So...Did Judas Leave Before the Lord's Evening Meal?

by undercover 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  undercover

  Yes, it's that time of year, once again, when the Society starts reliving Jesus' last few days on earth as a human...

  In addition to all the propaganda about the 144,000 and only they being "allowed" to partake of Jesus' blood and body at the annual JW deny Christ ritual...another JW teaching, though not as dissected, is the teaching that Judas Iscariot left the room before the bread and wine were shared with the apostles.

  It's important to JW doctrine that this be the case. Because only those who make up the true Christian congregation, the annointed, the first of these the faithful apostles, are to partake of these emblems. If Jesus was already aware of Judas' plan to betray him and yet Judas was present for this new, important ritual, it would be rendered useless by his partaking. The significance of this "meal" would be moot.

  But if, as the Society teaches, Judas left, then Jesus could introduce this new, all important symbolism to his true faithful followers (you know, those who minutes after partaking started arguing over who was the greatest among themselves ).

  I found the following slightlyl amusing:

  At the official WT site, they have an article about Jesus last days. When it gets to the actual Passover meal, the article says:

  However, Jesus knows that one of these men—Judas Iscariot—has already arranged to betray him to the religious leaders. Understandably, he becomes very distressed. "One of you will betray me," he reveals. The apostles are highly grieved at this. (Matthew 26:21, 22) After celebrating the Passover, Jesus tells Judas: "What you are doing get done more quickly."—John 13:27.

  Once Judas has left, Jesus introduces a meal to commemorate his impending death. He takes a loaf of the unleavened bread, expresses thanks in prayer, breaks it, and instructs the 11 to partake. "This means my body," he says, "which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me." He then takes a cup of red wine. After saying a blessing, he passes the cup to them, telling them to drink out of it. Jesus adds: "This means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."—Luke 22:19, 20; Matthew 26:26-28.

  Now, here's the humorous part...the scripture that the Society cites, Luke 22: 19,20 reads:

  19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

  But here's verse 21:

  21 “But, look! the hand of my betrayer is with me at the table.

  So, was Judas there or not?
• 

  sir82

  Official Society explanation: Luke was not written in chronological order.

  Of course, you can get around a lot of Biblical contradictions elsewhere by playing that card. It's just another variation of the old "well, yeah, that's what the verse says, but it doesn't mean what it says."

  Both sides of the trinity / no trinity argument do a lot of that.
• 

  wobble

  The rest of Luke and book two (Acts) seem to be in chronological order,so why not this bit?????

  Love

  Wobble
• 

  Olin Moyles Ghost

  This is an interesting point. The verses cited in Matthew don't seem to support the Society's explanation either. See Matt. 26:25-35:

  25 By way of reply Judas, who was about to betray him, said: “It is not I, is it, Rabbi?” He said to him: “You yourself said [it].”

  26 As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “T AKE , eat. This means my body.” 27 Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of YOU ; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I tell YOU , I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with YOU in the kingdom of my Father.” 30 Finally, after singing praises, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

  31 Then Jesus said to them: “All of YOU will be stumbled in connection with me on this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered about.’ 32 But after I have been raised up, I will go ahead of YOU into Gal´i·lee.” 33 But Peter, in answer, said to him: “Although all the others are stumbled in connection with you, never will I be stumbled!” 34 Jesus said to him: “Truly I say to you, On this night, before a cock crows, you will disown me three times.” 35 Peter said to him: “Even if I should have to die with you, I will by no means disown you.” All the other disciples also said the same thing.

  Of course, there is a passage that the Society uses to support its teaching that Judas left the last supper before the disciples ate the bread and drank the wine: John 13:26-30:

  26 Therefore Jesus answered: “It is that one to whom I shall give the morsel that I dip.” And so, having dipped the morsel, he took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Is·car´i·ot. 27 And after the morsel then Satan entered into the latter. Jesus, therefore, said to him: “What you are doing get done more quickly.” 28 However, none of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose he said this to him. 29 Some, in fact, were imagining, since Judas was holding the money box, that Jesus was telling him: “Buy what things we need for the festival,” or that he should give something to the poor. 30 Therefore, after he received the morsel, he went out immediately. And it was night.

