing to all Christians. This is demonstrated by the fact of his total lack of reference to Gentile Christians in his letter, something which would have been unaccountable in a letter written only to Jewish Christians when he was seeking to give them guidance about their behaviour. Had Gentile Christians not been included among those whom he addressed he would have been failing in his duty not to explain how Christian Jews were to behave towards them. So the non-mention of them, not even by a hint, confirms that they are included among those to whom the letter is written. Thus as far as James was concerned believing Gentiles had been incorporated into Israel and were part of ‘the twelve tribes’.

For we must remember that the idea of ‘Israel’ was always a fluid one. From the very beginning many ‘Israelites’ had been descendants of foreign servants within the households of the patriarchs. Yet all in their ‘households’, (thus foreign servants included), had gone down into Egypt and had retained their identity as Israel. And when they left Egypt they had been joined by a mixed multitude (Exo 12:38) who would mainly from then on be seen as Israelites. They would join in the covenant of Sinai, and be circumcised on entering the land. And provision was specifically made for such people to be full blown Israelites (Exo 12:48). Indeed so many sought to join with Israel that provision was made later as to who could and could not do so (Deu 23:1-7). And all through their history proselytes were welcomed as true Israelites on equal terms (at least theoretically) if they were circumcised and submitted to the covenant. So the idea of Israel was not so much that of literal descendants of Abraham, but of those who were faithful to the covenant. Those who were not were cut off from Israel even if they were true-born. Those who wished to become a part of ‘Israel’ could do so, through circumcision and submission to the covenant. And it was in fact precisely because the early church saw new converts as becoming a part of Israel that the requirement for circumcision was debated. And the final solution was not found in suggesting that they were not really joining Israel, but in the argument that once they became Christ’s they were already circumcised with the circumcision of Christ (Col 2:11) and therefore did not need to be circumcised again. But they were certainly recognised as having become the true seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29). For they were ingrafted into the olive tree (Rom 11:17-28), and, as Paul tells us in Eph 2:13-22, they became fellow-citizens with the saints (the Old Testament name for true Israelites) and of the household of God. Thus the early church did unquestionably see themselves as the true Israel, and therefore as ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’.

This being so the most consistent interpretation of this passage would seem to be the one that sees it as referring to the Kingly Rule of God that would be established at Pentecost and after, and which saw the Apostles as ‘serving at table’ and ‘sitting on thrones’ by serving the people of God as they built up the Kingly Rule of God on earth ready for their later transfer to Heaven.

Before moving on further there is one more emphasis that we can perhaps examine, and that is the one in the passage about being ‘at (on) the table’.

Being At The Table In Luke 22 .

In Luk 22:14 Jesus reclines with His disciples, and the assumption must be that it was at the Table(s) present in the room. So here reclining at the Table indicates closeness of fellowship. And it is as being at this Table that He gives them the bread and wine representing His body and blood.

It comes therefore in shocking contrast when Jesus says, ‘the hand of him who betrays Me is with Me at (on – ‘epi’) the Table’ (Luk 22:21). One of those who were reclining at His Table, eating and drinking with Him, and had even solemnly received bread and wine from Him, was planning to betray Him. To behave in such a way was to go counter to all that was looked on as customary and acceptable. It was to break all boundaries of decency. For it was a principle of Eastern hospitality that when you ate with someone it was a guarantee of friendship and of concern for their wellbeing.

In contrast Jesus then pointed out that He was here at the Table in order to serve. While it was true that He was reclining at the Table with them, He said, it was not as one who considered it as His right to be served, but as one who was there in order to serve. He was not here to exercise authority over them but with the sole purpose of serving them. Indeed He was here with the purpose of giving Himself to them and for them. And this was to be an example to them, so that they also were not to be like Gentile kings lording it over people, and being given great titles, but were also in their turn, while reclining at Table, to serve, seeking only the lowest place, that of the youngest (and at some stage He gave the example by washing their feet).

So when He then goes on to say that in future they will sit at (on – ‘epi’) His Table under His Kingly Rule, eating and drinking as they are now (unlike the one who has betrayed Him), the thought is clearly that He will there continue to serve them, and that they too should be thinking in terms of humble service as they recline at His Table, as He has already enjoined. In the context of this whole passage this suggests that it signifies their future humble service in the Kingly Rule of God which will shortly come with power, and thus signifies what is to follow the resurrection.

In other words Jesus takes the idea of the Messianic Banquet and turns it on its head. The ideas that should be filling the heads of His disciples, He says, should not be those of Messianic glory, but of Messianic service. Thus we may summarise by saying that He has both assured them that the Kingly Rule that they were expecting was coming, so that what is to follow in His coming death should not leave them with any doubts about that, but that they should not be looking at it as something that would bring them glory, but rather as something that would enable them, like Him, to act faithfully as ‘the Servant of the Lord’ (Act 13:47).

Having then examined some of these rather difficult concepts involved (difficult because of our misconceptions of them) let us now look at this passage in more detail, although necessarily with some repetition.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

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

Luk 22:15 . ] I have earnestly longed , Gen 31:30 . See Winer, p. 413 [E. T. 584]. This longing rested on the fact (see Luk 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: .

] pointing to: this , which is already there.

Luk 22:16 . . . .] namely, after the present meal.

] of the Passover.

. . .] 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, Mat 8:11 ; Luk 22:30 ; Luk 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 , ), and of the perfected theocracy in the . Comp. on Mat 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.

Luk 22:17 f. According to Luke, Jesus, after He had spoken quite at the beginning of the meal the words, Luk 22:15-16 , receives a cup handed to Him ( , not the same as , Luk 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 ), 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 Luk 22:18 the absolute , but in Luk 22:16 the relative , 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, . . ., until the conclusion of the meal, Mar 14:25 , Mat 26:29 ; and since Matthew uses the emphatic , wherein is intimated that Jesus had just drunk with them once more, the narrative of Luke, Luk 22:17-18 , is to be regarded as not original, and it is to be assumed that Jesus indeed spoke, Luk 22:15-16 , at the beginning of the meal (in opposition to Kuinoel and Paulus), but that what is found in Mat 26:29 has been removed back by the tradition on account of the analogy of Luk 22:16 , and placed after Luk 22:16 , beside which Luk 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 Luk 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 1Co 10 , where, moreover, the 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 , and the other with that of . He must have here represented the first by the help of Mat 26:29 . He must thus probably still have expressly brought in the supposed leading idea of , 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.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

3. The Passover and the Celebration of the Lords Supper (Luk 22:14-23)

(Parallel to Mat 26:20-29; Mar 14:17-25; Joh 13:21-35.)

14And when the hour was come, he sat down [reclined at table], and the twelve 15[om., twelve3] apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desiredto eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof,4 until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17And he took the5 cup, andgave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall [have] come. 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed foryou. 21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me [delivereth me up] is with me 22on the table. And [For6] truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined [ ]: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed [delivered up]! 23And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was [might be] that should [was about to] do this thing.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

If we attentively compare the narrative of Luke respecting the Passover and the celebration of the Lords Supper with the accounts of the other Evangelists, we shall on one hand be strengthened in the conviction that all give account of the same festal meal and the same discovery of the traitor, but we must, on the other hand, at the same time concede that Lukes chronological sequence is not wholly exact. Only when we complement his narrative by that of the others, does it become to us in any measure possible to place the whole course of facts vividly before our eyes. Not the arrangement of the different elements of the celebration, but the sharp contrast between the state of mind of the Apostles and the words of the Saviour, comes in his representation decidedly into the foreground, and Luke is here also, where he introduces us into the upper chamber, more a painter than a diplomatically exact historian.

Luk 22:14. The hour.The of the law, Matthew and Mark . Respecting the manner of celebrating the Passover, see Lange on Mat 26:20, and Friedlieb, Archologie 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: compare the LXX on Num 11:4; Psa 106:14. This very first word gives us to know our Lords 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, ; 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, . ; that is, not until all be fulfilled which must be fulfilled in My kingdom of grace (Starke); nor is or any such thing to be supplied, but simply . 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= . 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 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, . The address: Take this and divide it among yourselves (), 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 . 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 is decidedly spurious. Agreeably to the connection, can be understood only of a surrender to death, while 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: 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. .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 , while He according to Luke and Paul speaks of . 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 or , according to Luke, . 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 , 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 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 , 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 ( ) 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 Lords declaration concerning Judas more than , 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 qu sacram cnam 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: , 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. states the ground why the Lord could again, as already previously, Mat 26:2, speak of a The Son of Man, that is, goes, it is true, (Matthew and Mark, , and that ). 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 ( ). 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.7C. 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.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See on the parallel passages in Matthew, Mark, and John. Worthy of consideration also are the representations of the Last Supper of our Lord given by Christian art, not only the world-renowned one of Leonardo da Vinci, but also of Giotto, Ghirlandajo, Signorelli, Gorgione, Raphael, Juan de Juanes, Carlo Dolce, Poussin, Thorwaldsen, and others.

