We're making big changes. Please try out the beta site at beta.ccel.org and send us feedback. Thank you!
« Prev II Next »



The sayings in the L tradition are as follows:

(1) The Saying about the Coming Baptism.

(2) The Reply to Herod Antipas.

(3) The Saying about the Suffering of the Son of Man.

(4) The Sayings at the Last Supper.

(5) The Sayings in the Conversations after the Supper.

(6) The Saying at the Arrest about the Power of Darkness.

(7) The Crucifixion Sayings.

It will be seen that these sayings are fewer in number than those in Mark. It must be remembered, however, that the L Source is less than two-thirds the size of Mark, and that, relatively to its size, it is almost as rich as Mark in sayings of the kind. Parallels to the Markan sayings have already been mentioned as they appear, and the question how far the L sayings are independent of Mark will receive constant attention in the discussion.

(1) The Saying about the Coming Baptism (Lk. xii. 49f.).

49. 'I came to cast fire upon the earth;

And what will I, if it is already kindled?

50. But I have a baptism to be baptized with;

And how am I straitened till it be accomplished?'

The passage is followed in Lk. xii. 51-3 by sayings which speak of the sufferings and 'divisions' which are to ensue. To these sayings, but not to Lk. xii. 49f., there 177 are parallels in Mt. x. 34f., but the verbal agreement is slight, and it is probable that Lk. xii. 49-53 is an excerpt from the L Source.11   Cf. Easton, 210. It is possible that the arrangement is editorial, and it is therefore uncertain whether xii. 49f. stands in its original context, but, in view of its structure, it is almost certain that this passage is a unit. The parallelism is even more marked if we read 49b, as we probably should, as an exclamation or wish: 'How I wish it were already kindled!'22   In view of the possibility of an Aramaic original. Cf. Torrey, The Four Gospels, 150, 310; Easton, 209; Creed, 178; Moffatt: 'Would it were kindled already!'

Many commentators understand the 'fire' to be 'the fire of discord',33   Cf. Easton, 209; Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, 140f.; Loisy, L'Evangile selon Luc, 355; Plummer, 334. Plummer also suggests 'the fire of holiness'. and some explain it as 'the fire of judgment',44   Cf. Montefiore, op. cit., ii. 495. but neither suggestion agrees well with the longing expressed in 49b, and it is perhaps best to interpret it as 'the fire of righteousness'55   Cf. W. Manson, St. Luke, 160. or 'the fire of holiness',66   Cf. Plummer, 334. especially if the passage is not in its original context.77   The idea of discord is suggested by Lk. xii. 51-3.

Lk. xii. 50 immediately recalls to mind Mk. x. 3888   See pp. 97ff., where a like use is made of the metaphor of plunging into the waters of affliction (cf. Psa. xlii. 7, lxix. 2, 15; Isa. xliii. 2); but there can be no reasonable doubt that the two sayings are quite independent. Each is distinctive; and the Lukan passage markedly so, by reason of its close association with the preceding words and the subsequent mention of inner constraint. The reference in the metaphor is undoubtedly to suffering and death.99   Cf. Creed, 178. Luce 178 interprets the saying well when he says: 'In His full humanity the horror of what is in front of Him presses heavily on His soul.'11   St. Luke, 235. Easton reminds us that J. Weiss called attention to the extreme indirectness of the reference to the Passion, as almost positive evidence of its originality.22   St. Luke, 209. Montefiore, who also refers to the opinion of Weiss, says of the attitude of Jesus: 'It seems too human a touch to have been invented.'33   Op. cit., ii. 496.

The genuineness of the saying, however, has not escaped question; and it is one of the more remarkable examples of Bultmann's treatment that he favourably considers the possibility that, either xii. 50 is a secondary expansion of xii. 49 and is a 'prophecy after the event', or both verses are derived from a Gnostic redemption-myth, in which the 'fire' is the judgment by which the earthly world is destroyed, and the 'baptism' is the spiritual dedication of the divine 'envoy' at the time of his ascent into the heavenly world.44   Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 165. It is perhaps enough to chronicle this striking example of the thoroughness with which Bultmann discusses remote alternatives. It should be added also that Montefiore, in spite of the words quoted above, expresses grave doubt 'whether we are in a position to judge properly as to the authenticity or even the meaning of obscure sayings such as these'.55   Op. cit., ii. 496. This, I think, is a just observation as regards the meaning of xii. 49, but not of xii. 50, which, in relation to 'the baptism of death', is perfectly clear. As to the authenticity of this saying, reasonable doubt seems to be answered by Montefiore's question: 'Would the idealizing reporter or Evangelist have said that Jesus feared the anticipated death?'

The distinctiveness of the saying is the urgency with 179 which suffering and death are contemplated, and the absence of any reference to triumph and exaltation. The verb sunexomai11   See Acts. xviii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 14; Phil. i. 23. suggests the idea of a constraining impulse which brooks no delay and can tolerate no obstacle, but there is about the word in this saying an atmosphere of distress which is well expressed by Moffatt's translation: 'I have a baptism to undergo. How I am distressed till it is all over!' In this respect the saying anticipates the experiences of Gethsemane. It is unfortunate that we cannot date the utterance with any precision; all that can be said is that it probably belongs to the later stages of the Galilean Mission. Even so, it is important as showing that what we call the 'Passion' begins in the course of the active Ministry. At the same time it is another example of the decisive significance which Jesus attached to His death and the passionate earnestness with which He contemplated it.22   J. A. Findlay suggests 'impatience', Abingdon Commentary, 1046. 'Till it be accomplished' suggests more than an end reached; it points to the idea of death as a decisive act, which has significance in itself. The idea of death as an inevitable fate or an accident seems far removed from this saying. The thought of death as an act of consecration may be implied, but of this we cannot be sure; what is certain is the thought of a destiny to be fulfilled.

(2) The Reply to Herod Antipas (Lk. xiii. 32f.).


In most modern commentaries a good deal of attention is given to the shortened form into which Wellhausen recasts this saying; it is therefore desirable to see first what the saying means as it stands.

The words are a reply to the warning of the Pharisees: 'Get thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee,' which is perhaps inspired by Antipas himself. The response of Jesus is a firm determination to continue in the way appointed to Him: 'Go and say to that fox. Behold, I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected.' It is very unlikely that the reference is to three actual days or to the three years of the ministry.11   Cf. Plummer, 349f.; Klostermann, 148. The expression probably means a short divinely appointed time, as in Hos. vi. 2: 'After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him.'22   Cf. Plummer, 350. Klostermann also refers to Jas. iv. 13 and to Eplctetus iv. 10, 31: aurion e eis triten dei e auton apothaveiv e ekeinos There is no reference to the Resurrection in the phrase 'the third day'; indeed, there cannot be, for in that case the preceding days would be those of the Crucifixion and the day following, whereas the period is one during which Jesus effects exorcisms and cures. The words indicate that for a time Jesus will continue His Messianic activity, but that already the end is in sight. There is no suggestion that He intends, if only for a brief interval, to remain in Herod's dominions; the temporal expressions relate solely to the duration of the ministry, and the question of locality does not arise until verse 33.

