B. In the upper room (22:7–38)
B. In the upper room (22:7–38)
The fullest account of what took place in the upper room on the night before the crucifixion comes in John. Luke’s account is not as full, but it is longer than those in Matthew and Mark, and he has some information of his own.
1. Preparations (22:7–13)
The Passover was not just another meal, but a most important festival. It must be eaten reclining, and there were requirements such as the eating of bitter herbs. Thus quite an amount of preparation was necessary. The meal was not a solitary one, but was eaten in companies usually comprising ten to twenty persons.
7. The day of Unleavened Bread is an unusual expression, perhaps meaning the day on which all leaven was removed from homes in preparation for the feast. It was the day on which the combined festival began. The opening day was the one on which the Passover victims were killed, as Luke notes. If we are right in seeing a calendrical difference, this will not have been the day on which the victims were actually slaughtered, but that on which they should have been according to the calendar Jesus was following. Both calendars agreed that the victims were to be slain on the first day: the difference concerned which day that was. RSV’s passover lamb is not correct. The Greek says only ‘passover’ and the victim was not necessarily a lamb. It might be, and often was, a kid.
8–9. Jesus delegated Peter and John to make the necessary preparations for the little company (only Luke names the pair). Not unnaturally they ask where. They were Galileans and would need guidance as to where they should go in Jerusalem. And at this late time there would be few places available, despite the traditional readiness of the Jerusalemites to make such accommodation available without charge.
10–11. Jesus seems to have made a secret arrangement with the owner of a house. By doing this he prevented Judas from betraying him prematurely. He would die, but in his own good time, not when his enemies chose. So none of the disciples knew where the meal would be. Peter and John were to look for a man carrying a jar of water, which would be distinctive, for women usually carried water jars (men carried water skins). He would lead them to a house where they were to say certain words to the householder, evidently an agreed formula. 12–13. The householder would show them a large upper room furnished. This last word is literally ‘spread’ and probably means that there would be couches ready with coverings spread over them (Moffatt translates ‘with couches spread’). They followed instructions and prepared the meal.
2. The last supper (22:14–20)
There is a textual problem here of great difficulty. In the ‘shorter’ text, followed by NEB, Goodspeed, where verses 19b–20 are omitted, the cup is given before the bread. In the ‘longer’ text (RSV, GNB, JB, Common Bible) the cup is mentioned twice. The shorter text is favoured by many on the grounds that the words are not likely to have been omitted if original and that they look like an insertion from 1 Corinthians 11:24f. to bring the passage into line with current liturgical practice. It is countered that the disputed words are found in all Greek MSS save one (Codex D), that Justin Martyr accepted them c. AD 150 (Apology i.66; this is older than our oldest Greek MS), and that they may have been omitted by scribes who could not understand two references to the cup. On the whole it seems that the longer text is to be preferred.2
14–16. The hour is the time for their Passover meal. It is not clear whether Jesus is saying that he has desired to eat the Passover and is eating it, or that despite his desire he will not eat until its fulfilment in God’s kingdom. Perhaps the former view is correct. The reference to fulfilment in the kingdom of God indicates that the Passover had typological significance. It commemorated a deliverance indeed, but it pointed forward to a great deliverance, which would be seen in the kingdom of God.
17–18. At the Passover meal it was obligatory to drink four cups of wine. It seems that this refers to one of these cups, though it is not easy to be sure which. A. Edersheim thinks it was perhaps the first,3 after which there was a breaking of bread (cf. Mishnah, Pesahim 10:2f.). But a breaking of bread and a giving of thanks followed the second cup also,4 so it may have been this one. The sharing in the cup was a token of fellowship. Once again Jesus’ eschatological interest is revealed as he looks for the coming of the kingdom. The life he had lived with the disciples was at an end. There would be no more familiar intercourse with them until the kingdom came.
