Author Topic: Luke 22:17-22  (Read 466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Luke 22:17-22
« on: February 19, 2017, 09:37:44 PM »
I was having a discussion with my father on this passage, and he shared with me an interpretation that there are "two cups", one "before supper" and one "after supper" (verse 20).

The one before supper, he contends, is a Passover cup (Old Covenant), while the second cup is the New Covenant, the blood.  I haven't found any patristic commentary that makes this distinction.  So it seems to me there are not two cups, but just the same cup mentioned twice.  Am I wrong to think that this is the same cup repeated a second time?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline JTLoganville

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2017, 09:54:48 PM »
Am I wrong to think that this is the same cup repeated a second time?

Not necessarily, but this:   "the same cup repeated a second time" hardly seems consistent with Luke's intention to produce "an orderly account" of the life of Jesus.

Luke was writing to Gentiles, and in his second volume (Acts) clearly shows the end of Jewish Temple through the closing of its doors to the Apostles.   Your father's theory fits that narrative very well.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2017, 10:22:13 PM »
But does it really contradict the idea of Luke giving an orderly account?  Because if we take the "two cups" theory, was the bread "before supper" in the text?

There's another possibility that I'm seeing in my quick google search.  Verse 20 and part of 19 seemed to have been omitted in some Greek manuscripts. 
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,324
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2017, 11:00:45 PM »
I was having a discussion with my father on this passage, and he shared with me an interpretation that there are "two cups", one "before supper" and one "after supper" (verse 20).

The one before supper, he contends, is a Passover cup (Old Covenant), while the second cup is the New Covenant, the blood.  I haven't found any patristic commentary that makes this distinction.  So it seems to me there are not two cups, but just the same cup mentioned twice.  Am I wrong to think that this is the same cup repeated a second time?
Grammatically, the assumption seems to be it's the same physical cup:

Quote
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Second, the problem with the old cov vs new cov interpretation seems to me to be that the old cov. was a lamb or ram, sacrificed at passover or yom kippur, and there is no mention of eating a lamb at the Last Supper. Indeed, it could be a bit strange in that Jesus was supposed to be the metaphorical lamb. They had gathered for the Passover, when a lamb is killed, and supposedly the lamb would have been killed the day before the Sabbath, ie. Good Friday, not the Last Supper, a Thursday. So the Last Supper meal AFAIK wouldn't have included the key meal of the Old Covenant.

There is a theory the Last Supper included a certain kind of vegetarian Barakoth meal IIRC, a blessing meal of bread and wine.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,944
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2017, 11:24:57 PM »
But does it really contradict the idea of Luke giving an orderly account?  Because if we take the "two cups" theory, was the bread "before supper" in the text?

There's another possibility that I'm seeing in my quick google search.  Verse 20 and part of 19 seemed to have been omitted in some Greek manuscripts.

The paleographic evidence does suggest there may be some variants, (omitting 19b for instance or adding μετα το δειπνησαι before verse 20 which contains the "cup" [ποτηριον]) but there is a good solid tradition of manuscripts which suggests that the reading as we have it is pretty accurate.  The Nestle-Allen assigns versus 17-20 as B which means the text is almost certain.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 34,226
  • Faith: God
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2017, 12:26:02 AM »
It's possible that St. John of Damascus believed there were two separate cups, as he says:

Quote
For when He was about to take on Himself a voluntary death for our sakes, on the night on which He gave Himself up, He laid a new covenant on His holy disciples and apostles, and through them on all who believe on Him. In the upper chamber, then, of holy and illustrious Sion, after He had eaten the ancient Passover with His disciples and had fulfilled the ancient covenant, He washed His disciples’ feet in token of the holy baptism. Then having broken bread He gave it to them saying, 'Take, eat, this is My body broken for you for the remission of sins' Likewise also He took the cup of wine and water and gave it to them saying, 'Drink ye all of it: for this is My blood, the blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the death of the Son of man and confess His resurrection until He come.'