What is the meaning of 'I am perfected'? The verb teleioumai is probably passive,33   Cf. Easton, 222; Plummer, 350; Klostermann, 148. and means 'I am brought to an end', or 'to completion'. Moffatt's translation 181 is: 'I complete my task'; Weymouth's: 'I shall finish my course'; Loisy's: 'Je suis a mon terme' ('I am about to arrive at my end'). The reference is to death, but to death as the culmination of the entire ministry. There appears to be implied the idea of death as crowned with victory, in which case resurrection or exaltation, as well as death, is suggested.11   So Loisy, Les Evangiles synoptiques, ii. 126f. Cf. Montefiore: 'Loisy translates teleioumai, "je suis a mon terme"; I am about to arrive at my end, namely, the full accomplishment of my mission by my entry into glory and by the advent of the Kingdom. My ministry is nearly over: the denouement is at hand', ii. 506. Cf. K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 266. In the Papyri teleiow is used of 'executing' a deed. For its use in Biblical Greek see Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 63ff.

Lk. xiii. 33 explains why Jesus must leave Herod's dominions. It is not because of His veiled threats, but because Jerusalem is the fitting place for His suffering. During the appointed time, 'to-day, to-morrow, and the day following,' He must continue on His way, for, as He says with a fine irony, 'it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.'

Interpreted in this way, the passage yields a clear meaning, well related to its context, and marked by characteristic traits of resolution and irony as in other sayings of Jesus (cf. Mk. viii. 31, &c.; xiv. 41f., &c.). Nothing suggests the work of the Christian community. The use of the expression 'the third day' without reference to the Resurrection, and the presence of the bare term 'a prophet', discourage such a suggestion; and the use of the phrase 'I am perfected', although reminiscent of Heb. ii. 10, v. 9, vii. 28, yields a natural sense in its context. The one point which appears strange is the phrase 'to-day and to-morrow, and the third day' in 32 with reference to exorcism, cures, and death, and the similar phrase 'to-day 182 and to-morrow and the day following' in 33 in connexion with a journey to Jerusalem. Is this a sign of interpolation, or is the repetition deliberate?

Wellhausen's view11   Das Evangelium Lucae, 76. Good accounts of Wellhausen's views are given by Creed, 187; Easton, 222; Montefiore, op. cit., ii. 505f. is that the saying has suffered from interpolation. He proposes to omit 'and the third day I am perfected' in 32, and 'to-day and to-morrow' in 33. This implies the reading: 'Behold, I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow; nevertheless, on the day following, I must go on my way: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.'

There can be no doubt that, as thus reconstructed, the passage runs more smoothly, but, of course, this is not in itself a sufficient justification for the reconstruction; and, in fact, the proposal is open to serious objections, (1) Verse 32 is made prosaic; it becomes an explanation why, for the time being, Jesus cannot comply with the advice given. He has duties to perform. The idea of a Messianic activity which finds its climax in death is softened by the omission of 'and the third day I am perfected', and the reason for delay is purely humanitarian. (2) In the reconstruction, 'to-day and to-morrow' refers to the work of exorcism and healing to Galilee or Peraea. The meaning, therefore, is: 'Not just yet, but soon.' In the saying, as it stands, an immediate departure is implied, but it is defended, not only, as in Wellhausen's text, by the ironical observation that Jerusalem is the appropriate place for martyrdom, but also by the veiled assertion of a Messianic destiny. He is to be 'perfected'. (3) The allusive reference in teleioumai is hardly the kind of addition one would expect in an interpolation, especially when it is connected with 'the third day', in the sense of a brief interval. (4) In the text as it stands, the repetition in 32 183 and 33 may well be deliberate and resumptive. The healing activity crowned by death falls within a brief appointed time. It is fitting, therefore, to repeat the reference to the time interval in connexion with the statement about the fateful journey.

For these reasons, then, it must be concluded that, while Wellhausen's reconstruction provides a smoother text, it does so at the expense of the originality of the saying. The note of urgency, and the sense of a mission, do not disappear, but they are sensibly diminished. The roughness of an original message gives place to a rendering which, if it appeared, let us say, in Matthew's Gospel, we should call a secondary version revealing the redactor's hand. The meaning of the original saying is well brought out by Easton when he writes: 'The sense is: "God, not Herod, has determined how the short remaining space of my life shall be spent, and I shall go on carrying out my commission. This will, to be sure, involve leaving Galilee, but not from any fear of Herod".'11   Op. cit., 222. In order to obtain this reference to God and to a 'commission', the presence of 'the third day I am perfected' within the saying is indispensable; and there is no need to resort to interpolation theories22   K. L. Schmidt and R. Bultmann agree with Wellhausen that the saying has suffered from interpolation, but each solves the critical problem differently. Schmidt's view is that the Evangelist has expanded 32a, the original saying, by the aid of an old Easter-confession in 32b, and a community-saying with reference to the Passion which he uses to supply a motive for the last journey to Jerusalem in 33. Cf. Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, 265ff. Bultmann thinks that, either 33 is an isolated saying which has been added ad vocem in view of 'to-day and to-morrow' in 32, or the secondary elements are 32b and the word 'howbeit' in 33. These suggestions are more precarious and arbitrary than Wellhausen's theory, which obviously offers no resting-place in the critical inquiry. Cf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 35. since both ideas are essential elements in the Messianic consciousness of Jesus.


(3) The Suffering and Rejection of the Son of Man (Lk. xvii. 25).

'But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this generation.'

This passage is distinct from the three similar sayings which Luke has derived from Mk. (Lk. ix. 22, 44; xviii. 31-3). For the most part the commentaries say little concerning xvii. 25, beyond the observation that it agrees closely with ix. 22 and appears to be an interpolation in its present context.11   This silence is due to the uncertainty of the critical data. Cf. Easton, 265; Klostermann, 175; Grieve, Peake's Commentary, 737; Montefiore, op. cit., ii. 550; J. T. Hudson, Expository Times, xxxiv. 187f. That xvii. 25 is an insertion is very probable. It stands awkwardly in an eschatological discourse which describes the sudden and unexpected coming of the Son of Man (xvii. 23-37), and interrupts the excellent connexion between 24, which uses the metaphor of lightning, and 26-9 which describe the deluge and the destruction of the cities of the plain. The intention of the insertion is obviously to insist upon the suffering of the Son of Man as a necessary prelude to the Parousia. But the claim that xvii. 25 is an insertion does not carry us far, for it leaves open the threefold possibility that the addition was made by a copyist, or by the Evangelist, or by an unknown hand in the Q Source; and, in each case, the farther question remains whether the passage is an independent saying or merely an adaptation of ix. 22.

