Luke 22:17-20 Bible Teaching

Welcome
Prayer

Luke 22.1-
June 14th 2020
Meat

Okay. Last week we covered the setting up for the Passover meal but the not partaking of it.

That took us to the point where Jesus instituted the communion. And before we go on to what else happens in that large upper room I want to talk a minute about communion, sacrament and the like.

Let’s read verses 17-20 in Luke 22:

17And he took the cup, 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.

In verse 17 where we read:

17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

This appears to be the cup that they would share after supper of wine that Jesus would use as an emblem of his shed blood.

All he does here is prepare it, and give God thanks for it and then he tells the men at that table to drink of it themselves – but listen to verses 17 and 18 together:

17And he took the cup, 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.

To me it sounds like he had the disciples drinking from that cup (and of that wine that he had given thanks for), but that he himself did not drink of it, saying that “he wouldn’t drink of the fruit of the vine UNTIL the Kingdom of God would come.”

This was all prior to him establishing that cup as the symbol for his shed blood.

It is also proof that while the Lord and others (like John the Baptist) spoke of the Kingdom of God as either coming or being present with them, it was not there in full, as proven by what Jesus says here, that he would not drink of the cup until the Kingdom of God would come.

When would that be? Upon his return. If you think he returned in 70AD then the Kingdom of God has been established on earth spiritually and is reigning in the hearts of those who are his by faith. If not, then we are waiting for its establishment in the future.

The way you see it will in large part depend on if you believe the Kingdom of God will be visible, tangible and observable, in other words a reign over the material world. If you do you are probably waiting for it to still come and be established.

But if you see it as not coming with observation (as Jesus said in it would be in Luke 17:20), or if you believe that it is within individual believers (as Jesus said in Luke 17:21) then you might see it as having been established in the day he said it would, and has been reigning in the hearts and minds of people for two thousand years.

Just as a reminder Luke 17:20-21 say:

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

So, having gotten the cup going among only the disciples we read:

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.

As they were eating the last supper – and not the Passover meal.

And Jesus took bread. That is, the unleavened bread which they used at the celebration of the Passover.

But before doing this he blessed it or put a blessing on it, giving thanks to God for it.

The word “blessed” in the New Testament often means, to give thanks. From the writings of Philo and the Rabbins, the Jews were accustomed to always giving thanks to God for their food.

Then . . .
the unleavened bread used at Passover was thin and easily broken. And so the stage was set.

All the preparations were done for the Passover meal with the room cleared of leaven. And the men are sharing a meal (that we discussed last week) eating unleavened bread and drinking wine.

And Jesus takes this time to borrow from many elements of the Passover meal, which was to happen the following evening, and instituted what we call the Lords Table, Communion, the Sacrament among his disciples.

And so he brakes the bread as a symbol for his body (that in less that twelve hours was going to undergo being broken (slashed and pierced and wounded for our sakes) but this referred to his flesh alone as not a bone was to be broken according to prophecy.

Jesus does not appear to eat this bread as the scripture says he gave it to the others to eat.

Paul summarized this meaning for believers in 1st Corinthians 11:24 when he says the Lord said,

“This is my body, which is broken for you.”

In other words, this bread, he says, “represents my body.”

It is quite possible that Jesus actually took the bread into his hands and broke it saying, “this is my body” or that once it was broken he pointed to it and said the same, but the point is he was telling those men then in advance what was about to happen to him and bread was the symbol of it.

He was in his own body when he said this which proved that the bread was NOT his actual body neither would the bread used in communion services actually become his flesh.

It was a symbol and was a very common way for the Hebrews to speak (we saw this form of speaking last week when Luke referred to the Passover being killed,) speaking of the Lamb as the actual passover.

And remember, Paul and Luke have Jesus saying of the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine

“Do (eat) this IN REMEMBRANCE of me.” And then we read the same purpose being executed in verse 20 by Luke saying

20 “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

Now, a couple things about communion. And these things are not popular because we love communion.

There is something about it that makes us feel close to the invisible Lord and express gratitude for him in a very intimate manner – eating and drinking – which besides sex and conversation is one of the most intimate things humans can do together.

