See the notes at Mat 19:28.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 30. Sit on thrones] See Clarke on Mt 19:28. Marcion left the whole of this verse out, according to Epiphanius: probably because he did not understand it.

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

30. eat and drink, &c.(SeeLu 22:16 and see on Lu18:28, &c.).

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

That ye may eat, and drink, at my table, in my kingdom,…. In the Gospel dispensation, or Gospel church state, in which Christ has a table, called the table of the Lord, 1Co 10:21 which is the Lord’s supper, and is a table well furnished with the best of provisions, his flesh and blood, of which believers may eat and drink with a hearty welcome; Christ himself being present to sup with them: and in his personal reign on earth, where will be the marriage supper of the Lamb, to which all the saints will be called; and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and be regaled with joys and pleasures not to be expressed: and in the ultimate glory, when the Lamb shall feed them, and shall lead them to fountains of water; and they shall never hunger nor thirst more, but shall have fulness of joy, and be satiated with pleasures that will never fade nor end:

and sit on thrones; expressive of the great honour and dignity they were raised to, both in this, and the other world, from a low and mean estate, being before as beggars on the dunghill, now among princes, and on thrones, even on the same throne with Christ; see 1Sa 2:8

judging the twelve tribes of Israel; doctrinally and ministerially; accusing the Jews, and arraigning them for the crucifixion of Christ; passing sentence upon them, and condemning them, and declaring that they should be damned for their disbelief and rejection of him; [See comments on Mt 19:28].

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

And ye shall sit (). But Westcott and Hort read in the text (present middle subjunctive with ). The picture seems to be that given in Mt 19:28 when Jesus replied to Peter’s inquiry. It is not clear how literally this imagery is to be taken. But there is the promise of honour for the loyal among these in the end.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “That ye may eat and drink,” (hina esthete kai pinete) “In order that you all may eat and drink,” as a matter of worship, in administering the Lord’s Supper, which He had given for them to observe in His house, His church, in remembrance of Him, Luk 22:19; 1Co 15:23-24.

2) “At my table in my kingdom,” (epi tes rapezes mou en te basikia mou) “At or upon my table, in my kingdom;” The only eating and drinking in His “house kingdom” in this age, in His house, in contrast with Moses’ house of the Passover Supper memorial, is at the Lord’s table, in the church, 1Co 10:16; 1Co 10:21; Heb 13:10. The eating denotes perfect friendship and fellowship, Mat 26:29.

3) “And sit on thrones,” (kai kathesesthe epi thronon) “And in order that you (all may each) sit on thrones,” (twelve thrones) in the golden millennial era, that is to follow the church age, Mat 19:28; 1Co 6:2.

4) “Judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (tas dokeka phulas krinontes) “Repeatedly judging the twelve tribes,” (tou Israel) “Of natural Israel” concurring in Christ’s will, restored to her promised land. This will also fulfill Isa 1:26; Jdg 2:18; Rev 3:21.

This promise and prophecy is two-fold to the apostles and to the church:

1) First, the eating and drinking is to be at His “table,” in His house, in contrast with the Passover memorial, at Moses’ table in the house that Moses built. This alludes to the Lord’s supper being administered by and to the church, “the kingdom of heaven”, in this age, Heb 3:3-6.

2) Second, the pledge of throne reigning and judgment positions in His coming reign, were pledged both to the twelve apostles and members of His church for that era, as cited above.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(30) That ye may eat and drink at my table.The promise is the same as that implied in what had been already said in Luk. 22:16.

And sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.See Note on Mat. 19:28. The repetition of the promise at the moment when apparent failure was close at hand, is significant as carrying the words into a higher region of symbolic meaning. Not on any thrones of earth were those disciples to sit, any more than the Master was to sit on the throne of His father David in an earthly Jerusalem.

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

30. Eat at my [sacramental]

table Which is the antepast and emblem of the eternal banquet when the family all get home.

In my kingdom First of grace, and then of glory. Sit on apostolic thrones. Truly the throne of the apostle was higher than any of the thrones of earth.

Judging Ruling. The judges of the book of Judges were civil rulers and military leaders. The apostles ruled in the Church with divine authority while they lived. They still rule in the Church whose laws their labors first established.