2. Our Lords 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 Lords wisdom and greatness which become visible in the institution of the Lords 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, . 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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. 473475.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 Guerikes Zeitschcrift fr 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. Rckert at Jena. A very weighty article has been furnished by Julius Muller in Herzogs Real-Encyclopdie. 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 of the great day.

6. He hath heartily desired to die for uswho 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.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The last assembling of the Lord with His disciples.The longing of our Lord for the last Passover: 1. How it exhibits itself; 2. from what it springs; 3. to what it quickens.The paschal cup the last bodily refreshment of our Lord before His suffering.The feast of the redeemed in the perfected kingdom of God, the fulfilment and glorification of the Israelitish Passover.We also have the Paschal Lamb, that is, Christ, sacrificed for us, 1Co 5:7.The coincidence and the diversity, the agreement and the difference between the Passover of the Old and the Supper of the New Covenant. Through both: 1. A perfect redemption is sealed; 2. a blessed fellowship founded; 3. a glorious prospect opened: the Passover points to the Communion, the Communion to the marriage-supper of the Lamb, Rev 19:9.The noblest gifts of nature sanctified into symbols of grace.The atonement of love.The institution of the Lords Supper in its high significance: 1. For our Lord; 2. for His Apostles; 3. for all following times.The fellowship in the Communion: 1. Of our Lord with His people; 2. of believers with one another; 3. of earth with heaven.This do in remembrance of Me: 1. A pregnant command; 2. a holy command; 3. a salutary command.The feast of the New Covenant: 1. The fulfilment of that which is only intimated in the Old Covenant; 2. the prophecy of that which shall hereafter be enjoyed at the heavenly feast.The institution of the Lords Supper a revelation of the Prophetical, the Priestly, and the Kingly character of our Lord.The high significance which our Lord, in distinction from every other stage of His earthly manifestation, attributes to His suffering and death.The institution of the Lords Supper essentially inexplicable to him who in the death of our Lord sees only a confirmation of His teaching, an exalted example, a striking revelation of the forgiving love of God, but no actual expiatory sacrifice.The Lords Supper: 1. A memorial supper; 2. a covenant supper; 3. a Supper of love.How our Lord in the Communion gives Himself to His own: 1. To be beheld; 2. to be enjoyed; 3. to be adored.The devil among the disciples, Joh 6:70.Jesus over against Judas: 1. His immaculate purity over against the enormous guilt; 2. His infallible knowledge over against the deep blindness; 3. His unshakable composure over against the painful disquiet; 4. His measureless love over against the burning hatred of the traitor.Jesus the Searcher of all hearts.The discovery of the traitor; it shows us: 1. What our Lord once suffered here on earth; 2. what He now is in heaven; 3. what He shall hereafter do at the end of the world.Jesus glorified by the way in which He discovers the traitor, comp. Joh 13:30-31. He reveals in this way: 1. A knowledge deceived by no illusive guise; 2. an affliction marred by no petty weakness; 3. a love cooled by no wickedness; 4. an anger accompanied with no ignoble passion.The night of the betrayal: 1. From its dark; 2. from its bright, side.Even on the Communion-table, as on the Paschal board, our Lord sees the hand of His betrayer stretched out.Here is more than David, Psa 41:10.When our Lord utters a general warning, no one of His disciples may remain wholly indifferent, but each one is under obligation to enter into himself.

Starke:Bibl. Wirt.:Oh, how great a longing hath Jesus had for mans 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 Lords 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.Christs 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 ntre 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.Bckel:Jesus over against His betrayers.

Footnotes:

[3]Luk 22:14.The of the Recepta is, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Meyer, Tregelles, Alford,] omitted, according to B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] 157, Sahid, Itala, &c.

[4]Luk 22:16.Van Oosterzee translates: eat it, reading instead of the Recepta, , with Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, according to B., L., and various Cursives and Versions, including the Vulgate. Cod. Sin. also reads . Van Oosterzee adduces Tischendorfs authority, but Tischendorf in his 7th ed. has reverted to the Recepta, which Meyer also defends.C. C. S.]

[5]Luk 22:17.The , 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.

[6]Luk 22:22.The Recepta has ; Tischendorf, according to B., D., [Cod. Sin.,] L., &c., . [Meyer remarks that the OTI was overlooked on account of the following , and then the lack of a connective being felt, was subsequently interpolated.C. C. S.]

[7][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.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

DISCOURSE: 1573
OUR LORDS EATING THE LAST PASSOVER WITH HIS DISCIPLES

Luk 22:14-16. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

SUPPOSING the Holy Scriptures to have been written by divine inspiration, and Jesus Christ to have been the Son of the Most High God, we should expect that every thing related of him would have the stamp and character of his perfections. There would be a consistency in all that belonged to him: in what belonged to him as God, he would appear as God; and in what belonged to him as man, he would be found altogether pure and spotless. This consistency we do find; nor does he ever for a moment say or do any thing which is not worthy of himself. The time is come for his celebration of the Passover, on the very night previous to his death. He orders his Disciples to go into the city, and make ready for him. But where shall they go? He bids them enter into the city, and inform a person whom they shall meet bearing a pitcher of water, that their Master would eat the Passover at his house; and he assures them that the person will, without hesitation, shew them a large upper room furnished, and affording every accommodation that they can wish. Nor need they send any person to tell him what house they are at, as he will be in no danger of wanting any such information. Here we see him, as the omniscient God, declaring with infallible certainty the most contingent events: and when he comes to his Disciples, behold, he forgets all his own approaching sufferings, and is intent only on promoting their eternal welfare. The last evening was arrived, when he was to conflict with all the powers of darkness, and to be delivered into the hands of sinners. This he well knew; and therefore, one would suppose, should have greatly dreaded the approaching hour: but, instead of dreading it for himself, he earnestly desired it for their good: With desire have I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Here two inquiries arise; and they will afford a profitable subject for our present contemplation?

I.

Why did he so desire to eat the Passover with them at that time?

Many reasons doubtless conspired to make him so desirous of it. It would afford him a valuable opportunity

1.

Of manifesting his love to them

[Parting friends are usually anxious to give to each other some lasting token of their mutual regard. Our blessed Lord, in particular, was glad to avail himself of the opportunity which the Paschal feast would afford him for this purpose. That feast was attended with repeated washings of the hands of him who presided at it: but our Lord, having his Disciples alone with him, instead of washing his own hands, took a towel, and girded himself, and washed their feet: nor would he suffer any one of them to decline accepting this token of his love: so anxious was he to convince them all, that having loved them, he loved them to the end [Note: Joh 13:1.]. Nor did he by this action merely express to them his own love, but shewed them what sentiments they should entertain towards each other, and towards all his people to the end of time: they should account no service too humiliating to perform for the lowest member of his mystical body; but every one should make it the summit of his ambition to become the servant of all.]

2.

Of conveying instruction to their minds-

[They had been frequently informed of his approaching sufferings and death; insomuch, that though they did not fully comprehend these predictions, they were much troubled and perplexed in relation to them. They were now, like ground that has been ploughed up, and watered with plenteous rains, prepared to receive into their bosoms the good seed, the word of life, Our Lord therefore now opened to them, more fully than on any other occasion, all the deepest mysteries of his religion. He told them plainly who he was, even one with the Father, insomuch that whosoever had seen him, had seen the Father. He told them also, whither, and for what end, he was going; even to his Fathers house, to prepare places for them. He told them, that his departure was altogether expedient for them; so that if they considered it aright, instead of mourning on account of it, they would rejoice: for that he would send to them the Holy Ghost to be their abiding Comforter and Guide: yea, he himself would hear and answer every petition that they should present to the Father in his name; nay more, though removed from them as to his body, he would come and manifest himself to them, and even dwell in them, by his Spirit. He opened to them also the nature and intent of his death, which was to procure for them the remission of their sins; and shewed them, that, notwithstanding his removal from them, they should be united to him as branches to the vine, and, by constant communications of grace and strength from him, be enabled to bring forth the fruits of righteousness to his praise and glory. In a word, in his discourses at this feast, he brought forth every subject which their necessities required, and presented it in such a view as should most conduce to their lasting edification and comfort [Note: Read attentively the I3th, 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of St. John.].]

3.