It is therefore no wonder that the Greek word for Communion is derived from the same word for sexual intercourse (coitus) and for conversation (communication).

But remember a few things as you consider communion in our modern age.

First, Jesus instructed his disciples to participate in it and told them to do it whenever they got together – in remembrance of Him.

The apostles took the communion memoriam out to the believers in that day and they also partook in it – so much so that it quickly began to take on new elements which Paul had to correct and address so it wouldn’t get to far out of hand.

By Paul’s day they used the communion as a time to party. So even in that short period of time when Jesus established it and Paul addressed it, it had to be reformed.

Secondly, when Paul addressed communion, he let’s us know that Jesus told the disciples to partake of the communion “until he comes” or until he returned for them and saved them from coming destruction.

Why didn’t Jesus say (or have Paul say) “do this forevermore in remembrance of me as an eternal sacrament?” but instead put a limit on it saying, “do this until I come?”

I have several opinions on this and that is all that they are – opinions – but the fact remains Jesus, did instruct them to do this “until he comes” and did not instruct them to establish it as an eternal practice among believers.

So, what happened to communion post 70AD?

The same thing that happened to it even in Paul’s day – it started getting twisted and became more than what it was intended to be.

Early church leader Ignatius, much like Paul in 1 Corinthians, indicates that he is very concerned with proper Christian order at Communion, writing,

“Give heed to keep one Eucharist (which is a Greek word for Thanksgiving). For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto union with His blood. There is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow servants; that whatsoever you do, you may do according unto God.”

And he added:

“Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you together, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David’s race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that you may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live forever in Jesus Christ.”

Medicine of immortality?

Ignacious was one of the earliest Christian writer/leaders, born in 40AD and died in 107AD. And he adds to the idea of the Communion that it is the “medicine of immortality.”

What?

This stuff is altogether human and especially all together “the practice of religious humans.”

Remember when Moses made the brass serpent for the children of Israel to look at and be saved from the sting of some infernal creatures that bit and killed? Later on the COI started worshipping the dang thing causing Moses to break it into pieces and saying Nahushtan – just a thing of brass.

So, there is that – the making it more than it should be.

Then there is the systematizing of it (like the LDS do) who have teenage boys take wonderbread and tap water and offer a rote prayer over it and that is supposed to represent the heart of the act.

I suggest that this is not true in the day when the Kingdom of God lives in us. Not in the day when God writes his laws on our hearts and minds and we are his children and He is our God. Not in a day when Jesus is on the mind and lips of all who are His constantly. Not in this day.

So while I know communion makes people feel good, and holy, and as if they are doing something to link themselves to Him – the practice was only advised until he came back – as a means to avoid what men naturally do to things.

Just to let you know, communion soon became available only to those who were baptized as the the writer of the “Didda-kay” writes,

“Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, ‘Give not that which is holy unto dogs.’”

Justin Martyr, writing around 150 AD from Rome wrote (Just listen – Ive gotta read it all):

“And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, the washing that is for the remission of sins, and who has been washed with unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, ‘This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’ and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, ‘This is my blood;’ and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.”

Huh?

After Justin, those who spoke on Communion were many including (Irenaeus), (Clement of Alexandria and Origen), (Tertullian and Cyprian), (Hippolytus), (Cyril), (Aphraahat and Ephrem), (Ambrose), (Augustine), (Theodore and the Cappadocians).

It was among these men that wine became the very blood and bread became the very body. Transubstantiation.

And then ultimately, edifices were erected for worship (buildings) and worship included (what was now becoming a sacrament) with regime, restrictions, and pagentry.

Simple unleavened bread became processed wafers and good wine became water in some cases.

All from one man reaching out, taking some unleavened bread and a cup of wine and telling twelve or eleven (depends on the account we read) to eat and drink of them in remembrance of his broken body and shed blood until he comes.

I’m not again communion any more than I am against circumcision or water baptism. All of them are means by which human connect in their physical bodies with the invisible Lord.

But none of those things changes the mind, will and emotions of a human being – they might play to them, but only the Holy Spirit of God through Christ in us does the changing – and changing is mandated by our God to be his child.

And this brings us to another event of the evening covered in verses 21-22 as Jesus now says:

21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

Again, some controversy – with some stating that Judas partook of the Lord’s Supper (communion) and others stating that he did not.

Frankly, it depends on the Gospel account you read and focus on – and as with many things, we often have to refocus our view in order to see clearly.

Not a hill to die on but again this is meat and we try and chew through these things here to get to the root.

So, we are reading here in Luke 22. Let me give some Lukan background as he writes in verse 7-8 (which we covered last week)

“Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he (the Lord Jesus) sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.”

Then verses 13-14, “And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the TWELVE APOSTLES with him.”

So, it is evident that when the Lord sat down to partake of the Passover, all twelve apostles were present. What happened next?

I’m gonna jump to John 13:1-5 where he tells us, “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.”

According to Matthew 26:15-16 Judas had
already bargained with the chief priests to betray the Lord for 30 pieces of silver. Even as the Lord washed the disciples’ feet, he mentioned Judas in verses 10-11,

“Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For HE KNEW WHO SHOULD BETRAY HIM; therefore said he, YE ARE NOT ALL CLEAN.”

John 13:12 and 28 indicate that, after the Lord had washed their feet, they all sat back down again at the table. We read in verse 21,

“When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that ONE OF YOU SHALL BETRAY ME.”

The Apostles began to wonder which one it would be. No one suspected Judas would be the betrayer.

We then read in verses John 13:25-28, “He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.”

This ‘sop’ or piece of bread, most likely dipped into wine or a sauce, manifested that Judas would betray Him. Verse 30 says, “He then having received the sop WENT IMMEDIATELY OUT: and it was night.”

Matthew 26:25 reads, “Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

Since John 13:28 tells us that Judas WENT IMMEDIATELY OUT after being exposed as the betrayer, we can see from the texts in Matthew and Mark that the institution of the Lord’s Supper (communion) occurred AFTER Judas left.

So, the confusion of Judas’ presence is because, when reading Luke, it appears that Judas is there at the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

While Luke’s Gospel seeks to write of events “in order” (Luke 1:3), he sometimes changes the order of the occasions in relating them.

So, I read Luke’s account in the following way:

In Luke 19-20 Jesus explains the bread and cup. Then at verse 21-23 we read
21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

Then Jesus introduces the sop, dips it, hands it to Judas, who leaves immediately and then verse 24 there was also a strife among them (the remaining disciples), which of them should be accounted the greatest.

My good friend Richard texted me the other day and pointed out that just as they cleared the room of leaven before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and that Judas, who was human leaven, departed prior to the meal as well – which was a really great insight in my estimation.

And so, with Judas being gone, the disciples, led of the Lord Himself, partook of the broken unleavened bread and the wine.

It appears that as a result of Jesus saying that someone would betray him, the disciples went the opposite direction with each other and perhaps sitting around bellies full they engaged in a conversation of who would be greater conversation, as we read in verse 24

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

Because we get to read the rest of the story and see what happens to these men, the conversation is a bit amusing as all but one of them was going to be put to death in a bad way and would pretty much suffer up until the blade drops.

But the apostles mindset here, which was in common with the Jews generally, was that the Messiah was going to somehow be a temporal prince, like other princes of the earth, and that he would reign over the earth materially and from a throne.

And if this was the case they knew that he would have to establish officers in his government, ministers of state, and a cabinet, and so it appears that their contention was founded on this expectation, and they were disputing which of them would be raised to the highest office.

We also know having studied Matthew that they had had similar contentions earlier.

Can you imagine what Jesus was thinking in the face of this? He is going to undergo the exact opposite of what an earthly prince undergoes and yet his disciples were sitting there and arguing who would be the minister of defense or the secretary of state!

This is yet another clear picture of what His kingdom and its subjects are really all about – and what they are not.

So, Jesus says to them (verse 25):

25 The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

In other words, the kings of the nations, or of the earth, exercise LORDSHIP over their subjects.

That is what we would expect them to do.
And those that exercise this authority upon their subjects are called “benefactors” or are the ones who benefit from such LORDSHIP – kinda like Idi Amin or Pol Pot lording over their people and gaining wealth and fame and love as a result – benefiting from it. This is how the Kings of the world operate he says. But now he sets them straight, adding:

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

In other words, do not expect the coming Kingdom to operate in the same fashion as you are suggesting.

“I just washed your feet, does this not tell you anything?” That the greatest among you will be as the least (the younger here in Luke) and the Chief among you will be the one who serves.

And he adds:

27 For which is greater, the one who sits at a meal or the one who serves? Is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

He is pointing out that in the kingdoms of the world the one being served is seen as superior to the ones serving but to offset this picture he says, “But don’t you notice that I am the one serving you?”

Now, we tend to think of this model as being earthly only. That Christians will serve people here and be the greater but that in heaven something will flip and that there Christians will be the ones being served and doted on, while the wicked will be serving us (or something like that).

But think about this for a minute:

What is one of the main differences in character and make-up between a “non-believer and a believer” (or at least what should be the main differences?)

(TWO HANDS)

Believers are supposed to be:
Selfless
Harmless
Kind
Humble

And the children of the world would therefore be

Selfish
Harmful
Unkind
and proud.

If these are the traits of the believers and non believers and these traits are a true assessment why would they change in the realm above?

Could it be that the New Jerusalem where God and Christ is filled with selfless, harmless, humble servants, and that outside the city walls, outside the light of God and Christ there abides utter selfishness and pride and therefore meanness and harm?
And listen – could it be that even then, in that heavenly realm, that true Christians, amidst a cacophony of selfishness, will be the ones who humbly serve, who are the ones who bring kindness into the realms of the dark, and that being a child of God above will actually translate to being a servant to others of less character?

That amidst the cries and screams of the selfish that believers will be the force of light that serves to help break down the darkness?

(beat)

See, our flesh is in the way of being totally dedicated to the principles of God in this life (and I am referring to total selflessness and total humility).

But it seems that the only way to truly abide in the light and love of God and to dwell in perfect peace and love would be to be truly humble, kind, and selfless – that would be the only way to truly be free, my friends.

Conversely, the most imprisoned, the most tied up and miserable would be those who are selfish, proud, and unkind and these are in need of being helped and served by the humble hosts of heaven.

I tend to think that since servitude and humility are the prescribed ways of the Christian here, and since God is all of that there, that in the end, the greatest in the kingdom of heaven here AND there, will be servants, humble, selfless servants to those in the dark.

If that doesn’t appeal to you I would suggest that it is just your flesh running interference because a child of light, sans flesh, would rejoice in helping, serving, and bringing peace to the hearts of those trapped in the bondage of self.

Jesus continues at verse 28 and says to his disciples:

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

You have been with me throughout my humiliations and the assaults from the wicked world.

Verse 29

29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

Here he assures them here that they would have a kingdom assigned to them and that their expectations would be realized.

They had seen how he had lived, and to what trials he had been subjected; they had all along expected a kingdom, and he assures them that they should not be disappointed, that one would come as His own Father had appointed a kingdom to him.

But it was not a Kingdom of pomp and external glory but arrived by poverty, want, persecution, and trial. And that they were about to inherit the Kingdom in similar ways.

2nd Thessalonians 1:5 says that to be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God the believers “suffered.”

Luke writes of Paul in Acts 14:22 saying that upon his return from preaching he was

“Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that “we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.”

So after establishing these principles of servitude and suffering with his disciples Jesus adds to them/then

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Here we see the direct application to Jesus and his Apostles to the Jews – the twelve tribes of Israel, and how so much of what is being said and done here applies to them.

Jesus touches on this picture when talking to Peter in Matthew 19:28 saying:

Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And Paul references something like it in 1st Corinthians 6:1-3 where he says

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

But I tend to see this as relating to both the Jews in that day (meaning the Apostles) and those who are part of the Bride (that was taken then) rather than to ourselves – but could be wrong on this.

Trouble is we don’t really know.
Okay – let’s wrap it up here.

Comments
Questions