19. The taking, breaking and distribution of bread were regular features of the Passover observance and would cause no surprise. But as he gave it to his followers Jesus said, This is my body, words which have caused endless controversy in the church. The critical point is the meaning of is. Some argue for a change of the bread into the body of Christ, but the verb can mean very various kinds of identification, as we see from such statements as ‘I am the door’, ‘I am the bread of life’, ‘that rock was Christ’. In this case identity cannot be in mind, for Jesus’ body was physically present at the time. It must be used in some such sense as ‘represents’, ‘signifies’, or, perhaps, ‘conveys’ (cf. Moffatt, ‘This means …’). The statement is a strong one and must not be watered down, but it must not be overpressed either. The addition, which is given for you, looks forward to Calvary (cf. Fitzmyer, ‘The vicarious gift of himself ’). It speaks of Jesus’ death for his people. This is not something that springs from the Passover ritual. That spoke of deliverance but not of vicarious sacrifice. Jesus is interpreting his death in a Passover context and making it clear that it has saving significance. Ellis thinks that the words about the body and blood here ‘can be explained only as an implicit reference to the suffering Servant who, as the covenant representative, “poured out his soul to death and … bore the sins of many” (Isa. 53:12).’ The command, Do this in remembrance of me, does not mean, as some claim, that the communion is essentially a pleading of Christ before the Father. It is lest we forget, not lest he forget.
20. The cup was evidently not taken immediately, but some little time later, after supper. The pouring out points us to the death on the cross where a new covenant would be inaugurated. Israel was in covenant relationship with God, but now there would be a new covenant brought about by Christ’s blood (cf. Jer. 31:31). His death would establish a new way of approach to God. Cf. Harrington, ‘Jesus lets it be understood that his imminent death is going to replace the sacrifices of the Old Law’, and Manson, ‘The Lord’s Supper as thus presented indicates and inaugurates a redemption effected by the death of Christ as a sacrifice.’
3. Jesus’ prophecy of the betrayal (22:21–23)
If Luke is writing in chronological order, then Judas was one of those who shared in the first service of holy communion. Doubt is raised because Matthew and Mark have this prophecy of the betrayal (after which Judas presumably left speedily) before that communion. However, none of these Evangelists specifically places these events in sequence and we must remain uncertain. Luke’s prophecy of the betrayal lacks the reference to dipping in the common dish the others have, but the hand on the table presumably means much the same. It is a mark of close fellowship and the betrayal stands out as all the more horrible in the light of it. Jesus goes on to make it clear that his death is in the divine purpose. It has been determined (the other Synoptists mention that Scripture is being fulfilled). But this does not mean that the betrayer is guiltless. The fact that God overrules the evil that bad people do as he brings his purposes to pass does not make them any the less evil. They remain responsible people. Woe to that man is better ‘Alas for that man’. It is not vindictive, but an expression of grief over the undefined but unpleasant future that he has brought down upon himself. Apparently Judas had disguised his thoughts well, for the other disciples began to question one another as to whom Jesus meant. No-one seems to have suspected him.
4. A dispute as to the greatest (22:24–27)
Only Luke tells us of this dispute in the upper room. Matthew and Mark have passages that resemble this one, but not in the farewell discourse. John has the feet-washing, which presupposes something like the attitude revealed here, but he does not have this quarrel. With Jesus so close to the cross, his most intimate followers were so far from him in spirit.
24–25. Evidently the disciples thought the establishment of the kingdom was near and they argued about the best place in it. Luke does not say that they were vying for the top place, but they were certainly interested in who would get it. Jesus rebukes them by drawing attention to the way the Gentiles (here all those who are not God’s people) live. Their kings are authoritarian. Their men in authority ‘call themselves’ (NIV; kalountai is probably middle rather than passive) benefactors. In fact a number of kings in the ancient world styled themselves Euergetēs, ‘Benefactor’. People of the world like to get credit for what they have done.
26–27. The Christian attitude is in sharp contrast (hymeis de is emphatic). Among Christ’s people the greatest must become as the youngest, i.e. take the lowliest place. In the ancient world it was accepted that age gave privileges; the youngest was, by definition, the lowliest. In the same spirit the leader must be as one who serves even though people naturally esteem the diner as higher than the waiter. The feetwashing that John records was a striking illustration of Jesus’ readiness to take the place of one who serves, even though he held the supreme place. All three examples of the word serves here translate diakonōn, a verb which means in the first place the service of the table waiter and thus is very much to the point. From this it came to mean lowly service in general and this is meant here. Jesus is not saying that if his followers wish to rise to great heights in the church they must first prove themselves in a lowly place. He is saying that faithful service in a lowly place is itself true greatness.