Of commending them to God in prayer

[Doubtless he had oftentimes prayed with them: but this last prayer was peculiarly tender and impressive. It is the delight of pious friends, when parting to meet no more, to commend each other into the hands of their common Father, in the hope and prospect of seeing each other again in a better world. Thus did our blessed Lord on this occasion. He had taken the charge of his Disciples in this world, and had kept them all in safety, the traitor alone excepted, according to the predictions concerning him: and now he entreats his Father to keep them; that, through their ministrations, his name may be made known to the ends of the earth; and, through their exalted love and piety, the whole world may have an evidence, both of the truth of his mission, and of the sanctifying efficacy of his religion. And, that they might have the fuller assurance of meeting him again in a better world, he prays, or rather, I should say, he declares it to be his unalterable will, that they all should be with him in that kingdom to which he was going, and should behold his glory there for ever and ever [Note: See the 17th chapter of St. John.]. Surely they never could forget that prayer so solemnly offered, so tenderly expressed, so richly fraught with instruction and heavenly consolation.]

4.

Of preparing them fully for his departure

[His approaching sufferings must of necessity prove a great stumbling-block in their way. But when they should recollect what he had told them previously to his death, their hopes would revive, and they would be encouraged to expect the full accomplishment of all his promises. To produce this effect was a very principal object of this last discourse [Note: See Joh 13:19; Joh 14:25; Joh 16:4; Joh 16:33; Joh 17:13.]: and how completely it was attained, the Apostles themselves inform us: they thought his former discourses had been obscure parables in comparison of this: but this appeared to them simple and intelligible; insomuch that it removed all remaining doubt from their minds respecting his Divine mission [Note: Joh 16:28-30.]. It is true, we find, that, on the apprehension of their Lord, they all forsook him and fled; and for some time they scarcely knew how to believe the joyful tidings respecting his resurrection from the dead: but, from the moment that they were convinced of that fact, we see a steadfastness in them which was evidently the result of these previous instructions; and their whole future lives demonstrated what unspeakable benefit they had received from them.]

Such were the grounds, we conceive, on which our Lord so earnestly desired to eat the Passover with them at that time. We are next to inquire,

II.

Why he determined to eat it with them no more

If he had pleased, he might have continued upon earth after his resurrection, or come down again from heaven at that season of the year to eat it with them again. But, independent of many other considerations, there were two reasons in particular, why he would not celebrate with them that ordinance any more:

1.

Because it was now about to be fulfilled and abrogated

[The Passover was instituted only for a time, till the more perfect dispensation of the Messiah should be introduced. For both the occasion of that ordinance, and the ordinance itself, were altogether typical. The occasion of that ordinance was the redemption of Israel out of Egypt, which was typical of the redemption of the world from sin and Satan, death and hell. The Paschal Lamb also, which was to be roasted, and eaten with bitter herbs, and not a bone of which was to be broken, was typical of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was to endure the extremest agonies both of soul and body as a sacrifice for sin, yet was not to have one bone of his body broken. To the completion of this type in the Lord Jesus Christ the Apostle Paul bears witness, saying, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast. This therefore was the deliverance which was henceforth to be celebrated in the Church; and in comparison of it the deliverance from Egypt was no more to be remembered [Note: Jer 23:5-8.] From this time the shadows were to flee away, seeing that the good things which they prefigured were now arrived: the new covenant, with every thing relating to it, was now established; and therefore the old covenant, with all its carnal ordinances, having waxed old, was to vanish away [Note: Heb 8:13.].

Now it was of great importance to the whole Church that this matter should be fully understood: and therefore our blessed Lord informed his Disciples, that, since the Passover would now be fulfilled in the kingdom of God, or in the dispensation which he was about to introduce, there would be no more occasion for the Jewish rites and ceremonies, not even for that which was the most solemn and sacred of them all [Note: The word until does not import, that our Lord would keep the feast after it had been accomplished in him, but that he never would keep it again. It is an Hebraism, frequent in the Scriptures.].]

2.

Because other memorials of his love were now to be established

[The Lords Supper was now instituted for the purpose of exhibiting to the world the wonders of his love, and of perpetuating in the Church the remembrance of it to the end of time. In the breaking of the bread, was represented the rending of his body on the cross; and in the pouring out of the wine, the effusion of his blood: and the partaking of those sacred elements which nourish the body, represented the nourishing of our souls by a believing application to Christ as our atoning sacrifice. This is the feast which his people are now to keep: of this all are to partake, provided they desire to have redemption through his blood, and can partake of it with the bitter herbs of real humiliation. This feast he will keep with us; not indeed by his bodily presence, but by that which is infinitely more important, his spiritual presence with our souls: I will come unto you, says he, and sup with you, and you with me. Nor was this the privilege only of his own immediate Disciples, but of all who shall believe in him through their word: Lo, says he, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.]

Reflections
1.

How earnestly should we desire communion with Christ!

[Did he forget all his approaching sufferings, that he might instruct and comfort his Disciples? O how should we rise above all considerations, whether of pain or pleasure, to enjoy fellowship with him! How should we seek instruction from him as the first and greatest of all blessings! I am far from saying that we should neglect any earthly duty whatever; but we should consider every thing in this world as altogether worthless in comparison of him: joys should be no joys, any further than they will consist with a sense of his love; nor should sorrows be regarded for a moment, if they be endured for his sake, or can be rendered subservient to his glory. To hear his voice, and learn his will, and taste his love, and follow his steps, and secure a participation of his glory, this should be our one desire, our continued labour, our supreme delight.]

2.

How delighted should we be with the thoughts of death!

[At death, this whole work of redemption will be fully completed. In Christ it is completed now; in us it will not be fully completed, till all the remains of sin are done away. That will take place at the moment of our release from this mortal body: and then we shall keep the feast in a better manner. Our Lord has taught us to expect a renewal of this feast in the realms above: he has told us, that he will drink of new wine with us in his Fathers kingdom [Note: Mat 26:29.]. O what a feast will that be! We need not envy then the beloved Apostle, who at the Last Supper lay in his Saviours bosom: for we ourselves shall, like Lazarus in Abrahams bosom, recline upon the bosom of our blessed Lord. Should we not then look forward to that time with holy desire, looking for, and hasting unto, the coming of our Lord? Should not the language of us all be, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly? Let not death, which is to introduce us to such bliss, be formidable in our eyes: but let us be anxious only to be counted worthy of that honour which he has prepared for us, and be longing to be dissolved, that we may be with Christ.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

14. ] The was evening , see above on Luk 22:10 , and Mat 26:20 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Luk 22:14-18 . Prelude to the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:20 , Mar 14:17 ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

Luk 22:14 . , the apostles , for disciples in parallels. This designation for the Twelve, the initiative ascribed to Jesus (Luk 22:8 ), and the desire of Jesus spoken of in next ver. all fit into each other and indicate a wish on the part of the evangelist to invest what he here narrates with great significance. He seems to write with the practice of the Apostolic Church in view in reference to the Holy Communion.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 22:14-23

14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 21But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. 22For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” 23And they began to discuss among themselves which one of them it might be who was going to do this thing.

Luk 22:14 “When the hour had come” This would be twilight on the beginning of the 15th of Nisan.

“He reclined at the table” Remember the Lord’s Supper was done as all Jewish meals, by reclining on the left elbow around a horseshoe-shaped, low table.

Luk 22:15 This verse has two wordplays.

1. “with desire (epithumia) I desired (epethumsa),” which is a common idiom in the Septuagint for “strongly desired”

2. “passover” (pascha) and “suffer” (pasch)

Jesus had forewarned them several times (cf. Luk 9:22-27; Mar 8:31 to Mar 9:1; Mat 16:21-28; Mat 17:9; Mat 17:12; Mat 17:22-23; Mat 20:18-19) of His upcoming suffering in Jerusalem at the instigation of the Jewish authorities and the cruel Roman justice (crucifixion).

Luk 22:16 “I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God” This is a strong double negative, which refers to the Passover meal. It seems to be a reference to the Messianic banquet (cf. Luk 22:18; Luk 22:30; Luk 14:15; Mat 8:11; Mat 26:29; Rev 19:9).

This metaphor of intimate fellowship is hard to interpret. It obviously refers to table fellowship, which was so important in ancient Israel and the Near East. However, is it to be understood literally? Resurrected bodies do not need physical food. It is this type of idiomatic language about the afterlife that caused the Pharisees to think of it in such earthly, physical terms (Islam also). Humans have many questions about the afterlife, but the Bible speaks of it in symbol, idiom, analogy, and metaphor. Perhaps 1Co 2:9, which is a quote from Isa 64:4; Isa 65:17, is best!

“kingdom of God” See Special Topic at Luk 4:21.

Luk 22:17-20 There is a manuscript variant in these verses. The long text (Luk 22:17-20) is recorded in the NASB, NRSV, NJB, NKJV, TEV. It is not in Manuscript D, on which the King James Version is normally based, but it is in the other four, most ancient witnesses (MSS P75, , A, B) and is quoted by Justin Martyr around A.D. 150.

In the short text (Luk 22:17-19 a), the wine comes before the bread, which follows the order of 1Co 10:16 (and the Didache 9:1-3). If the longer text is followed, then the order is reversed which is found in Matthew, Mark, and 1Co 11:23-27.

