No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Scholarship has commonly treated the sayings in the Lukan Last Supper discourse (22.14–38) more or less as pearls on a string; it is their poignancy as separate elements rather than any significant unifying features to which attention has typically been drawn. This is especially apparent when one surveys research on Luke 22.24–30. Until recently it has been usual for scholarly work on this text to be heavily influenced (sometimes unconsciously) by tradition-historical concerns, with the result that 22.24–7 and 22.28–30 are analyzed as independent sayings. Consequently, the lack of a parallel in Luke 22.24–7 to the ransom saying in Mark 10.41–5 is a common point of scholarly interest, as are possible developments from a ‘Q’ form behind Luke 22.28–30 and Matt 19.28. This type of approach, with its primary focus on layers of tradition, however, has often prevented scholarship from exploring or even observing the unifying features of Luke's finished work in 22.24–30.
1 The development of a case for the unitary character of 22.24–30 was a key element in my doctoral thesis (‘Leadership and Discipleship: A Study of Luke 22:24–30’ [PhD dissertation, Trinity College, Bristol, 1991Google Scholar, forthcoming in 1994 under the same title in the SBL Dissertation Series]; see especially §§ 1.1, 4.1, 7.3.1 and 8.2). The present essay depends significantly upon that work. That Luke is quite capable of imposing a unity upon disparate materials has been observed by many (e.g., in 12.13–21 [Thériault, J., ‘Les dimensions sociales, économiques, et politiques dans l'oeuvre de Luc’, ScEs 26 (1974) 205–31Google Scholar, esp. 222], in 13.22–30 [Maddox, R., The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: Clark, 1982) 124]Google Scholarand in 22.14–38 [Kremer, J., Lukasevangelium (Die Neue Echter Bibel 3; Wurzburg: Echter, 1988) 215Google Scholar; Kurz, W. S., Farewell Addresses in the New Testament (Zacchaeus Studies: NT; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990) 69]Google Scholar; cf. also 12.35–46 [Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke (AB 28, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981,1985)Google Scholar2.984]).
2 Although there are unifying features extending throughout the Lukan Jesus' farewell discourse in 22.14–38 (e.g., a loose adherence to the testamentary genre and allusions to Jesus' impending death), factors supporting a unitary conception for 22.24–30 are much more numerous and significant, thus warranting an in-depth examination of 22.24–30 as a unit in itself.
3 E.g., Geldenhuys, N., Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (NLNTC; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1950) 561–5Google Scholar; Goulder, M. D., Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; 2 vols.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989)Google Scholar2. 732; Schmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3; 4th ed.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1960) 330Google Scholar.
4 Creed, J. M., The Gospel according to St Luke (London: Macmillan, 1965) 268Google Scholar.
5 Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke. A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 814Google Scholar. Kollmann, B. (Ursprung und Gestalten der frühchristlichen Mahlfeier [GTA 43; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990] 222–3)Google Scholarand Lagrange, M.-J. (Évangile selon Saint Luc [EBib; 8th ed.; Paris: Gabalda, 1948] 551)Google Scholaralso emphasize aspects of disunity in 22.24–30.
6 Evans, C. F., Saint Luke (TPINTC; London: SCM, 1990) 798Google Scholar(Schumann, H. [Jesu Abschiedsrede Lk 22,21–38. III. Teil einer quellenkritischen Untersuchung des lukanischen Abendmahlsberichtes Lk 22,7–38 (NTAbh 20/5; Minister: Aschendorff, 1957), 36–7Google Scholar, 54–63] also emphasizes a traditional link of vv. 28–30 with vv. 15–20). The case for δé in v. 28 as ‘but’ instead of ‘and’, however, weighs against the assertion of Evans (see sec. 3)
7 Schümann, , Abschiedsrede, 36–99Google Scholar.
8 E.g., Dupont, J., ‘Le logion des douze trones (Mt 19,28; Lc 22,28–30)’, Bib 45 (1964) 355–92Google Scholar; Green, J., The Death of Jesus (WUNT 2/33; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1988) 44–8Google Scholar(though some attention is given to links of 22.28–30 to its context); Roloff, J., ‘Anfänge der soteriologischen Deutung des Todes Jesu (Mk. x.45 und Lk. xxii.27)’, NTS 19 (1972–1973) 38–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlosser, J., ‘La genèse de Luc, XXII, 25–27’, RB 89 (1982) 52–70Google Scholar; Soards, M., The Passion according to Luke (JSNTSup 14; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987) 39–42Google Scholar, 51 (though note the support for 22.1–38 as a testamentary meal [55]); Taylor, V., The Passion Narrative of St Luke (SNTSMS 19; Cambridge: CUP, 1972) 62–4Google Scholar.
