It is a Psalm of David. The title need not be questioned. The occasion is Absalom’s rebellion. David is struck down by sickness (v.1-4), and hence is unable-as well as unwilling (2 Sam.16 :11,12)-to take counter-measures against the rebels. One of the conspirators (v.6,9-Ahithophel, doubtless comes to see the king, pretending sympathy, yet all the while his eyes are eager for signs of advancing disease in the sick man (“his heart gathereth iniquity to itself”). He then hastens to rejoin the conspirators, and re-assures them that the king has neither the will nor the physical powers to offer resistance (v.6-8). Meantime (v.10) David commits his cause unto God. The concluding verses (v.11-13) celebrate his restoration.

But Jesus read and used this psalm as a prophecy of himself. Those who see no more than a general suitability of v.9 to Judas need to look a little more closely. The historical setting outlines a type of great beauty (see Studies 209, 214).

Even apart from the sanction of Jesus himself in John 13 :18, there is good reason to read the psalms of Absalom’s rebellion as prophetic of the Messiah.

And now, a running commentary on the details of the psalm.

“Blessed is he that considereth the poor; the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble.” Here the life of Jesus spent in ministering to the spiritually needy is the ground for future blessing. And who so poor as Judas, no matter how many shekels in his purse? And who so considerate of him as his Master? The repeated appeals made to Judas at the Last Supper were a last desperate, but unsuccessful, attempt to save this false disciple.

Such a man after God’s own heart “the Lord will preserve, and cause him to live.” The same form of the same Hebrew verb comes in Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones: “The breath (Spirit) came into them and they lived” (37 :10). Thus there may be here a prophetic hint of the resurrection of Jesus-“and he shall be blessed upon the earth.”

However, at first glance, the next phrase presents a difficulty: “thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies.” But Jesus was delivered to the will of his enemies! No! Their will was that “He die and his name perish” (v.5). But instead of this “his name shall endure for ever” (Ps.72:17).

“The Lord will strengthen him on the couch of languishing.” Jesus reclined at the table with his disciples in the upper room, a man of sorrows and already acquainted with grief. Yet their fellowship, even though clouded by dim perception, uplifted his spirit and fortified his courage for the ordeal looming ahead. And the angel in Gethsemane was to add a purposeful reinforcement. So also his own prayer in the garden: “Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul.”

But then, very suddenly, this Messianic reference of the psalm runs into trouble with the words: “for I have sinned against thee.” True enough of David, and appropriate too that he should make this confession here, for it was his sin regarding Bathsheba and Uriah which led directly to the rebellion and civil war provoked by Absalom. But what possible relevance can these words have to the sufferings of Christ?

This is the major difficulty in the Messianic psalms. In at least four other psalms which the New Testament applies to Christ (31 :10; 40:12; 69 :5; 18 :23) the same problem arises. Yet in these places there is also a clear unselfconscious declaration of godliness and innocence (40:8; 69:4; 18 :20-24). And so also here: “As for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity” (v.12).

So far as reference to David goes, these confessions of sin are statements of literal truth, and the assertions of innocence are limited in their scope,, being allusions to David’s blamelessness regarding the scandalous falsehoods circulated by the rebels about him.

With reference to Jesus it is the other way round—the declarations of sinlessness are statements of precise and exact truth, whereas the associations with sin are his only by imputation; they are true only in the sense that he shared and bore the curse for sin which is the inheritance of the race. Daniel, Nehemiah, Joshua, Jeremiah all assumed that the individual cannot escape from some sort of ¹ responsibility for the sin of the community: “We have sinned with our fathers” (Ps.106 :6). The passages involving this principle are very numerous; e.g. Dan.9 ;4-19; Neh.1 :6; Josh.6 :25,26; 7 :1,11; 22 :18,20; 24 6,7; Jer.3 :25; 10 :24; 1 Chr.15 :13; 21 :13; 2 Sam.21 :1; Ezra: 9 :6; Lev.4 :3; 26 :40; ls.59 :8,9; Mt.23 :35,36; 18 :25; Acts 9:4; Rom.3 :23_;5 :12. It is another of the paradoxes of Scripture that there is equal emphasis on “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

In the psalm the picture of the conspiracy against Christ is graphically portrayed: “Mine enemies speak evil against me, saying, When shall he die, and his name perish?”-“The chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him” (Lk.22 :2). That phrase: “his name perish,” suggesting hostility to the very idea of a Messiah of the house of David, is marvellously appropriate to the outlook of the Sadducee chief priests.

Next comes a quick change of reference to one particular enemy. The sudden switch to a singular pronoun is very striking: “And if he come to see me, he speaketh vanity (with a double heart; Ps.12 :2): his heart gathereth iniquity to itself.” This “speaking vanity” is Judas’s “Hail master!” and his kiss of betrayal. In that last week of the ministry Judas became more and more a man acting a part. The iniquity his heart gathered to itself was, doubtless, his mounting dissatisfaction and dwindling sympathy for the cause of Christ. In particular, the cumulative effect on him of the Lord’s frequent allusions to coming shame and death would be considerable.

“When he goeth abroad, he telleth it.” The traitor’s words to the chief priests can be imagined: “He is in a mood of deep pessimism; and talks of failure and death. What better time for action against him?”

The psalm goes on to imply that all classes were now united against Jesus: “All that hate me whisper together against me: against me do they devise my hurt.” In the gospel: “they consulted (the Pharisees also joining in) how they might take Jesus by subtilty” (Mt.26 :4). That repetition: “against me, against me,” with the phrases cheek by jowl, is a superb piece of translating.

The more literally the next verse is translated, the more closely it fits the case of Jesus: “A thing of Belial is poured out in him”-the same verb is used of the anointing of Saul, that man of such mighty promise who ended up a wretched failure (1 Sam. 10:1).

Similarly, this Jesus claimed to be prophet and Messiah, yet he talked of rejection and death! To those who did not understand, this was indeed “a thing of Belial.” The Hebrew text suggests: “and when he has lain down, he shall not Joseph to rise up” (using here the word for resurrection). Joseph may have risen out of the pit to ultimate triumph over his brethren, but (say they) this man shall not do so. At this point the Septuagint Version has the emphatic double negative which, in the gospels, was invariably proved wrong when used by any except Jesus (see Study 184).

There now follow the words quoted by Jesus at the Last Supper: “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” The LXX reading: “in whom I set my hope”, might even imply that when Jesus first chose Judas he had better hopes of him than of the rest. But instead, Judas ate the bread of Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand, and lost faith in him (see the context of John 6 :70,71, and see also Study 97). Again, at the Last Supper, when offered the sop, he ate the bread of Jesus and went out into the night. It is surely significant that Jesus, quoting those words from the psalm came away from the LXX in order to use again the word he had used in John 6 :54-58 in his sacramental commentary on the feeding of the multitude.

The expression: “hath lifted up his heel against me,” is surely an allusion to the familiar prophecy in Genesis 3 :15 of Messiah crushing the head of the serpent, and being stung in the heel whilst doing so. But now the words are used so as to represent the traitor as the saviour and Jesus as the serpent. This authoritatively vetoes the popular guess that in betraying his Lord, Judas was well-intentioned, hoping to constrain the Master into an open demonstration of Messianic power. (Ps.109 similarly rules out this piece of imagination). Instead, if this psalm is any authority, the implication rather is that Judas betrayed Jesus out of a twisted sense of duty, to save the nation from the disaster which the policy followed by his leader seemed sure to bring (compare Jn.11:48-50).

Now comes the plea for God’s succour and strength: “But thou, O Lord, be merciful unto me, and raise me up (once again, the word for “resurrection”), that I may requite them.” There are those who are willing enough to read these words as the expression of a vengeful spirit, but there is nothing here to require such a meaning. After all, it was the duty of a king of Israel to administer justice and to punish rebellion against God.

At this point the tone of the psalm changes. Now the Messiah looks back on his tribulations and knows himself to be vindicated by the outcome: “By this I know that thou takest delight in me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me. And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face for ever.” With reference to Jesus the words are self-explanatory.

The doxology: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,” is woven into the rejoicing of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist (Lk. l:68-and note v.69 also). Here, then, is further proof of the psalm’s Messianic intent.

It should not be assumed that the doxology was added later so as to terminate suitably the First Book of Psalms. More probably this psalm was inserted here because its last verse makes an appropriate end to Book 1.

The meal almost certainly began with “grace before meat”; and the hymn which was sung before they went out doubtless included something of the same. Yet, before giving the Bread to his disciples, Jesus “gave thanks”. Every one of the records gives prominence to this, although Mark uses the word “blessed”, whilst Matthew has “blessed it” (but the word “it” is not in the text). So “blessed” is equivalent to “gave thanks”. Blessing God certainly includes thanking Him for His mercies: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits”—and so in a score of places.

But a comparison of the narratives of the feeding of the five thousand adds to this idea:

Matthew, Mark: and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake…

Luke: and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake…

The first two gospels seem to suggest that Jesus blessed (i.e. thanked) God. But Luke is explicit that he blessed the loaves. So, in considering the Last Supper, room must be found for both ideas. Doubtless the very act of thanking God brings a blessing in itself.

It is difficult to be more precise than this. “According to your faith be it unto you.” But the Catholic dogma that by the blessing of the priest the bread is transformed into the very body of Christ is an outrage against Scripture, experience and common-sense.

Bread and Wine – a distinction

Thanks given for the bread, Jesus “brake it, and gave to the disciples.” In Matthew’s record the form of the verb “gave” (as found in the best manuscripts) is instructive. In the New Testament it is often important to distinguish between actions which are instantaneous and those which are continuous. A simple sentence illustrates the two: “I got out of bed (an instantaneous action), and read (continuously) my Bible for an hour.” In Matthew the word “gave” is continuous (Greek imperfect)-Jesus was giving the Bread to his disciples. This suggests that Jesus broke off a piece for each disciple and handed it to him individually, thus making a marked distinction from his mode of administration of the Wine: “Take this, and divide it among yourselves”.

The same feature distinguishes the verb in what was, in effect, the first Breaking of Bread after the resurrection, when at Emmaus Jesus “took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave (was giving it) to them” (Lk.24 :30).

The familiar words in Paul’s record carry the same idea: “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you.” Here the word “broken” is continuous in form, and therefore can hardly have reference to “my body”, especially since John’s account of the piercing of the side of Jesus (Jn.19 :24-27) is emphatic by its personal witness, supported by inspired prophecy, that “not a bone of him was broken”. The true reading must be: “this (bread) which is being broken for you is (i.e. represents) my body.”

The essential idea, then, associated with the Bread is that of fellowship with Christ, this being symbolized by each at the table receiving his portion directly and personally from the Master himself. The Wine shared amongst themselves is now seen to have a similar but distinct meaning -fellowship with one another through the blood of the Lord shed for them all. In this distinction lies the answer to the difficulty which has often been present, though perhaps not clearly outlined, in the minds of many: Why did Jesus appoint that his death be remembered in two different symbols?-would it not have been sufficient to have appointed Bread or Wine? The meaning to be associated in the mind of the believer with each of the two elements is not precisely the same. Both have value, both are necessary.

Perhaps this is why Paul used the otherwise mystifying expression: “Whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (the RV here follows what is undoubtedly the best reading in the manuscripts). With the distinction in meaning just suggested it is possible to partake of the Bread worthily and of the Wine unworthily, or vice versa.

Modern practice with regard to the sharing of the Wine is, then, precisely as in the Upper Room, and the symbolism is appropriately preserved. But concerning the Bread a closer counterpart would be if each participant were to receive a portion directly from the hands of the presiding brother, he being regarded for the occasion as in the place of Christ. But there are not many assemblies where this would be practicable. However, if those participating emphasize in their minds the idea of receiving directly from Christ, and thus of having fellowship with him as constituents of his crucified body, this valuable symbolism is adequately preserved.

Another practice which has been known is this: After the word of thanksgiving each brother present would separately go to the Table and break off for himself a portion of the Bread. This may be considered by some to be a closer approximation to what actually happened at the Last Supper.

In all such matters however there is need for care lest concern for outward forms obtrude too much upon the inner realities.

“This is my body”

When Jesus said: “Take, eat; this is my body”, there can be no manner of doubt that he meant the Bread to be received as a symbol of his body. Only a determined Roman dogmatism would insist that these words require the transformation of Bread into literal flesh. The parallel expression: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” is adequate demonstration as to how the words should be interpreted, for clearly the cup cannot be a covenant. Very evidently the meaning here is “The wine in this cup is the token of the new covenant in my blood.” Other familiar examples come readily to mind: “I am the true vine”; “That Rock was Christ” (i.e. typified Christ); “These bones are (i.e. represent) the whole house of Israel.”

The symbolism, then, is to be interpreted in the light of the Lord’s own words after the feeding of the five thousand: “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh … Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (Jn.6 :51,53).

“Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, Peter, but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt.16 :17): “I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem . . . “, wrote Paul (Gal.l :16,17). In these examples “flesh and blood” is a straight synonym for weak human nature, as also is the word “flesh” occurring alone in many familiar passages.

The nature of Jesus-his “flesh and blood”-was one in which human and divine (exemplified by his parentage) met and became reconciled by the complete yielding of the human to the divine.

Those truly in Christ have a like experience. Born of the flesh, they are also born “from above” (Jn.3 :3RV) to become sons of God with the same two conflicting natures which their Lord shared. And unless, through Christ, the outcome of the conflict be the same as in his experience, the sorry alternative is: “ye have no life in you.”

It is at this point in the, record that the versions of Luke and Paul are (superficially) inconsistent. Luke has: “This is my body, which is given for you” where Paul has the word “broken”.

The meaning to be attached to the latter word has already been discussed and the explanation offered there leads to a simple reconciliation of the two variants: “This (bread) which is being broken is (represents) my body which is being given for you.”

This expression “being given for you” may be taken in two different ways: either as indicating that the betrayal of Christ was already in progress (if Judas had already left them), and his suffering already virtually begun (compare Lk.22 :44); or, as a well-known Hebraism, with many Old Testament parallels, signifying “appointed for you”-in which case, “Do this in remembrance of me” follows naturally enough.

Apart from the observance itself, there is something almost unique about this commandment of Jesus, which the believer does well to recognize. Normally the teaching of Jesus was expressed in principles, with the practical application of those principles in daily life left to each disciple according to his conscience. But here, most unusually, is an ordinance, a religious rite, an outward form to be followed. Perhaps the only comparable commandment is the one concerning baptism by which also “it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Mt.3 :15).

Two co-related sacraments

It is important to grasp the relationship between these two sacraments. In baptism a man has sins washed away. At that moment he stands spotless before God, being clothed with the righteousness of Christ. Yet how long is it before that pure white robe of imputed righteousness has become soiled in the sight of heaven by the defilements of the world or of personal thoughts and deeds? Accordingly, in the Breaking of Bread service there is a renewal of the cleansing that all participants invariably need. It is a kind of spiritual laundry service.

Or, looking at the problem somewhat differently, in baptism a man is new-born in the sight of God. He is like a new baby in the family of heaven. But new babies have to be fed. Indeed, every reasonably healthy baby clamours for food, and must have its needs met regularly. The Breaking of Bread does precisely this, providing unfailing nourishment for the growing child.

So it follows that when Jesus said: “Do this, in remembrance of me”, he meant just that. No true disciple will dream of neglecting this source of spiritual sustenance.

But whilst seemliness in outward details is important and a thing greatly to be desired, the main emphasis must be on the inner reality, a true and thankful “remembrance” in the mind of the believer, or else all is nugatory.

Even the Lord’s simple phrase: “Do this”, probably has its roots in the Old Testament, for the Passover commandment in Numbers 9 :2 (LXX) is: “Let the children of Israel do the passover in its season”. And since the “season” for “this Passover” has always been weekly, on the first day of the week (Acts 20 :7; 2 Cor. 16 :2)-oreven more often? (Acts 2 :46)-all with a true appreciation of their Lord’s sacrifice will be punctilious in their commemoration of it, and the more so because of the sharp contrast in both meaning and authority between Law and Gospel.

Under the Law there was “remembrance of sins made every year” (Heb.10 :3), but in this and every year of Grace there is a remembrance of the Saviour made every week.

This aspect of the Breaking of Bread is supremely important. Whilst mental contrast between the sinless Christ and the sinful disciple is inevitable, the emphasis should go on the sacrifice rather than the sin. Disciples are called to this fellowship to remember what Jesus so worthily did and does, not what they have unworthily done. On the other hand the believer who lets his mind dwell on the sensual pleasures of the life left behind (as did Israel; Num.11:5) has not really left them behind, and this invites disaster.

This insistence on remembrance shows also the psychological insight of Jesus, for it is common experience that when principles of righteousness are clearly and firmly held in mind then, obedience becomes a comparatively-repeat, comparatively I-easy matter. When Peter remembered, he went out and wept bitterly, fiercely reproaching himself, doubtless, that by not remembering earlier he had failed to fortify himself against this worst temptation of his life. Remembrance of the Man Jesus and of Jesus as Master and Teacher is the best aid to successful overcoming.

From a different angle this remembrance is even more impressive. In the Old Testament the almost universal association of remembrance is with Jehovah —His mighty acts, His covenants, His longsuffering. His very Name is a memorial Name, a constant reminder of His progressive, unfailing, gracious Purpose. The number of times the words “remember”, “memorial” and the Covenant Name occur in the same context is positively startling.

This Name which is above every name is now conferred by the Father upon Jesus (Phil.2 :9RV)-he is the Lord our Righteousness. But in addition to the Memorial Name of Jehovah he has also this other memorial-the eloquent symbols of the death by which he became the Lord our Righteousness.

Luke’s record uses a word which might imply that someone passed the cup to Jesus before he gave thanks for it. Perhaps this detail is included to supply a link with the cup of suffering which was held out to him in his Gethsemane and from which his soul recoiled. But at the moment it was “with desire” that he received and gave it to his disciples for their good.

There is obvious value in such a repetition of the symbolic act, markedly similar in meaning, so soon after the Bread had been shared. Repetition is a method God Himself has used many times, and with good reason.

Fellowship

This repetition is, however, one of similarity, not identity. “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” was not said concerning the Bread. It has already been suggested that the sharing of the Bread was done by Jesus himself, to signify the disciple’s fellowship with him, whereas the Wine, passed from one to the next, suitably emphasized fellowship with one another through him.

Without Jesus would those apostles have ever come together as a group unanimous in spirit and purpose? Or, having come together, how long would they have so continued, but for their Lord? And as the eye wanders round the typical ecclesia of the present day, the same questions flash through the mind and find the same sort of answer.

There is here, then, a perpetual rebuke of the man who thinks it possible to have fellowship with Christ and yet avoid or refuse fellowship with others who are Christ’s brethren. The logic of the situation demands that those who are deemed unfit for fellowship at the Lord’s Table be regarded as quite outside the pale of salvation.

And conversely, is there moral justification for refusing the tokens of Christ to those who are not so regarded? “He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 Jn.4:20).

In one’s meditation at the Lord’s Table the Wine calls for deliberate emphasis on fellowship with others who share redemption through the Blood of the Lamb. The figure of Vine and Branches, which Jesus used so powerfully within the same hour, has the same point. But alas, the Cup, which has union as its very idea, has far too often been made a symbol of separation (Lk. 12:52,53).

Individual cups?

The question often arises in modern times concerning the desirability or otherwise of the use of individual communion cups—this for hygenic reasons.

There are three main considerations here.

Did the apostles take the Wine from one cup, or did each have his own? The answer of the text of Scripture is clear. Those who have a desire to come in their observance as close as possible to the Supper as it was first observed will be ; guided accordingly.

Again, germs are only a discovery-not an I invention-of the nineteenth century. It is difficult to believe (indeed, to some it is quite inconceivable) that God Almighty would give the greatest of His blessings to His children and yet would allow the very act of receiving that gift to be a death trap. The greater includes the less, and faith in the greater will surely include faith in the less.

Yet always in Scripture there is scrupulous regard for the unshared scruples of others. In matters of this sort a willingness to consider another’s point of view can usually lead to some practical concession or compromise agreeable to all concerned. But concessions are to be made to those who are weak, says Paul, not to those who are strong (Rom.14 :1; 15 :1).

The Lord’s pointed and (as some might think) needless exhortation: “Drink ye all of it” (Mt.) is followed up in Mark by the emphatic and (as others might think) even less necessary words: “and they all drank of it”. Each of these phrases serves to stress the importance of an actual partaking of this appointed symbol. In this there is wisdom, for a remembering of Jesus without the outward form would rapidly deteriorate into a feeble and altogether inadequate celebration of redemption.

Emergency

But if, as might happen in an emergency, there is no wine available for this purpose, then perforce the remembering of Christ must proceed without the outward form, unless some sort of tolerable substitute is available, in which case it could surely be used with confidence, on the basis of the admirable example at Hezekiah’s great Passover. Because of the hasty improvisation of that Feast, in no less than four ways the Passover precept was not properly observed (2 Chr. 30 :13,17,18,23), “but Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers … And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people” (30:18,19).

In similar situations today, Christ’s people have one greater than Hezekiah to intercede for them.

It is difficult to guess what the eleven themselves understood at the time by their sharing of the Cup. The fact that Mark gives the explanatory words of Jesus after his mention of the actual drinking may perhaps suggest that they drank it as wine and understood its meaning as a symbol afterwards-vaguely at first, when with the benefit of their Master’s explanation, then more pointedly next day when they saw him crucified and pierced, and most vividly of all when they shared his fellowship during the forty days.

Similarly, a baptism received (say) in one’s teens never ceases to be a valid baptsim, even though the fuller realisation of its meaning in later years makes the earlier comprehension seem so inadequate. So also with this sacrament, not only in the experience of the eleven but also with all who have sought to follow their faith in later years. God does not expect the children of His New Creation to be new-born fully mature.

The new covenant

“This is my blood of the new covenant (see Study 195), which is shed for many.” The explanatory words of Jesus take this form in Matthew and Mark. But Luke, supported by Paul, has: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.”

The difference of phrasing raises in pointed fashion the problem: What were the actual words used by Jesus? It is the problem, in its most acute form, of the verbal accuracy of the gospels. Did Jesus make both statements in the course of a protracted explanation? Or will a conflation of the two suffice as : “This cup is the blood of the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you and for many”? Or are both versions to be regarded as adequate and accurate paraphrases of what was said, the difference in wording supplying a difference of emphasis according to the outlook or purpose of each evangelist?

A definitive solution to questions of this sort is not easily come by. However the problem be resolved, the authority of the words is unquestioned. And, strangely enough, this has also been the attitude of many a modernist critic for whom the gospels are neither inspired nor authoritative; but simply documents and “sources.” These scholars none the less reason learnedly and minutely about the smallest details, even though on the same page they may be questioning the dependability of the record and doubting whether Matthew or Mark or Luke or any other first century disciple wrote it. A strange inconsistency!

When Jesus spoke of his blood as ”shed for many”, he doubtless had in mind the familiar prophecy about the suffering Servant of Jehovah which must have dominated much of his thinking about this time: “By his knowledge shall my Righteous Servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities … and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (ls.53 :11,12). And Paul, also: ~s “Seeing that there is one bread, we-the many-are one body” (1 Cor.10 :17; the AV reading here is unintelligible).

Far more directly Jesus was taking his .disciples back to Jeremiah’s matchless prophecy of the “New Covenant” when God will “forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more” (Jer.31 :31-34).

Without any doubt he was now setting aside the Old Covenant made at Sinai. Instead of it, he now substituted himself both as sacrifice and mediator. The massiveness of this claim is easily lost on the disciple of today. Familiarity impedes the proper impact of the words. Instead of the multitude of animal sacrifices there was himself-crucified I Instead of the sprinkling of blood he required the drinking of it-his own. Instead of a covenant of obedience and due rewards he offered a new covenant of full and free forgiveness. And instead of the revered Moses as mediator, there was himself I

It says much for the loyalty of the eleven that even at this late hour they did not react in horror from the very magnitude of the claim their Master was making. Perhaps it was the dimness of their comprehension which saved them. But ever since then it is discernment, appreciation, faith, and thankfulness which save the one who shares this symbol of the death of Christ.

For such a partaker it brings forgiveness of sins. It is for this reason perhaps that Paul writes of “the cup of blessing which we bless” (1 Cor. 10:16), using the word “bless” in a double sense as that for which thanks is given and that which brings forgiveness of sins (consider Gen.22 :17; Acts 3 :25,26; Gal.3 :8,9; Lk.6 :28;Mt.25:34; Ps.72:17and 24:5).

“In my Father’s kingdom”

The problem of the verbal accuracy of the gospels-mentioned earlier-crops up again with regard to the next words of Jesus: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” This is Matthew. Mark has “in the kingdom of God”, and Luke: “until the kingdom of God shall come.”

All the records represent accurately the sense of what Jesus said, but it is highly unlikely that the Lord actually used all these various phrases.

He had used similar words concerning the Bread (Lk.22 .-16), and although during the forty days he ate repeatedly with his disciples, it was never in the formal sacramental sense that he partook with them-how could he, since it was appointed “in remembrance of me?”

But these words about “the fruit of the vine” are so emphatic as to exclude any drinking of wine at all during that period, or since. There is point in this. A priest on duty was expressly forbidden all wine or strong drink (Lev. 10 :9). Jesus, then, was asserting to his disciples his own active priesthood on their behalf from this time forward.

Is there also special meaning in the words: “When I drink it new with you?” Whereas the wine at the Last Supper was certainly fermented grape juice (congruent with leavened bread as a symbol of the true human nature of Christ), these words may mean that in his kingdom it will be used sacramentally in an unfermented condition-again the symbolism is fitting, for those so partaking will be completely and for ever free from the taint of sin.