The suggestion that the passage is a copyist's insertion is a mere guess unsupported by textual evidence. Between the remaining explanations it is impossible to decide; but this fact is of little importance, inasmuch as, in either case, we are left with the same conclusion. If Luke added the passage, it is not likely that he derived it from ix. 22, 185 in spite of the verbal similarities; for ix. 22 is Markan,11   Cf. Mk. viii. 31. while xvii. 23-37 is from Q, and in the Third Gospel there is no certain example of a Markan insertion in a Q context.22   Cf. Behind the Third Gospel, 161f., and for the view that Mk. is not used in Lk. ix. 51-xviii. 14 see J. C. Hawkins, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 29-59. The presumption, therefore, is that Luke derived the saying from L. If, however, he found xvii. 25 in its present context, an earlier compiler must have taken it from L, since, on this hypothesis, derivation from Mark is even more improbable. Even if the passage is a comment, rather than a saying, it still reflects a belief, current in a non-Markan circle, that Jesus had spoken of His suffering as the Son of Man. Whatever, therefore, may be the precise history of xvii. 25, there is good reason to trace the passage to the L tradition.33   W. Bussmann (Synoptische Studien, ii. 92, 131) agrees with B. Weiss (Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, 86) in tracing the saying to Q, in spite of the absence of a parallel in Mt.

Among recent writers Otto44   Reich Gottes und Menschensohn, 312. and Goguel55   The Life of Jesus, 390-2. have noted the importance of this saying.

Otto's view of its place in the development of the thought of Jesus in relation to His Messianic suffering has already been indicated in the discussion of Mk. viii. 31, ix. 31, and x. 33f. In sayings such as Lk. xii. 50; Mk. ix. 12b, ix. 31a, and Lk. xvii. 25, he sees the simplest and most reliable examples of genuine prophetic anticipation. Of the first of these sayings he declares that no one at a later time would have invented a vaticinium ex eventu in such a form. The formulation is clearer in Mk. ix. 12b, and Lk. xvii. 25, he says, corresponds to it.

In the opinion of Goguel Lk. xvii. 25 falls into a different category from the triple announcement of suffering, 186 death, and resurrection in Mk. viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33f. In these passages he sees 'a certain theological basis'; Lk. xvii. 25, on the other hand, makes no mention of death and resurrection, and 'cannot have been invented by tradition'. Goguel is very much on his guard against any attempt to introduce into the interpretation of the saying later doctrines of redemption. He describes it as expressing the result of the meditations of Jesus and says that 'all it affirms is that his sufferings will be efficacious', On his own interpretation of the saying this is a patent understatement, for he says that Jesus 'had the assurance that his sufferings formed part of the plan which God, in his infinite wisdom, had designed for the establishment of his Kingdom', and claims that the sacrifice Jesus accepted 'reinforced the sense of vocation itself.11   Op. cit., 391. 'Jesus', he says, 'did not believe that he was the Messiah although he had to suffer; he believed that he was the Messiah because he had to suffer. This is the great paradox, the great originality, of his Gospel.'22   Op. cit., 392. Obviously, very much more than 'simply a directly religious affirmation' is involved in a saying like Lk. xvii. 25 which voices the necessity of suffering and rejection. A saying of this kind is dogmatic as well as religious, even if the dogma is not that of later theological systems. It is dogmatic in the sense that it involves a theory, however broadly it may be expressed, in respect of the conditions under which the Kingdom comes or is established. One is reminded of the claim of Schweitzer that the resolve to suffer and to die and the prediction of the sufferings 'are dogmatic, and therefore historical; because they find their explanation in eschatological conceptions'.33   The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 385. Whether the conceptions are not more than 187 eschatological remains to be considered, and certainly they are not expressed in the saying under review. This particular saying is valuable because, as coming from another source, it broadens the basis for the assertion that Jesus was convinced that He 'must suffer' in fulfilling His strong sense of vocation.

(4) The Sayings connected with the Last Supper (Lk. xxii. 15f., 17f.).

(14). 'And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles

(15). with him. And he said unto them. With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say

(16). unto you, I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of

(17). God. And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks,

(18). he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine

(19). until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body [which is given for you: this do in re-

(20). membrance 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].'

Of these sayings 15f. is peculiar to Lk. There is a parallel to 18 in Mk. xiv. 25, but probably the two are independent versions of the same saying. To the sayings in 19f. there are close parallels in 1 Cor. xi. 24f. and Mk. xiv. 22, 24. 19b, 20 are omitted in D and in the Old Latin MSS., a b e ff2 i l.

It is impossible to discuss the Lukan sayings adequately without giving some attention to the narrative as a whole. From the critical point of view this narrative is of great interest because, to some extent, it is possible to see how a relatively simple story has been developed into a narrative of Institution. As the textual evidence suggests, 19b, 20 is a subsequent scribal addition based almost 188 entirely on 1 Cor. xi. 24f.11   Cf. Hort, Introduction, Appendix, 63f.; Creed, 263f.; Easton, 321f. Among recent writers Goguel accepts the longer text, on the ground that it explains the textual variants, op. cit., 447, 458-60. Dibelius explains 19b, 20 as a third variant which has proceeded farther than Mk. xiv. and 1 Cor. in the development of the explanatory words of institution, op. cit., 210. Several critics have also held that 19a is an interpolation,22   Cf. Blass, The Philology of the Gospels, 179ff. but no manuscript evidence favours this view, except the fact that the passage follows 16 in some Old Latin MSS. (b and e) and in the Old Syriac.33   With additions this arrangement is found in sysc, syP omits f. But if 19a is original, it is clear that it has been derived from Mk. xiv. 2244   Cf. Behind the Third Gospel, 37. by the Evangelist and that 14-18 represents the original account in the L Source. The additions made by Luke (19a) and by later copyists (19b, 20) are successive attempts to bring the narrative in L into line with the Markan and Pauline stories.

If this critical reconstruction is sound, Lk. xxii. 14-18 is invested with the greatest interest and serious historical problems are raised. In this passage there are no words of institution and there is no reference to the bread, while the two sayings in 15f. and 18 are eschatological in content. Is such a narrative conceivable in an early source, and, if so, what bearing has it upon the parallel accounts in Mark and 1 Cor. xi. 23-5?

So brief is the original account that it is not surprising that some scholars have found its continuation in 28-30. Bacon sees the narrative of Luke's special source in 15-19a, 28-34,55   The Gospel of Mark, 178ff. and Otto finds the sequel to 19a in 29f.66   Reich Gottes und Menschensohn, 227-34.

The effect of Otto's rearrangement is striking, and it leads to most interesting suggestions. By bringing the saying; 'And I appoint unto you a kingdom. . .'(29f.) 189 into immediate connexion with the words: 'This is my body,' he is able to develop the argument that it is, as the One who is to be 'broken', that Jesus gives to His disciples the inheritance of the Kingdom. He does this because He takes upon Himself the suffering of death and imparts to them a share in its atoning and consecrating power.11   Op. cit., 246.