There are two good discussions of this textual problem:

1. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 173-177

2. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp. 198-209

This textual problem does not affect any Christian doctrine (because of the parallels in Matthew and Mark), but only a proper reading of Luke and his purposes and idiosyncrasies as an author. At the stage of textual criticism there is no way to determine the reading of the autograph copy (original handwritten copy) of Luke. Both forms were known to second century Christians.

Luk 22:17 “a cup” There are four cups of blessing during the Seder service. I believe that Jesus used the third cup of blessing as the point of departure from the national meal of Israel to the new meal of the church.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PASSOVER (ORDER OF SERVICE)

Luk 22:18 “the fruit of the vine” See Special Topic below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM

Luk 22:19 “some bread” Notice that the lamb is not mentioned. This meal has a completely new relevance for the church and is not linked inseparably to an annual Feast of national Israel. It symbolized a new deliverance (exodus) from sin (i.e., the new covenant, cf. Jer 31:31-34).

“This is My body” There have been four major understandings of this meal in the church:

1. Roman Catholic trans-substantiation, which means that this is in reality the body of Christ

2. Martin Luther’s con-substantiation, which is slightly less literal than number 1

3. John Calvin’s spiritual presence, which is slightly less literal than Numbers 1, 2

4. Zwingli’s symbolic understanding

The interpretation that the elements actually become the body and blood of Christ comes from Joh 6:43-58 which, however, in context, it records the feeding of the five thousand and the Jews expectation that the Messiah would feed them as Moses did, not the Lord’s Supper.

“do this in remembrance of Me” This is a Present active imperative. The phrase is unique to Luke’s Gospel. The word anamnsis occurs twice in Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper in 1Co 11:24-25. Luke may have gotten his terminology from Paul’s churches. This is probably why there are several non-Lukan forms and words in Luk 22:19-20.

Luk 22:20

NASB, NRSV,

TEV, NJB”poured out”

NKJV”shed”

SPECIAL TOPIC: POURED OUT

“the new covenant in My blood” This new covenant is described in Jer 31:31-34, Eze 36:22-36, and Zec 9:11. It was horrid for Jews to think of drinking blood (cf. Lev 17:14). It is obvious that Jesus is referring to His sacrificial death and not of literally drinking His blood!

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE LORD’S SUPPER IN John 6

Luk 22:21 “the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table” In Luke, Judas participates in the entire Lord’s Supper. In Joh 13:21-30 he leaves before the Supper is begun. In Matthew and Mark he takes part in half of the Supper. We must continue to remember that the Gospels are not modern histories, but evangelistic tracts! Judas’ betrayal is a fulfillment of Psa 41:9 (cf. Joh 13:18).

Luk 22:22 “the Son of Man is going as it has been determined” For “Son of Man” see Special Topic at Luk 5:24.

The verb is a perfect passive participle of horiz, which means a boundary or limit. We get the English word “horizon” from this Greek term. Jesus’ sacrificial death is part of the pre-determined plan of God (cf. Gen 3:15; Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12; Act 2:23; Act 3:18; Act 4:28; Act 10:42; Act 13:29; Act 17:26; Act 17:31). Jesus’s death was not an afterthought or plan B! Jesus came to die (cf. Mar 10:45; Joh 3:16; 2Co 5:21)!

“but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed” It is the Gospel of John that mentions Judas’ treachery early and often (cf. Joh 6:70; Joh 12:4; Joh 13:2; Joh 13:26-27; Joh 17:12; Joh 18:2-5).

Luk 22:23 This verse shows the confusion and uncertainty of the Twelve. They had been with Jesus for several years. They had heard His teachings, seen His miracles, and functioned as His representatives, yet they did not understand! They were not even sure which one of them was the betrayer!

Passages like this are an encouragement to me in my doubts, confusions, and fear. Christianity is a life of faith, trust, hope, fear, and uncertainty; get used to it! The wonder of wonders is that through it all there is peace, joy, contentment, and assurance!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

And when, &c. Compare Mat 26:20. Mar 14:17.

was come = had come to pass: i.e. had arrived.

sat down (Greek. anapipto) = reclined.

apostles. This is supplementary. Matthew and Mark have “the twelve” only.

with. Greek. sun. App-104. Not the same word as in verses: Luk 22:22, Luk 22:11; Luk 22:-15; Luk 22:21; Luk 22:28; Luk 22:33; Luk 22:49; Luk 22:52; Luk 22:53; Luk 22:59; but the same as in Luk 22:56.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

14.] The was evening, see above on Luk 22:10, and Mat 26:20.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Luk 22:14-16 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat the passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

This was to be the last occasion on which our Lord and his disciples would thus meet.

Luk 22:17-18. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

That was the passover cup. Now the passover melts into the Lords supper; and, henceforth, the Lords supper remains, and the passover has passed away.

Luk 22:19-21. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

What a sobering, saddening effect this must have had upon those who were at that festival! We have reason to fear that it will be true of our gathering also. There were only twelve apostles, yet there was a Judas among them; we shall have many hundreds at our observance of the ordinance, may we not fear that there will be many a Judas, too! Can we expect that we shall have a better selection of professed followers of Christ than the Lord had made for his apostles?

Luk 22:22-24. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

That had been their question among themselves, but now they have another enquiry, of quite a different sort, to answer. It was wise of the Master to give them a heart-searching question, to drive out that question of ambition which had filled them with pride and contention. Oh! if any of us ever had such a thought as that in our bosom, which of us is greatest? who can speak the best? who can serve God the most? who can take the lead?

let all such questions be set aside while we sorrowfully enter in the other sad enquiry, which of us will betray our Lord? God grant that none of us ever may do so!

This exposition consisted of readings from 1Co 11:17-34; and Luk 22:14-24.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

the Feast of Love and Its Shadow

Luk 22:14-23

The human soul of Jesus needed this sweet fellowship with loyal friends to nerve it for its sorrows; and He desired to transmit it as a perpetual legacy for His Church in after-days. We may think of that table being elongated till it reaches down the centuries to where we are seated. Look down the long vista and at the end behold the Master Himself!

These two allusions to the kingdom of God, Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18, point onward to the marriage supper when the full purpose of redemption will be consummated. As we partake of bread for our natural strength, so spiritual strength to suffer, to resist temptation and to serve is possible only in proportion as we feed on Christ by meditation and appropriation. And let us never forget that the wine is the emblem of His blood, by which the new covenant was sealed. See Heb 9:18. When therefore at the sacred feast we place the wine to our lips, we may quote the provisions of that covenant, and hold God pledged to fulfill them. See Heb 8:8, etc.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 40

In Remembrance Of Me

In these verses the Holy Spirit describes how our blessed Saviour instituted, as a perpetual ordinance in his Church, the observance of the Lords Supper. This is one of those passages of holy scripture that ought to immediately arouse deep reverence in our hearts.

I find it utterly astonishing that this blessed ordinance of Divine worship, so beautifully simple and majestic, so delightfully unifying and blessed, has been made a matter of fear and a point of controversy and division throughout the history of the Church. How dishonouring that is to our Saviour, by whom the ordinance was established and for whose honour it is to be kept!

No Fencing

We are specifically told that Judas was with the disciples when the Lord Jesus established this ordinance in his Church. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him (Luk 22:14). After making his bargain with the chief priests, scribes, and elders to betray the Son of God, Judas brazenly came and took his place with the rest of the apostles, both to cover his sin and to watch the best opportunity of betraying the Master.

This fact makes it abundantly clear that our Lord did not fence the Table to keep unbelievers from eating the bread and wine with believers. He did not give any basis for the practice of closed communion.

Let me be clearly understood. The Lords Supper, like baptism and Church membership, is for believers only. We must never encourage unbelievers to join us in observing this blessed ordinance of the gospel. Yet, we must never attempt to set barriers around the Table to keep anyone away. The Holy Spirit makes it crystal clear that it is the responsibility of the person who eats the bread and drinks the wine to examine himself to be certain that he or she is a believer, one who discerns the Lords body, warning all those who eat and drink unworthily, that is to say without faith in Christ, that they eat and drink damnation to themselves (1Co 11:27-30).

You, and you alone can determine whether you are in the faith. If you profess faith in Christ, it is my responsibility and the responsibility of all believers to look upon your profession as genuine and to receive you without doubtful disputations, without suspicion (Rom 14:1).

Our Lord knew that Judas was a devil and that he was, at that time, looking for an opportunity to betray him. Yet, when he passed out the bread and wine, he gave it to Judas, as well as to James and John, because Judas professed to be one of his.

Christs Desire

In Luk 22:15 our Saviour expressed his hearts ambition and desire to redeem us. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. He desired to eat this, the last passover, with his disciples because, in doing so, he had come to the end of his mission in this world. He was about to suffer all the fury of Gods holy wrath and offended justice as our Substitute and enter into his glory. Before doing so, he established this communion ordinance as a perpetual reminder to us that our union and communion with him is based upon and arises from his sin-atoning death upon the cursed tree.

