article58

§52 The Last Supper (Luke 22:1–38)

With Luke 22 the Passion Narrative begins. In the first 38 verses the reader is told of Jesus’ betrayal, Passover meal, and final instructions to his disciples before his arrest. Most of Luke’s materials are derived from Mark 14:1–31 and may be divided into the following parts: (1) the Conspiracy of the Religious Leaders (vv. 1–2); (2) Judas’ Betrayal of Jesus (vv. 3–6); (3) the Preparation for the Passover Meal (vv. 7–14); (4) the Lord’s Supper (vv. 15–23); (5) Teaching on Greatness in the Kingdom (vv. 24–30); (6) Peter’s Denial Foretold (vv. 31–34); and (7) the Saying on the Two Swords (vv. 35–38).

22:1–2 / One of the reasons that the chief priests and the teachers of the law would have renewed their efforts to do away with Jesus at the time of the Passover (see note below) was because Jesus, like many other Jews, would be present in Jerusalem for the feast and so would afford the religious authorities their best opportunity to lay their hands upon him. Had they delayed in taking action, Jesus might have left Jerusalem and could have slipped through their fingers. Another reason probably had to do with the feast itself. During Passover political feelings ran high, as the locals and the pilgrims reflected upon God’s saving act that had brought forth their ancestors from Egyptian slavery. Such reflection often stirred messianic hopes of a deliverance from the oppressive yoke of Imperial Rome. As his Triumphal Entry revealed (19:28–40), Jesus had acquired messianic status (rightly or wrongly understood) in the minds of at least some. This would scarcely have gone unnoticed by the religious authorities, particularly the Sadducees, the aristocratic priestly class, who feared the social and economic consequences of an insurrection.

To arrest Jesus openly, however, would likely touch off the very insurrection that they feared. Therefore, it was necessary for them to find a way to remove Jesus quietly. This is why the betrayal of Judas was so important to the authorities.

22:3–6 / Luke omits Mark’s account of Jesus’ anointing in Bethany (Mark 14:3–9), probably because the evangelist has already included a similar episode (see Luke 7:36–38) and has shown a marked tendency to avoid repetition. Luke moves immediately from the notice that the religious authorities were trying to find a way to do away with Jesus secretly to his account of Judas’ betrayal. Of the Synoptic evangelists only Luke reports that Satan entered Judas (cf. John 13:2, 27). Fitzmyer (p. 1374) describes the Third Evangelist as “baffled as to how he should explain the sinister betrayal of Jesus by one of his own” and can find no explanation other than that of Satanic influence. This may be so, but the fact that the same idea appears also in the Fourth Gospel suggests that the idea of Satan entering Judas was part of the passion tradition which Luke felt best explained Judas’ otherwise inexplicable behavior.

Judas offered the religious authorities the very opportunity that they sought. Because he was one of the Twelve, he would know where the group met in the evening and when they might be alone. After striking his evil bargain he watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

22:7–14 / With the sinister conspiracy between Judas and the religious authorities in the background, Jesus and his disciples begin making preparations for the Passover meal. Luke notes that Jesus sent Peter and John (Mark 14:13 says only “two of his disciples”) into Jerusalem to meet a man carrying a jar of water (which was a task women usually performed), to whom they will convey the word of the Teacher. The owner of the house, the disciples are told, will show them a large upper room, all furnished. There the disciples are to make preparations. Luke probably does not intend his readers to understand any of this as miraculous, but only that in yet another situation Jesus is firmly in control. Jesus deliberately works out the final details of his ministry.

22:15–23 / Jesus’ solemn declaration in v. 15 reveals how much he has looked forward to that final Passover meal. He has anticipated it eagerly, not because he looks forward to his death (see v. 42), but because he will be able to establish a new covenant in his blood. In v. 16 Jesus vows not to eat the Passover again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God. The exact meaning of this statement is uncertain, but it probably parallels Jesus’ vow in v. 18: He will neither eat the Passover nor drink wine until the kingdom of God comes. (The cup that is drunk in v. 20 is not a violation of this vow, for the vow is meant to go into effect after the Passover meal itself.)

Luke’s account is unusual because of its mention of a cup first (v. 17), followed by the traditional bread/cup sequence of vv. 19–20. A few Greek manuscripts omit half of v. 19 and all of v. 20. Some commentators believe that this shorter form is original, with vv. 19b–20 added in order to restore the traditional bread/cup sequence. Equally tenable, however, is the theory that a few early Christian scribes chose to omit vv. 19b–20 in order to eliminate the second cup (or such an omission was unintentional). There is nothing unusual in the reference to a second cup, for there were four cups drunk at a Passover meal (see m. Pesahim 10.1–7). The cup mentioned in v. 17 may have been the first cup in which God is blessed for his gift of wine or the second cup in which the question about the significance of Passover is raised, thereby eliciting a response from the father or, in the Gospel context, from Jesus. What Jesus states in vv. 17b–18 may very well be a summary of his explanation of the significance of the Passover meal as far as he himself is concerned. Rather than looking back to the Exodus, Jesus is looking forward to the kingdom of God.

In vv. 19–20 the “institution” of the Lord’s Supper is established for all Christians. The bread is broken and described by Jesus as his body given for his followers. All Christians are to observe this ritual in remembrance of Jesus. Likewise Jesus distributed a cup (the third cup, the “Cup of Blessing”) which he describes as the new covenant in his blood, which is poured out for his followers (Mark 14:24: “This is my blood … which is poured out for many”). Jesus will shed his blood (perhaps an allusion to Isa. 53:12) in order to establish a new covenant. This new covenant undoubtedly is to be understood in terms of the “new covenant” of Jer. 31:31, a covenant that will be written not upon stone tablets, but upon hearts (cf. 2 Cor. 3:3, 6).