It may well be that Otto has rightly heard the undertones of the great saying in 29f., but it is doubtful if the critical foundations of his exegesis are sound. It is entirely justifiable to argue, as Otto does, that the sections 21-3 (The Prediction of the Betrayal) and 24-7 (The Discourse on True Greatness) are inserted by the Evangelist into his source, for these are self-contained sections which may well have existed independently of their present connexion,22   Op. cit., 228-31. and there is certainly a marked similarity in the subject-matter of 29f. and 18. It is also with justice that Otto rejects Wellhausen's view that 19a is a scribal insertion.33   Op. cit., 227. But can this passage, which is in almost verbatim agreement with Mk. xiv. 22, be regarded as anything else but a Markan insertion made by the Evangelist in his source? It is also open to serious question whether Otto is justified in cancelling 2844   Op. cit., 231. as a redactional supplement because the peirasmoi still lie in the future both for Jesus and His disciples. Jesus speaks only of His own 'trials', which without difficulty can be found in His conflicts with the scribes,55   Cf. also Mk. viii. 33 and Lk. iv. 13. and as regards His disciples He says no more than that they have 'continued with' Him. If therefore the Evangelist has inserted 21-7, it is better to find the original account of the Supper in 14-8, 28-30; and indeed there is a natural transition between 18, in 190 which Jesus speaks of Himself, and 28 where He addresses the disciples. All reconstructions of this kind, however, are speculative, and in the present inquiry 28-30 will be treated separately.

However the Lukan account of the Supper is delimited, the problem of its restricted character remains. One possible explanation is that the Evangelist regarded the narrative of institution as an arcanum fidei, to be reserved for believers but hidden from profane eyes. This explanation has been put forward by H. N. Bate,11   Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1927, p. 367f. and more recently by J. Jeremias22   Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (1935), 45ff. who has long held this view. Jeremias argues that the tendency manifest in the Lukan account is further illustrated in the silence of the Epistle to the Hebrews and especially in the Fourth Gospel. He explains the greater detail in the Markan account by tracing the source back to the period before 49-50 A.D. to which the teaching contained in the Pauline narrative of 1 Cor. xi. 23-5 (written in 55 A.D.) belongs. On this theory it remains a difficulty that, even if the source used by Mark was so early, the account was made public in his Gospel when published in 65-70 A.D., and that, with greater detail, it was repeated in the First Gospel some fifteen or twenty years later. This objection is not conclusive, for the practice of secret discipline reserved for the elect need not have been universal. None the less, the explanation cannot be said to be more than a possibility which may be true.

An alternative explanation accounts for the Lukan narrative by the dominance of the eschatological interests which it reveals. It is this aspect of the Supper which specially appealed to the mind of the community in which the account was current, and it is this supreme interest 191 which determined the elements in the tradition which were emphasized. The existing liturgical practice may also have given prominence to the distribution of the wine and to the saying of Jesus which anticipates the joys of the perfected Kingdom. It is not to be assumed that the tradition relating to the bread, or other words of institution, were unknown to the community; they were taken for granted, and possibly at an early stage in its history their full significance was not appreciated as in other communities. If the Lukan account is regarded as a narrative of institution and a record of what was said and done, its omissions are serious indeed; but such an assumption is the delusion of an obsolete criticism, least of all to be entertained by formgeschichtliche critics, since they trace the origin of narratives to the interests of primitive communities. Such a narrative as Luke gives must be judged by its contents, and not by its omissions. Elements that are omitted are not thereby compromised, but must be judged in connexion with the narratives which contain them.

Of the alternative explanations given above the second appears to be the better, but, in view of our very limited knowledge of the conditions under which such narratives were formed, either may be true; it is even possible that both the desire for secrecy11   Cf. Dalman: 'It is... not incredible that the words in connexion with the wine were suppressed since they might be misunderstood, and lead to accusations against Christ's followers...' Jesus-Jeshua, 156. and the eschatological interests of the community were formative factors. In any case, it is precarious to set the Lukan narrative over against the Markan and to argue that one is historical and the other is not. In view of its contents the Lukan narrative is undoubtedly primitive, but it is not a standard by which other accounts are to be judged.


(a) '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 eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God (Lk. xxii. 15f.).

The Western reading: 'I will no longer eat it' (cf. A.V.) is probably an assimilation to the text of Mk. xiv. 25. So also the reading: 'until it be eaten new'.

F. C. Burkitt and A. E. Brooke have argued that the saying implies that the Supper was not the Passover Meal.11   The Journal of Theological Studies, ix. 569-72; xvii. 295. Jesus has earnestly desired to keep the feast, but He sees that death will prevent Him from doing so; He therefore says that He will not eat the Passover until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. This interpretation is also supported by R. H. Kennett22   The Church of Israel, 211; W. M. Ramsay, Expository Times, xxi. 344. and others, and, although it is by no means universally accepted,33   It is rejected by J. M. Creed, 265, and is not referred to by B. S. Easton. it seems to me to give the natural sense of the saying.

It is probable that Luke himself identified the Supper with the Passover Meal, since in xxii. 7 he emphasizes the fact that on the day of unleavened bread 'the passover must be sacrificed' (cf. Mk. xiv. 12); but it may well be that the saying itself implies that the Supper is not the Passover Meal, since so strong a desire is associated with so emphatic a statement that He will not eat 'until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God'. In this case, the L Source was in agreement with the Fourth Gospel44   Cf. Jn. xviii. 28; xix. 14. as regards the date of the Supper;55   Streeter says of Lk. xxii. 15 that the words 'suggest, though they do not quite compel, the view that in his source the Last Supper was conceived as taking place on the day before the Passover,' The Four Gospels, 423. R. H. Lightfbot says that the words may almost be described as 'the despair of commentators.' 'They appear to support the view of the preceding verses that the last supper was a passover, and thus serve to bind the narrative together; but at the same time they certainly suggest that our Lord did not partake of it, and in this way they help to explain the absence of any passover reference in the story of the meal itself.' History and Interpretation in the Gospels, 168. and, in composing his Gospel, 193 Luke must have abandoned its representation under the influence of Mark.11   I have treated this point more fully in Behind the Third Gospel, 35-40. In maintaining this view there is no need to suggest that Luke has substituted the word 'Passover' for an original reference to a common meal, for there is every reason to think that Jesus spoke of the Passover. It is especially in relation to the celebration of a Passover that the strong emotion under which He spoke is intelligible. Moreover, the Markan story of Preparations for the Passover (Mk. xiv. 12-6) illustrates His intention to partake of this feast. On this interpretation of Lk. xxii. 15, it is not of the meal which is in progress that Jesus speaks when He says that He 'will not eat, but of the Passover Meal, and the fulfilment to which He looks is that of the Messianic Feast of the Kingdom.

The points discussed above are matters of considerable historical interest, but they do not seriously affect the question of the significance of the Supper. Even if the Supper is not the Passover Meal, the saying reveals how strongly Paschal associations dominated the mind of Jesus. For the purposes of our investigation its most important exegetical features are the references to suffering and to the consummation of the Kingdom.

