He then having received the sop went out straightway: and it was night. There is no advantage to be secured by omitting the οὖν, and connecting the ἦν δὲ νύξ with the ὅτε ( συν) ἐξῆλθε, nor is it preferred by the later editors.
The immediate departure of Judas when he had taken the sop is compatible with all the context—a horror of the shadow of death falls on the tragic scene. He at least passes out into the outer darkness, apt symbol of his soul and of his deed.
Hengstenberg imagines the Lord's Supper to have followed the previous words, and that the εὐθύς must be interpreted with some laxity, leaving time for the sacred meal to have been instituted and the solemn song to have been sung.
It is difficult to say where the Eucharistic service is to be introduced, and every possible suggestion has been made. The statement of Luke 22:21, Luke 22:22 makes it probable that the traitor was present at it.
And all the synoptists make the indication of the traitor follow the institution of the Eucharist, and two of them place it on the very way to the garden of Gethsemane. Bengel, in harmony with his chronological scheme, supposes that the traitor went out and returned.
According to Keim, the Eucharistic meal may be supposed to be introduced at the close of John 14:1-31. and before the discourse on the vine; but that discourse follows a summons of Jesus to his disciples to leave the upper chamber.
And every attempt to find a place for it in the midst of the valedictory discourse is unsatisfactory (see these amply discussed in Godet, Lucke, Meyer). Thus Paulus, etc., place it after John 14:30. Lucke and Meyer, between verses 33 and 34; but Peter's question looks back to verse 33, allowing no such break.
Neander and Ebrard place after verse 32. Tholuck, after verse 34, Lange identifies it with the new commandment; and Bengel makes the discourse down to John 14:31 precede Christ's journey to Jerusalem to keep the Passover, so that no clashing takes place.
I think that the simplest solution of the difficulty is to put it at the commencement of the feast, and in the folds as it were of the sentence in John 13:2, which tells us that Jesus loved his disciples to the uttermost ( εἰς τὸ τέλος).
The endeavor made by Strauss, to argue from the silence of the fourth evangelist that he knew nothing of the institution of the Eucharist, is a great exaggeration. The synoptic tradition must, ex hypothesi of the late authorship of the Gospel, be well known to the author, and 1 Corinthians 11:33, etc.
, was ample proof of its historic basis. There was, in the entire representation of this Gospel, an intense perception of the inner meaning of the Eucharist, and of the new covenant and commandment based on the assumption of the Passion and death of the incarnate God; so that instead of describing the ceremonial, he expounds its ideas.