--St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4.13

He does not specifically mention that there are two cup, but he does consider the Passover meal and Last supper to be distinct acts which are separated by the act of the feet washing as described in John 13. As far as I know there was no prohibition of drinking during a Passover meal, and it would seem strange for drink to be excluded in this situation for no particular reason. Plus, to add to the idea that the first meal was a pre-figuring of what was to come in the Lord's Supper, if we allow for wine to have been drunk in the first meal: the Bible uses phrases like "thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape," (Deut. 32:14; Gen. 49:11) and in Sirach we find this passage: "Once he had completed the service at the altar and arranged the sacrificial hearth for the Most High, And had stretched forth his hand for the cup, to offer blood of the grape, And poured it out at the foot of the altar, a sweet-smelling odor to God the Most High..." (Sir. 50:14-15)

There is also this passage in St. Augustine, which frankly confuses me, but maybe you can make something of it:

Quote
Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by Matthew, [which runs thus]: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matt. 26:26) Both Mark and Luke also gave this section. (Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19)  It is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice over: first before He gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread has been given. But the fact is, that what is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced, according to this writer’s habit, by anticipation, while the words which he has inserted here in their proper order are left unrecorded in those previous verses, and the two passages when put together make up exactly what stands expressed by those other evangelists.

--St. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, 3.1

I understood the passage as indicating that Luke also meant only one cup, aligning with other synoptics; but when I read the (CCEL) editor's note at the end of this passage, I wondered if I had misunderstood: "Luke’s first reference to the cup belongs to the passover celebration, in distinction from the Lord’s Supper."
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 12:27:27 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2017, 12:29:18 AM »
The editor's note quotes a reference "R", which I was too lazy to search what that means, but I'm guessing some sort of Protestant source as sometimes editor's notes in these series like to give alternative or confirmatory views from other Biblical scholars at the time these were published.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,324
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2017, 12:30:30 AM »
Well, regardless of the text's details, the basic story is that Jesus and the apostles ate a meal, and then after the regular meal, Jesus had a special ritual with the "words of Institution." The first meal there is going to have drinking from cups.

The Eastern Orthodox belief AFAIK is that the Last Supper was before the day of sacrificing the Lambs. As such, the Last Supper (before the words of institution) was also not an Old Covenant Passover meal with a lamb. The only possibility, (and it's reasonable) is that in Judaism there was either a preparatory pre-Passover meal or else there was a normal blessing that was part of the Old Covenant that Jesus had already been using for years, and that either one of those two was part of the pre-communion meal.

It's also known that pre-communion meals were a normal part of early Christian tradition. So it's not like the pre-communion meal at the Last Supper was out of order with the NT post-OT practice.

So the question would be in the text, which part is "after supper". "After supper are the words of institution"
Quote
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper,

saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
The cup was not the only thing after supper, it was the bread too that was after supper. Yet "bread" is mentioned before the words "after supper". Therefore we can't clearly divide the mention of bread and cup into before and after supper references.

The instructions about dividing the cup in v. 17 would be referring to the communion cup, not to the Old Covenant. The NT cup is a common cup Jesus said to share with each other.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,324
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2017, 12:42:53 AM »
It's possible that St. John of Damascus believed there were two separate cups, as he says:

Quote
For when He was about to take on Himself a voluntary death for our sakes, on the night on which He gave Himself up, He laid a new covenant on His holy disciples and apostles, and through them on all who believe on Him. In the upper chamber, then, of holy and illustrious Sion, after He had eaten the ancient Passover with His disciples and had fulfilled the ancient covenant, He washed His disciples’ feet in token of the holy baptism. Then having broken bread He gave it to them saying, 'Take, eat, this is My body broken for you for the remission of sins' Likewise also He took the cup of wine and water and gave it to them saying, 'Drink ye all of it: for this is My blood, the blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye in remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the death of the Son of man and confess His resurrection until He come.'

--St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4.13

He does not specifically mention that there are two cup, but he does consider the Passover meal and Last supper to be distinct acts which are separated by the act of the feet washing as described in John 13. As far as I know there was no prohibition of drinking during a Passover meal, and it would seem strange for drink to be excluded in this situation for no particular reason. Plus, to add to the idea that the first meal was a pre-figuring of what was to come in the Lord's Supper, if we allow for wine to have been drunk in the first meal: the Bible uses phrases like "thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape," (Deut. 32:14; Gen. 49:11) and in Sirach we find this passage: "Once he had completed the service at the altar and arranged the sacrificial hearth for the Most High, And had stretched forth his hand for the cup, to offer blood of the grape, And poured it out at the foot of the altar, a sweet-smelling odor to God the Most High..." (Sir. 50:14-15)
Damascene and the gospel writers mention two consumptions, but not two cups.

Quote
There is also this passage in St. Augustine, which frankly confuses me, but maybe you can make something of it:

Quote
Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by Matthew, [which runs thus]: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matt. 26:26) Both Mark and Luke also gave this section. (Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19)  It is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice over: first before He gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread has been given. But the fact is, that what is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced, according to this writer’s habit, by anticipation, while the words which he has inserted here in their proper order are left unrecorded in those previous verses, and the two passages when put together make up exactly what stands expressed by those other evangelists.

--St. Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, 3.1

I understood the passage as indicating that Luke also meant only one cup, aligning with other synoptics;
Augustine is saying there is only one cup, just Luke mentioned it twice. After reading it carefully twice I get what Augustine is saying.

" It is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice over... But the fact is, that what is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced, according to this writer’s habit, by anticipation, "

In other words, Augustine is saying that Luke has a habit of doing this kind of thing,  ie. talking about the same thing twice. Luke will introduce an idea and then repeat the idea later on. Same thing there in Luke 22. It's the same cup, just mentioned twice in Luke's literary style.
Quote
but when I read the (CCEL) editor's note at the end of this passage, I wondered if I had misunderstood: "Luke’s first reference to the cup belongs to the passover celebration, in distinction from the Lord’s Supper."
I think CCEL is thinking the way Mina's father did.

But I think it's a confusion from the text and that Augustine is probably right. That is, Jesus wasn't saying <<drink this "not-Me" grape juice, then eat this bread, it's my body, but now this cup this time is my body>>

In reality, according to Luke, Jesus gives them all wine divided up from "the cup", then gives them bread and explains the bread, then He doesn't give them wine a second time but explains the meaning of the wine, "this cup".

Notice that there is only ever two mentions of Jesus ever taking or giving wine or bread:
Quote
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
The first time, he never says "this is wine". He just says "take this" and gives them wine.

We know the last Supper and early Christian rituals both had a preCommunion meal and a Eucharist meal, so de Facto I don't see a theological issue as to the question of whether the Last Supper had two drinkings of wine or two breads, it did. I also don't see an issue as to whether the first one was the lamb passover. AFAIK Orthodoxy teaches it was a pre-Passover meal.

The bread isn't mentioned the first time at all, and the cup is not mention as given the second time at all.

For all I know, Luke could have had some literary or inner mystical reason why he chose to divide up the mentioning of the cup like that.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 12:50:49 AM by rakovsky »

Offline iohanne

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2017, 02:31:11 AM »
I may have a possible explanation for the two cups that we observe in this pericope.

Gregory Dix, an Anglican scholar (whose work The Shape of the Liturgy is considered useful though slightly oudated by many modern scholars), suggests in the aforementioned book that one possible Jewish origin of the Eucharist may lie in the chaburah meals which were meals occasionally held by groups of pious Jewish men for the purposes of fellowship and spiritual edification. These were governed by a sense of heightened formality and particular attention to the religious etiquette of Jewish meal practices. Dix claims that these rules that governed these kinds of fellowship meals are well known to us from rabbinic sources (although the sources Dix provides are all in German and so I cannot personally verify them for you nor even evaluate their legitimacy for myself).

Of particular relevancy to your question is the structure which governed these meals which I will summarise:

1. RELISHES Before the host and his guests 'reclined' they would be served 'relishes' - which is what the Rabbis called them - or what we may consider hors d'oeuvres. Each particular kind of relish was preceeded by each guest privately performing the prayerful recitation of a berakhah - a Jewish blessing/thanksgiving (Gk. eucharistia) - for him or herself. This is because, according to the first tractate of the Mishnah (M. Berakhot, 6:6.) as well as according to the Tosefta (T. Berakhot, 4:8 ) they were not yet considered as "one company." If wine was served with these relishes, it too would be received by each guest after personally and privately reciting the standard Jewish berakha over wine - "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth the fruit of the vine." Dix seems to believes that in Luke 22:17-22 our Lord, functioning as the host of the chavurah meal, is serving wine to the Twelve but since this is not yet part of the meal proper, the wine is 'divided amongst [them]selves', each one reciting the blessing individually.

2. WASHING OF HANDS The guests washed their hands. After this point, late-comers are said to no longer be permitted to join because after the washing of hands and the 'grace before meals' (for lack of better terminology, please see below for details), the chaburah meal had properly begun and only those that had taken part in the washing of hands and the 'grace before meals' could take part. After this, all blessings were no longer private and individual but were to be done only by the head of the household, or leader of the chaburah or the host.

3. 'GRACE BEFORE MEALS' The head of the household, or leader of the chaburah, or the host, took bread and blessed God by reciting the standard Jewish berakha over bread - "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth." He then broke the bread and distributed to the guests. This is clearly the part of the supper that we Christians recognise as what our Lord did in instituting the Holy Eucharist.

4. THE MEAL With each new fresh food being received only after the host or leader recited its particular and specific berakha.

5. 'GRACE AFTER MEALS' Though it may share the same name as the previous berakhot, this was called the benediction, the blessing, Heb. ha-berakha of which a possible Greek rendering would be εὐχαριστία (i efcharistia). This consisted of a long prayer, said by the head of the household, or leader of the chaburah or the host and consisting of a long series of Thanksgivings that recount Jewish salvation history and which structurally and in tone are similar to the pre-Sanctus Thanksgiving preface prayers in all the ancient Christian anaphoras, east and west. What is particularly striking is that this prayer begins with a dialogue between the host and the guests with the host exhorting them: "Let us give thanks..." and according to M. Berakhot 7:5, if more than a hundred people are present, the host would append, "... unto the Lord our God." Dix believes this to be the origin of the first line of the dialogue in all the ancient anaphoral Prefaces.

Of relevancy to your question is that on special occasions - perhaps on a chaburah taking place during the days of Passover or on the days preceeding it - this Thanksgiving prayer was recited by the host or leader or head over a glass of wine which was then sipped by the host first and then passed around as a common cup for all the other guests to sip from. This was termed in the Jewish literature as well as in our Pauline epistles, 'the cup of blessing.' This is clearly that "second cup" of which you and your Father were speaking and which we Christians consider part of the Holy Eucharist.

(For some interesting reading but slightly unrelated to your question, the Wikipedia article entitled Birkat Hamazon is particularly enlightening and has some extra information on this Jewish 'grace after meals', particularly the sections entitled Zimmuh and Mayim Acharonim. The section entitled Traditions is also interesting given the eschatology expressed therein as well as the "special feast" known as Seudat Chiyat Hamatim which is reminiscent of our own Eucharistic celebrations, which, it need not be said, are eschatological in nature.

6. HYMN A psalm would be sung. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 may be referring to this.

* * *

Although I do find a lot of this to be compelling, it does still seem to me, personally, to be conjecture and good guesswork on the part of Gregory Dix. BUT, if the Eucharist, even if only in part, can be traceable to the ritual meals of various Jewish chaburot (a kind of spiritual fellowship-group) in existence in the 1st century - of which our Lord and His Twelve may have been one instantiation - then perhaps your father may have inherited a memory, passed down only orally or non-officially, that there were, indeed two 'drinkings' of wine at the Last Supper, one of which was private, represented by the private recitation of the obligatory Jewish berakha, the other of which was corporate, represented by our Lord reciting The Berakha for all. While the first was obligatory on Jews any time they intended to drink wine, whether they were alone or in the company of other Jewish men, the second was occasional and only performed in the presence of other people in the context of a ritual meal. (Indeed, Gregory Dix suggests that perhaps our Lord purposefully referred to the Cup of Blessing when speaking of His Blood so that His followers, when fulfilling His commandment to "do this," would do it only as a group, thus preserving the corporate character of the Christian eucharist from becoming, potentially, a private practice with each Christian 'eucharisting' over their personal cups of wine each and every time they wished to drink wine. )

So, given that, even in our modern day, the Jews still practice the former while we Christians continue to corporately enact the latter, it is possible that your father is the recipient of an unofficial memory of this two-fold wine blessing-drinking: a Jewish-y one which is associated, perhaps less with the OT and more with the Talmudic or Mishnaic tradition, and the other Christian-y one being inherited by the NT tradition.

Some food for thought. It is, at the very least, an entertaining idea.

Peace.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 03:03:16 AM by iohanne »

Offline iohanne

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2017, 02:57:20 AM »
The Eastern Orthodox belief AFAIK is that the Last Supper was before the day of sacrificing the Lambs. As such, the Last Supper (before the words of institution) was also not an Old Covenant Passover meal with a lamb. The only possibility, (and it's reasonable) is that in Judaism there was either a preparatory pre-Passover meal ...

Yes, I believe this may be connected with the chaburah meal theory that I was trying to elucidate above. Before Passover, it may have been common to have a formal, spiritual and ritualised meal which was not yet the Passover meal itself.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,324
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2017, 05:36:56 AM »
BUT, if the Eucharist, even if only in part, can be traceable to the ritual meals of various Jewish chaburot (a kind of spiritual fellowship-group) in existence in the 1st century - of which our Lord and His Twelve may have been one instantiation - then perhaps your father may have inherited a memory, passed down only orally or non-officially, that there were, indeed two 'drinkings' of wine at the Last Supper, one of which was private, represented by the private recitation of the obligatory Jewish berakha, the other of which was corporate, represented by our Lord reciting The Berakha for all.

So, given that, even in our modern day, the Jews still practice the former while we Christians continue to corporately enact the latter, it is possible that your father is the recipient of an unofficial memory of this two-fold wine blessing-drinking: a Jewish-y one which is associated, perhaps less with the OT and more with the Talmudic or Mishnaic tradition, and the other Christian-y one being inherited by the NT tradition.

Some food for thought. It is, at the very least, an entertaining idea.


This was the theory I mentioned:



There is a theory the Last Supper included a certain kind of vegetarian Barakoth meal IIRC, a blessing meal of bread and wine.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 05:39:02 AM by rakovsky »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2017, 12:33:58 PM »
Any OTHER patristic or contemporary Orthodox understanding behind these verses?  I've been trying to find one from Origen, since he's known to not ignore such details.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 12:35:18 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,324
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2017, 01:51:50 PM »
I presume it was the same physical cup and am sure that there were two meals. And per Eastern Orthodoxy, it was not the "OLD COVENANT" lamb meal.

The only question is whether the first cup reference is part of the "CHAVURAH" ritual mentioned above in this thread.

John & Corinthians discuss the Eucharist, but no other passage seems to comment on Lukes 2 cups reference.

Augustine is the earliest verse by verse commentary and he says its just the same cup drinking stated 2x.

I would love to get earlier verse by verse commentaries.


Origen's is sadly incomplete. It's  not extant in the full form and AFAIK doesnt narrate the resurrection in the extant fragments of Origen.

Is Jerome's verse by v. commentary online?


17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Quote
I wont drink from the fruit..... This according to Mark is said after the cup of the Eucharist. THe same is confirmed by Evangelist Matthew. The Lord the same, by Luke's message, pushes the cup away, not drinking. ...they should immediately take the spirit in awaiting what he will do next. Then came to EUcharistic Institution of the Mystery Established.
...

FULL TRANSLATION
  «И, взяв чашу» (стих 17). Точнее: «приняв» (δεξάμενος, а на λαβῶν, как в стихе 19). Это была чаша с вином, обычно выпивавшаяся присутствовавшими при совершении пасхальной вечери.
    «Не буду пить от плода...» (стих 18). Это, согласно Марку, сказано после чаши Евхаристической (Мк. 14:25). Точно так же утверждает и евангелист Матфей (Мф. 26:29). Господь таким же образом, по сообщению Луки, отстраняет от Себя чашу, не выпив из нее («разделите между собою»). Так как это было нарушением предания – отец семейства или хозяин вечери обязан был и сам испить вина из пасхальной чаши, – то этот отказ Христа должен был произвести сильное впечатление на апостолов, и они сразу должны были воспрянуть духом в ожидании, что будет делать Христос далее. А далее и последовало установление Таинства Евхаристии.
~ Lopuhin's commentary

Lopuhin is practically agreeing with Augustine.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 02:02:15 PM by rakovsky »

Offline sestir

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • Weihos Bokos
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: independent
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2017, 03:45:55 PM »
There's another possibility that I'm seeing in my quick google search.  Verse 20 and part of 19 seemed to have been omitted in some Greek manuscripts.

Yes, this looks like a text-critical issue, and not so much in Greek manuscripts but in Syriac and Latin:

Peshitta does not have verses 17 and 18 which is the first mention of wine.
Codex Vercellensis a (ca 375 CE), C. Veronensis b (5th century), C. Bezae d & D (ca 400 CE) and C. Corbiensis ff2 (5th century) are the heaviest witnesses that omit the second mention of wine, that is verses 19b - 20.
The Curetonian Gospels MS has verses 17-18 in place of verse 20 and therefore mentions a cup of wine only once.
These witnesses are not just ancient but somewhat geographically diverse.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest can examplify the confusion with its verse-order:
Quote from: Translated by Agnes Smith Lewis
19: And he took bread, and gave thanks over it, and brake, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which I give for you : thus do in remembrance of me.
20a: And after they had supped, he took the cup,
17: and gave thanks over it, and said, Take this, share it among yourselves.
20c: This is my blood, the new testament.
18: For I say unto you, that henceforth I will not drink of this fruit, until the kingdom of God shall come.
21: But nevertheless, behold, the hand of my betrayer ...

Main source for the manuscript evidence: Wieland Willker's commentary.

Some TC considerations:
What happened when a scribe accidentally skipped over a verse and discovered his/her mistake?
The scribe would add that verse in the margin with or without a sign indicating where it belonged. The next copyist would insert it in the text but not necessarily in its proper position.

What happened when a scribe used two exemplars and they had variant text for a verse?
I don't know.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2017, 05:40:23 PM »
Just to add, before I asked this question I did read St. Cyril's commentary, who wasn't clear but seems to assume one cup:

Sermon CXLII

And then I also found this in the Coptic Synexarium on Pope Damian I (+605 AD):

Quote
In the wilderness of Scete, there were some followers of Melitius El-Assyuty, who drank wine a few times during the night before they intended to partake of the Holy Communion. They claimed that the Lord Christ gave to His disciples two cups: the first He did not say, "This is My Blood" but when he gave them the second cup he said, "This is My Blood." St. Damianos showed them their error. He clarified to them that the first cup was the cup of the Jewish passover, and He nullified it with the second cup. He also told them that the canons of the church ban those that eat before communion from partaking of the Holy Eucharist. Some of them turned from their evil, but those that did not turn from their evil council were driven out of the wilderness.

While this heresy is accounted for by Severus of Al-Ashmumein, it doesn't mention how Pope Damian refuted it.  So this it be either a later interpolation or in fact a teaching from Pope Damian (who is a controversial figure in OO history due to the schism he caused with the Syriac Church).
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2017, 05:44:19 PM »
There's another possibility that I'm seeing in my quick google search.  Verse 20 and part of 19 seemed to have been omitted in some Greek manuscripts.

Yes, this looks like a text-critical issue, and not so much in Greek manuscripts but in Syriac and Latin:

Peshitta does not have verses 17 and 18 which is the first mention of wine.
Codex Vercellensis a (ca 375 CE), C. Veronensis b (5th century), C. Bezae d & D (ca 400 CE) and C. Corbiensis ff2 (5th century) are the heaviest witnesses that omit the second mention of wine, that is verses 19b - 20.
The Curetonian Gospels MS has verses 17-18 in place of verse 20 and therefore mentions a cup of wine only once.
These witnesses are not just ancient but somewhat geographically diverse.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest can examplify the confusion with its verse-order:
Quote from: Translated by Agnes Smith Lewis
19: And he took bread, and gave thanks over it, and brake, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which I give for you : thus do in remembrance of me.
20a: And after they had supped, he took the cup,
17: and gave thanks over it, and said, Take this, share it among yourselves.
20c: This is my blood, the new testament.
18: For I say unto you, that henceforth I will not drink of this fruit, until the kingdom of God shall come.
21: But nevertheless, behold, the hand of my betrayer ...

Main source for the manuscript evidence: Wieland Willker's commentary.

Some TC considerations:
What happened when a scribe accidentally skipped over a verse and discovered his/her mistake?
The scribe would add that verse in the margin with or without a sign indicating where it belonged. The next copyist would insert it in the text but not necessarily in its proper position.

What happened when a scribe used two exemplars and they had variant text for a verse?
I don't know.

This is interesting stuff.

Keep em coming if you guys find more info!
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,324
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2017, 05:57:05 PM »

Quote
In the wilderness of Scete, there were some followers of Melitius El-Assyuty, who drank wine a few times during the night before they intended to partake of the Holy Communion. They claimed that the Lord Christ gave to His disciples two cups: the first He did not say, "This is My Blood" but when he gave them the second cup he said, "This is My Blood." St. Damianos showed them their error. He clarified to them that the first cup was the cup of the Jewish passover, and He nullified it with the second cup.
This is the first time I have heard of this theory about old covenant (eg. passover and nullification) after what your father said about the old covenant.

It could be fun to think he got that as an alternative Coptic tradition passed down through generations............ I think that there in Coptic traditions can be found writings or ideas from the 1st few centuries that became sidelined.

If you want to read the gospels as consistent with each other, it looks like Lopuhin is correct, for the reasons he gives. I think "orthodox" theology would demand that.

However, if you want to theorize that Luke wrote his gospel independently and could contradict the others, the Chavurah & Berakah rituals mentioned earlier in this thread could work it seems to me.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 06:00:08 PM by rakovsky »

Offline mcarmichael

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 962
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2017, 12:55:57 PM »
I may have a possible explanation for the two cups that we observe in this pericope.

Gregory Dix, an Anglican scholar (whose work The Shape of the Liturgy is considered useful though slightly oudated by many modern scholars), suggests in the aforementioned book that one possible Jewish origin of the Eucharist may lie in the chaburah meals which were meals occasionally held by groups of pious Jewish men for the purposes of fellowship and spiritual edification. These were governed by a sense of heightened formality and particular attention to the religious etiquette of Jewish meal practices. Dix claims that these rules that governed these kinds of fellowship meals are well known to us from rabbinic sources (although the sources Dix provides are all in German and so I cannot personally verify them for you nor even evaluate their legitimacy for myself).
Do you know what his source is for this? Because I've heard there isn't much ancient Jewish manuscripts about. I'm no historian, though.
Sun Tzu said:
This is war.
It is the most important skill in the nation.
It is the basis of life and death.
It is the philosophy of survival or destruction.
You must know it well.

"Mouth make trouble, mouth make no trouble." - Sun Tzu

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 34,226
  • Faith: God
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2017, 10:12:09 PM »
This text might be worth taking a look at...

The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22:19b-20): A Sociological Answer to a Textual Problem, by Bradly S. Billings (ebscohost religion collection, or I can send you a pdf of it)

If that's not enough, the guy wrote an entire book on it:

Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22.19b-20): An Historico-Exegetical, Theological and Sociological Analysis, by Bradly S. Billings

A preview version of it is available on Google books.

The article mentions another text that might also be of interest, though I couldn't find a copy of it online: Johannes Knudsen, "The Problem of the Two Cups," LQ 2 (1950); 74-85

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2017, 10:19:54 PM »
+1
Thank you!  :)
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline mTh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • The Ascetic Experience
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2017, 05:11:04 AM »
 17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου [τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον]. 21 πλὴν ἰδοὺ ἡ χεὶρ τοῦ παραδιδόντος με μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης· 22 ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον πορεύεται, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι’ οὗ παραδίδοται.

The original text in Greek. It is quite clear that it speaks about the same cup (ποτήριον).
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 05:12:22 AM by mTh »
The Ascetic Experience - The best photos and texts from Holy Mountain (Athos)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,537
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #22 on: Yesterday at 11:13:00 PM »
Sorry, I just saw this last post.  So if the Greek is so obvious, why the confusion?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline CarolS

  • Lurker Extraordinaire
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church
Re: Luke 22:17-22
« Reply #23 on: Yesterday at 11:57:04 PM »
I was having a discussion with my father on this passage, and he shared with me an interpretation that there are "two cups", one "before supper" and one "after supper" (verse 20).

The one before supper, he contends, is a Passover cup (Old Covenant), while the second cup is the New Covenant, the blood.  I haven't found any patristic commentary that makes this distinction.  So it seems to me there are not two cups, but just the same cup mentioned twice.  Am I wrong to think that this is the same cup repeated a second time?

This is referenced in the Orthodox commentary on the Gospels by Blessed Theophylact (available in English transaltion through chrysostompress.org).

"Luke appears to mention two cups. The first cup, when the Lord says, Take this, and divide it among yourselves, might be explained as a type of the Old Testament; the second Cup, after He has broken and distributed the Bread, He Himself distributes to His disciples, calling it the Cup of the New Testament, and He says that it is initiated with His Blood. At the time of the Old Testament, when the law was given [and put into effect], there was the blood of irrational animals, beasts without logos. Now, when God the Logos has became Man, blood is the seal of the New Testament, putting it into effect for us.  [...] The old Pascha was performed for the deliverance from slavery in Egypt, and the blood of the lamb was shed for the preservation of the first born. But the new Pascha is celebrated for the remission of sins and for the preservation in us of pure and holy thoughts, consecrated to God like first-born sons."
« Last Edit: Today at 12:09:04 AM by CarolS »