9 E.g., Danker, F. W., Jesus and the New Age according to St Luke (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 348–51Google Scholar; Sabourin, L., L'évangile de Luc (Rome: Gregorian University, 1985) 345–7Google Scholar; Talbert, C. H., Reading Luke (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 210Google Scholar; cf. Neyrey, J., The Passion according to Luke (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist, 1985) 21–8Google Scholar; York, J., The First Shall Be Last. The Rhetoric of Reversal in Luke (JSNTSup 46; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 170–2Google Scholar.
10 E.g., Ernst, J., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977) 591–8Google Scholar; Hauck, D. F., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3; Leipzig: Deichert, 1934) 265Google Scholar; Kremer, , Lukas, 215Google Scholar; Senior, D., The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (Passion Series 3; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989) 66–75Google Scholar.
11 Lagrange, , Luc, 551Google Scholar(cf. Eltester, W., ‘Israel im lukanischen Werk und die Nazareth-perikope’, Jesus in Nazareth [ed. Grässer, E. et al. ; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972] 76–147Google Scholar, esp. 134; Lohfink, G., Die Sammlung Israels: Eine Untersuchung zur lukanischen Ekklesiologie [SANT 39; Munich: Kosel, 1975] 80Google Scholar; Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas [NTD 3; 8th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1958] 247)Google Scholar.
12 Lull, D., ‘The Servant-Benefactor as a Model of Greatness (Luke 22:24–30)’, Nov T 28 (1986) 289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 296–7.
13 Nelson, P., ‘The Flow of Thought in Luke 22:24–27’, JSNT 43 (1991) 113–23Google Scholar, esp. 115–20.
14 Tannehill, R., ‘A Study of the Theology in Luke-Acts’, ATR 43 (1961) 195–203Google Scholar, esp. 200.
15 See my dissertation (cf. n. 1 above), sec. 7.4.2, on διατθημι.
16 Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1412.
17 Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1412.
18 Eεργτης was used as a title for rulers (e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, and certain of the Ptolemies and Selucid kings [cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1417; Kötting, B., ‘Euergetes’, RAC 6. 848–60Google Scholar, esp. 851–66]).
19 Ὁ νακεμενος here connotes ideas of social superiority by its antithetical relation to διακονν.
20 Children and youth were low in the ancient family hierarchy.
21 Many recognize an authority or leadership motif in 22.24–30 (e.g., Kurz, , Farewell, 64Google Scholar; Sellew, P., ‘The Last Supper Discourse in Luke 22:21–38’, Forum 3 [1987] 70–95Google Scholar, esp. 77; Tiede, D. L., ‘The Kings of the Gentiles and the Leader Who Serves’, Word and World 12 [1992] 23–8Google Scholar, esp. 27; Luke [Augsburg Commentary on the NT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988] 385Google ScholarPubMed; cf. Meynet, R., Initiation á la rhétorique biblique. Qui done est le plus grand? [Initiations; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1982]Google Scholar1.166).
22 There are references to ‘kingdom’ in vv. 16 and 18, and military imagery stands behind ‘sword’ in vv. 36, 38, but these observations do not overshadow the comparatively extensive interest in authority in vv. 24–30.
23 Cf. Harrington, W. J., The Gospel according to St Luke (London: Chapman, 1968) 251Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., The Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967) 145Google Scholar; Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 3/1–2; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1977)Google Scholar2. 451.
24 Lull, , ‘Servant-Benefactor’, 299–300Google Scholar.
25 BDF, § 277; Turner, N., Syntax, vol. 4Google Scholarof Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek (4 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1963) 37Google Scholar.
26 Against Rienecker, F., Das Evangelium des Lukas (Wuppertaler Studienbibel 4; Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1974) 504Google Scholar.
27 Schürmann (Abschiedsrede, 57) contends that μεῖç in v. 28 originally contrasted with κγώ in v. 29, though he does not develop the role of κγώ in relation to the persons in v. 29. Zahn's, T. claim(Das Evangelium des Lukas [2nd ed.; Leipzig: Diechert, 1913] 681)Google Scholarthat μεῖς contrasts with abstract ‘anderen’ takes one well beyond the horizons of the text.
28 Although μεῖς appears to be traditional (cf. Matt 19.28), Luke's placement of the term together with his retention or addition of στε allows for an emphatic use (contrast v. 26 where ellipsis makes the pronoun necessary).
29 Fitzmyer, Luke 2.1411, emphasis added.
30 The close connection of πειρασμν with ταπεινοφροσνης and δακρων supports the idea that for Luke the endurance of trials is a lowly experience. This, in turn, favours a link between service and trials in Luke 22.27–8.
31 Baumbach, G. (Das Verständnis der Bösen in den synoptischen Euangelien [Berlin: Evangelische, 1963] 193)Google Scholarsees the ‘trials’ of v. 28 as involving the temptation to defect from ‘service’ (cf. Lull, , ‘Servant-Benefactor’, 300Google Scholar; LaVerdiere, E., Luke [New Testament Message 5; Dublin: Veritas, 1980] 260–1)Google Scholar.
