Our Lord's Last Passover.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WE have now to consider the remaining events of the passover supper, and the institution of the Lord's Supper. Although in Exodus 12, where the directions for the passover are recorded, there is no mention made of wine, we learn from the Rabbinical writings that four cups were drank during the meal. Matthew and Mark speak only of the cup which Christ blessed as the emblem of his blood. Luke speaks of two cups, chap. 22: 17, 20. The first one mentioned is one of those drank during the passover supper; the second, verse 20, is plainly said to be the emblem of Christ's blood. And this verse furnishes proof that the Lord's Supper was instituted at the close of the passover supper; for Luke says: "Likewise also [he took] the cup after supper, saying, This is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." There is no disagreement between Luke 22: 20, and Matt. 20: 26. The first says: "Likewise also [he took] the cup after supper; the latter says: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." The unleavened bread was on the table as part of the passover meal. While they were at table, and some of them still eating, Jesus took of this bread, and did as is recorded. This act, and the solemn manner of Christ marked the close of the passover meal, so that when he took the cup it was indeed after supper. We have now sufficient data from which to ascertain whether or not Judas partook of the Lord's Supper. All of the evangelists state that it was while they were at supper that he was pointed out. Matt. 26: 21-25; Mark 14: 18-21; Luke 22: 21-23; John 13: 18, 21-26. Thus the prophecy in Ps. 41: 9 was fulfilled. John tells us (13: 26) that the traitor was designated by Jesus giving him a sop when he had dipped it in the dish. But this shows that they were then partaking of the passover, which as we have seen, was after the feet-washing, and before the Lord's Supper. John further tells us that when Judas had received the sop he "went immediately out." John 13: 30. The conclusion, then, is unavoidable, that Judas was not present when Jesus instituted his memorial supper. Matt. 26: 27 is urged as an objection against this conclusion. "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it." Mark also says that they all drank of it. But we reply that "all" need not necessarily refer to the twelve, but might refer only to all who were present; for after Judas had left them, and Christ was in the garden with only the eleven, he said to them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night." No one will claim that Judas was present with them. Luke's account is supposed by some to disprove this conclusion. In order to make the subject perfectly clear, we will give his account in full. Verse 17: "And he took the cup [one of the passover cups], and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. 20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." The objection is, that Christ is here represented as mentioning the traitor in connection with the Lord's Supper, but not until after it had taken place, and that, consequently, Judas was at the Lord's Supper. To this we answer thus: 1. We have already proved that the Lord's Supper followed the passover (see verse 20), and that Judas left during the passover supper. See John 13: 30, in connection with other proof given above. 2. We have also seen that Luke's account is not chronological; that he mentions many events out of their regular order. There is, therefore, no alternative left us but to conclude that Luke has not followed the consecutive order of events in this instance. Should we conclude otherwise, we not only make confusion of the accounts of the other evangelists, but we make Luke inconsistent with himself. But it is still further objected that there is no break between verses 19 and 20, and that the statement, "Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table," closely follows the words, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you," the two sentences being connected by the conjunction "but." Keeping in mind the two points already brought out, as just mentioned above, a reference to the Greek of the text will remove this objection. The word translated "but" in verse 21 is pleen. Liddell & Scott's Lexicon gives this definition: "Adv. after parenthesis, yet, still, but." Robinson says of it: "At the beginning of a clause, much more, rather, besides, passing over into an adversative particle, but rather, but yet, nevertheless;—Also where the writer returns after a digression to a previous topic." Andrews' Latin Lexicon says the same of the corresponding word in the Vulgate. Thus this objection is entirely removed. Luke introduces the subject of the passover, and speaks of the cup. This seems to remind him of the Lord's Supper, and he briefly describes that in verses 19, 20, they being thrown in parenthetically, and in verse 21 he resumes the narrative concerning the passover. We think, therefore, that Luke's account does not disagree in the least with that of the other evangelists, nor disprove our conclusion that Judas was not present when the Lord's Supper was instituted. This fact is not without weight upon the subject of524open or close communion. When we consider the nature and object of the Lord's Supper, it will appear that Christ could not have allowed Judas to remain on that solemn occasion. The object of the Lord's Supper is stated thus: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. 11: 26. This information Paul says he "received of the Lord." The supper, then, was intended as a memorial, to keep in mind the death of Christ. And not merely to keep the fact in mind, but as an expression of the partaker's belief in Christ's death. But a mere belief that Christ died is not sufficient to constitute Bible belief in his great sacrifice. The devils believe, but their belief is of no benefit to them. There are many disbelievers in Christianity who will admit that there was such a being as Christ, and that he died; and yet their belief is of no profit to them, for they do not discern Christ's divine nature, nor the object for which he died. We must understand that he died to vindicate the claims of justice; that God's law had been broken, and that the death of the sinner was demanded; that Christ died in man's stead, that through faith in him we might be saved from death. But "faith without works is dead," and therefore our faith in Christ is nothing unless accompanied by obedience. To reap any benefit from Christ's sacrifice we must turn from our sins, and keep the whole law of God. See Isa. 1: 16-18; 55: 7; Rom. 6: 1-6; Matt. 7: 21-23; Luke 6: 46, etc. Now no one, however "liberal," would claim that one who has no faith in Christ could be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. No one would think of inviting a heathen or a profane worldling to that ordinance. But, as we have seen, faith in Christ implies an honest desire to keep God's law; consequently, no one who is a violator of the law of God, even though he may profess faith in Christ, has a right to come to the Lord's table. We think this proposition cannot be controverted. We do not say that one must be without fault before he can commune, but he must have repentance for his sins, and an earnest desire to put them away. With trust in God, that he for Christ's sake will forgive sin, the individual must humbly strive to walk in the light as fast as God shows it to him. Now how was it with Judas? We find that he had cherished his selfish and avaricious feelings, and had finally yielded to them altogether, and had been stealing from the common purse which our Lord and his disciples had. John 12: 6. He had been carrying on a constant deception. He had become so hardened, even under the sublime teachings and solemn warnings of Christ, that he had bargained to betray his Lord. He had deliberately sold himself to the devil for twenty dollars. He was a thief, a liar, a murderer, and a traitor; a villain of the deepest die; a hardened, unrepentant sinner. And his sin is augmented by the fact that he sinned against the greatest light that any man could have. It would have been sacrilege for such a one to eat of the Lord's Supper; to partake of the body and blood of Christ. We read: "If we walk in the light, as he [God] is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John 1: 7. But Judas was walking in darkness, and could have no fellowship with Christ and his loyal disciples. He had nothing in common with them. He was with them, but not of them. These two positions strengthen each other. From the very nature of the Lord's Supper, as explained by the Holy Spirit, we see that it would have been morally impossible for Judas to remain on that occasion; and by our Lord's action we may learn something as to what persons may be permitted to eat of the supper which is called by his name. For in the light of the foregoing testimony it seems clear that Christ designed that the traitor should be pointed out at the time that he was, so that he might withdraw and not be present at the ordinance which was to follow. This idea is strengthened by our Lord's words to Judas, "What thou doest, do quickly." Although none of the disciples fully understood that Judas was to betray Christ (or that he was to do it immediately), John 13: 28, yet the fact that Christ knew of his intentions, and that nothing could be gained by further attempt at concealment, would naturally cause him to obey Christ's command to go at once. E. J. W.