There will also be then a difference of emphasis since faith in the Lord’s coming again in a kingdom will have given place to sight. In the age to come the Breaking of Bread will be altogether backward looking—to a deliverance better than that from Egypt. And indeed those in the Millenium who see Jesus in their midst as an Immortal King will doubtless be all the better for having some reminder that this King of Glory was once the Suffering Servant of Jehovah.

With one final instruction Jesus now concluded the solemn occasion: “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Some have taken the words to mean that every glass of wine ever drunk by a disciple of Jesus should be received in this spirit of thanksgiving and remembrance. Certainly if this were done it would lift all wine-bibbing to a spiritual level such as rarely dignifies it.

But there is here probably another Old Testament association of these elements. Jeremiah alludes to the funeral custom of breaking bread and drinking wine in memory of the one who has died: “Neither shall men break bread (RV) for them in mourning, to comfort them for the dead; neither shall men give them the cup of consolation to drink” (Jer.16 :7).

Was there ever such a cup of consolation as this? And how those remembering Jesus are “comforted for the dead” by the sure and certain knowledge of his resurrection!

Meal ended

The time was come for Jesus to rally his own spiritual forces against the taxing ordeal now before him. The Last Supper had been primarily for his disciples. Gethsemane was for himself: “Arise, let us go hence.”

Jesus must have known that Judas, having left the company in the middle of a meal, would bring the soldiers back to the house to take him. Yet it would be wrong to interpret this move to Gethsemane as an attempt at evasion, a kind of active expression of “let this cup pass from me.”

Before the onset of battle a wise commander disposes of his forces in the most advantageous positions available. Jesus did precisely this when he betook himself, with the eleven, to the place of prayer.

The hymn

But first they sang a hymn. Because of the common assumption that the meal just eaten was a Jewish Passover celebration, this hymn is often taken to be the Paschal Hallel-Psalms 113-118. In any case this may well have been so, because of the extremely close association the Last Supper had with the normal Passover (see Study 181). The full Hallel would make a hymn of fairly considerable length, and the singing of it must have taken up a good deal of time. But more likely it was just a short “grace” at the end of the meal, or possibly the concluding portion of the Hallel-Psalms 117 and 118only.

There is something specially attractive about this last suggestion because of the remarkable links between Psalm 118 and Exodus 15, the triumph-song of the Israelites after the crossing of the Red Sea (Compare Ps.118 :5,14,16,28,21 with Ex.15:2,6).

Nor should the marvellous aptness of Psalm 118 to the experience of Jesus be overlooked.

“I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death” (v. 17,18). The words explain themselves.

“The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner” (v.12). Here “head” not in the sense of top-stone (a very common error), but in the sense of “chief”, that is, a foundation stone (as in 1 Pet.2 :4,7; Eph.2 :20). Jesus, as reported by all the synoptists (and also Peter; Acts 4:11), applied the words to himself.

“Save now, I beseech thee, O Lord” (v.25) was the “Hosanna” cry of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem-a cry to be echoed when the Lord returns in glory.

“Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar” (v.27). In the light of Psalm 116 :3), this is a prophecy of Messiah’s sacrificial death: “The cords (RV) of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me.”

It would be difficult to find any hymn more apposite to the Last Supper than this. And yet the hymn book with its many paraphrases of Psalms and other Old Testament Scriptures does not have one of Psalm 118.

When the hymn was ended they all quietly gathered their outer garments and went out through the cold night air (Jn.18 :18) “over the brook Kidron.” In these simple words there is a deliberate reminiscence of David’s experience of rejection and ultimate return in glory to his royal city (2 Sam.15 :23).

“For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread..” (1Cor.ll :23RV).

For Paul so great was the importance of this appointed sacrament that he would not have those to whom he had taught the Truth in Christ believe that it came to them through mere human tradition. Even his own authority was not to be regarded as adequate for this. “I received it of the Lord” by special personal revelation, he declared, and this is now faithfully delivered unto you. The modern reader can easily miss the implied rebuke in Paul’s words. His word “delivered” is identical with the word “betrayed”-“! handed over to you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night he was handed over (to his enemies) took bread.” Did Paul introduce this allusion to the betrayal as indirect rebuke of the Corinthians’ own betrayal of Christ by their current abuse of the memorial supper?

The account of the Lord’s own appointment of the remembrance of his sacrifice is given in the four records with more detail than is often realised – and all of it important. A re-assessment of their meaning is never out of place.

Bread and Wine -When?

For example, Matthew records that it was “as they were eating”, that is, in the course of the actual supper, that Jesus gave the memorial Bread to his disciples. Yet Luke is equally clear that the wine was passed to them “after supper” (Paul: “when he had supped”, i.e. after the meal).

Thus Judas may have shared the Bread (probably did; see Study 186), but did not partake of the Wine, for he went out immediately after receiving the sop (Jn.13 :27) which was undoubtedly offered to him whilst the meal was in progress. •Wr-^lH–‘;4r”

Another point of greater importance today is that the details just mentioned indicate a certain lapse of time between the thanksgiving for the Bread and for the Wine-the Bread during the meal, and the Wine after it.

Is this an indication as to how the celebration should be kept by disciples of the Lord in later times? Current practice is to separate the two by no more time that it takes to re-assemble the remaining fragments of bread. Some would urge that as close an approximation as possible to the Lord’s own practice is desirable. Others would doubtless argue that the New Testament has no explicit commandment concerning details of this sort, and therefore the question is without importance. Yet one cannot help wondering if there is not greater benefit to be derived from a separation of the two emblems.

Intense desire

Here and there sheer familiarity may serve to obscure the intensity of meaning in the Lord’s words, as when Jesus said:

“With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.”

In no other place in the gospels is such vehement longing attributed to Jesus. The repetition, which is pure Old Testament idiom, brings out this eagerness with simple but powerful effect. But what a contrast with the identical phrasing used when the people in the wildernes “fell a-lusting (LXX: desired a desire) . . . Who shall give us flesh to eat?” (Num.11 :4).

The yearning of Jesus for this occasion also contrasts sadly with the casual indifference of many of his present-day disciples, even though he says: “This is my body.”

But why this keen desire?

In the first place, because He knew this meal to be the immediate prelude to the crisis of suffering which he fervently wished to have done with: “I have a baptism to be baptised with, and how I am straitened till it be accomplished” (Lk.l2:50).

But also there was the need to give to his disciples a vital bond of fellowship to strengthen them to withstand the strain of coming days when he was no longer with them to impart personal reassurance and direction to their activities.

Perhaps also this desire, which amounted almost to anxiety, sprang from a fear that his enemies might move so fast as to apprehend him before he could round off the preparation of his disciples for the severe testing of their faith which the next day was sure to bring.

This was a new kind of Passover which Jesus was appointing for them. The Jewish Passover was kept as a family meal. A man ate it with his own kith and kin. But the fervent desire of Jesus was to eat this new Passover “with you, my disciples.” His own folk, who at this time disbelieved his claims (Jn.7 :5), were therefore disowned, and Jesus turned to those who sought to “do the will of God” (Mk.3 :34,35) by believing in him (Jn.6 :29). These with whom he now shared a meal of fellowship were no longer called servants, but friends and brethren (Jn.l5:15 and 20:17).

In Christ the principle still holds. Social claims and responsibilities have their place in the life of all, but none can compare in importance will the Passover which the disciple must eat will him. There can be no priority over this. But do all see it in this perspective?

“Before I suffer”

It would be surprising if the eyes of the Twelve were not opened by those grim words: “before I suffer”. How often during the past six months had Jesus done his utmost to forewarn his disciples about the nation’s impending rejection of him at Jerusalem? Time after time he had tried to re-orientate their thinking so that they would see him first of all as “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” Yet almost to the last their minds were dominated by eagerness for a new and better nationalism headed by Jesus and, of course, themselves. It remains one of the major problems of the gospels to explain how the repeated warnings and clear prophecies of Jesus made so little impression on their minds.

Here, at last, in the Upper Room the truth seems to have gone home. The warnings of betrayal, the symbols of the body and blood of a dead leader, the sad reminders: “Yet a little while I am with you”, the attempts at comfort: “Let not your heart be troubled … If I go away, I will come again . . .” and the point-blank promise of another Comforter-all these things, and especially the sadness of Jesus himself, must have brought them to earth: he was going to suffer, and for all they knew they might be called upon to suffer with him.

But there was one in the group (if indeed he was still there) in whom these plain words produced a different reaction. The mind of Judas moved fast and with simple logic: ‘He has given up all hope of success. Then where’s the gain in tying myself to a lost cause. Is there any sense in going down with a sinking ship? And since he is now in such a mood, isn’t this the very time to fulfil my contract with the chief priests, even though they said “Not on the feast day”? And wasn’t Caiaphas right when he said: “One man must die for the people”? His death is necessary to save the nation. If he doesn’t die, many others will.’

So, for Judas, if indeed he were not already gone on his traitorous errand, this was the decisive moment.

Not only Memorial but also prophecy

And yet in the very next breath Jesus spoke of other things: “For I say unto you, I will not any more eatthereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

So in appointing the Breaking of Bread as a memorial Jesus was also making a prophecy. The word “fulfilled” requires this, as also does the allusion to the kingdom of God. And what a prophecy! For in that day the sharing of Christ will surpass all present experience. Besides the sharing of his transformed nature there will be the sharing of his personal fellowship. “Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty.” It is an idea for the devout imagination to dwell upon. The remembering of Christ may be an occasion of sadness as the mind considers the “travail of his soul”, but on more than one score it should be also a ground for intense joy and gladness.

The same element of prophecy is associated with the Wine: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt.)-new wine because of a new meaning.

There is reference here to the Messianic meal foretold by Isaiah (25 :6): “And in this mountain (mount Zion; 24:23) shall the Lord of hosts make unto all the peoples (the new Israel) —

– a feast of fat things,

– a feast of wines on the lees,

– of fat things full of marrow,

– of wines on the lees well refined”

(cp.Lk.22 :30: Rev.3 :20).

Here, “fat things” is an undoubted allusion to the sacrificial meal offerings which were always asociated with oil (Lev.2 :1). Thus Isaiah prophesied a special Memorial, in the kingdom, of Bread and Wine. And he said it twice, as also did Luke (22 :15-20)-twice because “the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring itto pass” (Gen.41 :32).

There is also a problem here. After his resurrection Jesus companied with his disciples during the forty days, and is spoken of in Acts as eating with them: “witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead” (10 :41): “And eating with them, he commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem” (1 :4RVm).

At the Lord’s first resurrection appearance to the apostles, “they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb” (Lk.24:42).

There is no inconsistency here once it is realised that Jesus was speaking sacramentally and not of sharing an ordinary meal with his disciples.

The meal at Emmaus was not in this category, for there every phrase echoed the Last Supper: “he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them”—but here there is no suggestion that Jesus partook of the Bread himself. Instead, “he vanished out of their sight” (Lk.24 :30.31).

The bread which Jesus gave to his disciples was doubtless an ordinary small loaf from which pieces were broken. The normal meaning of the Greek word used in the gospels is “a loaf or cake of bread.” So those who desire to be as close as possible to the mode employed by Jesus himself will wish to see him symbolized at his Table by a complete loaf or cake of bread rather than by a slice or portion cut out of a loaf. The fitness of the symbolism points in this direction also. Christ is the entire body, not a part of it. It is a pity that practice so often fails to conform to this. Where the local rite does not outwardly conform to this, it is well that the one partaking should mentally stress the essential idea.

Unleavened Bread?

From time to time, also, there arises the question: Should Jesus be remembered in leavened or unleavened bread?

If the conclusion reached in Study 181 (that the Last Supper was twenty-four hours earlier than the Jewish Passover) is correct, then the answer to this question is “leavened”; for the Jews never took to unleavened bread earlier than was absolutely necessary. Their first unleavened bread was at the Passover meal itself.

Other considerations point in the same direction. The symbolism of the Bread and Wine are memorials of Jesus as one sharing ordinary human nature. They emphasize that he shared the propensities (but not the sin) of his brethren.

The wine was, of course, fermented wine-necessarily so, since in those pre-refrigeration days, they had no means of keeping grape juice free from fermentation from September’s grape-harvest to April. Is there not a symbolic inconsistency about unleavened bread and fermented wine?

Further, it is known that from the earliest days and for many centuries the church ‘ used leavened bread at its Eucharist. The change to unleavened bread was dictated by Rome.

But whilst the limited evidence available points to the use of leavened bread, the simple fact that the New Testament makes no explicit requirement one way or the other she inculcate toleration in what is evidently not a matter of first-rate importance (though, indeed, no detail concerning this remembering of Christ is to be treated lightly).

