The Scandal of God’s Forgiveness. Edmond Smith

he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed.’ And they began to question one another, which of them it could be who was going to do this.”

      At first it appears that Luke contradicts Matthew and Mark by having Jesus state his words about the betrayer after the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Matthew and Mark having the words about the betrayal spoken during the Passover, which preceded the Lord’s Supper.

      Besides John 13 mentioning that the dipping of the bread in gravy (as becoming for Passover practice) saw Judas leave the company before the Lord’s Supper was introduced to the disciples, Luke’s account can be reconciled with that of Matthew and Mark when we understand how Luke set down the order of events in the way he did and the reason behind it.

      It can be argued that none of the Synoptists present a rigid chronology at all times, but psychologically one would think Jesus spoke of his betrayal at the hand of a disciple at the table before he spoke of the culmination of the Passover in the Lord’s Supper, otherwise the precious words concerning the covenant that was to be ratified by his blood would have been eclipsed in the minds of those who were to be the beneficiaries of forgiveness of sins through redemption by Jesus’ death, yes, when it was crucial in that critical hour to know that God had ‘the last word’ in what appeared on all accounts to be a tragedy. Therefore, it makes sense to view Matthew and Mark’s accounts as chronological while Luke’s is not, as the New Testament scholar Hendriksen maintains.

      Why then did Luke place the words concerning the betrayal at the end of the pericope to do with the Lord’s Supper? There is good reason to believe that once Luke presents the account of the Supper, he then straightway demonstrates what total reaction among the Twelve there was to Jesus and his teaching, just as William Hendriksen in his commentary on Luke reveals. There is first the strongly implied reaction of Judas Iscariot (vv. 21–23), then that of the Twelve (vv. 24–30), followed by that of Simon Peter (vv. 31–34), lastly of the group as a whole (vv. 35–38). In this sense Luke’s account can be reckoned as ‘orderly’ (see Luke 1:31).

      The plea is that it is unlikely that Judas Iscariot participated in the Lord’s Supper, both from a theological point of view (see my comments again on Matthew 26:26–28) and from the view of the construction of the Synoptic texts, as well as that of John. Weight for this can also be perceived in the inclusion of the longer Greek text for Luke 22:17–20, as it is found in the ESV Bible. Presuming the longer Greek text is preferred, it is difficult to conceive Jesus said “This is my body, which is given for you (emphasis mine),” if he had already declared the damning words about it being better that Judas Iscariot had not been born.

      In fact, such a personal assurance and application as “This is my body, which is given for you” and “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” is not as common as one may think when the New Testament is considered. Yes, we meet such general expressions as “The Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world” (and we have yet to seek the full meaning of such in this work), and as for a personal application of Christ’s death, it is only ever restricted to believers.

      Never do we read that the Early Church’s evangelism was based on the appeal “Christ died for you.”

      The Early Church message was always to the effect Christ died for sins, or Christ died for sinners. The lack of practical personal application of Christ’s death did not discourage any from believing in the early days, as there was sufficient encouragement to believe in Christ, simply because Christ died for sinners, so conviction could arise without stating “Christ died for you.” When one was “cut to the heart” about Christ’s death, then one felt constrained to repent and believe, as happened at Pentecost. Therefore, it would have been incongruous for Jesus to say to Judas Iscariot, “My blood is being shed for you,” these words only being applicable to the remaining disciples who believed that he held the key to salvation.