Twelve tribes of Israel The type of the Church of God. This passage fully shows that the apostles were twelve in special reference to the twelve tribes. See notes on Mat 19:28-29.

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

“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.”

And in this service of expanding, and ‘ruling’ in humility over, the Kingly Rule of God, they would be able to eat and drink at His Table. But what does He here mean by ‘His Table’? Many see it as the Table in the future Messianic kingdom (of which there has been no positive mention). But if we take the words in context ‘My table’ must here be connected with ‘I am in the midst of you as Him Who serves’ (Luk 22:27), for His service there was in terms of the table of those who sat at food, and of those who served it. It therefore here signifies ‘the table at which I now serve in the midst of you, and will continue to serve’. Thus as they had sat and watched as He had washed their feet at His Table, so in the future would they eat and drink at His Table as they were served by His hands, and should themselves as a result reveal the same humility, and in the same way serve others, sharing with them also the Lord’s Table. This can only mean in context that through their participation in the Lord’s Supper He would continue humbly to serve them, a service which would then lead them on to serve others in the same way.

So this table at which they would eat and drink is to be connected with His present serving, and must surely therefore be that at which they will receive the Lord’s Supper, eating the bread and drinking the wine from His hands as they had at this Passover, rather than some future Messianic table in the unknown future of which there is no evidence in the context. And being in such a situation there could be no sense of greatness or of arrogance, but only a sense of humility and undeserving that would itself result in their serving others as they recognised the great debt and gratitude that they owed to Him. This would thus involve continual humility, continual humble service, and continual obedience to the will of God as they minister to the people of God, in the way that Jesus had just previously described.

And they would also ‘sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’. The only Old Testament passage which really connects with this is found in Psa 122:5 where we learn that ‘thrones of the house of David’ were set up in Jerusalem in order to ‘bring justice/righteousness’ to ‘the tribes of the Lord’ who went up there. This must mean that those who sat on these thrones ‘judged’ in Jerusalem in David’s name, possibly even being princes of the house of David, and dispensed justice and righteousness to the tribes of the Lord. In the same way the Apostles are to be appointed by Him to act over His people as overseers of what is right in the name of the greater David, bringing to them true justice and righteousness in the name of the King because they are ‘the tribes of the Lord’.

In context there can be no thought of taking up a superior position here. That would be contrary to all that Jesus has just said. (How quickly we jump to our own conclusions because that is how we think, just as the Gentiles did). The point is rather that they will watch over His people, as He has done, with the same attitude of meekness, humility and service. They will sit in His place and act in His name with His attitude towards the people, sitting on the spiritual ‘thrones of the house of David’. He, the Greater David, will have taken His throne above, from which He can continue to serve. They as His representatives will act in His name, serving on earth in all humility, sitting on ‘the thrones of David’. It is the same idea as is found in Joh 21:15-17 under a different figure, where Peter, and by implication the other disciples, were to be under-shepherds over the sheep. Here they were to be servant-rulers over the Kingly Rule of God, in the same ways as He had been, and would continue to be, as the Servant-King. This was to be their privilege. They would fulfil it by continuing with the establishing of the Kingly Rule of God on earth by winning men and women under His Rule, and by caring for them as under-shepherds. This establishing of the Kingly Rule of God is indeed a central theme in Acts (Act 1:3; Act 8:12; Act 14:22; Act 19:8; Act 20:25; Act 28:23; Act 28:31).

In John we have the same idea expressed in different words, ‘Truly I say to you whoever receives whom I send receives me, and whoever receives Me receives Him Who sent Me’ (Joh 13:20).

We have only to think for a moment to realise that any suggestion that this statement is intended to exalt the Apostles in any worldly (or even heavenly) sense is totally contrary to all that Jesus has said in Luk 22:25-27. He is rather declaring that like Him they are to be servants, both now and in the future. He is instituting them into the new position that will soon be theirs as overseers of, and ministers to, the churches. To see it as signifying that they can look forward to being in a position of glorious authority over the people of Israel (especially the earthly people of Israel) would be to see them as being instilled with an attitude of being exalted in precisely the way that Jesus had rejected both for Himself and for them.

But can the church be called ‘the twelve tribes of Israel? The answer is a resounding, ‘yes’, as we have seen above. For ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ is merely in the end a phrase indicating ‘all Israel’, having in mind its founding fathers.