5. Twelve thrones (22:28–30)
A hard and perplexing road lay ahead of the disciples and Jesus proceeds to give them encouragement. First he speaks of them as those who have continued with me in my trials; they have served with him faithfully throughout all the hardships his ministry had necessarily involved. They had not shunned the difficult or the lowly place. They will in due course enjoy the Messianic banquet with him. This (with RSV, Rieu, Phillips) appears to be the meaning of the Greek rather than ‘I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father conferred one on me’ (JB; similarly NEB, NIV, GNB). The royal state they will enjoy is expressed rather in their sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, for judging is surely used here in the sense ‘ruling’ (as in the book of Judges). Jesus speaks of all this in the language of covenant. The verbs assign and assigned both render forms of diatithemai, the usual biblical word for the making of a covenant. The glorious future of which Jesus speaks is as sure as the covenant of God.
6. Prophecy of Peter’s denials (22:31–34)
All four Gospels tell us that Jesus predicted Peter’s threefold denial and relate how it happened, but they all do it in their own way. For example, Luke alone tells of Satan’s part in it.
31–32. In Satan’s prayer to have you, you is plural and includes all the disciples. The Greek appears to mean ‘Satan has obtained you by asking’: there is the thought that the petition has been granted. In passing we notice that Satan has no rights here; he may ask, but it is God who is supreme. It follows that the trials and testings that come to God’s people are only those that he allows. The metaphor of sifting like wheat is unparalleled, but it is obvious that it signifies great trials. There was a turbulent future before the little band and specifically before Peter. Jesus’ repetition of his servant’s name, Simon, Simon, gives the address a solemn emphasis. Jesus goes on to assure Peter that he has prayed for him (you this time is singular and indicates prayer specifically for Peter). Notice that the Master did not ask that his servant might be freed from trouble. The undergoing of difficulty and hardship is an integral part of the Christian way. The quality of Peter’s faith in such circumstances is important. Now he is given the assurance of mighty intercession on his behalf. Jesus is confident of the ultimate issue and speaks of the time when you have turned again, or, as Rieu puts it, ‘once you have retraced your steps’. When that happens Peter is commanded strengthen your brethren. He who has been through deep waters has the experience that enables him to be of help to others (cf. 2 Cor. 1:6).
33–34. Peter realizes neither the seriousness of the position nor his own weakness. Brashly he declares his readiness to die for Jesus if need be. But Jesus knew his disciple better than Peter knew himself. This is the one occasion on which he is recorded as addressing him as Peter. Perhaps he has a sorrowful realization that in the immediate future Peter would require but would lack the rock-like quality the name denotes. Jesus prophesies Peter’s threefold denial, specifying the number of times and the time-limit set by the crowing of the cock. This is more than human knowledge.
7. Two swords (22:35–38)
Luke concludes his story of the upper room with one more grim reference to trouble ahead. This short section is peculiar to this Gospel.
35. Jesus begins his warning by contrasting what is to happen with happier times in earlier days. When he had sent them off to preach their resources had been meagre (10:4; cf. 9:3), but their needs had been supplied. They agree that they had then lacked Nothing.
36–37. But now (alla nyn) marks an emphatic contrast: perilous and difficult days lie ahead. There will be need for purse and bag, and even for a sword. The sword may have been meant literally (so Ellis, Lenski), but it is difficult to see this in view of Jesus’ general teaching and his refusal to let Peter use his sword (51). Such considerations lead others to think the words are ironical (so Tinsley), but it is more likely that they are figurative. It is Jesus’ graphic way of bringing it home that the disciples face a situation of grave peril. ‘Because He was not thinking of their weapons, the disciples require that courage which regards a sword as more necessary than an upper garment and surrenders even its last possession, but cannot give up the struggle’ (Schlatter, cited in Geldenhuys). Jesus goes on to inform the disciples that the words of Isaiah 53:12 are about to be fulfilled. This is noteworthy as one of the few places in the New Testament in which that chapter is explicitly applied to Jesus. Jesus sees his death as one in which he will be one with sinners. This surely points to that death as substitutionary: Jesus will take the place of sinful people. Since he is in such a plight the disciples are also in danger. Rieu brings out something of the danger to both the disciples and Jesus with his rendering: ‘Indeed for me the course is run.’
38. The disciples did not understand; they spoke in terms of this world’s arms and said they could muster only two swords. Jesus’ response, It is enough, means not ‘Two will be sufficient’ but rather, ‘Enough of this kind of talk!’ He dismisses a subject in which the disciples were so hopelessly astray.