The phrase, 'before I suffer,' in which no object to the verb is expressed, is felt by Dalman to be strange, especially in Aramaic;22   Op. cit., 128. Dalman suggests that one expects: 'Until I suffer according to all that is written concerning me' (cf. Lk. xxii. 37). The critical objections which would be raised against such a text can easily be imagined. and it may be that it summarizes, in 194 what later came to be conventional language, the actual words of Jesus. That the thought of His suffering filled His mind at this time, is already clear; the remarkable feature in the saying is the association of this thought with a cry of longing relating to the Passover. Why does Jesus earnestly desire to eat the Passover before He suffers? The answer can only be that the Passover has a special significance for Him in connexion with His Passion. Does this fact suggest that Jeremias is right in maintaining that Jesus interpreted His death by means of ideas connected with the shedding of the blood of the Passover Lamb at the departure from Egypt?11   See p. 138f and the discussion of Mk. xiv. 24. The brevity of the Lukan account does not permit of a decided answer, but it is significant that the question arises in a narrative in which eschatological interests are almost supreme. The correct conclusion to draw is that if this interpretation is valid in Mk. xiv. 24, where Jesus speaks of His 'blood of the covenant', it is in harmony with the present Lukan saying. The same inference is supported by the reference to the Messianic Feast in the perfected Kingdom. This feast is the expression of a consummated fellowship, anticipated by Jesus with a certainty which admits of no doubt. He expects to eat that feast in company with His disciples, and had desired to celebrate the Passover as, in some sense, its anticipation. Meantime His sufferings lie near. The conclusion is irresistible that He regarded His death as an activity making the consummation possible. This conviction is entirely in agreement with the thought that His blood is covenant-blood. Whether Jeremias supplies the right foundation for this thought, or whether it is to be sought in Ex. xxiv. 8, remains the secret of Mk. xiv. 24, and to its solution Lk. xxii. 15f. contributes no more than the proof that 195 Paschal associations filled the mind of Jesus at the Supper.11   Otto's suggestion that Lk. xxii. 16 is a redactional assimilation to xxii. 18 is unacceptable because the former saying refers to the Passover and the latter to the Supper itself. There is no reason why an anticipation of the Messianic Feast shoidd not be expressed in both, especially as the anticipation is so strong. Cf. *Reich Gottes und Menschensohn, 234f.

(b) 'And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: (18) for I say unto you, I will not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come' (Lk, xxii. 17f.; cf. Mk. xiv. 25).

The saving in verse 17 occupies the place filled in the Markan account by the words: 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many.' It is obviously a different saying, but, in narratives which are not reports, there is no reason to infer that the one excludes the other, since more was actually said at the Supper than any one narrative records.

Otto understands the receiving of the cup in the light of Psa. cxvi. 13: 'I will take the cup of salvation, and call on the name of the Lord,' and explains the giving of thanks as the dedication of the cup by the use of the ancient formula: 'Blessed art Thou, Eternal, our God, King of the world, who hast made the fruit of the vine,'22   Op. cit., 242f. Dalman suggests that the traditional words: 'Blessed art Thou who hast created the fruit of the vine', were used, but also says that other benedictions were attached to the wine cup, and, like Otto, refers to Psa. cxvi. 13. Cf. Jesus-Jeshua, 150. It would have been a breach of custom, as observed at the Passover and at other sacred meals, if Jesus Himself had not first drunk of the cup,33   Cf. Plummer, 495f. and although the narrative contains no explicit statement, the fact of participation is probably implied in verse 18.44   See below


The saying in verse 18 is also recorded in Mk. xiv. 25.11   See pp. 139ff. In spite of natural verbal similarities, it is probable that the two versions are independent,22   Easton observes that a different Greek wording would hardly have been possible, St. Luke, 322f. and that of the two the Markan is more original. The Lukan phrase, 'until the kingdom of God shall come,' appears to ignore the true sense in which Jesus believed the Kingdom to have come already, and seems to be a summary edition of the more original words preserved in Mark: 'until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.' Some critics33   Cf. Otto, op. cit., 244; Jeremias, op. cit., 63. think that, in placing the saying at the beginning of the meal, Luke is more original than Mark who records it at the end. This opinion has some justification for certainly the words are loosely appended to Mk. xiv. 24, but the point is not one which can be established.

The meaning of the saying has already been considered in discussing Mk. xiv. 25, but, while it undoubtedly anticipates the joys of the perfected Kingdom, there are special features which emerge in Lk. xxii, 17f. The word 'for' is interesting, and, if the saying is in its right position, it is significant. The meaning cannot be: 'Do you share the cup; I will not, until the Messianic Feast,' for no reason is thereby given why He should not drink now. The antithesis suggested is rather that between the Messianic Feast and the entire action of the present on the part of Jesus and His disciples. The suggestion is that to drink now is to anticipate the Messianic Banquet, and, for this reason, one must infer that Jesus drank first; otherwise the saying loses its meaning.44   Wellhausen says that to read out of Lk. xxii. 17 that Jesus Himself did not drink is an incredible playing with words (unglaubliche Wortklauberei), *Das Evangelium Marci, 116n. But the 197 change to the first person remains to be accounted for: why does Jesus say so pointedly: 'I will not drink from henceforth'? The answer can only be that He is thinking of His approaching death; He can no more share with them the cup as He is doing now. Thus, the present fellowship is a farewell meal as well as an anticipation of the future. The thought lies very near that there had been other meals of the kind, without the special associations created by the approach of separation and death; and probably Schweitzer is right in finding the historical basis of the meals described in Mk. vi. 35-44 and viii. 1-10 in 'eschatological sacraments'.11   The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 374-80. The further suggestion that, although Jesus would no longer drink with them, they themselves would continue to keep the feast, is not excluded; but it is to strain the meaning of the saying unwarrantably to see in it the equivalent of a command and a virtual institution of the Christian Eucharist.22   Cf. N. P. Williams, Essays Catholic and Critical, 402-7. The Kingdom of God is not the Christian Church and faith, nor is the Messianic Banquet the Eucharist. There is no justification for the interpretation: 'The next time that we shall meet together on such an occasion as this, I shall still be the Host, though present invisibly, and not in tangible form,' op. cit., 406. See O. C. Quick, The Christian Sacraments, 191n. The explicit command: 'This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me,' is attested only by St. Paul,33   1 Cor. xi. 25. See pp. 206ff. and, of the Synoptic narratives, all that can be said is that they are not inconsistent with this tradition and do not exclude it by their silence. The importance of Lk. xxii. 17f. is the close association it establishes between the Supper, the approaching death, and the consummation of the Kingdom in the thought of Jesus. The certainty of the consummation, so quietly assumed, gives urgency to the command to share the cup now as the expression of a 198 fellowship unmenaced by death. Far from being threatened by separation, the fellowship is the more intense as death draws near. But what is the closer relationship between the Supper and the death, the saying does not disclose, and for this significance it is necessary to examine other sayings. What Lk. xxii. 17f. does permit us to say is that the connexion is intimate and that, in the expression of fellowship, death is faced with unconquered hope and certainty.

(5) Sayings in the Conversations after the Supper (Lk. xxii. 27, 28-30, 37).

Unlike Mk., the Third Gospel contains the account of certain conversations between Jesus and His disciples before the departure to the Mount of Olives, and in this respect it approximates to the arrangement of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Jn. xiii.-xvi.). Three sayings are specially important in view of their bearing upon the attitude of Jesus to His suffering and death. These are (a) the saying concerning service (xxii. 27); (b) the words about the disciples in the New Age (xxii. 28-30); and (c) the application by Jesus to Himself of the words of Isa. liii. 12: 'And he was reckoned with transgressors' (xxii. 37).