To repeat what we have already said. At varying times there were a varying number of tribes of Israel, but even in Jesus’ day most ‘pure’ Jews identified themselves with one of ‘the twelve tribes’. We can compare how Paul described himself as a Benjamite. However, apart from the few, this identification would not go back many generations, and the number of Jews who could demonstrate that they were actually descended from the patriarchs themselves, even if there were any, would not have been many. Thus the phrase 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. 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 written to all Christians, both because of its content and because whenever he refers to ‘Gentiles’ in it, it is always as those who are unbelieving, writes to them as ‘the exiles of the Dispersion’ (1Pe 1:1), those who are ‘strangers and pilgrims’ (1Pe 2:11) dispersed around the world, referring by this to the whole believing people of God. 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 he would have been failing in his duty not to explain how they were to behave towards them. So the non-mention of them, even by a hint, confirms that they are included among those to whom the letter is written. To him believing Gentiles had been incorporated into Israel and were part of ‘the twelve tribes’.

So this ‘judging (overseeing) of the twelve tribes of Israel’ began immediately after the resurrection when the Apostles in Jerusalem were in a position of humble authority over the whole church in Jerusalem and Judea. And at that stage they were all Jews or adherents to Judaism who had ‘believed’ and had thus become a part of the true vine (Joh 15:1-6). As His deputies they sat on ‘the thrones of David’ and ‘ruled’ over them, in the special sense of ruling as ‘servant-rulers’ that He had already described. They had authority over them in order to be their servants. And then when the expansion to the Gentiles was revealed, the believing Gentiles too would be incorporated under that Kingly Rule. But as with Jesus, it was not to be a rule of dogmatic authority, but of Christ-like service.

The establishment of the Apostles is, as we will discover in our commentary, vividly brought out in the first chapters of Acts where in Jerusalem the Apostles, supplemented by Matthias, do everything together. And it is to the Apostles in Jerusalem (along with the elders) that major questions are brought which have to be decided on (Acts 15). In the event this would only cease because Jerusalem, having finally rejected the Messiah, was itself finally rejected (see our commentary on Acts).

It may, of course, be that the idea is then also to be seen as enduring in some way into the eternal kingdom, but if so it would only be in a general way, as a general indication of blessing on them at that time (like the servant who receives ten cities in the parable, something not to be taken literally, but indicating everlasting reward). Indeed nothing is more sure than the fact that the idea of having a servant heart is to continue into eternity. And then others would also ‘rule’ with them. This includes all the martyrs and all who rejected the mark of Satan – Rev 20:4 – to say nothing of Old Testament believers. If we do extend it like this the thought will then rather be that the prestige and glory that they had enjoyed on earth at His command, the prestige of being faithful and devoted servants, would also be theirs in the eternal future as a gracious gift from God at the foundation of the new Jerusalem in the new Heaven and the new earth (Revelation 21). There also they would maintain the idea of being servants.

We should note that Jesus did not make quite the strict differentiation that we do between the earthly Kingly Rule of God, already established under Him, and continued in Acts, and the heavenly Kingly Rule of God. He saw it as one whole, as being fashioned on earth in the crucible of life before being finalised in Heaven (compare Heb 12:22-24). His people both had, and would have, eternal life, and this was depicted in terms of two resurrections, the first resurrection a spiritual one (Joh 5:24-25; Eph 1:19 to Eph 2:6) and the second a bodily one (Joh 5:28-29). He saw the true church on earth from Heaven’s viewpoint, as Paul did when he called them citizens of Heaven (Php 3:20) and spoke of them as sons of the Jerusalem which was above (Gal 4:26). He saw them as already having been transported to being under His Kingly Rule (Col 1:13), for He was to build His new ‘congregation’ (of Israel) on the foundation of His Apostles (Mat 16:18; Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).