He desired to eat it with them, with his disciples, because his desire is toward us his people (2Pe 3:9). It was so from everlasting, when he desired us as his spouse and bride. It was so in time, when he became incarnate; suffered, died, and gave himself for us. His desire is towards his people before they are called, while unregenerate, unbelieving rebels. And his desire is with us and toward us still, notwithstanding all our sin and unbelief (Son 5:1-2).

In ourselves we are black with sin; but in him we are comely and beautiful, robed with his righteousness, washed, pure, and made white in his precious blood; so comely and beautiful in his eyes that he declares he is ravished by us! Imagine that! The Son of God declares that we ravish his heart (Son 4:9). Therefore, he desires our company and communion always!

The Lord Jesus delighted in us from eternity, viewing us as perfect in himself before the world was made. We were the joy set before him, the joy that sustained him and carried him through his sufferings and death. You and I, child of God, are the objects of his unceasing desires and prayers!

Our blessed Saviour desired with desire to eat this, the last passover, because that meant that his sufferings and death were at hand, that the eternal redemption of our souls was about to be accomplished (Rom 5:6-8; 1Jn 3:16; 1Jn 4:9-10). Justice would soon be satisfied. The law would soon be fulfilled. Our sins would soon be atoned for and put away. The Father would soon be glorified by his obedience unto death.

Until It Be Fulfilled

The law, once it was fulfilled by him, was about to end. The passover and all the ceremonies and rituals of the law were about to be abolished forever. Therefore, he said, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Luk 22:16). Now that it has all been fulfilled by him, our blessed Saviour girds himself with grace and serves us with all that was signified and typified in the law. And, in the glory that soon shall be ours we will eat and drink together with him in his Fathers kingdom, and spend an endless eternity in never fading joys and pleasures, singing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Exo 15:1-18).

The Cup

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come (Luk 22:17-18).

In the observance of the Jewish passover four cups were used. Commonly, as each cup was passed around the table, one by one, the head of the house would lead the family in prayer and thanksgiving. Then the family would drink from the cups, divided among them. Having done this, the Lord Jesus said, For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

What was our Lord referring to here? Perhaps he was simply saying, I am about to leave this world, and will never again eat and drink with you physically. Perhaps he was talking about the new wine of grace that was to be poured out by him in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. I think he was most likely referring to the everlasting celebration of redemption with us in eternal glory, when we shall eat and drink at his table forever, as he tells us in Luk 22:30.

The Ordinance Established

In Luk 22:14-18 we are given a record of the Lord Jesus observing the last passover feast with his family, with his disciples. In Luk 22:19-20 the ordinance of the Lords Supper is established.

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you (Luk 22:19-20).

We know that these words refer to the establishing of the Lords Supper, because the Holy Spirit tells us that in 1Co 11:23-29. Read the last line of Luk 22:19 again. This do in remembrance of me. How many times have we read this command, without pausing to consider its implications? The first implication of this command is that this ordinance, as I stated in the beginning, is for believers only. In order to remember Christ you must first know him. I hope that you do know the Saviour. If you do, the Lords Table is spread for you. But if you do not know him, you must not eat the bread and drink the wine. Second, this command reveals the love of Christ for us. Our Saviour would not care for us to remember him, if he did not love us. Love wants to be remembered. And our Lord Jesus, as he was leaving this world, whispered into the ear of his bride, Remember me. And, third, this command implies a horrible tendency in us to forget our Redeemer. Because our Lord remembers that we are dust, he graciously established this ordinance that we might, in observing it, remember him.

In our assembly we gather around the Lords Table every Sunday night to observe the Lords Supper, according to his commandment. The Table is our Lords memorial. As we eat the bread and drink the wine, we should earnestly pray that God the Holy Spirit will graciously enable us to remember Christ, our Beloved.

In these two verses of scripture we have complete directions for observing the Lords Supper. Here we see what it is and how it is to be done. The directions are plain, clear, and definite. We must this do. It would not be right to do something else. It would not be right to do this for some other purpose. And it would not be right to do this in some other way.

Simplicity

This blessed ordinance is to be observed with simplicity. There is nothing here that is ornate, mysterious, or even visibly impressive. The ordinances of the gospel are simple, like Christ himself, transparent, and unpretentious. There is nothing here but bread and wine.

This is an ordinance to be frequently observed. Paul said, As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lords death till he come. Because we have a constant need to be reminded of our Lord and his work of redemption, he has given us an ordinance to frequently aid our memory.

This is an ordinance to be observed by all the Lords people. Around this Table, as in the kingdom of God, we are all equal. Our needs are the same. Our grounds of acceptance are the same. Our acceptance with our God is the same. We are accepted in the Beloved, by the merits of his righteousness and shed blood, in union with him, as one with him.

This ordinance is a token of Gods everlasting covenant of grace. Every time we eat the bread and drink the wine, we should be reminded of that covenant God made with his Son on our behalf before the worlds were made. It is a covenant of grace (Rom 9:16-18). It is ordered in all things and sure (2Sa 23:5). It is a covenant ratified by the blood of Christ (Heb 13:20).

This blessed ordinance is a picture sermon of our Redeemers death. We remember Christ best when we remember his death. The unleavened bread is the symbol of his body, his holy humanity, his accomplished righteousness as our God-man Representative. The wine represents his precious blood, his accomplished redemption as our Substitute and covenant Surety.

And our observance of this ordinance is a picture of our salvation by faith in Christ. To trust Christ is to receive him, to eat his flesh and drink his blood (Joh 6:51-56). By faith in him, we take to ourselves all that Christ is and all that he accomplished as our God-man Mediator, receiving the atonement he performed for us (Rom 5:11).

This Do

We are commanded to keep this ordinance. Our Saviour said, This do. Therefore, we may reasonably and safely infer that it is always proper for us to do it. It is always proper for Gods people to observe the Lords Supper, to keep the ordinance, and never proper not to do it. We may eat the Lords Supper, though we often sadly forget him. In fact, our forgetfulness is a reason to come to this ordinance.

We may come to the Table, though others forget our Saviour. We come not to judge others, but to remember Christ. And if some of our brethren are out of sorts, that does not bar us from the privilege of this ordinance. We may come to this ordinance no matter how weak, cold, and sinful we are. Our worthiness is Christ. We keep the ordinance to remember his goodness and grace.

It will be sweet, refreshing and comforting to you to eat the Lords Supper. What can be sweeter than the remembrance of Christ? What can be more refreshing to your soul? What can be so comforting to your heart?

In Remembrance

The object of this ordinance is that we may remember our dear Saviour. This do in remembrance of Me. We are to observe this ordinance in remembrance of Christ himself, not his doctrines, but himself, not his precepts, but himself. As we eat the bread and drink the wine, let us remember the Lord Jesus. Remember him as the only Object of your faith and the mighty Representative of your soul: past, present, and future. Remember the Lord Jesus as the Joy of your heart, the Rewarder of your hope, and the Lord of your life.

Remember Christ. Remember who he is. Remember what he has done. Remember why he did it. Remember what he is to you (1Co 1:30). Remember him with sincere gratitude. Remember him with deep love. Remember him with confident faith.

Remember Thee, and all Thy pains,

And all Thy love to me.

Yes, while a pulse or breath remains,

I will remember Thee.

And when these failing lips grow dumb,

And thought and memory flee;

When Thou shalt in Thy kingdom come,

Jesus, remember me!

James Montgomery

Let me remind you of four things clearly set before us in this passage.

The purpose of the Lords Supper is to perpetually remind us of Christs death for us, to remind us of the cost of our redemption. The bread represents his body, his holy humanity sacrificed for us. The wine represents his precious, sin-atoning blood.

This is not an optional ordinance, any more than believers baptism is an optional ordinance. It is the privilege and responsibility of every believer to observe the Lords Supper, in remembrance of Christ.

There will always be betrayers in our midst. The words of Luk 22:21-22 are recorded here so plainly that it is obvious that the Holy Spirit intended for us to be reminded that tares always grow side by side with wheat. Our Saviour said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! We are never justified in separating ourselves from Gods Church and people because some among us are devils.And we are never justified in refusing to observe the Lords Supper because we imagine that some at the Table might be unbelievers.