32 So e.g., Ernst, , Lukas, 589Google Scholar; Kurz, W., ‘Luke 22:14–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses’, JBL 104 (1985) 251–68Google Scholar, esp. 251; Léon-Dufour, X., ‘Le testament de Jésus selon Luc’, Le partage du pain eucharistique selon le Nouveau Testament (PD; Paris: Seuil, 1982) 266–84Google Scholar, esp. 266; Sellew, , ‘Last Supper’, 75Google Scholar; see also my dissertation (cf. n. 1 above), sec. 5.3.
33 Cf. the many configurations of elements in the farewell addresses tabulated by Kurz, (‘Luke 22.14–38’, 262–3)Google Scholar.
34 Michel, H.-J., Die Abschiedsrede des Paulus an die Kirche Apg 20,17–38 (SANT 35; Munich: Kösel, 1973) 71Google Scholar; cf. Lambrecht, J., ‘Paul's Farewell-Address at Miletus (Acts 20,17–38)’, Les Actes des Apôtres (ed. Kremer, J.; BETL 48; Gembloux: Duculot, 1979) 307–37Google Scholar, esp. 332–3; von Nordheim, E., Die Lehre der Alten 1: Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit (ALGHJ 13; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 238–9Google Scholar; et al.; against Haenchen, E. (The Acts of the Apostles [Oxford: Blackwell, 1971] 596)Google Scholar, who prefers apology over testament.
35 Matera, F., Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist, 1986) 162Google Scholar(Jesus acted like a servant [vv. 24–7]; the apostles remained with him [vv. 28–30]).
36 The service of Jesus climaxes in his impending death, and the perfect διαμεμενηκτες encompasses the apostles' past action of remaining with Jesus in his trials together with a present state resulting from that action.
37 Contrast Luke's 180 degree' reversals in 12.13–21; 13.28; 16.15; 20.45–7.
38 Against those for whom vv. 29–30 are fulfilled in the church age (e.g., Brown, S., Apostasy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke [AnBib 36; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1969] 64Google Scholar; Johnson, L. T., The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts [SBLDS 39; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977] 120Google Scholar; Neyrey, , Passion, 27–8)Google Scholar. See my article, ‘Luke 22:29–30 and the Time Frame for Dining and Ruling’, TynBul 44 (1993) 351–61Google Scholar, for a defence of a reference to the eschatological age in vv. 29–30.
39 Cf. Grundmann, W. (Das Evangelium nach Lukas [THKNT 3; 2nd ed.; Berlin: Evangelische, 1961] 402)Google Scholar, who claims regarding 22.28–30, ‘Lukas fügt diese Wortfolge ohne Unterbrechung an die vorhergehenden Worte Jesu an und macht damit deutlich: Der Dienende wird von Gott erhöht’ (similarly Rienecker, , Lukas, 504Google Scholar; Wiefel, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas [THKNT 3; 3rd ed.; Berlin: Evangelische, 1988] 371–2)Google Scholar.
40 Schneider, Lukas, 2. 451; cf. Easton, B. S., The Gospel according to St Luke (Edinburgh: Clark, 1926) 325Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1975) 209Google Scholar; Soards, , Passion, 52Google Scholar.
41 Loisy, A. (L'évangile selon Luc [Paris: Nourry, 1924] 515)Google Scholarcontends that Luke here wishes to connect service to its recompense.
42 L'Eplattenier, C., Lecture de l'évangile de Luc (Paris: Desctee, 1982) 252Google Scholar; cf. Plummer, A., The Gospel according to S. Luke (ICC; 4th ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1901) 502Google Scholar.
43 Cf. the pervasive language of authority in 22.24–30 (see sec. 2).
44 Dupont, , ‘Trōnes’, 380Google Scholar(cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2.1415; Godet, F., A Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke [2 vols; 4th ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1889]Google Scholar2.297; Schlatter, A., Das Evangelium des Lukas [3rd ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1975] 424)Google Scholar.
45 Lull, , ‘Servant-Benefactor’, 299Google Scholar, 301.
46 Cf. Tiede, , ‘The Kings’, 23–8Google Scholar; Luke, 385. Also see Leaney, A. R. C. (The Gospel according to St Luke [BNTC; London: Black, 1958] 269)Google Scholar, though his analysis may be oversubtle.
47 Léon-Dufour, , ‘Le testament’, 273Google Scholar; cf. Rengstorf, , Lukas, 247Google Scholar.
48 22.15,19–20, 22, 27, 33; see my dissertation (cf. n. 1), §§ 5.3 and 6.5.3.
49 Is there a correlation between this Lukan symbolism and the Pauline motif of dying and rising with Christ (e.g., Rom 6.3–11; Phil 2.5–11; Col 2.12)?
50 Note Luke's unparalleled ‘daily’ cross bearing (9.23); cf. Acts 14.22.