Note for example how when speaking of the future rewards of His disciples He says that these rewards will be ‘in this present time and in the age to come’ (Luk 18:30; Mar 10:30), thus seeing them as having dual application, both on earth and in Heaven. In the same way Paul can speak of the ‘new creation’ as having already commenced (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15), and of Christians as being citizens of Heaven (Php 3:20), dwelling already in heavenly places in Christ (Eph 2:6). While John in Revelation sees the martyrs, and those who had rejected Antichrist in the person of the state and of the forces of evil, as reigning with Christ over the period between the first and second advent, that is over the divinely predicted ‘a thousand years’, which represents a vague and long period of undefined length as determined by God (Rev 20:4 compare 2Pe 3:8), a period which precedes the final defeat of Satan and the setting up of the everlasting Kingdom at the final resurrection. (Thus the ‘thousand years’ of Revelation is not looking forward to a coming Millennium, but is at present in process of fulfilment the perfectly measured time of which the extent is unknown between the first and second coming).

Comparison can also be made with Mat 19:28. This is in interesting contrast with Luke’s citation of Jesus’ words. In Matthew reference is made to being ‘on  twelve  thrones judging (overseeing) the twelve tribes of Israel’, and this is seen as following the ‘regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in His glory’. We note here that ‘twelve’ thrones are mentioned because at the time that this was said in Matthew Judas had not betrayed Jesus. In Luke 22 the ‘twelve’ is dropped before thrones, for Jesus knew that one Apostle no longer qualified and no other had yet been appointed.

But the description in Matthew is to be seen as having reference to ‘the regeneration’ as it came about through the work of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, where it is also described as ‘the times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord’ (Act 3:19), and certainly at that time Stephen specifically sees the Son of Man as already then in His glory (Act 7:55-56). For we note that in Mat 19:28 Jesus speaks of the Son of Man sitting in His glory, not as coming in His glory. He took this seat of glory on His resurrection (Luk 24:26; Act 2:33; Act 2:36; Act 3:13; Act 5:31; Act 7:55-56; compare Joh 17:5) which would later also be manifested at His coming (Mat 25:31). So this overseeing will begin immediately, and in the final consummation it will spill over into the everlasting kingdom. For in that everlasting kingdom all will be eager to serve.

But we cannot really see it as signifying that the twelve Apostles will have sole supreme authority over the people of God in Heaven (or even, for those who believe in an earthly Millennium, over an earthly kingdom in the distant future, after being resurrected). This can be rejected for three reasons:

Firstly because one of the twelve then mentioned betrayed Him, although it is true that he could later be replaced, and was.

Secondly, and more importantly, because we would then have to ask, ‘what about Abraham, and the twelve patriarchs, and Moses, and Elijah, and Isaiah, and David, and John the Baptiser, and Paul, and Barnabas, and many others’? Here we can specifically compare Luk 13:28 where it is they and not the Apostles who are mentioned in connection with the eternal kingdom. Jesus had after all refused to confirm who would sit to His right and left when He was established in His Kingly power (Mar 10:40). It is difficult to see how these others could be exempted from also sharing thrones in either a supposed Millennium or in the heaven Kingly Rule of God, if the idea was to be taken literally.

Thirdly because the whole idea of them being offered a position of glory as an incentive goes absolutely in the opposite direction to that in the previous verses. Jesus would hardly seek to set up an idea here that He had just roundly condemned in the previous verses. It is an indication of our fallen hearts that we think how wonderful such a promise would be. We just cannot get over our desire to be lords of creation. We do not mind serving, but it is only as long as it is as kingpins, or will lead to our being kingpins. How different that is from the thoughts of Jesus Who delighted in being a servant to all.

On the other hand we do know that in Acts this being set over God’s people was precisely what did happen to the Twelve, with one having been replaced. They did act as ‘judges’ over the Kingly Rule of God on earth in Jerusalem, when it had been established after Pentecost, and as it expanded outwards into the world among all nations. They were given the power to ‘bind and loose’ (Mat 16:19; Mat 18:18). They could then certainly be seen as ‘sitting on the thrones of David’, that is, sitting in authority as representing the Son of David, in accordance with Psa 122:5. We must therefore see the prime reference of these verses as being to this position following Pentecost, but put in eschatological terms.

Peter’s Coming Denial (Luk 22:31-34).

Having declared to them the future responsibility that they will have as overseers of God’s people after the resurrection, Jesus now warns His Apostles, and Peter especially, what is involved in such a responsibility, and promises that Peter is being prepared for it, as are they all. They must recognise that if they are to be overseers they must also continue to endure the testings which come with such a privilege. It is not possible to be a leader among God’s people and yet remain out of Satan’s firing line. They will thus be clearly in his sights. They have already shared such testings along with Him (Luk 22:28), and they must now recognise that these testings will continue.