  My understanding is that the "morsel" described in verses 26 and 30 is not the communion bread of which J.C. and the apostles partook. I always understood that that the morsel was just part of the regular meal.

  Anyway, it looks like Luke and John are in conflict (or more bluntly, they are contradictory). Hence the Society explains it away by saying that Luke's account is not in chronological order. Now what sense does that make?
• 

  undercover

  Matthew's account:

  20 When, now, it had become evening, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. 21 While they were eating, he said: “Truly I say to YOU , One of YOU will betray me.” 22 Being very much grieved at this, they commenced each and every one to say to him: “Lord, it is not I, is it?” 23 In reply he said: “He that dips his hand with me in the bowl is the one that will betray me. 24 True, the Son of man is going away, just as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been finer for him if that man had not been born.” 25 By way of reply Judas, who was about to betray him, said: “It is not I, is it, Rabbi?” He said to him: “You yourself said [it].”

  26 As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “T AKE , eat. This means my body.” 27 Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of YOU ; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I tell YOU , I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with YOU in the kingdom of my Father.” 30 Finally, after singing praises, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

  No mention of Judas... being there, coming or going...

  Mark's account:

  17 After evening had fallen he came with the twelve. 18 And as they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said: “Truly I say to YOU , One of YOU , who is eating with me, will betray me.” 19 They started to be grieved and to say to him one by one: “It is not I, is it?” 20 He said to them: “It is one of the twelve, who is dipping with me into the common bowl. 21 True, the Son of man is going away, just as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been finer for that man if he had not been born.”

  22 And as they continued eating, he took a loaf, said a blessing, broke it and gave it to them, and said: “Take it, this means my body.” 23 And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it. 24 And he said to them: “This means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many. 25 Truly I say to YOU , I shall by no means drink anymore of the product of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” 26 Finally, after singing praises, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

  Judas is mentioned as the betrayer...yet shows him as sharing the meal. No mention of him leaving.

  Luke's account:

  14 At length when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this passover with YOU before I suffer; 16 for I tell YOU , I will not eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And, accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves; 18 for I tell YOU , From now on I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of God arrives.”

  19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” 20 Also, the cup in the same way after they had the evening meal, he saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf.

  21 “But, look! the hand of my betrayer is with me at the table. 22 Because the Son of man is going his way according to what is marked out; all the same, woe to that man through whom he is betrayed!” 23 So they started to discuss among themselves the question of which of them would really be the one that was about to do this.

  24 However, there also arose a heated dispute among them over which one of them seemed to be greatest. 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 Y OU , though, are not to be that way. But let him that is the greatest among YOU become as the youngest, and the one acting as chief as the one ministering. 27 For which one is greater, the one reclining at the table or the one ministering? Is it not the one reclining at the table? But I am in YOUR midst as the one ministering.

  Here we see that Judas is at the table with the twelve when the meal is taken. No mention of him leaving...

  John's account:

  21 After saying these things, Jesus became troubled in spirit, and he bore witness and said: “Most truly I say to YOU , One of YOU will betray me.” 22 The disciples began to look at one another, being at a loss as to which one he was saying [it] about. 23 There was reclining in front of Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, and Jesus loved him. 24 Therefore Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him: “Tell who it is about whom he is saying [it].” 25 So the latter leaned back upon the breast of Jesus and said to him: “Lord, who is it?” 26 Therefore Jesus answered: “It is that one to whom I shall give the morsel that I dip.” And so, having dipped the morsel, he took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Is·car´i·ot. 27 And after the morsel then Satan entered into the latter. Jesus, therefore, said to him: “What you are doing get done more quickly.” 28 However, none of those reclining at the table knew for what purpose he said this to him. 29 Some, in fact, were imagining, since Judas was holding the money box, that Jesus was telling him: “Buy what things we need for the festival,” or that he should give something to the poor. 30 Therefore, after he received the morsel, he went out immediately. And it was night.

  Here Judas dips the morsel and then leaves. Only in this account does it mention Judas leaving.

  Another interesting thing about the JW teaching of this event. They pass off the Passover and the "new" Lord's Evening Meal as two seperate events that take place the same night in the same room. However the text of the Bible does not support that. They are clearly having a Passover meal and Jesus makes some symbolic comments about the bread and wine as they eat. Judas was there, he joined in and then, according to John, left.
• 

  parakeet

  Don't know. Don't care.