It is your own responsibility, and no one elses, to examine yourself (1Co 11:23-29). You alone must determine whether you are or are not a believer. You alone know if you are trusting Christ alone as your Saviour, whether you discern the Lords body and know the purpose of his incarnation, obedience, and death as the sinners Substitute.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

And when the

For the order of events on the night of the last passover, (See Scofield “Mat 26:20”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Deu 16:6, Deu 16:7, Mat 26:20, Mar 14:17

Reciprocal: Mat 10:2 – apostles Rom 2:10 – and peace

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

4

The events of this night are not all recorded in any one of the Gospel records, nor in strict chronological order. Before going any further at this place, I urgently insist that the reader see the comments at Mat 26:20, and keep his book open

for frequent reference as he follows the comments at this verse and on through verse 23. I shall now comment on these verses as they come, making my remarks in view of the paragraph in Matthew cited above. He sat down. This phrase is from ANA-PIPTO, which Thayer defines, “To lie back, lie down; to recline at table.”

(See the comments at chapter 16:22.)

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THESE verses contain Luke’s account of the institution of the Lord’s supper. It is a passage which every true Christian will always read with deep interest. How wonderful it seems that an ordinance, so beautifully simple at its first appointment, should have been obscured and mystified by man’s inventions! What a painful proof it is of human corruption, that some of the bitterest controversies which have disturbed the Church, have been concerning the table of the Lord. Great indeed is the ingenuity of man, in perverting God’s gifts! The ordinance that should have been for his wealth is too often made an occasion of falling.

We should notice, for one thing in these verses, that the principal object of the Lord’s supper was to remind Christians of Christ’s death for sinners. In appointing the Lord’s supper, Jesus distinctly tells His disciples that they were to do what they did, “in remembrance of him.” In one word, the Lord’s supper is not a sacrifice. It is eminently a commemorative ordinance.

The bread that the believer eats, at the Lord’s table, is intended to remind him of Christ’s body given to death on the cross for his sins. The wine that he drinks is intended to remind him of Christ’s blood shed to make atonement for his transgressions. The whole ordinance was meant to keep fresh in his memory the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and the satisfaction which that sacrifice made for the sin of the world. The two elements of bread and wine were intended to preach Christ crucified as our substitute under lively emblems. They were to be a visible sermon, appealing to the believer’s senses, and teaching the old foundation-truth of the Gospel, that Christ’s death on the cross is the life of man’s soul.

We shall do well to keep steadily in view this simple view of the Lord’s supper. That a special blessing is attached to a worthy use of it, as well to the worthy use of every ordinance appointed by Christ, there is of course no doubt. But that there is any other means by which Christians can eat Christ’s body, and drink Christ’s blood excepting faith, we must always steadily deny. He that comes to the Lord’s table with faith in Christ, may confidently expect to have his faith increased by receiving the bread and wine. But he that comes without faith has no right to expect a blessing. Empty he comes to the ordinance and empty he will go away.

The less mystery and obscurity we attach to the Lord’s supper, the better will it be for our souls. We should reject with abhorrence the unscriptural notion that there is any oblation or sacrifice in it,-that the substance of the bread and wine is at all changed,-or that the mere formal act of receiving the sacrament can do any good to the soul.

We should cling firmly to the great principle laid down at its institution, that it is eminently a commemorative ordinance, and that reception of it without faith and a thankful remembrance of Christ’s death can do us no good. The words of the Church-Catechism are wise and true: “It was ordained for the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ.”-The declaration of the Articles is clear and distinct: “The means whereby the body of Christ is received and taken in the supper is faith.”-The exhortation of the Prayer-Book points out the only way in which we can feed on Christ: “Feed on Him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving.”-Last, but not least, the caution of the Homily is most instructive: “Let us take heed lest of the memory it be made a sacrifice.”

We should notice, for another thing, in these verses, that the observance of the Lord’s Supper is a duty binding on all true Christians. The words of our Lord on this point are direct and emphatic:-“Do this in remembrance of me.” To suppose, as some do, that these words are only an injunction to the apostles and all ministers to administer the Lord’s Supper to others, is a thoroughly unsatisfactory interpretation. The obvious sense of the words is a general precept to all disciples.

The command before us is overlooked to a fearful extent. Myriads of members of Christian churches never go to the Lord’s table. They would be ashamed perhaps to be known as open breakers of the ten commandments. Yet they are not ashamed of breaking a plain command of Christ! They appear to think there is no great sin in not being communicants. They seem utterly unconscious that if they had lived in the days of the apostles they would not have been reckoned Christians at all.

The subject no doubt is one on which we must beware of mistakes. It is not, of course, to be desired that every baptized person should receive the Lord’s Supper as a mere matter of form. It is an ordinance which was intended for the living and not for the dead in sins. But when we see vast numbers of church-goers never going to the Lord’s table, and no-wise ashamed of their neglect of the sacrament, it is clear that there is something very wrong in the state of the churches. It is a sign either of wide-spread ignorance, or of callous indifference to a divine precept. When such multitudes of baptized persons habitually break a command of Christ, we cannot doubt that Christ is displeased.

What are we doing ourselves? This, after all, is the point that concerns us. Do we stay away from the Lord’s Supper under a vague notion that there is no great necessity for receiving it? If we hold such an opinion, the sooner we give it up the better. A plain precept of God’s own Son is not to be trifled with in this way.-Do we stay away from the Lord’s Supper because we are not fit to be communicants? If we do, let us thoroughly understand that we are not fit to die. Unfit for the Lord’s table, we are unfit for heaven, and unprepared for the judgment day, and not ready to meet God! Surely this is a most serious state of things. But the words before us are clear and explicit. Christ gives us a plain command. If we wilfully disobey it, we are in danger of ruining our souls. If we are not fit to obey it, we ought to repent without delay.

Let us notice, lastly, who were the communicants at the first appointment of the Lord’s Supper. They were not all holy. They were not all believers. Luke informs us that the traitor, Judas Iscariot, was one of them. The words of our Lord admit of no other fair interpretation. “Behold,” He says, “the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”

The lesson of these words is deeply important. They show us that we must not regard all communicants as true believers and sincere servants of Christ. The evil and good will be found side by side even at the Lord’s Supper. No discipline can possibly prevent it.-They show us furthermore that it is foolish to stay away from the Lord’s Supper because some communicants are unconverted, or to leave a church because some of its members are unsound. The wheat and the tares will grow together until the harvest. Our Lord himself tolerated a Judas at the first communion that ever took place. The servant of God must not pretend to be more exclusive than his Master. Let him see to his own heart, and leave others to answer for themselves to God.

And now, if we are not communicants, let us ask ourselves, as we leave this passage, “Why are we not? What satisfactory reason can we possibly give for neglecting a plain command of Christ?” May we never rest, till we have looked this inquiry in the face! If we are communicants, let us take heed that we receive the sacrament worthily. “The sacraments have a wholesome effect and operation in those only, who worthily receive them.” Let us often enquire whether we repent, and believe, and strive to live holy lives. So living we need not be afraid to eat of that bread and drink of that cup, which the Lord has commanded to be received.

==================

Notes-

v14.-[The twelve apostles with him.] It is clear from this expression that at this time Judas Iscariot was one of the company.

v15.-[With desire I have desired, &c.] This is a Hebrew form of speech, signifying “I have desired exceedingly.” The reason of our Lord’s great desire is not distinctly stated, and we are left to conjecture it. Some refer it to the whole work of redemption which He was about to accomplish that week, and the strong desire which He felt to accomplish it.-Others refer it to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and the affectionate desire which our Lord felt to leave this parting memorial of Himself among His disciples, before He died.

[Before I suffer.] Alford remarks that this is the only place in the Gospels where this absolute use of the word “suffered” is found. It is like the expression in the Apostle’s creed, “He suffered.” The word is elsewhere found in some such active form as “He suffered these things, &c.”

v16.-[Until it be fulfilled, &c.] The meaning of this expression is that our Lord “would never eat of the passover again.” Macknight observes, “The particle ‘until,’ both here and in Luk 22:18, does not imply that after the accomplishment of the salvation of men our Lord was to eat the passover. It is a Hebrew form of expression, signifying that the thing mentioned was no more to be done forever. So it is said in Samuel, (1Sa 15:35,) ‘Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death.’ That is, he saw him no more at all.”

v17.-[He took the cup, &c.] Let it be noted that the action described in this and the following verse took place in the passover feast, and that the appointment of the Lord’s Supper does not begin till Luk 22:19. The meaning, as before said, appears to be “that our Lord’s days of eating and drinking with His disciples were coming to an end.” He was about to be taken from them, and to drink the cup of thanksgiving with them for the last time.

v19.-[This is my body.] It is almost needless to remark that the Protestant view of these words is the only satisfactory one: “This represents and is an emblem of my body.” To a Jewish ear the expression would be simple and intelligible. There is no word in the Syriac or Hebrew which expresses, to “signify,” or “represent.” See Gen 40:12. Dan 7:24. Rev 1:20. Joh 15:1-5.