Mt.
Mk.
Lk. l
Lk. 2
Paul	The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed

Mt.	as they were eating
Mk.	as they did eat
Lk. l	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 any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Lk. 2
Paul

Mt.	Jesus took bread, and blessed (it), and brake it, and gave it to the disciples,
Mk.	Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them,
Lk. l
Lk. 2	And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them,
Paul	he took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it,

Mt.	and said, Take, eat;	this is my body,
Mk.	and said, Take, eat;	this is my body
Lk. l
Lk. 2	saying,	This is my body, which is given for you.
Paul	and said, Take, eat:	this is my body, which is broken for you.

Mt.
Mk.
Lk. l
Lk. 2	This do in remembrance of me. Likewise also
Paul	this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also

Mt.	And he took the cup,	and gave thanks,
Mk.	And he took the cup,	and when he had given thanks
Lk. l	And he took the cup,	And gave thanks,
Lk. 2	the cup after supper,
Paul	(he took) the cup: when he had supped

Mt.	and gave it to them,	saying,
Mk.	he gave it to them:	and he said to them
Lk. l		and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves;
Lk. 2		saying
Paul		Saying,

Mt.	Drink ye all of it;	for this is my blood of the new testament,
Mk.	and they all drank of it.	This is my blood of the new testament,
Lk. l
Lk. 2		This cup is the new testament in my blood,
Paul		This cup is the new testament in my blood:

Mt.	which is shed for many for the remission of sins,	But I say unto you,
Mk.	which is shed for many,	Verily I say unto you,
Lk. l		For I say unto you,
Lk. 2	which is shed for you
Paul

Mt.	I will not drink henceforth	of this fruit of the vine, until that day
Mk.	I will drink no more	of the fruit of the vine, until that day
Lk. l	I will not drink	of the fruit of the vine, until
Lk. 2
Paul

Mt.	when I drink it new with you	in my Father’s kingdom.
Mk.	when I drink it new	in the kingdom of God.
Lk. l		the kingdom of God shall come.
Lk. 2
Paul

Paul

this do ye, as oft as he drink it, in remembrance of me.

Jn.	Arise, let us go hence. When Jesus had spoken these words,
Mt. Mk.	And when they had sung an hymn,

Mt.	they went out	unto the mount of Olives.
Mk.	they went out	into the mount of Olives.
Lk.	And he came out, and went, as he was wont	to the mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him.
Jn.	he went forth	with his disciples.

In the four-fold account of the Last Supper, the unique mention of two cups (Lk.22 :17,20) has created a problem of no ordinary magnitude for students. The usual approach is to talk in vague terms about the four cups of the Passover celebration, and to assume that these were two of the four (but which two seems to be largely a matter of guesswork).

In this study it will be suggested:

1. that this link-up with Passover cups is quite unfounded;
2. that the two cups are really a double mention of the same cup;
3. that Luke’s record actually gives the institution of the Breaking of Bread twice.

Consideration is invited of the following layout of the records given by Matthew, Luke and Paul:

Matthew 26	Luke 22	Luke 22	1 Corinthians 11
26. As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.	15. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16. For I say unto you, / will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God	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.	23, The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me,
27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it;	17. And he took the cup, and gave thanks and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:	20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.	25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.	18. For I say unto you. / will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

First, then, it is very evident that Luke 22 :19,20 describes the memorial Bread and Wine. The words of Jesus in this Lucan record are almost identical with those in Paul’s account of the Breaking of Bread in 1 Corinthians 11 :23,25.

Next, Luke 22 :17,18 which appears to relate to another cup, has the words, “For I say unto you, I will not drink (RV: from henceforth) of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come.” But these are precisely the words which Matthew 26 :29 and Mark 14 :25 associated with the memorial cup. Therefore Luke 22 :17 is about the memorial cup. Therefore the two cups in Luke are really one and the same.

But if Luke mentions the Cup twice, does he also make double mention of the Bread? It would seem very probable that he does. Luke 22 :15,16 has this: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” The closing words here are an exact parallel to those associated with the cup: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt.26 :29). It would be strange indeed if Jesus said one thing about the blessed memorial of his sacrifice and exactly the same thing about a comparatively unimportant item in the Jewish passover meal (and one, be it noted, which was a rabbinic incrustation not required by Exodus or Deuteronomy). The equivalence of these two passages—Luke 22 :16 and Matthew 26 :29-is so evident and satisfying, so obviously right and fitting, that any alternative explanation appears paltry by comparison.

It would seem to follow, then, that “with desire I have desired to eat this passover” (Lk.22 :15) was spoken with reference to the memorial Bread. The words need to be read with an emphasis on the word “this”, to point a contrast between the new Passover which the Lord was now instituting (“Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us”; 1 Cor.5 :7), and the Jewish Passover celebrating deliverance from Egypt.

Three observations confirm this conclusion:

1. “With desire I have desired . . .” Nowhere else is such vehement longing attributed to Jesus. Can any reason be assigned for an eagerness to celebrate the Jewish passover with his disciples? On the other hand, when this saying is referred to the new Passover, the words call for no explanation at all.
2. “I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” When Jesus comes again will he celebrate the Jewish Passover every year? Or will he break Bread and drink Wine with his redeemed in thankful celebration of how that redemption was accomplished?
3. And is it the Jewish Passover or is it his own new Passover which will be fulfilled in the kingdom of God?

One problem still remains: Why should Luke give his record such a shape? It could be that in ch.22 Luke was content (under God) to compile what information he was able to assemble (Lk.1 :2) concerning the Upper Room, without making any attempt to put it into strict chronological order. (There are not a few other instances in Luke of chronological dislocation: 1 :66b,80; 3 :19,20; 4 :16ff; 13 :34; 11 :24-32 (cf.Mt.); 11 :14ff (cf. Mk.j; 11 :13,14(?); 19 :41,37; 21 :37,38). Or perhaps he had reasons of his own (which have not come to light as yet) for disturbing the order of this section of his narrative—as Matthew and Mark have certainly done at Matthew 26:6 and Mark 14:3 (for a fairly obvious reason; see Studies 155, 180). Perhaps Luke’s method here has been to put first what he deemed to be undoubtedly the most important section—the Breaking of Bread—and then to add the rest of the details concerning the Upper Room in a series of disconnected paragraphs without special regard to the order in which the different events took place. This is suggested by the following features:

1. Luke appears to mention the priority contention amongst the twelve as taking place after the Bread and Wine. But John 13 puts the washing of the disciples’ feet (which was clearly designed as a rebuke of their altercation) at the beginning of the proceedings. (John 13 :2 should read: “And supper being ready.” And note that Luke 22 :27cimpliesJohn 13 :4,5). In any case it is impossible to believe that immediately after the solemn institutional words of Jesus the twelve fell to quarrelling.
2. Luke 22 :21 represents Jesus as saying after the institution of the Bread and Wine: “Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” This would seem to imply that Judas actually shared both the Bread and the Wine. Yet, according to John 13 :26,30, Judas was given the sop whilst the meal was in progress, and he then went out immediately. But it was “after supper” that Jesus “took the cup.” So the order in Luke here can hardly be right.
3. Luke 22 :31-34 puts the warning of Peter about the impending denial before the departure for Gethsemane, which is described in verse 39. But Matthew and Mark both have it after Jesus left the Upper Room. The introductory phrase of Luke 22 :31: “And the Lord said” (which RV quite unwarrantably omits) suggests the beginning of an independant section of the narrative,
4. In the same Luke 22 :35-38 (the discussion about swords and about Jesus reckoned with transgressors) appears to be spoken in the Upper Room (note v.39). Yet is it likely that at the table the disciples would be wearing swords and could say: “Lord, behold, here are two swords”? The words surely belong to Gethsemane or to their journey thither.

With four other examples of what the modernist would call “dislocation”, but for which “compilation” is probably a better word, it seems not unlikely that this phenomenon is adequate to account for Luke’s double mention of the Bread and Wine.

The most important result of this study, is, then, that Luke 22 should be read as giving two successive records of the eucharistic words of Jesus:

v.15,16:	The Bread
v.17,18:	TheWine
v.19:	The Bread
v.20:	TheWine.

There in the Upper Room Jesus renewed the stirring promise made to Peter a week earlier (Mt.19 :28): “Ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk.22 :30). But on this occasion he did not say twelve thrones. The omission was probably deliberate, for one of these twelve at the table with him was soon to despise the meekness of Christ and forfeit all title to royal honour with him.

So Jesus went on to say plainly: “I speak not to you all: I know whom I have chosen.” Twelve had been chosen to share his life of humility and service, but only eleven to be with him in his future glory—because one of them was turned traitor “that the scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.”

The words carried a plain implication of predestination—and indeed this was not the only occasion where such an expression was on the Lord’s lips: “the Son of man goeth as it hath been determined” (Lk.22 :22). The idea that everything in his experience, big or small, was now pre-appointed, dominated the cast of his thinking at this time. And yet nothing is more certain than the fact that Judas did what he did because he chose to do it: “Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed.”

“When therefore Jesus was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered . . . and they believed the Scripture . . . and the word which Jesus had said” (Jn.2 :22). If, then, the resurrection of Jesus brought light, in place of mystification, to that which was known but not comprehended, what will be the greater fruits of personal resurrection?

“He that eateth bread with me’—these words from Psalm 41 need to be read with care, for there are times when correct conclusions concerning it become important, especially in view of its bearing on the question of acceptance at the Lord’s Table of those who have shown themselves disloyal to Christ.

The facts of the gospel narrative point to the conclusion that Judas probably shared the Bread with the Lord and with his fellow-disciples but that he did not partake of the Wine. For, it was “as they were eating” (Mt.26:26) that Jesus gave thanks for the Bread; and “likewise the cup after supper” (Lk.22 :20). But evidently the meal was still in progress when Jesus gave the sop to Judas who thereupon “went immediately out” (Jn.13 :30).

There seems to be a big probability that Judas did take the Bread with the rest, for these words from Psalm 41—’he that eateth bread with me … ‘—would surely be too trivial for inclusion or quotation if just referring to ordinary food. The word for “eateth” disallows such a meaning (see Study 184).

Also, there is this consideration—that the Lord was dearly willing for Judas to continue in fellowship with the others. There is no hint of a deliberate attempt to be rid of him, but the very opposite.

Then how great should be the reluctance and hesitance of a modern ecclesia before taking any kind of drastic action against the unfaithful or disloyal I

The remarkable reading in the Septuagint version: “the man of my peace, on whom I set my hope”, perhaps picks out Judas the apostle with greater potentialities than any of the others. Certainly there must have been some specially remarkable aptitudes in this man that he should be selected to collaborate with eleven others so different from himself.

Yet these possibilities never came to fruition. Instead, he “lifted up his heel” against his Leader. This prophecy from Psalm 41 just quoted by Jesus was intended not only as a warning to Judas but also to forearm the rest against the faith-testing events of the next few hours: “From henceforth I tell you before it come, that when it come to pass ye may have faith.” For the same reason he prepared their minds for his going away to the Father (14 :29), and also for the ensuing persecution when they should attempt to preach his gospel (16 :4). Thus he turned serious tests of faith into grounds for assurance that they were following no will-o-the-wisp (Lk.24:52; Acts 5:41).

Receiving Christ

It is no easy matter to relate the next words of Jesus to their context. Since they were spoken with the meal still in progress, it is possible that the ellipsis should be filled out with allusion to that: “He that receiveth (at my Table) whomsoever I shall send, receiveth me.” On this Burgon adds the pungent observation: “Woe to those who forget that the reverence thus shown them is in reality shown to their Master!”

It was a lesson the Apostle John soberly reinforced in later days: “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest toward them that are brethren and strangers withal… whom thou wilt do well to set forward on their journey worthily of God, because that for the sake of the Name they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to welcome such that we may be fellow-workers with the Truth” (3 Jn.5-8). The converse is also true: “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth” (v.9,10).

In the Day of Reckoning this will be for many the ground of approval or rejection: “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me … Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not tome”(Mt.25:40,45).

For this very reason the Lord’s warnings of impending betrayal became the more pointed. He spoke to them under tremendous stress of emotion—he was “troubled in spirit.” This was not the same as ch.12 : 27: “Now is my soul troubled,” or Matthew 26 :38: “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,” when he wrestled against a natural reaction from the horror of suffering which lay before him.

Here, by contrast, the Lord’s concern was for Judas. So with what appropriateness are the words the same as when he stood at the graveside of Lazarus (Jn.ll :33,38), for here—as there—it was the “death” of a close friend which stirred his emotion.

A possible reading is: “he was troubled (stirred) by the Spirit, and testified …” This would indicate inspiration of an exceptional character, and also provide a remarkably close parallel to the troubling of the waters of Bethesda by the angel (Jn. 5 :4)—but Judas, alas, did not hasten to be healed.

“Is it I?”

“Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Lk.22 :21). No warning could be more blunt than this, and the disciples were greatly disturbed and even aggrieved by it. “Exceeding sorrowful” (Mt.26 :22) hardly gives the right idea. So upset were they that they kept on coming back to this ominous warning during the rest of the meal, making anxious enquiry: “Lord, it is not I, is it?” The form of the question, in Greek, requires this reading of it.

The enigmatic reply Jesus gave was at once a further warning to the traitor and also an expression of consideration for his feelings: “He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me” (Mt.26 :23)—not as AV, “he that dippeth” for then the disciples would not have been flesh and blood if thereafter they had not watched lynx-eyed so as to identify the traitor! In the course of the meal, none of them would have taken special notice of anything so trivial as whose hand happened to dip into the dish at the same moment as the hand of Jesus. But Judas—as the one so concerned—would recall this coincidence, and would know himself identified by his Master as the traitor.

Jesus continued the warning with words of unequalled solemnity: “The Son of Man goeth as it is written of him (Lk: determined): but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed” (s.w. ls.53 :12 LXX: ‘poured out’). Here again in the forefront of his thinking was the strange paradox of predestination and free choice. And no wonder, for all the great work of God in him was thus marked out beforehand. This word “determined” is used with equal force not only about his sacrifice (Acts2 :23) but also about his resurrection (Romans 1 :4) and his coming as Judge and King (Acts 10 :42 and 17 :26,31). Such emphasis invites the reader in Christ to consider to what extent the same kind of “predestination” may be true of himself.

Even though it was mysteriously true of the traitor, there was still time for Judas to draw back, and so there would be, right up to the fatal moment when he greeted his Master with a kiss. Hence the repeated appeals and sombre warnings.

“It had been good for that man if he had not been born.” The words are more difficult than they appear, for in Greek they read very awkwardly. The alternative: “It had been good for him (Jesus) if that man had not been born,” is more exact but more difficult of interpretation, The meaning might then be: ‘I would be far happier on his account if he had not been born—better never to have been a disciple than to have been such a disciple.’ Or maybe Jesus had before his mind the unhappy picture of himself as Judge, and Judas before him with weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But Judas was impervious to such entreaties. He too leaned across with his enquiry “Master, (there is no recorded instance of Judas calling Jesus “Lord’)—Master, it is not I, is it?” Why did he ask?—simply because he feared to be conspicuous by not asking as the others were then doing? or because he feared that this uncanny knowledge of Jesus might yet thwart his plans?

For answer he had a point-blank affirmative: “Thou hast said” (compare Mt.26 :64 with Mk.14 :62). Judas was being made to look his own problem squarely in the face. No man can conquer temptation except he first face up to it honestly and with his Lord to help him. Judas, now is your best and almost your last opportunity! Will you grasp the helping hand now being offered?

But instead he seems to have turned his Master’s answer into confirmation of his evil plan: ‘It is clear that Jesus has no further use for me; and he has this fatalistic expectation of imminent death, so my own line of action is clear; more than this, he knows, or suspects, my intentions, so I must act promptly lest a different mood come over him and he thwart my scheme.’

Meantime the eleven, after their repeated “Is it I?” (a model for self-examination at the Lord’s Table! 1 Cor. 11 :28), now turned their attention to one another: “they kept on looking one on another, doubting of whom he spake.” Yet even now there was no hint of a general suspicion of Judas-an indication of how completely the traitor lived his own life in his own world even whilst continuing to be an intimate member of the apostolic band. Yet how true to life this is, for even the most open and frank disciple of Jesus is a bundle of secrets to those who know him best.

The eleven took their doubting a stage further: “they began to enquire among themselves which of them should do this thing.” The word “began” perhaps implies that this anxious questioning went on intermittently throughout the meal. It would be surprising if it didn’t. And thus a cloud was cast over their fellowship at the table—as indeed has often happened since, the presence of one fellowservant out of tune with the rest being wonderfully effective to destroy the sense of fellowship which might otherwise be theirs in worship and remembrance.

But whilst they “enquired among themselves,” Peter, with the forthright directness so characteristic of him, was set on enquiry from Jesus. But he was unable to do this in person, for the lesson, the washing of feet, had gone home and he had now taken one of the lowest places remote from his Master.

Although normally the Jews sat at table after the modern style, for Passover and special occasions they adopted the Greek and Roman practice of reclining on divans, the left elbow supported on a cushion and the feet inclining away from the line of the table. John was immediately on the right of Jesus and thus “in his bosom”. Judas was either on his left (Mt.25:31-41) or immediately opposite him.

Peter, then, unable to satisfy his curiosity more directly without creating a disturbance, beckoned to John to help him in this matter. Perhaps it was not just idle curiosity which prompted Peter’s enquiry. His known character and vigorous exploit later that same evening (Jn.18:10) suggest a possible intention of taking some strong action against the traitor.

It was particularly easy for John, as the one whom Jesus loved and who reclined so close to him, to whisper: “Who is it, Lord?”. The words would not be heard even by Judas, though it is not unlikely that Peter’s gesture inciting John to make the enquiry attracted Judas’s mystified or resentful attention.

At a suitable moment Jesus gave the sign which he had indicated in his reply. Putting point to the prophecy he had lately quoted, he dipped a sop in the near-by dish and handed it to Judas. This was, doubtless, a special gesture, as to an honoured guest. It was intended to show Judas how close he might be to his Master and how highly esteemed, if only he would relinquish his traitorous intentions and realise the true potentialities of his discipleship. This special attention to a lost disciple was entirely in the spirit of the Lord’s own parable about a lost sheep. It stands as a model for those seeking to reclaim any who are lost, or being lost, to the ecclesia of Christ today.

Judas’s regress

The defection of Judas had been gathering momentum for a full year (Jn.6 :66-71). It is hardly likely that in all that time Jesus had made no attempt at all to stop the rot in his disciple’s mind.

The repeated appeals and warnings now made to him in the upper room are impressive when seen as a sequence:

1.	John 13:5:	The washing of his feet.
2.	John 13 :10:	“And ye are clean, but not all.”
3.	John 13:18:	The quoting of the prophecy of betrayal.
4.	John 13 :21:	The point-blank warning: “One of you shall betray me.”
5.	John 13:26:	And now, the sop. There would also be special force for Judas in such, sayings as:
6.	Luke 12:15:	“Beware of covetousness.”
7.	Matt. 19:30:	“The first shall be last.”
8.	Matt. 20:16:	“Many are called, but few are chosen.”
9.	Luke 19:13:	The parable of the worthless disciple.

In addition to the double reason already suggested for the giving of the sop to Judas there may have been yet further purpose in doing so. Jesus so often gave counsel or rebuke in the words of Scripture that it would be surprising if this were not also true here. Almost the same Greek word as that for “sop” comes in Isaiah 58:14 LXX: “Feed thee.” This remarkable passage is so entirely appropriate to Judas and his activities that one can almost imagine Jesus quoting the words quietly to him as he handed him the sop:

“If thou turn away thy foot . . . from doing thine own pleasure on my holy day (the Passover) . . . and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor . . . speaking thine own words: then thou shalt delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth (Judas’s nationalistic ambitions?), and feed thee (the sop!) with the heritage of Jacob (Lk.22 :30) … But your iniquities have separated between you and your God . . . your hands are defiled with blood . . . your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue hath muttered perverseness . . . they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity (the agreement with the chief priests) . . . They hatch adder’s eggs (the seed of the serpent: Gen.3 :15), and weave the spider’s web (to catch Jesus as their prey) . . . they make haste to shed innocent blood (the very words of Judas a few hours later: Mt.27 :4) . . . there is no judgment in their goings . . . whosever goeth therein shall not know peace” (ls.58 :13-59:8).

What Satan?

The reader of John’s gospel now encounters a puzzling detail: “And after the sop Satan entered into him (Judas)/’ In the vague general sense of “sin in the flesh” Satan had always had his abode in Judas. Also, such a view is made more superfluous than ever by the earlier statement (Jn.13 :2) that “the devil had already (RV) put it into the heart of Judas to betray.” It is well to remember here that the New Testament passages where “Satan” represents an abstract evil principle are remarkably few. Usually the reference is to some wicked person or organization. Moreover any interpretation here which equates “Satan” with a Satanic frame of mind is, in effect, a serious demeaning of Jesus himself, for its suggests that the most gracious appeal any man could make to another provoked only a most evil and violent reaction.

An alternative is to interpret the Satan as an emissary of the chief priests who “entered into (the house)” seeking to contact Judas. The same word is used in precisely this sense; e.g. Jn. 10:1,2 and 18 :1,23,33 and 19 :9; there are scores of other instances. Let it be remembered also that it would be almost impossible for this group of eleven men to enter Jerusalem without being observed and followed by the Gestapo.

The scene may be imagined: ‘Judas, there is a man below, asking to see you.’ Naturally enough, the rest of the disciples assumed that it was some tradesman delivering commodities Judas had ordered for the impending Passover celebration, or that it was some poor fellow who needed help out of their common fund.

From this point of view the words of Jesus: “That thou doest, do quickly,” would be readily understood by the rest as meaning: Discharge this business as quickly as you can, and rejoin us without delay. But Jesus may have meant: “That thou doest, have done with it quickly’—a last desperate appeal to him to forsake his evil intention forthwith.

Futile appeal

The saying is usually taken as an almost involuntary expression of the tense eagerness of Jesus to “get it over” (cp. Lk.12 :50). But is it likely that Jesus would thus give way to self-pity at a time when, as every phrase in the context shows, he was deeply concerned about, and was concentrating on, the well-being of his disciples, and of Judas in particular? In the upper room, even when he was “troubled in spirit” (v.21), it was because he knew about the traitor.

Since both of the disciples’ surmises had to do with money payments, it may be that Judas actually had the money-bag in his hand as he went out—deliberately, with intention to mislead them, and also of course because this was the last time he would be with them and to him money meant more than immortality.

In another place John has already put it on record that “Judas was a thief… and bare (RV: took away) what was put therein” (Jn.12 :6). The Greek word does not mean “misappropriated”, but the context shows that the RV is right. There was no auditor in that first ecclesia, and this money-minded disciple had already salted away some of the common fund in the acquisition of property for himself—he “purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity” (Acts 1 :18), a field which later waste be the scene of his tragic and grisly end.

But the death of Judas was not more tragi than his life as a follower of Jesus. Since the rest assumed that he might be busy with charity to the poor (a highly appropriate activity on the evening before the Passover), it is clear that he was not only treasurer but also almoner on behalf of the apostolic band. So although his office doubtless exposed him to special temptations, it also brought him special blessings in his intimate contacts with human misery on the one hand and the gracious kindness of his Master on the other. It is evident that copious almsgiving by “the Son of man, who had not where to lay his head” was a characteristic practice of Jesus. Yet apart from Jn.12 :5 and 13 :29 nothing would have been known about that side of his life.

Many a disciple since that day, bewildered with the complex problems of how best to minister charity without condescension or an air of patronising, without grudging or the demoralising effect of over-generosity, has wished himself in the shoes of Judas to experience personally how Jesus would meet these difficulties. Judas had these privileges but they wrought no transforming influence in his character, presumably because he never faced up honestly to what was his besetting sin.

So the Lord’s protracted series of appeals to Judas failed. This fact, dismal though it is, is not without a certain comfort for those who have had similar dispiriting experiences—their disappointments are only an echo of their Master’s.

Like Cain (Gen.4 ;16) and the unforgiving debtor (Mt.18 :28), Judas went out from the presence of the Lord. And, like Cain, he went out to his own downfall. For, whilst there was opportunity for repentance right up to the dramatic moment in Gethsemane, he had now made the break, and experience in every generation has shown that once a man becomes apostate by deliberate choice, only a sublime humility can set him on the way back again.

Instead, from this time on, Judas became in the mind of the early church the very symbol of slow secret disloyalty blossoming into open avowed apostasy from the Truth: “Little children,” wrote John, using the very expression employed by Jesus after Judas’ departure (Jn.13 :33), “it is the last time. . . even now there are many antichrists . . . They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but (they went out) that they might be manifest. . . who is (this) liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?” (1 Jn.2 :18,19,22). There is here surely (in v.22) an additional hint that Judas had lost faith in Jesus as the Messiah?

Paul similarly prophesied of the apostate Man of Sin as “the son of perdition” (2 Thess.2:3), using the very title which Jesus had for Judas (Jn.17:12). And Peter, warning against false teachers, plainly had Judas in mind as the prototype of all traitors to the Truth—’even denying the Lord that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2 Pet.2 :1,3).

So “Judas went out, and it was night.” There is hardly a reader of John’s gospel who has not been impressed with the intensely symbolic value of these words. The darkness of night had descended on the soul of Judas. He had made his own choice also of “outer darkness” (Mt.25 :30) in the Day of Judgment.

The Master had made his last supreme effort as a Good Shepherd to save one of his sheep that was lost. But there was to be no gathering of this lamb with his arm. Instead, “Judas went out, and it was night.”