So parallel with the exposure of Judas’ coming betrayal in the chiasmus, we now have the exposure of Peter’s coming denial. He also is to be sifted. This too betrays Satan’s hand at work on this awful night when all the spiritual forces of evil are at work (Col 2:15), for, as well as entering Judas, he is to be permitted to sift Peter, and the others, to the full. Satan would by this do his best to make them useless in Christ’s service, and to turn them against God, as he had tried to do with Job (Job 1, 2), and as he had done with Judas, for he could still not understand the gracious mercy of God that could forgive and uphold His saints. Thus Satan is seen as very active at this final juncture as he seeks to thwart the purposes of God. He knows that his time is short. This is both an encouragement and a warning. It is an encouragement in that we recognise here that he could not thwart the purposes of God, but it is a warning lest, like Judas, we allow him to steal away our part in it. Peter’s failure and subsequent restoration, on the other hand, acts as an encouragement in that, even if Satan trips us up, we can be sure that there is always a way back if we come in true repentance. And through it he would learn to serve.

But this denial by Peter was also to be the fourth aspect of Jesus’ suffering, for when Jesus turned and looked on Peter (Luk 22:61) there must have been great grief in His heart at the thought that even Peter had failed Him, (and that even though He had known that it would happen).

So as Jesus had said earlier, the Apostles had continued with Him in His temptations and dangers (Luk 22:28), and now they would still continue to be called on to do so (He speaks of ‘you’ in the plural), for to be connected with Jesus was no easy matter. Thus they must be allowed to be tempted. Peter was merely the first, and most open to it because of his impetuosity. And, as Peter would, they would all sometimes fail. The Bible never hides the truth about man’s weakness. Nevertheless the lesson received through Peter’s experience was the assurance that they would always find a welcome back if their failure had been through weakness and not continual hardness of heart, and they had truly repented.

Four points result from this incident. Firstly the total composure of Jesus. Although He recognised Peter’s weaknesses He had no doubts about His own ability to deal with all the temptations of Satan, even though, in the human frailty which He had taken on Himself, He winced before what lay ahead. Secondly it demonstrates that Satan is limited in what he can do to God’s people by what God is willing to permit. Thirdly it demonstrates that Satan had been permitted to enter Judas in order to see what Judas would do. But that he could not force him to do it. In the end the choice was not Satan’s but Judas’s. Judas chose his own course, and solidly hardened his own heart. It was the end of a long process of going backwards, already visible to Jesus in John 6, which ended in deep regret and remorse, but not in repentance because he had hardened his heart beyond the possibility of repentance. And fourthly it demonstrates that Satan was permitted to sift Peter in order to see what Peter would do. But the important thing was that while Peter failed in weaker moments, he repented, and turned back to Jesus, for he was under Jesus’ intercessory protection. He had thus never turned against Him in his heart, nor had he hardened his heart. So one would perish because he had irrevocably hardened his heart, and the other would be delivered by the gracious intercession and working of Jesus Christ because, although he had failed through weakness, his heart was not permanently hardened, but was still open towards Christ and he was thus able to find forgiveness.

And yet for Jesus both of these incidents must have come as body blows, even though He knew what their results would be. His testing was not just to be limited to the cross. It was to result from all that Satan could throw at Him, as in the midst of His trials at the hands of His enemies, one of His boon companions betrayed Him, and another denied that he knew Him. Satan was certainly being allowed the opportunity to do his very worst so that Jesus might overcome to the uttermost.

Analysis.

a “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat” (Luk 22:31).

b “But I made supplication for you, that your faith fail not (Luk 22:32 a).

c And do you, when once you have turned again, establish your brethren” (Luk 22:32 b).

b And he said to him, “Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death” (Luk 22:33).

a And He said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you will three times deny that you know me” (Luk 22:34).