(a) 'I am in the midst of you as he that serveth' (Lk. xxii. 27; cf. Mk. x. 41-5).

This passage claims attention because of its theme and its position. Both Lk. xxii. 24-7 and Mk. x. 41-511   See pp. 99ff. are concerned with the subject of service, but it is probable that they are derived from different sources.22   Cf. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae, 123; Creed, 267; Easton, 324; Streeter, The Four Gospels, 210. Possibly, the reference to a 'contention' (Lk. xxii. 24) is an echo of what is stated in Mk. x. 41 ('And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John'). In The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 154, I have argued that, in early tradition, there is a tendency for details to pass over from one story to another. That Luke 199 owes the section to Mark is most unlikely, in view of the differences of vocabulary, of substance, and of position. Moreover, its agreement with the Johannine story of the Feetwashing (xiii. 1-17) suggests that, in associating the words with the Supper, Luke is following a definite tradition;11   This view is not affected by the possibility that Luke has inserted the passage into its present context. See p. 177. for it is hazardous to maintain that Jn. xiii. 1-17 is a free composition based on Lk. xxii. 24-7.

The importance of Lk. xxii. 27 for our investigation is that, while it does not refer to suffering and death, it illustrates the dominating place which the thought of service occupied in the mind of Jesus on the last night of His life. 'Service', however, is a very elastic term, and nothing could be more misleading than to give it some general humanitarian significance, and then to suppose that this is the meaning which Jesus found in His life and death. The words probably echo the ideas of Isa. liii., but of this we cannot be certain.

(b) 'But ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations; (29) and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me, (30) that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel' (Lk. xxii. 28-30; cf. Mt. xix. 28).

The parallel to vv. 28, 30 in Mt. xix. 28 is inserted in a Markan context as a reply to the words of Peter: 'Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee' (Mk. x. 28). This position is inferior to that in Lk., since the insertion breaks the excellent connexion between Peter's words and the reply of Jesus: 'Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house . . .' (Mk. x. 29).


As we have already seen, some scholars bring this saying, or part of it, into closer connexion with the giving of the cup.11   See pp. 176ff. The suggestion has much in its favour, but, in view of its speculative character, it is best to take the passage as it stands, since, whatever its original position may have been, it is closely associated with the Supper.

It is as a saying strongly influenced by the prospect of death that the words call for notice here; for, although there is no direct reference to death, what is said is spoken in view of its swift approach. The peirasmoi, through which the disciples have 'continued with' Jesus, may be the trials preceding the Messianic Age, but are better explained as the conflicts and struggles of His Ministry, especially those connected with the prospect of His Messianic suffering and death. During these trials the disciples had been far from entering into His mind and purpose, but always He had been able to count on their fidelity. For this reason He now announces to them the certainty of their part in the perfected Kingdom.

Verse 29 is not easy to interpret. The common meaning of diatithemai is 'I appoint', or 'assign', but it is probable that in this saying it reflects the use of the Biblical diatheke = 'covenant', and should therefore be rendered 'I covenant'. 22   Cf. Creed, 269. Easton, 325, suggests 'appoint'; cf. Moffatt's translation. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae, 123f., prefers 'bequeath'. Otto, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn, 226, points out the advantage of English in the use of the verb 'to covenant'. It is best to find the object of the verb in the clause: 'that ye may eat and drink,' and to reserve Basileian, in the sense of 'lordship' or 'kingly rule,' 33   As distinct from te Basileia, 'the Kingdom,' in 30. Cf. Wellhausen, op. cit., 124; Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, 212. 201 as the object of dietheto.11   Cf. Creed, 269; Easton, 325. See also the punctuation of WH. Most commentators take the noun with both verbs; cf. Plummer, 502. For the freer use of iva in Hellenistic Greek with the subjunctive, see J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena, 206ff. On this view, the saying may be translated: 'Even as my Father covenanted unto me lordship, I covenant unto you that ye shall eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.'22   Codex D, some Old Latin MSS., and the Curetonian Syriac omit 'my', probably correctly. The idea is that, in virtue of the royal power which He has received from His Father, Jesus can guarantee their participation in the joy of the perfected rule of God.

In verse 30 the further promise is made that the disciples will be rulers33   Wellhausen remarks: 'krinew is "to rule" as often in the Old Testament,' Das Evangelium Matthaei, 99. Cf. Easton, 325. in the New Age: they will 'sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel'. Some scholars think that these words are unsuitable in their present position, since the promise is made to the Twelve (cf. Mt. xix. 28). But this is so only in Matthew. Luke may have omitted the reference to 'twelve' thrones, while retaining the phrase 'the twelve tribes', in order 'to soften the awkwardness' of the saying;44   Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, ii. 599. but it is just as possible, and even more probable, that Matthew has inserted the number.55   Note the context of Mt. xix. 28. It is fully in keeping with the drift of 29 that in 30 the disciples are invested with authority, and the phrase, 'the twelve tribes of Israel' is a conventional expression for the members of the Kingdom. Bultmann's view is that the saying is a formation of the primitive Palestinian community: the speaker is the Risen Christ, and 'in it first were the Twelve regarded as rulers of Israel in the New Aeon'.66   Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 170f. Neither argument is weighty. The 202 first is a mere assumption; the second offers no reason why Jesus is not the speaker. As Luke records them, the words are perfectly relevant to the situation, and, in the absence of forcible objections, their marked Semitic character points to their originality.

The importance of the entire saying is the revelation which it gives of the strong consciousness of authority which Jesus possessed in relation to the Kingdom; He is endowed by the Father with the powers of royal rule. Equally clear is His certainty concerning the consummation of the Kingdom and His right to assign to the disciples the part they are to play in its life; invested with power, He can give them their place and set them their task in the New Age. Few sayings of His breathe such an air of certainty and authority. But the full significance of the words is that they are uttered in the prospect of rejection and death. In the light of this fact no theory is tenable which implies any opposition to be overcome between Himself and God, which interprets His death as defeat, or which limits its meaning to narrowly individual relationships. Jesus goes to death in the assurance that His Father has given Him lordship, that the Kingdom will be perfected, and that His disciples will share in its joys and its duties. That such convictions should be expressed in such an hour is inexplicable unless He believes that His suffering and death manifest His lordship and in some way are necessary to the consummation of the Divine Rule.

(c) 'For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath an end' (Lk. xxii. 37).

This saying, which is peculiar to Luke, can be studied 203 with advantage only when it is read in the context in which it appears:

'(35) And he said unto them, When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. (36) And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he that hath none, let him sell his cloke, and buy a sword. (37) For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath an end. (38) And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords, And he said unto them, It is enough.'