“The Son of man glorified”

The soul of Jesus must have been chilled by this deliberate choice, as though the frost of that Passover night had entered into his very marrow. And yet he went on immediately: “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him” (13:30,31).

Here is an enigma calling for solution. Is it possible that the moving message of Isaiah 49*) was dominating the Lord’s thinking? “Thou artx-my Servant, O Israel, in whom I will glorified… Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord” (49 :3,5). In Study 169 it has already been shown that this great prophecy was probably in the mind of Jesus on an earlier occasion. Some of the outstanding points of contact between this powerful sustaining Scripture and John 12 were tabulated there.

It is conceivable, then, that Judas’ going out into the night to consummate the betrayal of his Master would be to Jesus the symbol of his rejection by Israel. But by the prophecy he was enabled to look beyond that to the glorifying of God through the ultimate triumph of his work: “I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth” (49:6).

This, assuredly, would glorify Christ and would mean the glorifying of his Father in a way altogether unsuspected at that time by Pharisee or Sadducee or even by disciple. ‘ But the word of Jesus was : “and straightway he shall glorify him.” The Son glorified the Father in his ready and humble obedience, even to the death of the cross. That surpassing act of self-denial and self-sacrifice meant, by all worldly standards, shame and misery. But human judgements are invariably inverted: “Ye turn things upside down” (Is.29 :16). For all the wretchedness and ignominy which Golgotha spelled out, the Bible word is “glory’—glory to the Son, and to the Father well-pleased with the redemption of sinners through the blood of a perfect sacrifice.

A number of details in connection with this incident are mentioned in such a way as to read like allusions to the priesthood under the law of Moses. It seems possible that Jesus had such an idea in mind and that John has so framed his story as to emphasize the symbolism of the incident. The various points are catalogued here for consideration.

	a.	“Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands . . . .” (v.3). This is Exodus 29:9: “Thou shalt consecrate (mg: fill the hands of) Aaron and his sons….” Also Leviticus 8 :27: “And he (Moses) put all upon Aaron’s hands, and upon his son’s hands. . . .” This was their consecration for the priesthood.
	b.	Jesus “girded himself” : the same word is used of the girding of the high priest (Lev.8 :7 LXX).
	c.	“Not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” Peter had evidently recognized now the further meaning behind this strange action of Jesus, and proceeded characteristically to press for a complete consecration like that of the high priest who was anointed with the sacrificial blood on the tip of his great toe, the thumb of his right hand and the tip of his right ear (Lev.8:24).
	d.	“He that is bathed (as the priests were: Lev.8:6, same word in LXX) needeth not save to wash his feet,” like the priests busy in the tabernacle or temple (Ex.30 :19). The Levitical priest had to wash hands also, to cleanse them from the blood of the sacrifice, but this new priesthood need offer no more sacrifice for sin (Heb.10 :U).
	e.	“After… he had taken his garments . . . .” This divesting of garments and taking them again suggests either Zechariah 3 :4,5, where another Jesus is both type and prophecy of a greater high priest, or else the action of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev.16:23,24).
	f.	“I have left you an example.” The word is really “a type”.
	g.	The high priest had in his bosom the Urim and Thummin by which guilty men were identified by divine decision (e.g. Josh.7:16-19). Is there a counterpart to this in John lying on Jesus’ breast (Jn. 13:25 has the same word as Ex. 28:23,26 LXX, and apparently, a deliberate change from 13:23)? And he elicited from him a pronouncement as to who was the guilty one.
	h.	John 14 continues the idea with its reference to “my Father’s house” (always the sanctuary), and to “abiding places” in it; this must be an allusion to the rooms for the priests on duty, which were an integral part of the sanctuary. “I go to prepare a place for you”, anticipates the double work of Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood without which the believer’s priestly service cannot possibly be acceptable.
	i.	John 17 is the Lord’s high-priestly prayer,
	j.	A remarkable parallel with John 13 and context can be traced in Hebrews 10:21-29:
		v.22:		“Bodies washed with pure water”
		v.23:		“Hold fast the profession of your faith”—cp. the warning: “All will deny me.”
		v.24:		Consider one another to provoke unto good works’—
				“Do as I have done to you.”
		v.24:		“Love and good works’— the Agape: “He loved them unto the end” (see Study 190).
		v.25:		“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together’—
				“Judas went out and it was night.”
		v.26:		“If we sin wilfully … no more sacrifice for sins’—
				“Better for that man that he had never been born.”
		v.29:		“Trodden underfoot the Son of God . . . counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing’— Judas again.
		v.21:		“Having an high priest over the house of God.”
	k.	In Matthew 26 also, Jesus blessing the Bread and Wine exercised the function of the priest blessing the sacrifice (1 Sam. 9:13; Ps. 132:15).
	l.	“I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine. . .” —a priest on duty was not to drink wine (Lev.11 :9). Thus Jesus proclaimed his own priesthood.
	m.	“This is the blood of the new covenant . . . .” Compare Moses and the blood of the first covenant (Ex. 24:8; Heb. 9:18-24; 8:13).
	n.	Note that in Gethsemane the four groups had relative nearness to God-Jesus, me three disciples, the rest of the twelve, and the hostile world outside; then compare the high priest, the ordinary priests, the Levites, and the ordinary people; and also: the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, the Outer Court, and the outside world. (Study 211).
	o.	“Watch with me.” It is the word used in LXX for “keeping the charge” of the sanctuary: e.g. Num. 3:28,31,32.
	p.	“He prayed the third time . . . .” On the Day of Atonement the high priest went three times into the Holy of Holies:
		1.	with incense.
		2.	with the blood of the bullock of his own sacrifice.
		3.	with the blood of the goat for the sins of the people.
	q.	The coat of Jesus, without seam, appears to be carefully described in this way so as to invite comparison with the seamless robe worn by a priest (Jn.19:23).

So it would seem that more than one gospel writer, besides the writer of Hebrews, was quick to see a fulness of “priestly” significance in the actions and work of Jesus as the time of sacrifice drew near.

Traditionally there was free accommodation available for those who came to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. But, like most, Jesus had already made arrangement: “Then came the first day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat” (Lk.22 :7,8).

These words are usually taken to mean that on the morning of the 14th Nisan (Ex.12 :18), Jesus sent his two disciples ahead to prepare the Passover supper, and that the same evening he and the rest of the twelve followed to the “guest chamber”, and there the Passover meal was eaten.

In Study 181 reasons were supplied for concluding that this commission was given to Peter and John in the earliest hours of the 14th Nisan (say, soon after 6 p.m.) on the evening previous to the killing of the Passover, and that Jesus and the rest followed a few hours later (about 8 o’clock?) and in the upper room partook of an ordinary supper. Reasons were also suggested why the language of Passover should be used for what was not actually a Passover meal.

It is that framework which will be assumed (as encountering fewer difficulties than any other hypothesis) in this and the ensuing studies.

Two disciples

The duty assigned to the two apostles would involve little more than the responsibility of supervision, since in a house which could offer a large guest chamber the actual work of preparation would be attended to by servants. Indeed, most things had already been done before their arrival, for the room was “furnished and prepared” (Mk.).

There is subtle symbolism here: They follow a man who carries water of life in an earthen vessel, into a room ‘up from the ground’ (anagaion); there, after due preparation, Jesus uses the water to cleanse his disciples; then, in a meal of fellowship, the rest of the water becomes the Wine of a New Covenant (Jn. 2:1-11).

It is remarkable that Jesus should select these two disciples for such a duty. It was a practical application of the principle he was to enunciate to them all a few hours later: “He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve” (Lk.22 :26; cp. 19:29).

It was also a lesson to those who in later years remember Jesus as the Lord’s Passover “slain for us”, that only the best and most competent should have comparable duties assigned to them. The Breaking of Bread service is no place for learning to preside over a meeting. And the word of exhortation which is to prepare the mind for remembering Jesus should not be assigned to “the least esteemed in the church” who are deemed inadequate for “more important”!!) public duties.

But whilst Peter and John concerned themselves with the outward formalities of preparation on behalf of their Master and fellow-disciples, the soul of Jesus was troubled about a vastly more vital preparation which he must now make for them. “I go to prepare a place for you.” The words are usually applied exclusively to his ascension to the right hand of the Father, but this is to limit them unduly. His Last Supper with his disciples, his agony in the garden, his witnessing a good confession before Pontius Pilate, his suffering at the hands of the Roman soldiers, his enduring of the long drawn-out horrors of crucifixion—all these were part of “preparing a place in the Father’s House”, his preparation for the New Passover. Peter and John saw to merely a few outward forms.

A man with a water pot

The device by which they were directed to the upper room was certainly mysterious. “Behold there shall meet you a man, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.” Jesus must have specified by which gate they were to enter the city, and there the man with the water-pot would be on the look-out for them. Instead of the obvious instruction: “Go, and enquire in such and such a street for the house of So-and-so,” there was this arrangement which had about it almost a flavour of conspiracy.

Such mystery and secrecy must have been necessary. The arrangement with the householder had evidently been made in advance. The sign to guide the disciples to it was also pre-arranged. The sight of a woman or servant-girl bearing a pitcher of water would be common enough in the streets of Jerusalem, for this was normally woman’s work. But to see a man carrying water was as unusual as to see a woman sawing up lumber or ploughing a field.

The Lord’s recent actions and pronouncements in the temple had finally made up the minds of the nation’s leaders to tolerate him no longer whether he be Messiah or not. And Jesus knew this.

So because “they took counsel to put him to death,” Jesus took special precautions against them. Every night in that last week he quitted the city with his disciples. To be detected there after dark was to invite immediate arrest or sudden assassination. Humanly speaking, daylight and the friendly crowd were his only insurance policy during those tense exciting days. Each day as darkness fell he left the city. At the beginning of the week he returned to the friendly relaxed home at Bethany (Mt.21 :17), until the danger intensified. And since he had no wish to bring trouble upon the heads of those he loved best (Mt.21 :46; Lk. 21 :37), instead he betook himself to the slopes of the Mount of Olives where there was a garden to which he had the key, thanks again to the practical kindness of some wealthy friend; and here where the Gestapo would never dream of looking for him, he and the twelve slept rough, probably in a garden chalet.

This situation also helps to explain why Jesus, without giving warning, came to the upper room twenty-four hours earlier than expected. Judas had probably arranged with the chief priests to have Jesus arrested as he and the twelve were eating the Passover meal. It would be a time and place when Judas felt sure of bowing beforehand where his Master would be. And at the time the streets of Jerusalem would be empty, so there would be small risk of disturbance in the city.

This last meal with his disciples was one he would not forego (for it was “with desire that he desired to eat this Passover with them”). For it the use of some home was necessary. But now the main consideration dictating measures of secrecy was not so much the avoidance of arrest as ensuring that the Last Supper go undisturbed. It was of paramount importance to avoid having such a holy occasion rudely broken up. Therefore, somehow, to the very last moment, details concerning it must be kept from the traitor apostle. What were the thoughts of Judas as he heard the instructions to Peter and John, and wondered whether such unnatural secrecy was because of himself?

It is instructive to observe that Jesus might have reasoned to himself: “Until my hour is come, until the very moment which my Father has foreordained, I am inviolate; none can harm me, or even touch me, prematurely. Then why trouble about care and precaution? “Nevertheless Jesus acted throughout as though the proper outworking of events that day depended upon himself, and not upon the control of heaven. To a finite human mind the inter-relation of predestination, the fore-knowledge of God and human free-will appears unfathomable. These mysterious factors seem to be irreconcilable. Yet, Holy Scripture teaches them as facts, and the wise man will be content to leave the matter there, believing implicitly the Bible’s statements, even when they are difficult to harmonize. It is surely not unreasonable to expect that some features of the working of God are past human understanding.

The upper room

It is commonly assumed that the home which gave hospitality to Jesus on this last night before his death was the home of John Mark. A few years later, when Peter was unexpectedly released from prison, “he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12 :12). This was probably the upper room which was used as headquarters of the ecclesia in Jerusalem just after the resurrection (Acts 1:13,14). It must have been a wealthy family. That home had a room to accommodate 120 people!

If this identification is correct, “the goodman of the house” (Lk.22 :11) probably died between the two events mentioned (perhaps in Saul’s persecution of the Christians? Acts 26:10), for Acts 12: 12 refers pointedly to “the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark,” but it has also been suggested that the name of the householder has been carefully withheld (Mt.: “such a man”) because the first gospel was written so early (before A.D.44—Acts 12) that it was dangerous to mention prominent disciples byname.

“My time is at hand”

The message to the householder was: “The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.”

What did Jesus mean by: “My time is at hand”, and—equally important—what would this nameless friend understand by this? It can hardly be doubted that the words referred to his imminent suffering and death, but they also describe the onset of a woman’s travail—and probably by intention, with allusions to a powerful Old Testament prophecy of Messiah (Ps.l 8 :4), where the Septuagint version uses the phrase “birth-pangs of hell”, an expression which was later taken up by Peter at Pentecost: “Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the birth-pangs of death.” The birth of the New Creation of God was at hand (cp. Jn.16 :21; Gen.18:14).