Note that in ‘a’ Satan will sift Peter as wheat, and in the parallel Peter will betray Jesus three times. In ‘b’ Jesus guarantees his faith (but not that he will be faithful in the short term), while in the parallel Peter foolishly guarantees his own faithfulness, at which he will be fail, but will not lose his faith. Centrally in ‘c’ Peter will be restored and thus able to strengthen his brethren. So we see that even in his permitted failure there is a deeper purpose, so that he will be able to fulfil his responsibility of ‘ruling’ over the new Israel.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Ver. 30. That ye may eat and drink, &c. ] As Mephibosheth and Chimham at David’s table which was a high favour.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Luk 22:30 . , ye shall sit, the judicial function the main thing, the feasting a subordinate feature; hence stated in an independent proposition ( not dependent on ). , twelve tribes, and twelve to rule over them, the defection of Judas not taken into account. The promise is given in that respect as if spoken on another occasion (Mat 19:28 ). This generous eulogy of the disciples for their fidelity has the effect of minimising the fault mentioned just before. Lk. was aware of the fact. It is another instance of his “sparing of the Twelve”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

at. Gr epi. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Luk 22:30. , that ye may eat) Not as those that serve. See Luk 22:27.- , at My table) This is put in antithesis to the table of the goodman of the house. See Luk 22:12.-, ye may sit) in My kingdom. See Mat 19:28 [In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also, etc.].-, tribes) Does this mean, that they shall judge each one tribe [there being an apostle apiece for each of the Twelve tribes].

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

kingdom

(See Scofield “Mat 3:2”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

eat: Luk 22:16-18, Luk 12:37, Luk 14:15, 2Sa 9:9, 2Sa 9:10, 2Sa 19:28, Mat 8:11, Rev 19:9

and sit: Psa 49:14, Mat 19:28, 1Co 6:2, 1Co 6:3, Rev 2:26, Rev 2:27, Rev 3:21, Rev 4:4,*Gr.

Reciprocal: Exo 24:4 – according Exo 28:21 – according to the twelve 2Sa 9:7 – eat bread Ezr 6:17 – according to Est 5:1 – sat Isa 22:23 – a glorious Isa 25:6 – make Eze 40:39 – tables on that Dan 7:22 – judgment Oba 1:21 – to judge Zec 3:7 – judge Mat 24:47 – That Mat 26:29 – with Mar 9:1 – the kingdom Mar 14:25 – I will Luk 6:13 – twelve Luk 9:48 – he that Luk 12:44 – that he will Luk 19:17 – been Joh 17:22 – the glory Act 26:7 – our Rom 8:17 – heirs of Eph 2:6 – sit Rev 7:4 – all Rev 20:4 – thrones

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

0

The privilege of eating at the table of another was regarded as a great favor. Jesus used the circumstance figuratively to designate the close relationship the apostles were to sustain with Christ in his kingdom. See Mat 19:28 for comments on judging the twelve tribes.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Luk 22:30. That ye may eat, etc. The enjoyments of their reign, with Him in the kingdom appointed by His father, are thus set forth. Comp. Luk 22:16.

And ye shall lit. A direct promise.

On thrones, etc. Not twelve thrones, as Mat 19:28, possibly on account of Judas. Notice the appropriateness of this verse, first in view of the feast before them; second, in view of the greatness which they anticipated, though so blind as to its character.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

1 st. Luk 22:24-30. The cause of the dispute, mentioned by Luke only, cannot have been the question of precedence, as Langen thinks. The strife would have broken out sooner. The mention of the kingdom of God, Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18, might have given rise to it; but the , also, of Luke, suggests another view. By this word he connects the question: Which is the greatest? with that which the disciples had just been putting to themselves, Luk 22:23 : Which among us is he who shall betray Him? The question which was the worst among them led easily to the other, which was the best of all. The one was the counterpart of the other. Whatever else may be true, we see by this new example that Luke does not allow himself to mention a situation at his own hand of which he finds no indication in his documents. The , appears [should be accounted], refers to the judgment of men, till the time when God will settle the question. Comp. a similar dispute, Luk 9:46 et seq. and parall. We are amazed at a disposition so opposed to humility at such a time. But Jesus is no more irritated than He is discouraged. It is enough for Him to know that He has succeeded in planting in the heart of the apostles a pure principle which will finally carry the day over all forms of sin: Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you, He says to them Himself, Joh 15:3. He therefore calmly continues the work which He has begun. In human society, men reign by physical or intellectual force; and , benefactor, is the flattering title by which men do not blush to honour the harshest tyrants. In the new society which Jesus is instituting, he who has most is not to make his superiority felt in any other way than by the superabundance of his services toward the weakest and the most destitute. The example of Jesus in this respect is to remain as the rule. The term , the younger (Luk 22:26), is parallel to , he that doth serve, because among the Jews the humblest and hardest labour was committed to the youngest members of the society (Act 5:6; Act 5:10). If the saying of Luk 22:27 is not referred to the act of the feetwashing related John 13, we must apply the words: I am among you as He that serveth, to the life of Jesus in general, or perhaps to the sacrifice which He is now making of Himself (Luk 22:19-20). But in this way there is no accounting for the antithesis between: he that sitteth at meat, and: he that serveth. These expressions leave no doubt that the fact of the feet-washing was the occasion of this saying. Luke did not know it; and he has confined himself to transmitting the discourse of Jesus as it was furnished to him by his document.