Some scholars take the view that this section is an artificial unit. Loisy, for example, as Creed reminds us,11   St. Luke, 270. suggests that the Evangelist has awkwardly constructed the whole on the simple fact of the resistance recorded in the source of Mark. Wellhausen also connects 38 with 49: 'And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said. Lord, shall we smite with the sword?'22   Das Evangelium Lucae, 125f. This view carries with it the further inference that 35f. belongs to a different situation when preparations for a dangerous journey were under consideration. Actual resistance, it is suggested, may have been contemplated, or at least defence against attack. 'He hopes', says Johannes Weiss, 'that his disciples will cut their way through.'33   See Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, ii. 603. 'Let us lead the lives of brigands and arm ourselves,' is the interpretation of Goguel.44   The Life of Jesus, 454. See also Loisy, L'Evangile selon Luc 521ff.; Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, i. 182f. In some of these discussions it is not surprising that 37, or at least 37a, is described as an insertion.55   Cf. Creed, 271; Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium, 214.

There does not appear to be any need for reconstructions, 204 or for the view that real swords and physical resistance are contemplated. Burkitt gives a true estimate of the section when he says: 'They are among the saddest words in the Gospels, and the mournful irony with which they are pervaded seems to me wholly alien from the kind of utterance which a Christian Evangelist would invent for his Master.'11   The Gospel History and its Transmission, 140f. 'It is impossible to believe', he observes, 'that the command to buy a sword was meant literally and seriously: it is all a piece of ironical foreboding.'22   Op. cit., 141. Every detail in the section is true to the situation in which Jesus found Himself on the last night of His earthly life and can readily be understood in relation thereto.

The most probable explanation of the reference to the buying of a sword is that Jesus is speaking metaphorically.33   Cf. Creed: 'in a general sense as a warning that disaster is coming,' 270; Easton, 328; Luce, 335. He is thinking of the position in which the disciples will find themselves after His death. The circumstances will be entirely different from those which obtained when first He sent them forth to announce the good news of the Kingdom. Then there was no need to provide purse, wallet, and shoes, since normally a friendly reception might be expected. Now the conditions are different; He is about to die, and the hostility which faces Himself may well confront them. His words: 'He that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet: and he that hath none, let him sell his cloke, and buy a sword,' are His picturesque way of saying this. He has no thought of advocating the use of swords or begging-bags. If this is a correct interpretation, the succeeding reference to Isa. liii. 12 is entirely apposite. It exactly describes His own situation and is the clue to His apprehensions for the Twelve. The manner in which the quotation is introduced 205 is natural. Jesus does not say as an interpolator might have said: 'This which is written of me must be fulfilled,' but: 'This which is written must be fulfilled in me'; in other words: 'What is said in Scripture about the Servant must find fulfilment in my case.' It is notable also, as Burkitt has observed,11   Op. cit., 141. that the quotation does not follow the text of the Septuagint: en tois anomois, but reads: meta anomwn. The use of the quotation is even more effective if, as some commentators22   Cf. Klostermann: 'denn mein Lebensgeschick hat (jetzt) sein Ende,' Das Lukasevangelium, 214; Luce, 336. See Lk. xxiv. 19, 27; Acts i. 3; xviii. 25; Phil. i. 27, where the article is used in the plural. suggest, the following words: kai gar to peri emou telos exei, are rendered: 'For my life draws to its end.' In this case, Jesus justifies His use of the passage; on the ordinary rendering: 'that which concerneth me hath fulfilment,' or 'an end', the introductory words: 'that which is written must be fulfilled in me.' are only repeated in another form. That Jesus should have been misunderstood by the Twelve is part of the dramatic irony of a tense situation. The cry: 'Lord, behold, here are two swords,' reveals the fact that they have merely caught the surface meaning of His words; and it is the perception of this which draws from Him words which are both a formula of dismissal33   Cf. Deut. iii. 26 (LXX). and an utterance of the deepest sadness: 'It is enough.'44   Cf. Plummer, 507; Creed, 271; Luce, 335.

Although this passage is the only express citation from Isa. liii. in the recorded sayings of Jesus, its genuineness ought not to be in doubt: it is naturally related to the context and has every appearance of being a spontaneous utterance. Its presence in the L tradition confirms the 206 view that Jesus had deeply pondered the description of the Suffering Servant and saw it as a foreshadowing of His own experience of suffering and death. It is difficult to agree with Burkitt that, in its context, the saying 'suggests that He hardly regarded the passage (Isa. liii. 12) as specifically "Messianic".'11   Christian Beginnings, 37. The solemn earnestness with which the words are quoted and the statement that they 'must' be fulfilled in Himself, point to a consciousness of vocation. In citing the words Jesus has heard the voice of destiny, and the destiny can hardly be other than that of Messiahship as He understood it. At the same time it must be agreed that the quotation is not an obvious selection from the Servant-poem. It is certainly not the one which an interpolator would have fixed upon. Why does Jesus choose just this passage? The most probable answer is that on this, the very eve of His Passion, Jesus is preoccupied with the thought that He is to be treated by hostile men as a wrong-doer; He will be reckoned with transgressors. Is there also implied the deeper thought that, in a way unsuspected by men, He is indeed to be reckoned with transgressors since He has taken their side and made Himself one with them (meta anomwn)? This thought is not explicit in His words, but it is a natural reflection in the mind of one who had pondered the Servant-conception and who quotes a passage immediately followed by the words: 'yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors' (Isa. liii. 12).22   Cf. Lk. xxiii. 34: 'Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do.' In any case, and however we explain the saying, the use of the quotation is a clear indication that on this last night Jesus was deeply conscious of the menace of evil and of the threat of its apparent triumph in His death.


(6) The Saying at the arrest about the Power of Darkness (Lk. xxii. 53b).

'But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.'

Most commentators note the Johannine ring of this saying.11   Cf. Creed, 274f.; Easton, 333; Montefiore, ii. 611; Luce, 340. In reading the words, it is difficult not to think of such a passage as Jn. iii. 19f.: 'And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth ill hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved.' Similar ideas appear also in the description of the departure of the traitor in Jn. xiii. 30: 'He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night,' and in 1 Jn. i. 5: 'God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.' These parallels in no way throw doubt upon the genuinenesss of the Lukan saying: on the contrary, the similarity is an indication that the Johannine teaching is rooted in the Synoptic tradition.

The suggestion22   So Loisy. See Luce, 340. that Lk. xxii. 53b is an editorial adaptation of Mk. xiv. 49b: 'But this is done that the scriptures might be fulfilled,' is an opinion without foundation. It is much better to conclude that the saying is an excerpt from the L tradition which the Evangelist has combined with the question: 'Are ye come out, as against a robber . . .?' derived from Mk. xiv. 48f.

The phrase 'your hour' stands over against the thought of 'my hour' or 'the hour': and this contrast may have been present to the mind of Jesus. It is one element in the sense of inevitability or 'predestination' which fills His thought as He contemplates His Passion.33   Cf. Mk. xiv. 21, 41; Jn. xii. 23, 27, xvii. 1. The hour, 208 however, is one which His enemies have chosen and made their own. Here, as always, Jesus is far away from the idea of a remorseless fate which determines men's actions. It is in harmony with this point of view that the phrase 'the power of darkness' must be estimated. No more than in Col. i. 13, where the same phrase is used, is the dualism one that is complete. The power is that which darkness, a natural metaphor for evil, is permitted to exercise. Possibly there is an intended contrast between the two phrases: 'This is your hour; and yet, it is the power of darkness,' If so, the saying is an ironic comment upon the jubilation of those who effect the arrest. Whether this is so or not, the words reveal, as an aspect of the thought of Jesus, the sense of a conflict between evil powers and Himself. It is the same idea, though with the note of victory added, which is expressed in Jn. xii. 31: 'Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.' The Passion-sayings do not disclose this concept as the main or dominating idea of Jesus in relation to His death, but they show unmistakably that it is one strand in His thought.