It may be doubted whether the words of Jesus would convey this meaning to the householder. To him they probably meant that death drew near. This is impressive, for it seems to imply that even though the twelve were as yet blind to all that Jesus had tried to prepare them for, there were some among the followers of Jesus (like Mary the sister of Lazarus; Jn.12 :7) who realised before the blow fell that something of the kind was bound to happen. It was seemly that Jesus should eat his last meal in such a home. The word for “guest-chamber” (Lk.22:11) is the one used for the “inn” which rejected Joseph and Mary (Lk. 2 :7). But there was room for the Lord here!

“I must keep the passover at thy house.” Although it was twenty-four hours before the Jews kept their normal Pesach, Jesus spoke of this meal as Passover because—as has been shown in Study 181—in his eyes and later on in the eyes of his disciples it took on the character of a Passover, but with the Lamb of God as the means of redemption from a bondage more rigorous than any that Egypt could impose.

Significantly, Jesus said: “… that we may eat the Passover” (cp. Lk.22 :15,16), thus implying his own need to share in the blessing of this new Passover!

At the previous Feast of Tabernacles, on the day when there was no waterpouring Jesus had bidden men come to him for Water of Life (Jn.7:37), and when there was no lighting of the great candelabrum he had proclaimed himself the Light of the World (8 :12). In the temple he had forbidden sacrifice (Mk.ll :15). And now at Passover there was no lamb but himself.

It was for such reasons, doubtless, that Jesus chose to hold the Last Supper inside the walls of Jerusalem, for that was the Jewish manner of eating their Passover. Here too is the explanation why other close and well-loved disciples were not included in the party—the number at a Jewish Passover was to be ten or only slightly more than that.

Notes: Mk. 14:12-16

13.	A man bearing a pitcher of water. A man!—hence Lk’s: “Behold!”
14.	With my disciples. Mt’s phrase, translated: “at thy house”, might imply the householder’s presence at the Last Supper; cp. Mt.26:27: “he took (lit: received—from whom?) the cup.”
15.	Furnished is, literally, “strewn,” that is, with cushions, for the reclining guests.
16.	Went forth— from Gethsemane? The last locative in this part of the gospel narrative has Jesus on the Mount of Olives. Mt. has here: did as Jesus had appointed them; it is the exact equivalent of “as the Lord commanded Moses,” so common in Exodus, Numbers.

“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him” (Lk. 22:14). It was, says John’s record, “when supper was ready’—literally: “supper having become.” The AV reading: “supper being ended,” is clearly mistaken, for later on there are plain indications of the meal being resumed (v. 12,26; for the Greek expression, compare Mk. 1:32; Mt.26 :6; 27 :1; Jn.10 :22). The reference is not to the hour of eating the Jewish Passover, as John makes doubly plain: “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, in order that he might depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (Jn.13:1).

At first sight there might appear to be a certain inappropriateness about those concluding phrases. Would not John have done better to relate such words: “He loved them unto the end,” to the next day when Christ died on the cross?

It is the repeated word “loved” which supplies all needful explanation. In Study 192 it is shown that in this way John was referring not to the Lord’s final self-sacrifice but to the Love Feast, the sacramental memorial, now to be observed for the first time and which was to be ceaselessly associated with the Lord’s supreme act of love on behalf of sinful men—”his own.”

At the beginning of this fourth gospel “his own” had meant “the nation of Israel’—”he came unto his own, and his own (people) received him not” (1 :11). Now John intimates a switch of the phrase to the disciples, the New Israel, who did receive him.

The idea is emphasized by the words: “depart out of this world unto the Father.” With double meaning, there is here not only an anticipation of the Lord’s self-offering as a sacrifice “unto the Father” (not an allusion to the ascension), but also his final abandonment of the Jewish world, kosmos often having this meaning in John’s gospel.

“Knowing . . . that he came from God and went to God” is an expression that has been used with much confidence by Trinitarians as “proof” of the Lord’s pre-existence in heaven. Yet an examination of the Greek text reveals a careful distinction between “came from God” (apo theou, no article) and “went to God” (pros ton theon, with the article). The latter definitely requires reference to a personal approach to the Father, but not so the former. Here, as in 1:6, the meaning is diluted to imply: ‘He came with a divine mission/ but there is no explicit intimation of a personal descent from heaven.

Apostolic rivalry

In these last hours of strain and leave-taking Jesus needed all the fellowship and help his followers could give. Then how distressing for him that there should be another competition amongst the twelve for precedence. Doubtless—though Luke does not say this—the quarrel concerned priority as to their seating at table. Yet, in a parable specially framed to be a guide to those ambitious for prominence in his ecclesia, Jesus had warned against eagerness for prominence or power (Lk. 14:7-11; cp. Mk. 9:34,35). And later, Peter himself was to make specific reference to this upper-room experience (1 Pet. 5:3,5).

Over a long period this tussle for leadership had been going on among the twelve (e.g. Mk. 9:34; 10:37). (Would it have continued as it did if the Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt. 16:18 were correct?). Blunt warnings and reproaches from their Master may have been heeded at the time, but if so the effect had worn off. A kingdom here and now!—this would appear to have been the obsession which effectively blinded their eyes to the teaching of Jesus concerning his sacrifice.

Ultimately the Lord made his own choice of those who were to fill the chief seats: John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, reclined in his bosom; Peter was probably next to John on the same side of the Master (Jn.13 :24); and Judas probably straight opposite Jesus.

The washing of feet

On this occasion the immediate rebuke as they were at table was the more effective because at first no word was spoken. Jesus rose up and, removing his upper garment, he took a towel and basin and proceeded to wash the feet of first one and then another disciple (Lk.22 :27; Jn.13 :14). Why had this not been attended to already? Possibly, in view of the fact that this was not the passover meal itself, such attention to preliminary washing had been deemed unnecessary. Or can it be that, by arrangement with Jesus, the omission had been deliberate, and no servant had been delegated to provide this courtesy, simply in order to give the disciples an opportunity to show to what extent they had learned from their Lord the greatness of service and humility?

If the latter conjecture is worth anything, then great must have been the disappointment of Jesus that they gave no thought to their fellows, but instead were concerned to the point of bitterness about their own personal status, How little they realised that the more they asserted themselves and the more successful they were in achieving a superficial priority, the lower became their standing in the eyes of Jesus, apart from whom this petty bickering would have had no meaning at all, for it all had to do with their relative nearness to him!

So Jesus, with basin and towel and earthenware jug went systematically from one to the next. In this way he gave practical illustration of the truth that “he took on him the form of a servant … he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death” (Phil.2 :7,8). It may even be that in the day of glory there will be a breath-taking repetition of this amazing act of self-humiliation: “He shall gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them” (Lk.12 :37). If so, it will be designed (like Lk.22 :16,18) as an awe-inspiring reminder of the days of his human weakness.

All argument and discord froze on the lips of the disciples—except with Peter, whose mind was soon effervescing with a sense of superiority over the rest; but now in him it was a different kind of pride.

Peter’s protest

These others had evidently so little sense of the fitness of things that they would even allow Jesus to perform this most menial service to each of them! Was their estimate of him as low as that? He, Peter, would show them a better attitude. He at least had a finer sense of propriety, and he proceeded to show it by vigorous protest: “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” (cp. Mt.3 :14). At the same moment, doubtless, he made a rough attempt to take over the basin of water so that he might do this for Jesus instead.

It was the common-place every-day test which comes a thousand times over to the disciple with higher standards and more conscientious service—the temptation to thank God (or to congratulate himself) that he is better than the rest. And this was, and is, the more dangerous sin because the more subtle, and the more difficult to recognize and cope with.

This assertion of his own superior worth was to be Peter’s downfall (and his making again) before the night was out. It has to be thus with every disciple who rejoices in the better qualities of his own discipleship, for if he wait until the Day before facing up to the shattering truth that he has nothing to preen himself about, he has waited too long.

So in reply to Peter’s protestations, Jesus insisted: “You will understand better by and by why I must do this.”

But at this moment Peter saw only one thing—that his pride was being rebuked and he was loth to acknowledge his need of it. “Never, never, till the end of time, shalt thou wash my feet,” he asserted with characteristic vigour. The same kind of double negative had been used by him before: “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never, never be unto thee,” and in that also he was to be proved wrong. (As on every other New Testament occasion when men have used the same over-emphasis: Mt.26 :35; Jn. 11:56 and 20.-25).

“If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” Interpreting the acted parable, this austere saying must surely mean: If no participation in this Breaking of Bread service, then no sharing in the Messianic future. In using this word “part” Jesus spoke, and very soon was to speak again, about inheritance of the Kingdom and about these twelve ruling with him over the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk.22 :30). And this was an aspect of his Messianic work about which Peter was as eager as the rest. So he gave way.

More than that, in a burst of realisation that even more lay behind this symbolic action of Jesus (see Study 185), he now swung with typical Petrine violence to the other extreme: “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.” Was it that a sudden flash of mental honesty revealed to him his own true state? Or were the words an expression of his eagerness for any experience that would give him a real and lasting closeness to his Master?

But no, Peter! You have been washed already, in the baptism of your early discipleship, and “he that is bathed all over needeth not save to wash his feet”. It was a winsome and reassuring assertion of the power and authority of Jesus, not only to bring a man out of the old Adam into his New Creation, but also to provide continual cleansing from the renewed and inevitable defilements of daily life, and of his lower nature. Jesus is the purifier of the troubled disciple who finds with mortification and distress that though he wills for Christ’s sake to have done with sin, sin has not yet done with him. Even there the power of Christ can reign. The Son of man has power on earth to forgive these sins also, and he signifies this through the sacrament which he now appointed.

Symbolism

How much of the intensely symbolic meaning behind this humble act of Jesus did the apostles perceive? “Thou shalt know hereafter,” he said to Peter. In the course of the next forty days many things that Jesus had said and done were to be floodlit in their memories with an almost blinding intensity. “When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them” (2 :22). “When Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of him” (12 :16).

Is it significant that Jesus mentioned feet only, and not hands? Perhaps the apostle John, writing in later troubled times of contention against the inroads of Judaism, saw in this a setting aside of any justification by works. Let a man’s walk in life be right, and his works will be acceptable in spite of his sins. “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” How many truly and fully believe this of their life in Christ, that by their sharing of the Bread and Wine in sincerity and truth they are “clean every whit”? The one who has been “baptized into Christ” has “put on” Christ—in the sight of God he is clothed with the robe of Christ’s righteousness, not with his own (cp. Tit.3 :5). But the inevitable defilements of daily life and the strain of living with one’s inherited Adamic propensities mean a constant need for spiritual renewal and refreshing. It is no accident that the very phrase: “for the remission of sins,” used regarding one’s baptism (Acts 2:38; Mk. 1:4), was used again in the Upper Room and with reference to its renewal of the New Covenant in Christ (Mt.26:28). Nor is it accident that the washing of the disciples’ feet took place even whilst the Last Supper was in progress (cp. the force of Jn.15 :3; Eph.5 :26; Heb. 10:22).

Origen, anxious to justify his own enthusiasm for “allegorizing” the gospels, has this comment: “Let those who refuse to allegorize these and the like passages explain how it is probable that he who out of reverence for Jesus said: ‘Thou shalt never wash my feet’, would have had no part with the Son of God, as if not having his feet washed were a deadly wickedness.” Regarding this example, at least, there can be no argument!

Unclean Judas

With further emphasis, Jesus repeated: “And ye are clean—but not all; for he knew who was betraying him.” These disciples!—these with their quarrelling and their crudities and their dim opaque vision of the Master they claimed to follow—these were clean! (ls.52 :7,11). But not Judas, even though his feet had been washed as clean as Peter’s, for he alone out of all the twelve had now lost faith in Jesus and had become himself “the son of loss.” The essential meaning, then, of this part of the parable is that a man may be diligent in his attendance at the Lord’s Table, but if he does this in a spirit of formality then it does him no good at all, but only harm. There the others are made clean, but not he!

What were Judas’s reactions to these solemn words of his Master? For he alone understood them. But even here the goodness of the Good Shepherd, in doing what he had done just now and in saying what he said, could not reclaim this lost sheep, because the letter’s measure of greatness had become something altogether different-a worldly-wise criterion which makes no sense to the one who truly lives in the presence of Christ, and by which neither Christ nor disciple make sense either.

Now Jesus “took his garments” which he had “laid aside,” precisely as he was very soon to “lay down his life that he might take it again,” thus fulfilling “the commandment received of the Father” (10 :17,18). By and by he was at his place at table once again, reinforcing the more obvious object lesson by simple instruction with repetitious emphasis (v. 12-17) as though to children: “I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet.” In any other man this would ask to be interpreted as inverted humility, one of the most poisonous forms of pride. Only Jesus can say such things and get away with them. “You, then, owe it to one another to wash each other’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”

Time after time the New Testament emphasizes the Christian duty to imitate the humility of Christ (e.g. Rom.15:1-14; I Cor.10 :33; 11:1; Phil.2:4-7; 1 Th. 1:2-7; Eph.5:l,2).