  However, I will say that had I been Judas, I would have left before the meal, which featured only dry bread and wine, and used my 20 pieces of silver to get a decent meal, maybe a good steak dinner at Ruth's Chris.
• 

  undercover

  Ruth's Chris was known as Ruth's Esther back then...

  ...and it would have taken at least 40 pieces of silver to get a good steak and bottle of wine.
• 

  Narkissos

  Using the Fourth Gospel to fill-in the (alleged) blanks in the Synoptic Eucharistic pericopes (or to turn over their explicit narrative indications, as is the case with Luke) is particularly fanciful, since (1) there is conspicuously no Eucharistic institution in John and (2) the last meal doesn't even occur on the same night (the Johannine Jesus dies on Preparation Day, about the time when the Passover lambs were slaughtered for obvious symbolic reasons, hence prior to the Passover meal -- which the Synoptic Jesus partakes).

  More generally, one must remember that each Gospel was originally written as the Gospel for a particular community, i.e. not to be read along with three others, let alone to be divided into pieces and mixed with the others in constructing a fifth story (or, "what really happened") which is really written nowhere...
• 

  undercover

  Narkissos, how do they come to the conclusion that John's account (the fourth gospel) takes place before Passover? Strictly from the reading of that chapter, you could place it either way (unless I'm missing something). I'm assuming that other sources are used to arrive at this...

  edited: Okay...I did find this scripture later in the account the day after Jesus was taken into custody: 28 Then they led Jesus from Ca´ia·phas to the governor’s palace. It was now early in the day. But they themselves did not enter into the governor’s palace, that they might not get defiled but might eat the passover.

  another edit: another scripture later in the chapter: 31 Then the Jews, since it was Preparation, in order that the bodies might not remain upon the torture stakes on the Sabbath, (for the day of that Sabbath was a great one,) requested Pilate to have their legs broken and the [bodies] taken away. 32
• 

  JosephMalik

  So, was Judas there or not?

  Undercover,

  Yes, Judas was there as Luke shows. Luke was very careful with this nights chronology and even corrected himself when he mentioned the wine first and then corrected this sequence of events. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why? Because the WT does not understand that the Lamb was not eaten on the 14 th , No one but the priests could observe the 14 th on this Passover observance since they were busy killing thousands of them during the afternoon hours. Then the families that prepared the meal had to cook it and get the rest of the meal ready to eat it for Passover. This was also done during the 14 th as well after all leaven was removed from the home and this took them into the evening when the date would change to the 15 th . This is the reason why a special dispensation appeared in the Law allowing food to be prepared on the 15 th , a Sabbath day, the first day of that 7 day Passover when such activity was normally forbidden. So Passover actually began on the 15 th and lasted for a week. Lu 22:1 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. You here see that the name for the feast of unleavened bread took on the more common usage, Passover for short. It was also called Passover in OT texts.

  Much is made of the texts in John’s account to change this chronology. But John simply provided material missing in the other Gospels and after a brief introduction that locates his words in time he discussed events that took place AFTER this official Passover meal during which the blessed bread and wine were passed. It was not until this time that the bickering among the Apostles that went on and on during the meal that night was resolved when our Lord washed their feet. Judas was still there for that as well John 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him; And they continued to eat as was customary since the food had to be destroyed. Leftovers of that meal were not permitted by Law.

  Undercover is correct in that this was the Last Passover and not some Last Supper. The presence of Judas would not change anything since it was all officially part of the Law and this was still in force at that meal. But what about this being the 15 th mean? That means that our Lord did not die the next afternoon since that was still a Sabbath day. The next day of preparation which involved unleavened bread made from new grain for the 7 th day of this Passover was some six days away. What else do they have wrong? This is all covered in detail at http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/ Click on the pictures and download the book and manuscript Beyond Watchtower doctrine for the answers. At least look at a Jewish Calender and see for yourself that Passover is a week long. Unleavened bread was not permitted until the 15 th by Law as well so the WT has it all wrong. Le 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven daysye must eat unleavened bread. An unclean person could not eat this unfermented bread. This is why: Joh 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. It was this bread (not the meat) that was sacred and this is why they did not go into the judgment hall and become unclean for this Passover.

  Joseph