We now move into the last two days of Jesus’ earthly ministry and his last meal with the disciples. All of the Gospels give extensive space to the last meal, though John focuses much more on the conversation and Jesus’ teaching and does not mention the actual sharing of the meal and particularly the bread and wine. He does however expand on the dispute between the disciples over status with an extended narrative showing Jesus stepping in not just to correct but to model an alternative as he washes their feet taking on a servant’s role.
There have been some questions around potential discrepancies, in particular that John places the offering of the Passover on the day of Jesus’ execution itself, vividly presenting Jesus as the lamb. Possibilities include that more than one calendar was being used leading to a diversion of dates or that whilst the main Temple sacrifice was offered on a specific day, people had dispensation to vary the time in their own homes. Carson meanwhile suggests that the term Passover could refer to the day, meal or entire festival in which case, Jon 19:14 probably is referring to this and to the day of preparation for the Sabbath at the end of that week.[1]
Read Luke 22:1-6
We are getting close to the Passover, when the Jews commemorated God rescuing them from Egypt. This was sometimes referred to as “The Feast of Unleavened Bread” because the people had quickly prepared bread without yeast for the final meal in Egypt. Jesus was in Jerusalem specifically for this festival (v1). The Jewish religious leaders wanted rid of Jesus but could not confront him directly themselves because the people were on his side. So, they needed a pretext to remove him (v2). Judas Iscariot comes to them and offers to find a way to betray Jesus. It is fascinating that people often discuss why he might have done this, what his motive was though the Gospels are clear on two things, he was paid for it (and known for his greed) and Satan entered him.[2] He was acting under the direction and influence of the Devil. The language used is similar to that of demonisation but by Satan himself. What we tend to spend less time concerned with is as to the nature of the betrayal. Partly, it seems to be that the leaders were looking for an opportunity to bring Jesus in at night when the crowds were not present and so to get their story straight. This meant that having someone who could lead them to where Jesus and his followers were camping and perhaps by being seen with the guard to give the impression that their presence was known to Jesus and planned.[3] However, we are not told whether Judas’ involvement went further, for example if he was an informant offering details of what Jesus had said in a way that could be spun against him (v3-6).
Read Luke 22:7-23
The day when the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed arrives and so Jesus sends Peter and John to make sure things are prepared. He tells them they will be met by a man carrying a jar of water, this would have been a signal as usually this was a woman’s role. They were to follow him to a house and there explain that their master needed the guest room. Note that this suggests pre-arranged signals rather than prophetic prediction. Even, the form of words they are to use echoes the preparation and signals for getting the donkey for the procession into Jerusalem. Everything happens as Jesus said it would (v7-13).
At the meal they recline on couches as was the custom rather than sitting on chairs as seen in popular, later portrayals of the Last Supper. Jesus says that he has been longing for this moment, not just to eat Passover with them but this specific one because of what it represented as his last Passover with them before his death and the coming of the Kingdom (v14-18). He shares round a first cup of wine, again reminded them that he won’t drink wine again until the promise is fulfilled at the Kingdom comes (v17-18).
Jesus shares bread and wine with his disciples. He breaks the bread and says “this is my body given for you.” Note, that Jesus was actually present doing this, so whatever he meant by “this is my body”, he certainly wasn’t introducing the idea of transubstantiation. Rather, he was saying that there was something about the bread and its place in the meal that linked with his death. And presented it as sacrificial. Jesus says that he offers his body for, or on behalf of the disciples. It is something that they are to benefit from. They are to eat the bread as an act of remembrance of him. The emphasis there should be on “of me”. The Passover meal was already an act of remembrance but now Jesus changes the focus from the Exodus to his coming death (v19). Jesus describes the cup of wine as a symbol of a new covenant that he is now being made by God through his blood being shed. Note that whilst we often think of it representing his blood, Jesus doesn’t use the same “is” language as he does for the bread and his body. Instead, his focus is on the cup’s covenant role. His shed blood will bring about that covenant. Consider too the sense that if Jesus is instrumental in bringing about the covenant that this should be seen as pointing to his divine nature and identity. It’s God who makes covenants (v20).
Jesus adds the comment that the one who will betray him was present at the meal and this shocks the disciples. They are left confused and wondering which of them could do such a thing. Matthew tells us that Jesus offers more explicit pointers to Judas, as someone close and sharing a bowl with Jesus as the one and even at this stage Judas seems surprised to be identified.[4](v21-23)
What does “this is my body” mean?
One of the central debates between Protestants and Catholics, indeed between Reformed Protestants and most other forms of Christianity is over the nature of Communion and what happens to the elements. Roman Catholicism teaches transubstantiation, that in some sense the elements become the body and blood of Christ. Orthodox churches would also teach a form of “Real Presence”, that the bread and wine become Jesus’ body to the worshippers although the prefer not to use the term “transubstantiation” due to all the metaphysical underpinning involved. Lutheranism has sought to stay clear of transubstantiation by teaching “consubstantation”, Christ’s body is present alongside or along with the bread and wine without replacing them.
The Reformers divided between Zwingli’s view that the supper is merely a symbolic memorial and Calvin’s that we do not feed on Christ physically but that it is more than a memorial, so that in some sense we “feed on him in our hearts”.