This is the only saying from this part of Luke which it is necessary to study in any detail. The relation of the sayings in the Lukan account of the Trial before the Priests (xxii. 66-71) to Mk. xiv. 55-64 is difficult to determine.11   Behind the Third Gospel, 50f. See also Creed's discussion, 275f. If, as most scholars think, the source is Mark, Lk. xxii. 70 ('Ye say that I am') supports the textual evidence in favour of the reading: 'Thou hast said that I am,' in Mk. xiv. 62.22   Cf. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 322. In no way can this answer be said to indicate doubt in the mind of Jesus. What it reveals is His sense of the enormous difference between His conception 209 of Messiahship and that of the priests.11   Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 86. Note also Lk. xxiii. 3=Mk. xv. 2, where Pilate's question: 'Art thou the King of the Jews?' receives the answer: Thou sayest.' If, as seems to me more probable, Luke derived the section from the L tradition, independent evidence is afforded concerning the Messianic consciousness of Jesus.

The prophecy to the daughters of Jerusalem (Lk. xxiii. 27-31) is peculiar to Luke, but it has no light to throw on the manner in which Jesus regarded His suffering beyond showing how He thought of the need of others in the very shadow of the cross.22   Bertram sees the community at work depicting Jesus as the prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem and attempting thereby to solve the mystery of the cross. Cf. Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu, 74. Montefiore (The Synoptic Gospels, ii. 623) says that the passage 'is probably unhistorical, being made up out of a number of Old Testament reminiscences'. But why should not the reminiscences be those of Jesus Himself? If, moreover, as Montefiore says, the basis is Zech. xii. 10-4, it is strange that a Christian editor should miss the opportunity of quoting the phrase: 'whom they pierced.' The language is apocalyptic in character, but it is doubtful if the thought is eschatological. The commentators mention at least three possible interpretations33   Cf. Plummer, 529. of the reference to the green and the dry trees,44   For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?' (Lk. xxiii. 31). but it is quite uncertain whether Jesus is thinking of Romans or Jews.

(7) The Crucifixion Sayings (Lk. xxiii. 34, 43, 46).

(a) 'And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (xxiii. 34).

(b) 'And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise (xxiii. 42f.).


(c) And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice., he said, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost' (xxiii. 46).

All these sayings are peculiar to the Third Gospel. The first is omitted by B D W Θ a b sys and other important authorities. The last is a quotation from Psa. xxxi. 5.

Critical opinion is sharply divided upon the question whether xxiii. 34 belongs to the true text of the Third Gospel, and in view of the many important authorities which omit the passage, this fact is not surprising. It is to be noted, however, that some of the foremost textual critics who reject the passage, hold that it contains a genuine saying of Jesus. Hort, for example, says: 'Few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross.'11   The New Testament In the Original Greek ii. App. 68. Other writers who cannot agree that the saying is authentic bear witness to its greatness. Thus, Montefiore says that 'it nevertheless is ben trovato, both because it breathes the higher spirit of Jesus and because it is based upon the teaching of Jesus'.22   0p. cit., ii. 625.

For Easton the textual difficulties are decisive.33   St. Luke, 348. Creed thinks that 'the omission of a prayer so sublime and so Christ-like seems less probable than its insertion'.44   St. Luke, 286. On the other hand, Harnack has strongly maintained that a reason for the omission can be found in the mistaken belief that the words of the prayer for forgiveness referred to Jews.55   Probleme im Texte der Leidensgeschichte Jesu, 5-11. Streeter has developed a similar argument. He refers to the opinion of Dr. Rendel Harris that the passage 211 was deleted because some second-century Christian found it hard to believe that God could or ought to forgive the Jews, and says: 'One might add, it would have appeared to a second-century Christian that, as a mere matter of fact, God had not forgiven the Jews. Twice within seventy years Jerusalem had been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Jews massacred and enslaved.'11   The Four Gospels, 138. This is a forceful argument, and supported as it is by the impression left by the content of the prayer itself, it is decisive in favour of the genuineness of the passage.

The genuineness of the second saying is bound up with that of the story to which it belongs. The account of the Penitent Thief (Lk. xxiii. 39-43) is probably Luke's addition to his special Passion Source, and we cannot tell whether it is based on good tradition or whether it is a homiletical development of Mk. xv. 27. Easton says that the didactic motive is obvious and that it is difficult to argue for much historic basis in the section.22   Op. cit., 350f. Creed suggests that the story comes 'from the same cycle of tradition which told the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, and the stories of the penitent harlot and the penitent Zacchaeus,' and observes that it is impossible to say how much is to be set down to the Evangelist's own account.33   Op. cit., 285. These opinions are marked by critical caution, and, if they are not accepted, the only alternative possible rests on an estimate of Luke's value as a historical writer. In this respect it is probable that his reputation has suffered from the excellence of his gifts as a literary artist. It is also worth recalling that on many points criticism has been compelled to revise sceptical judgments.44   The incidental reference to Lysanias (Lk. iii. 1) is a case in point. Cf. Creed, 307-9. In these 212 circumstances, those who continue to accept the special Lukan narratives as historical have much justification; but even so, it must always be recognized that our ignorance of the character of the tradition as Luke found it precludes dogmatic affirmations.

The same observations are relevant in the case of the third saying. In the present state of our knowledge one common argument seems definitely unfair. Thus, it is often said that Luke replaces the Cry of Desolation (Mk. xv. 34) by the quotation from Psa. xxxi. 5:11   'Into thine hand I commend my spirit.' 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit' (Lk. xxiii. 46). This argument is in place only if it can be shown that Mark is Luke's principal source. If the L tradition supplied the Evangelist with his main authority, it falls to the ground, and it is seriously compromised if it is conceded that he used a non-Markan source. This source did not contain the Cry of Desolation, but probably included the saying in xxiii. 46; and it is the preference accorded to it by Luke which explains why the last sayings recorded in the two Gospels are different. To suggest that both cries are historical is more than a harmonizing expedient; for the death of Jesus is not immediately recorded22   The incident of the sponge full of vinegar follows, and then the words: 'And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost' (Mk. xv. 37). in Mark after the cry: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' and it is a credible suggestion that the discord of an unparalleled experience was resolved into the harmony of habitual confidence and trust. It is the terrible cry of Mk. xv. 34 which is the unexpected element in the Passion Story; the saying in Lk. xxiii. 46 is harmonious with the whole spirit and life of Jesus, and in particular with the attitude of obedience in which He faced the Cross.

« Prev II Next »

| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |