Was Judas present for the passing of the emblems?

by Lore 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Lore

  Memorial is this Tuesday. While explaining the significance of consuming the booze and bread it is quite likely the speaker is going to make a passing remark about how Jesus made sure that Judas would not be present to partake.

  Of course he won't explain his reason for saying that. But here is some food for thought while you're stuck sitting there listening to it:

  All of the gospels contradict each other on the chronological order of events.

  Of the four gospels, only Luke claims to be in logical order. (Although the witnesses claim that the word 'logical order' does not neccesarily mean 'chronological'.)

  (Luke 1:3) I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·oph′i·lus,

  Also, out of the four gospel accounts only the book of John mentions Judas leaving during the evening at all.

  Matthews account includes all 12 apostles plus Jesus sitting down to eat.
  Then Jesus telling the group that one of them at that table would betray him.
  Followed by them passing the emblems.
  Followed by them leaving and going to the garden.
  Followed by Jesus telling Peter he would betray him 3 times.
  No mention is made of Judas leaving before or after the wine. But nothing to indicate he was still around during the passing.

  Marks account includes all 12 apostles plus Jesus sitting down to eat.
  Then Jesus telling the group that one of them at that table would betray him.
  Followed by them passing the emblems.
  Followed by them leaving and going to the garden.
  Followed by Jesus telling Peter he would betray him 3 times.
  Pretty much the same as Matthew. No mention of Judas leaving. But nothing to indicate he was still around during the passing.

  Lukes account includes all 12 apostles plus Jesus sitting down to eat.
  First thing that happens is they pass the emblems.
  Followed by Jesus telling telling the group that one of them at that table would betray him.
  Followed by Jesus making a covenant with them.
  Followed by Jesus telling Peter he would betray him 3 times.
  Followed by them leaving and going into the garden.
  Quite different from Matthew and Mark, this time Judas' presense is specifically mentioned AFTER the passing of the emblems. Again, no mention is made of him leaving at all.

  Johns account includes all 12 apostles gathered in the upper room.
  Jesus washes their feet and gives them a lesson.
  Followed by Jesus telling the group that one of them would betray him.
  Followed by Judas 'immediately' leaving. ("Therefore, after he received the morsel, he went out immediately. And it was night.")
  Followed by Jesus telling Peter he would betray him 3 times.
  Followed by Jesus giving a speech.
  Followed by them leaving and going into the garden.
  So John is very different from the rest. He's the only one to mention Judas leaving. Also he doesn't mention the passing of the emblems at all.

  So what evidence do the witnesses claim to prove Judas left BEFORE the passing of them emblems? When the only gospel to mention Judas leaving at all, doesn't say when it happened in relation to the passing of the emblems?

  Simple cherry picking. Clearly some of the gospels have to be out of order. So they choose to believe that Luke is completely jumbled and John is only partially out of order, but not out of order when it talks about Judas leaving right after Jesus says he will betray him.

  One quick final point about the use of the word 'immediately' in John. When it says that Judas went out immediately after receiving the morsel.
  The witnesses have no problem believing that the bible actually means what it says here. And you'd think that when the Bible says something happened immediately it means. . . well 'immediately'.

  But when it's inconvenient for them, they are willing to redefine 'immediately' to mean 'a couple days later'.

  They don't choose to do that in this case.
• 

  Pterist

  Psalm 41:9 , ‘The one who eats my bread has turned against me.’ scripture was fulfilled.

  Regadless, of the 13 present only ONE was annointed ! ;)

  Shalom
• 

  Bobcat

  Pterist:

  I posted some thoughts about this on this thread (my post # 668, near the botton of the page). But I found your reference to Ps 41:9 very interesting. Jesus quotes it in John 13:18 in reference to Judas.

  On the idea that it could refer to the emblematic bread at the last supper, the Commentary on the NT Use of the OT (Beale & Carson, p.486) says:

  Concerning [John's use of the Greek verb trogo], F. J. Moloney (1998:384), on the strength of the evangelist's choice of the verb trogo (used also in 6:54-58) in the place of the LXX's esthio, postulates "eucharistic overtones" to the meal, though it is sufficient to understand the evangelist's choice of word as establishing a back reference to the feeding of the multitude without invoking the Eucharist.

  Beale & Carson are admitting the possibility of a reference to the emblematic bread (due to John's using this verb in place of what is in the LXX Ps 41:9, and his use of it at Jn 6), but stopping short of saying that it has to mean that. It could be referring back to previous occasions, or to the Last Supper meal itself.

  I notice that several other commentaries cite the Beale/Carson reference to this point, without supporting or debating it. It would seem, in their viewpoints, to fall into the realm of what is possible.

  Thanks for helping to add another piece of info to broaden my view.

  In connection with John's use of the account in John 6 (about eating his flesh/drinking his blood) and lack of a memorial account at the last supper in his gospel, I posted some research and comments here (see my post # 429) for any interest.

  By the way, an interesting comment in the BEGTC-John commentary about Satan entering Judas:

  "Conversely, it appears that Satan was unaware of the ultimate outcome of Jesus' crucifixion, that is, his own demise (cf. 1 John 3:8; Heb 2:14-15), or else he presumably would not have prompted Judas to betray Jesus."
• 

  Pterist

  Bobcat, Thanks for the feedback and additional info.
• 

  Pterist

  Bobcat**** "Conversely, it appears that Satan was unaware of the ultimate outcome of Jesus' crucifixion, that is, his own demise****

  1 Corinthians 2:7... No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory?

  This is how Satan and all authority shot themselves in the foot. The agent of Life was killed and hence the cross is the focal point in history where eternity crashes in time and ends all mortal creation, to be renewed in a resurrection of immortality for those who SURVIVE THIS PROCESS already underway 2000 years ago. On a fleshly comparison it is like when Neo is killed in the Matrix, he becomes the embodiment of the authorities/agents as he dies they die, he is resurrected ...they are history ! Checkmate on evil, they shot themselves in the foot !!!

  Shalom friend.
• 

  Larsinger58

  First of all, John indicates that Judas left "but night" (de nux) which actually means just before the "night" watch, which occurs at 9 p.m.

  Second, it fascinates me that such focus on the detail of when John left and whether or not he participated in the new covenant is being discussed and NOBODY for the most part realizes that the Seder meal is being eaten on the sabbath day of the 1st day of UFC. I mean, we all know the Israelites left Egypt on the same night they ate passover and we all know they left on Nisan 15th after midnight. So we also know Jesus was arrested on Saturday, the 15th and could not have died that day.

  As far as Judas eating of the new covenant, if that is what Luke represents then that is what happened and there is nothing in the other gospels that contradicts this. So I don't understand the concept that the gospels all represent a different story. All the gospels are completely in harmony.

  On that point, again, it is quite astute to note that the one who rebels against God or Christ is noted to be one who ate bread with him. The WTS knows that even those of the anointed must remain faithful until the end before they get their prize. The Bible indicates that one of his own would betray him. If he was never one of his own, how could he be betrayed by one of his own? So I see no problem with Judas being part of the 12 until he actually rebelled against him. His place in the 12 was replaced by Matthias and then Paul.

  Finally, since Satan entered Judas, this has a higher implication of Satan's close position with God and Christ in heaven before he rebelled. So Psalm 41:9 is also a reference to Satan. Someone who breaks bread with you is someone in your own household or an honored guest, a close friend or relative. That certainly describes Satan who uniquely, like Christ, was in a special position of holiness in heaven, being on Mount Zion. In the pattern of God's holiness within the temple, the Ark of the Covenant is covered over by two "covering cherubs", one of which would be Michael the archangel/Jesus Christ -- the other Satan. Thus Satan and Christ were considered very close, and in fact, married. So the reference to someone breaking bread or sharing a personal meal is particularly applicable to Satan. Now while the idea that Christ was married to Satan seems shocking after the fact of who Satan became, you have to contrast that with who replaces Satan in that special position of holiness in heaven, which is the church, who is considered to be married to Christ.

  Bottom line is that if Luke clearly shows Judas partook, then the WTS' claim this is not the case simply reflects their personal misunderstanding and demonstrates why they are called the "man of lawlessness" because like the Pharisees, they put their own traditional beliefs ahead of what the Scriptures say. They pay more attention to what their distorted beliefs are than to scripture, which is why they think Jesus died on Nisan 14th rather than Nisan 20th.
• 

  Witness 007

  Yes but he spit in the wine...backwashed that crap! And dropped the emblem 5 second rule on the floor.
• 

  Sulla

  First, they aren't "emblems," in the gospel accounts. That's JW-talk.

  But your reading is correct: there isn't any reason to think Judas left ahead of the meal. I suspect the JWs assert he did leave for the simple reason that their ecclesiology works on something like the supposed perfection / superiority of the "True Christians." 1918 is supposed to be something like a re-selection of apostles, or a re-institution of the Church -- the fact of which is placed in considerable tension if it turns out that Jesus made a Christian of Judas.

  As a general rule, assuming that JW interpretations are designed to support their own self-image as superior to everybody else is a pretty good first guess.
• 

  Bobcat

  Pterist:

  Re: The comment about Satan not fully understanding.

  I've often wondered if Pilate's wife's dream, where she tells her husband to 'have nothing to do with that righteous man' (Mt 27:19), if that may have been a late attempt by Satan to stop the execution. As if he had begun to figure it out, but too late.

  I guess arguing against that is that all the other mentions of dreams in Matthew are divinely inspired (1:20; 2:12, 13, 19, 22).

  The Society says that the dream was "evidently of divine origin." (gt 122; it-1 651; Exact same wording in both references! Sounds like a company policy that is being carefully repeated.)

  But I wonder about this. If Pilate had received a divine warning, that would have made him more culpable. But Jesus tells him that the one handing him over had more guilt. (Compare John 19:11) Also, if you are going to warn someone with a dream, why go round about using his wife. In all the other dreams in Matthew God warned the parties involved directly.

  I'm thinking once things were set in motion, Satan may have found himself blocked. And so the wife was as close as he could get.

  In the end I guess it can only be speculative.

  "Checkmate on evil." - Good point!

  Take Care
• 

  EdenOne

  Good points, Bobcat and Pterist!

  Eden