Much of the debate seems to descend into metaphysics and misses what is going on in terms of the Supper. We in effect rip it out of the context of the Passover and lose its significance. It is worth recalling that the reason that Jews, to this day, eat Passover is to remember the day when the Israelites were delivered from the Angel of death and brought out of Egypt through the Red Sea.. Remembrance seems to be more than just looking back historically to an event in the distant past but keeping it live and immediate by acting it out, an active participation. I would suggest that the reason that the Israelites took the route through the Jordan to Jericho so that a new generation could act out, or recapitulate, so actively participating In the Red Sea Crossing. That would then have implications too for what it meant to those who went to be baptised by John. So, there is a sense in which as you eat Passover now, you eat that first Passover with those who came out of Egypt.
Jesus takes symbols from the meal and links them to himself “this is my body.” I want to suggese that before they symbolically represented him, they represented the whole meal. The unleavened bread having of course its own significance. Note that if Jesus wanted to make a narrow link, then the lamb itself would be the better symbol but he is there present as the sacrificial lamb. So, Jesus is including the whole meal, it’s a physical and edible set of brackets, bread and cup enclosing the whole meal. It’s this whole meal that points to Jesus and now, when they “do this”, they are not to remember rescue from Egypt but the salvation they have in Christ.
Read Luke 22:24-30
The disciples still do not get the significance of what is happening and begin jostling and arguing about position and status in the coming kingdom (v24). Jesus interrupts them and rebukes them. John tells us that he does this practically by taking on the servant’s role of washing their feet. Jesus says that they are behaving like Gentile rulers, squabbling for status and power (v25). They are not to be like this but instead they are to become as younger ones and servants to each other, just as Jesus has come as a servant (v26-27).
At the same time, Jesus recognises that they have been faithful to him and so will be rewarded by being assigned kingdom authority, ruling from thrones. That they are to rule the twelve tribes confirms previous imagery that Christ is instituting a new or renewed Israel with twelve apostles representing the twelve tribes.
Read Luke 22:31-34
Jesus warns Simon Peter, note the use of “Simon” rather than “Peter” or rock in addressing him, that he is going to be tested by Satan. The imagery of Satan seeking to test one of the Lord’s own echoes the testing of Job (v31). Jesus has prayed for Simon that he will not fail but the expectation is that he will. However, Jesus also expresses confidence that Simon Peter will return and be restored to kingdom service as a shepherd of God’s people (v32). Peter protests and insists he will stand firm with Jesus (v33) but Jesus insists that by the morning, Peter will have denied him (v34).
Read Luke 22:35-38
Circumstances are changing, a time of intense struggle is coming. So, where Jesus had previously sent them without provision for short term ministry, now he encourages them to prepare. Both going without provisions previously and making provision now can be seen as acts of faith. This even includes provision of weapons (v35-36). This is another way of warning them of the serious and catastrophic nature of what is about to come, that he is going to be betrayed and killed (v37). They respond by saying they have two swords. His response is “that’s enough” which could mean that the two are enough swords which would suggest that he isn’t expecting them to actually fight, the sword language is symbolic of the violence to come. Or, the words could mean something along the lines of “that’s enough talking now.” Either way., the point seems to be that Jesus isn’t getting drawn into a practical conversation about self defence (v38).
Read Luke 22:39-46
They go out to the Mount of Olives. This would be where many of the festival attendees would camp out at night, hence the need for a guide in Judas to leas the temple guard to Jesus (v39). Jesus goes off by himself to pray and encourages his disciples to pray as well in order to resist temptation. He prays, asking God to provide an alternative way through this but expressing his submission to the Father (v42). He is refreshed by an angel, just as he had been refreshed by angels after his wilderness tempting but continues to experience deep emotional pain reflected in the blood in his tears (v43-44). He returns to find the disciples sleeping (Matthew tells us that this sequence is repeated more than once). He rebukes them and exhorts them to pray again (v45-46).
Read Luke 22:47-53
Judas turns up with the Temple guard. He greets Jesus with a kiss to identify him in the dark to the guard and Jesus picks up on the incongruence of the greeting (v47-48). The disciples now realise what is happening and offer to step in to defend Jesus. One of them (it’s Peter), lashes out with one of the swords, wounding the High Priest’s servant by severing his ear but Jesus rebukes them, tells them to stop and heals the man (v49-51). Jesus then challenges the guard pointing out that they could have arrested him at any point in daylight. So why didn’t they (v52-53).
Was Jesus really expecting the disciples to act in self-defence?
Why did Jesus instruct his followers to buy swords as part of their readiness for what was to come? Some Christians have used this to argue that we should not be passive in the face of coming political threats but be ready to act in self-defence. Usually, the encouragement is to use political means to resist perceived dangers to Christianity, particularly Islamisation. However, there is an implication there that if necessary, Christians can go further in their act of self-defence.
This though is to miss the point of what Jesus is saying. That Jesus speaks in the immediate context of his coming arrest and that when that time comes, he rebukes the disciples, forbids violence, heals the injured man and repeats the command “Enough now” should provide us with enough clues that he wasn’t intending his words to be taken as literal advice to arm yourself, legally, politically or with weapons. Rather, the mention of swords is simply a vivid and visual warning of the coming strife they would face. The priority of believers in the face of intense testing is seen in Gethsemane to be prayer.[5]
[1] DA Carson, John, 603-604.
[2] C.f. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1704.
[3] Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53, 1031.
[4] Matthew 20-23.
[5] See Wright, Luke for everyone, 266.
Faithroots 