The meal ends with Jesus’ declaration that the hand of the betrayer is with his on the table. But that is the way it must be, for the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. Jesus thus declares that his fate is unavoidable, and part of that unavoidable fate is betrayal. It will still be terrible, however, for that man who betrays him. Even though Jesus’ fate is part of God’s plan, it does not excuse the betrayer. Shocked, the disciples began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. Such disloyalty was beyond comprehension for them.

22:24–30 / The conversation turns abruptly to the question of who is the greatest among the disciples. Coming where it does, this passage is unique to Luke, for Mark tells of no further conversation at the table. Luke’s material seems to be a reworking of the similar discussion in Mark 10:42–45, a part of Mark omitted in an earlier part of Luke (cf. Mark 10:32–52 with Luke 18:31–43; one will notice that Luke has omitted Mark 10:35–45). From time to time Luke brings in some of the details of this omitted material (see Luke 12:50) into new contexts. This passage would seem to be a case in point. One may question the logic of having this conversation appear immediately after Jesus’ declaration of betrayal in vv. 21–22. Fitzmyer (p. 1412) is probably correct in suggesting that if the worst disciple is he who betrays his Lord, who is the greatest?

The passage is actually comprised of two parts: the discussion of greatness (vv. 24–27) and Jesus’ pronouncement that his disciples will someday rule with him (vv. 28–30), with the second part originally a distinct unit (probably from the sayings source; cf. Matt. 19:28). Most people seek power over other people; that is what they think makes them great. But for the followers of Jesus this is not the way. The greatest among Christians is the one who sees himself as the youngest (or “least significant”). The Christian who rules should be like the one who serves. In v. 27 Jesus asks a question about social conventions; its answer is obvious: the one who is at the table is greater than the one who serves. The one who sits is the master, while the one who waits on him is the servant. But this is not the way it is to be among Jesus’ followers, as Jesus himself gave example (see John 13:4–17).

Jesus explains in vv. 28–30 that a time of vindication and exaltation will come for his faithful followers. Since they have remained loyal throughout all of Jesus’ trials, they may anticipate sharing in his kingdom rule as well (see note below). This statement may seem strange in light of the disciples’ desertion at the time of Jesus’ arrest. That detail, however, is omitted by Luke, and although he retains the tradition of Peter’s denials (22:54–62) in the prediction of his denials that follows, Peter’s repentance and restoration are also predicted (v. 32).

22:31–34 / Verses 31–32 are unique to Luke, while vv. 33–34 appear to be a modification of Mark 14:29–31. Although what he has to say applies to all of his disciples, Jesus speaks to Simon (Peter) as their spokesman. In the part that is unique to Luke (vv. 31–32) Peter is warned that Satan has asked to sift them all as wheat. That is, Satan desires to test the disciples severely for the purpose of destroying their faith. The danger here is not to be taken lightly. It is so grave that Jesus assures Peter that he has prayed for him, in order that his faith may not fail. In light of Peter’s impending denials, this failure of faith concerns more than this temporary lapse. The idea is probably that in the wake of the denials Peter may be tempted to abandon his faith in Jesus altogether. This, however, will not happen because of Jesus’ intercessory prayer. Peter will suffer a momentary lapse, but he will recover and return to Jesus and then will be able to strengthen his brothers (as is seen dramatically in Acts 1–5 where Peter is the bold spokesman and leader of the infant church).

Peter, however, wishes to affirm his loyalty to his Master (v. 33). He is ready, he declares, to go with Jesus to prison and to death. There is irony in this well-intentioned declaration, for Peter will indeed suffer imprisonment (Acts 5:18; 12:3) and martyrdom (according to early church tradition); but during this dark hour his courage will fail him. Jesus then prophesies that before the rooster crows that day, Peter will deny three times that he knows Jesus.

22:35–38 / These verses find no parallel outside of Luke and so are usually thought to have been derived from the evangelist’s special source. Verses 35–36a presuppose the sending of the Twelve in 9:1–6 and the Seventy(-two) in 10:1–12. Whereas the apostles on those occasions traveled lightly (taking no wallet, bag, or sandals), this time they will need provisions, for the ministry that lies ahead of them will be long and difficult. Indeed, it will be so difficult that they had better arm themselves with a sword. The sword is a symbol of the violence and opposition that his followers will face. It is an especially appropriate symbol for Jesus, according to v. 37, because he will share the fate of criminals (alluding to Isa. 53:12). This is seen most vividly in his crucifixion between two criminals in 23:33 and perhaps in Peter’s unfortunate, literal employment of the sword in 22:49–50. There may also be the idea of Jesus and his followers being classified by opponents of the faith as outlaws (as seen in Acts). Tannehill (p. 267) has suggested that Jesus knows that the disciples will temporarily depart from the path of true discipleship and will act as criminals: “Jesus’ command does not cause something to happen but reveals what the disciples have already done out of fear.” This is probably correct.

The import of Jesus’ remarks is completely misunderstood by his disciples, who produce two swords. In a spirit of popular messianic enthusiasm his men are ready to take up arms. As Peter had said only moments before, they are ready to go to prison, even to death. Jesus, however, is no doubt disappointed (unless he took the comment of the disciples in a figurative sense) in their lack of perception and ends the discussion with the words, “Enough of this” (which is clearer than the NIV’s That is enough; see Fitzmyer, p. 1434; cf. 22:51) or “They are enough” (i.e., enough for the fulfillment of Isa. 53:12). This conversation confirms that the disciples are scarcely prepared for what lies ahead. Their inability to cope with the coming trials is dramatically portrayed in the very next episode.