After having thus contrasted the ideal of an altogether new greatness with the so different tendency of the natural heart, Jesus proceeds to satisfy what of truth there was in the aspiration of the disciples (Luk 22:28-30). The , but ye, alludes to Judas, who had not persevered, and who, by his defection, deprived himself of the magnificent privilege promised Luk 22:29-30. Perhaps the traitor had not yet gone out, and Jesus wished hereby to tell upon his heart.

The , temptations, of which Jesus speaks, are summed up in His rejection by His fellow-citizens. It was no small thing, on the part of the Eleven, to have persevered in their attachment to Jesus, despite the hatred and contempt of which He was the object, and the curses heaped upon Him by those rulers whom they were accustomed to respect. There is something like a feeling of gratitude expressed in the saying of Jesus. Hence the fulness with which He displays the riches of the promised reward. Luk 22:29 refers to the approaching dispensation on the earth; Luk 22:30, to the heavenly future in which it shall issue. , I (Luk 22:29), is in opposition to , ye: That is what ye have done for me; this is what I do in my turn () for you. The verb , to dispose, is applied to testamentary dispositions. Bleek takes the object of this verb to be the phrase which follows, that ye may eat…(Luk 22:30); but there is too close a correspondence between appoint and hath appointed unto me, to admit of those two verbs having any but the same object, , the kingdom: I appoint unto you the kingdom, as my Father hath appointed it unto me. This kingdom is here the power exercised by man on man by means of divine life and divine truth. The truth and life which Jesus possessed shall come to dwell in them, and thereby they shall reign over all, as He Himself has reigned over them. Are not Peter, John, and Paul, at the present day, the rulers of the world? In substance, it is only another form of the thought expressed in Joh 13:20 : Verily I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me. Is this an example of the way in which certain sayings of Jesus are transformed and spiritualized, as it were, in the memory of John, without being altered from their original sense? At least the obscure connection of this saying in John with what precedes is fully explained by Luke’s context.

Ver. 30 might apply solely to the part played by the apostles in the government of the primitive Church, and in the moral judgment of Israel then exercised by them. But the expression, to eat and drink at my table, passes beyond this meaning. For we cannot apply this expression to the Holy Supper, which was no special privilege of the apostles. The phrase, in my kingdom, should therefore be taken in the same sense as in Luk 22:16; Luk 22:18. With the table where He is now presiding, Jesus contrasts the royal banquet, the emblem of complete joy in the perfected kingdom of God. He likewise contrasts, in the words following, with the judgments which He and His shall soon undergo on the part of Israel, that which Israel shall one day undergo on the part of the Twelve. According to 1Co 6:1 et seq., the Church shall judge the world, men and angels. In this judgment of the world by the representatives of Jesus Christ, the part allotted to the Twelve shall be Israel.

Judgment here includes government, as so often in the O. T. Thrones are the emblem of power, as the table is of joy.

If the traitor was yet present, must not such a promise made to his colleagues have been like the stroke of a dagger to his ambitious heart! Here, as we think, should be placed the final scene which led to his departure (Joh 13:21-27).

It seems to us that the Twelve are not very disadvantageously treated in this discourse of Jesus reported by Luke! A saying entirely similar is found in Mat 19:28, in a different context. That of Luke is its own justification.

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

Verse 30

That is, be associated with their Redeemer in sacred enjoyments and trusts.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament