Luke 22:17–20 — Cup, Bread, and Cup: The Long and Short Forms of the Lord’s Supper

Passage

Luke 22:17–20

Issue

The received and principal modern texts contain a first cup, the bread saying, and a second cup identified with the new covenant. Codex Bezae and a limited Western stream omit the latter part of verse 19 and all of verse 20.

Variant class

Punctuation

Greek reading

The long form: first cup, bread “given for you,” command of remembrance, and the new-covenant cup “shed for you.”

Authorized Version

“This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” — Luke 22:20

Edition note

The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.

NA28 baseline reading

The Western short form ends the bread saying after “This is my body” and omits the second cup.

Translation or explanation

The Western short form ends the bread saying after “This is my body” and omits the second cup.

Effect class

Exegetical or interpretive consequence

Exact proposition affected

No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.

Doctrinal analysis

Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.

External and historical evidence

The long form stands in early papyrus evidence and in major witnesses often favored by critical editors, including Vaticanus. The short form is genuinely ancient, so it should not be treated as a modern attack on the Supper. This variation is also a warning about single-manuscript allegiance.

Internal and transcriptional evidence

If a scribe thought Luke had mistakenly duplicated the cup, removing verses 19b–20 produces a simpler order.

Reception and ecclesiastical use

The received text includes the full sequence and identifies the latter cup as “the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” For that reason, some critics once argued that the long form was assembled from liturgical tradition or Pauline language. “Do this in remembrance of me” gives the church an enacted proclamation rather than permission to repeat the sacrifice.

Providential-preservation analysis

Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 22:17–20. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.

Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture

Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.

Canonical-coherence verdict

The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.

Response to the principal critical argument

Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. For that reason, some critics once argued that the long form was assembled from liturgical tradition or Pauline language. The long form stands in early papyrus evidence and in major witnesses often favored by critical editors, including Vaticanus.

Conclusion

The long form should be retained. Its documentary breadth, coherent sequence, and relation to early eucharistic testimony outweigh the Western abbreviation. The short form is genuinely ancient, so it should not be treated as a modern attack on the Supper. It is a regional form whose simplification may reflect liturgical or narrative pressure.

This variation is also a warning about single-manuscript allegiance. Codex Bezae is ancient and often valuable; here its shorter text stands against the papyrus and broad Greek evidence. The full Luke preserves both the Passover horizon and the new-covenant interpretation of the cross.