Modern practice?

These words have been inadvisedly appropriated by some to prove either of two opposite conclusions, both of which are wrong. There are those who argue that the Washing of Feet is as much a commandment of Christ as the Breaking of Bread and should therefore be practised whenever the latter is celebrated. There are others who argue that the Breaking of Bread need not be literally observed provided the spirit of the observance is there, because— say they—the similar commandment concerning the Washing of Feet is observed in the spirit and not in the letter. Jesus commanded both; therefore let both be observed in the letter (so it is argued by some) or both in the spirit (by others).

Either way this approach seems reasonable enough. Where is the fallacy?

In a matter of this sort the witness of the early church is valuable. The Breaking of Bread was the very centre and focus of all activity and worship from the earliest days (e.g. Acts 2:42,46), whereas in the rest of the New Testament and for fully three hundred years later there is no single mention of the Washing of Feet as church ritual.

In any case, careful reading of the words of Jesus shows a clear distinction. Concerning one he said: “Observe this practice” (1 Cor.11 :25; the verb is continuous), but concerning the other his word was not: “I have given you a sample, that ye should do what I have done to you”; but: “I have given you a type, that ye should do even as I have done to you” (same word as in Lk. 17:28—another type).

There is also an inspired interpretation available in Peter’s own words, written with pointed allusion to this incident: “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder (Lk.22 :26). Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be girded with humility”, even as Jesus when he girded himself with the towel (1 Pet.5 :5 RV). Here, clearly enough. Peter is intent on the spirit of the observance rather than on the literal washing of feet.

But, if Christ is to be there, the humility of this self-demeaning service must be there also, for—the Lord added with a quiet irony—”the servant is not greater than his lord; neither is he that is sent greater than he that sent him.” But this humility is not a thing to be striven for. The greater the agonizing effort to achieve it, the more it eludes him who strives. In this more than anything it is a matter of quiet imperceptible transformation of the spirit through the influence of Christ himself. In this especially those who live closest to him will gain most from him.

Exhortation and warning

“If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye practise them.” It is a statement of the obvious which needs, nevertheless, to be said and said again, for whatever the willingness to receive this truth in theory, the routine of life in the world gives the lie to it a thousand times a day, so that, except he be aware of it, the outlook and practice of the disciple can become seriously warped and twisted by his constant association with false principles of living. Is there also implied behind the words of Jesus an ominous converse: “If ye know these things, cursed are ye if ye do them not”?

The searing influence of worldly standards of behaviour was brought pointedly home to the disciples with a familiar illustration: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called Benefactors.” The last phrase should probably read (with heavy irony): “they call themselves Benefactors”, and this is even more true to life. Inscriptions on ancient coins bear witness to the literal truth that then, as in every age, dictators sought to camouflage their lust for power behind a facade of eagerness to improve the lot of their people, an eagerness made worse than useless by a desperate anxiety that it be known by all the world.

“But not so ye”, warned Jesus in plain peremptory fashion, “for I—your Lord and Master—am among you as he that serveth.” These words preserved only by Luke (22 :27) clearly imply the act of foot-washing described only by John.

“And (Jesus went on) ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations” (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). This remarkable way of describing his own ministry was not a vote of thanks for sterling support and service through three and a half years-for during that time, it was not they who had borne with Jesus but he who had borne with them. Rather was he emphasizing responsibility because they had been so close to him. “To whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” These men had known Jesus in his humility as none others had. Opportunity came to them as to no others to know and marvel at his self-demeaning. As he had taken on him the form of a servant, so too must they. The same moral imperative lay on them more heavily than on any.

Thus, and only thus, could he “appoint (covenant; v.29) unto them a kingdom, even as the Father had appointed unto him.” The humility which made him obedient even to the death of the cross would highly exalt him and give him the Name which is above every name. If they would share his glory, “eating and drinking at his table in his kingdom, and sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”— as did the son of Barzillai (1 Kgs.2 :7), in reward for loyalty to a rejected king—then their path of glory must lead to the grave—the way of self-denial and humble service, the way of shame and the death of self (2 Cor.1 :7).

^ “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Such is the inevitable cry of every disciple when faced with such exacting standards. The Ideal is so impossible. If only Jesus would make the way more easy! They were twelve silent, shamed, uneasy men who continued supper with Jesus. And ever since, that same supper has been shared by men brought to silence and to shame by the same example and the same word of rebuke.

The Judas prophecy

Jesus returned to the sad theme of betrayal. In more than one place his broken sentences bear witness to the torn state of his emotions:

“I know whom I chose (Lk. 6:12,13), but (there will be betrayal) that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me did lift up his heel against me.”

There are deliberate divergences here from the Septuagint text of Psalm 41. Instead of “loaves”, there is the one Loaf broken in the Lord’s New Passover; and the less usual word for “eat” is the one used sacramentally by Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand (Jn. 6:54,58], when Judas had eaten of his Lord’s miraculous loaves— and began to lose faith (6:64,67-71).

But now Judas was near to the point of no return. Very soon he “lifted up his heel” against his Master. There is here clear allusion to the familiar promise given in Eden (Gen.3 :15) of the Seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent in the head. The picture is that of One who lifts his foot to crush the serpent’s head and who is, in that very act, stung in the heel.

Remarkably, however, the words are used about Judas as though he were the redeemer crushing the serpent’s head. It is a fantastic reversal of truth, and seems to imply that this sick apostle had come to the conclusion that his Master was a false Messiah, and that it was his (Judas’s) duty to fill the part of redeemer of his people, saving them from subtlety and deceit. Had Judas come to share the foul and yet true philosophy of Caiaphas that it was expedient that one man die for the nation so that the whole nation perish not? (Jn. 11:50).

Yet, as the serpent ate the forbidden fruit in Eden (see H.A.W. on Gen.1-4), so Jesus was willing for Judas to share the Bread at that last gathering—and this, apparently, Judas did: “he ate my Loaf with me”.

Warning of this betrayal Jesus now gave enigmatically to the rest, “that, when it come to pass, ye may believe that I am (the one who fulfils this prophecy).” He intended that one of the hardest trials of their faith should ultimately become a superb ground for conviction. The fulfilment of Bible prophecy, then and also now, provides a unique support for sorely-tested loyalty.

Notes: Lk. 22:24-30

24.	Should be accounted. Gk. suggests : who really was the greater. Then was this wrangle between just two of them? Clearly Peter was not recognized as having any priority. Then what of R.C. interpretation of Mt.16:18?
25.	Called benefactors. A heavy irony. Contrast Jesus, called “The Lord our Righteousness” (Jer. 23:6).
26.	The younger. In later days this became a kind of technical term for the less prominent executive officers in the early church: Acts5:6;l Jn. 2:13; 1 Pet.5 :5.
	He that is chief; s.w. Heb. 13 :7,17,24. But this respect for elders is to be accorded to the humility of their service: “as he that doth serve.”

Jn.l3:l-18

3.	Into his hands. Contrast 1 Cor.15 :27.
8.	The translation in the text in Farrar’s—a beautifully turned expression.
9.	No part. Normally meras means inheritance.
10.	He that is bathed. Apart from the fact that some of the twelve were, earlier, disciples of John the Baptist, this is the only intimation that the apostles were baptized.
	Wash his feet. Cp. Ps.49:5, and the idea behind Jn. 15:3 RV.

Traditionally Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and rose from the dead early on the morning of Easter Sunday, the intervening sabbath being also a Passover sabbath and therefore spoken of as “a high day” (Jn.19 :31). With this view all the chronological references agree except one: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt.12 :40).

These words apppear to be explicit and to require that Jesus lay in the tomb a full seventy-two hours, a period which cannot possibly harmonize with the traditional reading.

For this reason, and for this reason only, some have not hesitated to declare false the tradition that Jesus died on a Friday. Instead they insist that his crucifixion was on a Wednesday, that Thursday was a Passover sabbath and Saturday an ordinary sabbath. Thus, if Jesus rose any time after sunset on Saturday, he lay in the tomb three full days and three full nights.

The idea is an attractive one, especially to those dominated by the wholesome principle that “the Bible means what it says.” Of course, the Bible does mean what it says, usually, normally. But there are occasions when what appears to be intended as starkly literal must actually be interpreted in a figurative or idiomatic fashion; for example, “This is my body”, “I went out full, and the Lord hath brought me home again empty”; “Judah is a lion’s whelp.”

The instance now under consideration can be shown to be such.

At the outset the idea of a period of three full days and nights is ruled out completely by the words of one of the two disciples who talked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus on the afternoon of the day of resurrection: “And besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done” (Lk.24 :21). This is decisive. If Jesus had lain in the tomb for at least seventy-two hours, that disciple ought surely to have been saying “the fourth day” or even “the fifth day,” since Bible times are normally reckoned inclusively (e.g. Jn.20:26).

For this reason alone the literal interpretation of Matthew 12 :40 must go, though there is also the additional problem created by such passages as “raised the third day” (Mt.16 :21), a phrase which is used no less than ten times, and which itself is quite incompatible with the 72-hour theory.

A further knotty question is this: Why should the women leave their attempt to attend to the body of Jesus until the Sunday when they could have done what they deemed to be needful on the intervening Friday?

This “seventy-two hours in the grave” theory would never have arisen, based on one verse only, if there had been proper recognition of the common Bible idiom that “three days and three nights” is another way of saying “the third day.” There is no lack of evidence to support this conclusion:

a.	The chief priests came to Pilate saying: “Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, whilst he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day . . .” (Mt. 27:63,64). Here they interpreted the first phrase by the second; or was their mathematics so lamentably weak that they were unable to see that the guard should extend to the fourth day?
b.	Esther bade the Jews fast with her “three days, night and day/’; yet it was “on the third day” that she went in to the king (Es.4 :16,5:1). Again the second phrase interprets the first.
c.	“They continued three years without war between Syria and Israel,” and yet the war broke out again “in the third year” (1 Kgs.22:l,2).
d.	Shalmanezer began the siege of Samaria in the fourth year of Hezekiah, and took it “at the end of three years” in the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kgs.18 :9,10).
e.	Rehoboam said to the deputation: “Come again unto me after three days”. But this is also reported as: “Come again to me on the third day “(2Chr.l0:5,12).
f.	It was “after six days” that Jesus took the three disciples to the mount of transfiguration (Mt.17 :1). But in Luke 9 :28 it is “about an eight days after.” The one period is reckoned exclusively (with allusion to Ex.24 :16) and the other adopts the more usual inclusive reckoning.
g.	“After three days” in Mark 8 :31 becomes “the third day” in Matthew 16 :21, which is unquestionably the parallel passage.
h.	The freeing of slaves in Jeremiah’s day is described as taking place “at the end of seven years” (34 :14); yet the same verse says “when he hath served thee six years.”
i.	Enoch is only “the seventh from Adam” (Jude 14) when the names are reckoned inclusively.

Example (d) amongst the fore-going is particularly useful as demonstrating that a period which included part of the fourth year , the whole of the fifth year, and part of the sixth year is reckoned as at the end of three years.”

There is also a further argument on this question which to some may be of no consequence at all, but to others will be utterly decisive. It is the argument from typology, which, if accepted, settles fully and clearly when it was that Jesus died and when he rose from the dead.

A careful consideration of Leviticus 23:5-12 meals the following as the ordinance of public offerings at the passover:

	N
14th
	D	Passover lambs slain (3 p.m.)
	N	Passover meal (9 p.m.)
15th
	D
	N
16th
	D	Passover sabbath. Sheaf and lamb offered (at about 9.a.m.)

The slaying of the lambs began in the temple court at 3 p.m. and continued until 5 p.m. approximately—the time of the death and burial of Jesus. The lamb offered on the morning of the 16th Nisan was, in effect, a replica of the Passover lamb (compare Ex.12 :5 with Lev.23:13) – the Passover lamb come to life again and re-consecrated to God! Thus it was a clear type of the risen Jesus, as also was the sheaf of the firstfruits.

With the above diagram the following representation of the view adopted in this and Study 181 may now be compared;

14th	9p.m.	The Last Supper.
	12 p.m.	Arrest.
	9a.m.	Crucifixion.
	3 p.m.	Death and Burial. (Passover lambs slain).
15th	9 p.m.	Israel’s Passover meal.
16th	6 p.m.	Passover Sabbath ends.
	5a.m.(?)	The Resurrection.
	6a.m.	The women at the tomb. 4
	3 p.m.	The walk to Emmaus.

The correspondence thus established disallows any theory of Jesus lying in the grave three full days and three full nights, and indeed any chronological scheme other than that which has been the traditional interpretation of the gospel account— Friday to Sunday morning.