[Given for you.] It may be asked by whom and to what was our Lord’s body given? It was given by His own free will and choice, as well as by God the Father’s love, to suffering, to death, and to the grave, on behalf of a world of sinners, to procure eternal life for as many as would believe on Him.

v19.-[Do this.] The Roman Catholics struggle hard to make out that these words mean “Offer up this sacrifice,” and that the words were specially intended to be confined to priests consecrating the bread and wine, and offering it up as a sacrifice in the mass. The idea will not bear calm examination. The natural meaning of the words is a command addressed to all disciples. “Practise this,”-“Do what I have just showed you,”-“Keep up the ordinance I have just appointed,”-“Break, take, eat this bread in all ages, in remembrance of me.”

v20.-[This cup is the New Testament.] Here, as well as in the former verse, the meaning is, “This cup represents the new covenant, which is to be sealed and ratified with my blood,-which blood is shed, or going to be shed for you.” There is a peculiarity in the Greek words, which can only be conveyed to an English reader by a paraphrase.

It is clear that a “cup” is not literally a “testament” or covenant. The Roman Catholic who contends that in the former verse, where our Lord says, “this is my body,” He meant “this is my literal body, really and truly,” will find it hard to explain our Lord’s meaning here.-The Protestant view that in both cases our Lord meant “this bread represents my body,” and “this cup represents the new covenant which is ratified by my blood,” is the only rational and satisfactory view.

If our Lord had really meant that what He gave His disciples was literally His “blood,” it seems impossible to understand the calmness with which they received the announcement. They were all Jews, and as Jews had all been taught from their infancy that to eat blood was a great sin. They evidently understood the words as Protestants do now. (Lev 3:17; Lev 7:26.)

v21.-[The hand…is with me on the table.] These words make it clear and plain that Judas Iscariot was one of those who received the Lord’s Supper. No other honest conclusion seems possible. If so, according to Roman Catholics, Judas must actually have eaten Christ’s body, and drank Christ’s blood! And yet he was a son of perdition!

To keep away from the Lord’s Table at some particular Church, because some of the communicants live inconsistent lives, is a proceeding which cannot be reconciled with the Scripture before us. The expression in Corinthians, which is often quoted on the subject, “with such an one no, not to eat,” (1Co 5:11,) has no reference to the Lord’s Supper at all.

Burkitt remarks, “Nothing is more ordinary than for unholy persons to press into the holy ordinances of God, which they have no right to. Yet their presence pollutes the ordinance only to themselves.”

v22.-[Goeth as it was determined; but woe, &c.] Let us note in this verse that though the wickedness of Judas was foreknown, and foreseen, and permitted by God in His infinite wisdom,-yet Judas was not the less guilty in God’s sight. God’s foreknowledge does not destroy man’s responsibility, or justify man in going on still in wickedness, under the excuse that he cannot help sinning. Nothing can happen, in heaven or in earth, without God’s knowledge and permission. But sinners are always addressed by God as responsible, and as free agents.

Augustine, quoted by Ford, remarks, that “God is said to will things, in the way of permission, which he does not will in the way of approbation.”

Bishop Hall says, “It is the greatest praise of God’s wisdom that he can turn the sins of man to his own glory.”

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Luk 22:14-18. THE OPENING EXPRESSION OF DESIRE. Peculiar to Luke.

Luk 22:14. The hour. The regular hour of eating the Passover, in the evening, see Mat 26:20.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, 1. What ardency of desire, and vehemency of affection our holy Lord expresses, to celebrate the passover with his disciples, and to administer the sacramental supper to them before he left them: With desire have I desired to eat with you before I suffer.

Thence learn, that it is very necessary, when sufferings do appear, especially when death does approach, to have immediate recourse to the table of the Lord, which affords both an antidote against fear, and is a restorative to our faith. Christ, the night before he suffered, communicated with his disciples.

Observe, 2. The unexampled boldness of the impudent traitor Judas; though he had sold his Master, he presumes to sit down at the table with him, and with the other disciples: had the presence of Judas polluted this ordinance to any but himself, doubtless our Saviour would not have suffered him to approach unto it.

It teaches us, that although nothing be more ordinary than for unholy persons to press into the holy ordinances of God which they have no right (while such) to approach unto, yet their presence pollutes the ordinances only to themselves. Holy persons are not polluted by their sins, therefore ought not to be discouraged from coming, by their presence.

Observe, 3. Christ did not name Judas, and say, Oh thou perfidious traitor; but, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. Doubtless Christ did not name him, because he would not drive him to despair, but draw him to repentance.

But, Lord, thou knows in what thou names us not. Oh how sad is it for any of the family, who pretend friendship with thee, to conspire against thee; and after they have eat of thy bread, to lift up the heel against thee!

Observe, 4. That though Judas was not named, yet he saw himself pointed at by our Saviour: Behold the hand that betrayeth me is on the table; and Judas’ heart told him whose hand that was; yea, though Judas heard that dreadful sentence denounced against him, Woe to the man by whom the Son of man is betrayed; yet he is no more blanked than innocency itself: this shameless man had the impudence to say to our blessed Saviour, Master, is it I? Though St. Luke says it not, the other Evangelists tell us, that Christ answered him, Thou sayest it. Did not Judas (think we) blush extremely, and hang down his guiltly head, at so galling an intimation? Nothing less; we read not of any thing like it.

Lord, how does obstinacy in sinning steel the brow, and render it incapable of all relenting impressions!

Immediately after the celebration of the passover, followed the institution of the Lord’s supper.

Where we have observable, the author, the time, the elements, and the ministerial actions.

Observe, 1. The author of this new sacrament, Jesus took bread.

Learn thence, that to institute a sacrament is the sole prerogative of Jesus Christ; the church has no power to make new sacraments; it is only her duty to celebrate those which our Saviour has made.

2. The time of the institution, the night before the passion: The night in which he was betrayed, he took bread.

3. The sacramental elements, bread and wine; bread representing the body, and wine the blood of our Redeemer: bread being an absolutely necessary food, a common and obvious food, a strengthening and refreshing food; and wine being the most excellent drink; the most pleasant and delightful, the most cordial and restorative; for these reasons amongst others, did Christ consecrate and set these creatures apart for those holy purposes for which he designed them.

4. The ministerial actions, breaking of the bread and blessing of the cup: Jesus took bread; that is, separated it, and set it apart from common use, for holy purposes: He blessed it, that is, he prayed for a blessing upon it, and brake it, thereby shadowing forth his body broken upon the cross: and he gave it to his disciples, saying, this broken bread signifies my body, which is suddenly to be broken upon the cross, for the redemption and salvation of a lost world, Do you likewise this in remembrance of my death. As to the cup, Christ having set it apart by prayer and thanksgiving, he commands his disciples to drink all of it; For, says He, this cup is the new testament in my blood; that is, the wine in this cup does represent the shedding of my blood, by which the new covenant between God and man is ratified and confirmed. Drink ye all of this, says our Saviour: whence we gather, that every communicant has as undoubted a right to the cup, as he has to the bread in the Lord’s supper; therefore for the church of Rome to deny the cup to the common people is sacrilege, and directly contrary to Christ’s institution.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Luk 22:14-18. When the hour was come, &c. When the evening approached, Jesus left Bethany; and every thing being prepared by the time he came into the city, they all sat down at the appointed hour. And he said, With desire I have desired That is, I have earnestly desired it. He desired it, both for the sake of his disciples, to whom he desired to manifest himself further, at this solemn parting; and for the sake of his whole church, that he might institute the grand memorial of his death. For I will not any more eat thereof until, &c. That is, it will be the last time I shall eat with you before I die. The particle until, used here and Luk 22:18, does not imply that, after the things signified by the passover were fulfilled, in the gospel dispensation, our Lord was to eat the passover. It is only a Hebrew form of expression, signifying that the thing mentioned was no more to be done for ever. Until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of heaven That is, until the deliverance of mankind from the bondage of sin and death is procured by my death and resurrection; a deliverance typified by that of our fathers from the Egyptian bondage, to keep up the memory of which the passover was instituted. And he took the cup, and gave thanks Having spoken as above, Jesus took a cup of wine in his hand, that cup which used to be brought at the beginning of the paschal solemnity, and gave thanks to Almighty God for his great goodness to his people, mentioning, no doubt, some of the principal instances thereof, especially their redemption, first from Egypt, and then from Babylon. And said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves, for I will not drink, &c. As if he had said, Do not expect me to drink of it: I will drink no more before I die. Or, his meaning might be, After what passes, this evening, I will not drink any more with you of the fruit of the vine; therefore, as it is the last paschal supper that I shall partake of with you, let that consideration be an additional reason for your celebrating it with peculiar seriousness and devotion. Until the kingdom of God shall come Till the gospel dispensation shall be fully opened, or till that complete and spiritual redemption, which is typified by this ordinance, shall be fulfilled and perfected.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2. The Supper: Luk 22:14-23.

There are three elements which form the material of this narrative in the three Syn.: 1 st. The expression of the personal feelings of Jesus. With this Luke begins, and Matthew and Mark close. 2 d. The institution of the Holy Supper. It forms the centre of the narrative in the three Syn. 3 d. The disclosure of the betrayal, and the indication of the traitor. With this Luke ends, and Matthew and Mark begin. It is easy to see how deeply the facts themselves were impressed on the memory of the witnesses, but how secondary the interest was which tradition attached to chronological order. The myth, on the contrary, would have created the whole of a piece, and the result would be wholly different. Luke’s order appears preferable. It is natural for Jesus to begin by giving utterance to His personal impressions, Luk 22:15-18. With the painful feeling of approaching separation there is connected, by an easily understood bond, the institution of the Holy Supper, that sign which is in a way to perpetuate Christ’s visible presence in the midst of His own after His departure, Luk 22:19-20. Finally, the view of the close communion contracted by this solemn act between the disciples, causes the feeling of the contrast between them and Judas, so agonizing to Him, to break forth into expression. Such is the connection of the third part. It is far from probable, as it seems to us, that Jesus began by speaking of this last subject (Matthew and Mark). John omits the first two elements. The first was not essential to his narrative. The second, the institution of the Holy Supper, was sufficiently well known from tradition. We have, in our Commentaire sur l’vangile de Jean, placed this latter event at the time indicated by Luk 13:2 in that Gospel ( ). The feet-washing which followed necessarily coincides with the indication of the traitor in Luke, and with the subsequent conversation, Luk 22:24 et seq.; and the two accounts thus meet in the common point, the prediction of Peter’s denial (Luke, Luk 22:31; John, Luk 22:38).

As in what follows there are repeated allusions to the rites of the Paschal Supper, we must rapidly trace the outlines of that Supper as it was celebrated in our Saviour’s time. First step: After prayer, the father of the house sent round a cup full of wine (according to others, each one had his cup), with this invocation: Blessed be Thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who hast created the fruit of the vine! Next there were passed from one to another the bitter herbs (a sort of salad), which recalled to mind the sufferings of the Egyptian bondage. These were eaten after being dipped in a reddish sweet sauce (Charoseth), made of almonds, nuts, figs, and other fruits; commemorating, it is said, by its colour the hard labour of brick-making imposed on the Israelites, and by its taste, the divine alleviations which Jehovah mingles with the miseries of His people.

Second step: The father circulates a second cup, and then explains, probably in a more or less fixed liturgical form, the meaning of the feast, and of the rites by which it is distinguished.

Third step: The father takes two unleavened loaves (cakes), breaks one of them, and places the pieces of it on the other. Then, uttering a thanksgiving, he takes one of the pieces, dips it in the sauce, and eats it, taking with it a piece of the Paschal lamb, along with bitter herbs. Each one follows his example. This is the feast properly so called. The lamb forms the principal dish. The conversation is free. It closes with the distribution of a third cup, called the cup of blessing, because it was accompanied with the giving of thanks by the father of the house.

Fourth step: The father distributes a fourth cup; then the Hallel is sung (Psalms 113-118). Sometimes the father added a fifth cup, which was accompanied with the singing of the great Hallel (Psalms 120-127; according to others, 135-137; according to Delitzsch, Psa 130:6).

Must it be held, with Langen, that Jesus began by celebrating the entire Jewish ceremony, in order to connect with it thereafter the Christian Holy Supper; or did He transform, as He went along, the Jewish Supper in such a way as to convert it into the sacred Supper of the N. T.? This second view seems to us the only tenable one. For, 1. It was during the course of the feast, (Matthew and Mark), and not after the feast (as Luke says in speaking of the only cup), that the bread of the Holy Supper must have been distributed. 2. The singing of the hymn spoken of by Mark and Matthew can only be that of the Hallel, and it followed the institution of the Holy Supper.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

THE PASSOVER

Mat 26:20; Mar 14:17; Luk 22:14-18. It is now about 6 P. M. on Thursday preceding our Lords crucifixion, when they proceed to eat the Passover meal. And when the hour arrived, He and His twelve apostles along with Him sat down at the table. And He said to them, With desire I desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffered; for I say unto you, that I no more eat of it until it may be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. This is really not only His last Passover meal, but the last of all that He ate before He laid down His life. I do not wonder that He intensely desired to enjoy this Passover with His disciples, an institution so significant to every faithful Jew, commemorative of their national birth, and of course pre-eminently significant to the Savior, because it emblematized His expiatory death, then looking Him in the face, as the swift hours rolled on and brought the bloody morrow. As the lamb died to provide that meal for the teeming thousands of Israel to feast upon, so the Lamb of God must die in order that the millions of earth may not starve through all eternity, but feast upon that Passover meal through the flight of eternal ages. The Passover was fulfilled in the kingdom of God when Jesus bled and died on the cross, the Great Antitype typified by the millions of bleeding lambs the last fifteen hundred years. O what rivers of blood quantity symbolizing quality!

And receiving the cup, blessing it, He said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, that I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God may come. There is a sense in which the kingdom of God has been in the world from the days of Eden, as the redemptive scheme was launched before the expulsion out of Paradise. The advent of Jesus into the world was a glorious epoch in the kingdom; but you must remember He came to die to redeem the lost. Hence His first advent culminates at Calvary, the grandest and most important epoch in the kingdom of God, and here denominated the coming of the kingdom.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Luk 22:14-20. The Last Supper (Mar 14:22-25*, Mat 26:26-29*).Henceforth Lk. seems to be using another source in addition to (and in preference to) Mk. The revelation of the treachery of Judas is deferred till after the bread and the cup. Luk 22:15-18 seems to describe the Passover meal (but see below); the eating of unleavened bread is implied in Luk 22:16, as the drinking of the Passover cup is expressed in Luk 22:17. Then in Luk 22:19 (after Jesus last Passover) we have the institution of the new rite in words closely resembling 1Co 11:24 f. Of this bread and cup Jesus does not partake. Note that Mk. separates the Passover from the Last Meal by inserting the prediction of the betrayal between them.

Codex Bez omits the latter part of Luk 22:19 (after body; cf. Mk.) and all of Luk 22:20. With this reading, Luk 22:16 is introductory, and Luk 22:17 begins the institution of the new rite, which is not separated from the old Passover meal. The bread follows the cup as in 1Co 10:16. The bread is the body of Jesus, but nothing is said of the cup being His blood. Wellhausen goes further and excises the whole of Luk 22:19 (and Luk 22:20). In his view Luk 22:15 f., apparently referring to the Passover, really refers to the bread, and corresponds with Mar 14:22, just as Luk 22:17 f. (the cup) = Mar 14:25. There is a parallelism between Luk 22:16 and Luk 22:18 which should be preserved, and the suggestion is that both refer to the Last Supper, which is assimilated by Lk. to the Passover. There is no institution of a new rite; Luk 22:19 f., which alone deals with this, is a subsequent insertion due to a feeling that the rite must have originated with Jesus. The reading of Codex Bez in Luk 22:19 a is just an attempt (from 1Co 11:24, like the fuller text in Lk.) to mention the bread, omitted in Luk 22:15-18. If we accept it we must accept the rest of Luk 22:19 and Luk 22:20. The difficulty of the view is that Luk 22:16 is hardly a good substitute for Mar 14:22, and that according to it Jesus makes no reference to His own body or His blood.

Luk 22:15. With desire I have desired, etc. This may mean, I have earnestly desired, but am not able, etc. (JThS ix. 569). My next Passover meal will be the Messianic banquet. If we can so interpret the words, they confirm the Fourth Gospels contention that Jesus suffered on the 14th of Nisan, about the time when the Paschal lambs were slain for the Passover meal in the evening, which began the 15th of Nisan. Jesus meal was therefore not a Passover, but took place on the preceding evening (beginning of 14th Nisan; cf. p. 653).

Luk 22:20. the new covenant in my blood: cf. Jer 31:31, Exo 24:8. The wine symbolises the self-sacrifice of Jesus, which effects and seals the new covenant.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

22:14 {4} And when the {e} hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

(4) Christ, having ended the passover according to the order of the law, forewarns them that this will be his last banquet with them in terms of this earthly life.

(e) The evening and twilight, at which time this supper was to be kept.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

C. Events in the upper room 22:14-38

Luke included more information about what Jesus said and did on this occasion than Matthew or Mark did. John’s account is the fullest of all (John 13-17).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The Passover meal 22:14-18

Luke introduced this meal and then narrated Jesus’ words of welcome to His disciples and His drinking of the cup.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The writer’s introduction to these events 22:14 (cf. Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:17)

Luke continued to imply Jesus’ authority in his account of the events that these verses introduce. The hour in view is the hour at which Jesus had determined to eat the Passover meal with His disciples. Luke probably called the Twelve "apostles" here because what took place in the upper room was foundational for the church, and the apostles were its leaders (Eph 2:20).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)