Contend Earnestly: Before We Move On...

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Before We Move On...

I plan on moving on, but I have been very busy this last week, so I apologize. I will get around to answering the questions that Turretinfan has posed to me. I wanted to continue a discussion to see what people think on this following verse.

In our last discussion in Hebrews 10:10-14 the language that TF wanted to get across is that all those for whom the offering was made will be sanctified. So, I thought I would see how he would take this from Christ.

And when He had taken some bread and 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 in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.“But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table."
Luke 22:19-21

So, we have Jesus with all of his apostles, including Judas, and says that the blood was poured out for you (which is in the plural in the Greek), meaning it was for all that were sitting at the table. Judas is sitting at the table, so doesn't this mean that Jesus poured out his blood for Judas?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Again, I promise that I will be posting more in depth responses to what TF has asked for.


Anonymous said...

ah, Judas having a bad hair day?

I would ask you to add this part of that last supper as a "tip"?

Luk 22:17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves.
Luk 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

ah, same cup as here?:

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
Luk 22:21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.


Seth McBee said...

Not too sure on your question as the cup that is referred to in verses 20 and following is specifically of the cup of the New Covenant which would be speaking of the cup of blood that is brought by Christ's cross.

So, if I am missing your point, let me know.

Anonymous said...


no, I don't think you miss to many points! :)

I don't know and was asking if this "same" cup is the same cup with the "same" wine in it?

I believe it is.

Which opens up an area for the answer to Judas?

It's tricky, yes? I was looking for pointers, someone/s to point to some "read" where that cup is addressed in light of the cup of the New Covenant?

It was, "as we wait", kinda reasoning for posting it.

I will bet you David has a spin on it? Do you David? :) Just asking ya bro!!!

I believe the first cup is the "fellowship" cup of "those" kind of "believers". The Second clearly is the "cup" of the New Covenant, which we drink everytime we do Communion together as His Body in remembrance of how we came to be His Body, the Holy Christian Church, today... the Holy Dwelling Places of the Most High:

Psa 46:4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High.


Seth McBee said...

There are four cups at the traditional Passover meal and so I think that these two cups are not only different cups but represent two totally different things.

One represents the fellowship with the apostles, and the other represents the New Covenant blood that will be spilt. This is why it is a big deal that Christ says that the blood was spilt, or poured out, for all those sitting there...

which would include Judas.

Anonymous said...

See, you do see it my way! :)


That's my point and why I am on the fence.


Four cups? Ok, which are the other two?


Seth McBee said...

So how do you see it? Do you see it that Jesus was speaking all at the table that He poured out His blood for all of them? Including the reprobate found in Judas?

As far as the four cups in the Passover Seder it is as follows (cf Exodus 6:6,7):

1st Cup Represents: I will bring out

2nd Cup: I will deliver

3rd Cup: I will redeem

4th Cup: I will take

I believe the cup that Jesus raises in Luke 22:20 is the third cup of redemption.

Turretinfan said...


a) Luke 22:21 provides the exceptional "but" to carve out Judas.

b) There's no strong reason to suppose that Jesus followed the rabbinic tradition of the four cups.

c) If Jesus did, and if the idea you want to suggest is that Jesus redeemed Judas ... then obviously there is a slight but important technical difference between that and saying that Jesus "atoned for" Judas.


Seth McBee said...


A) How does "but" carve out Judas?

Isn't it just clarifying that there is one who is there, whom the cup was poured out for, that will betray?

Seems like that is the flow of what Christ says.

B) What would make us think that Jesus would deny the rabbinic principals in the Passover seder? He kept all other parts of the tradition, or so it seems, so why would he deny the four cups? I will ask you to help me here. Not sure if there is significance, but something I noticed is that the first cup is called "a" cup, and the second is called, "the" cup. There is something in the Greek that made the translators change the article that is used.

C)What I am saying is that Jesus said that He poured out this cup for all at the table. This cup represented the blood of the New Covenant, and so the blood that was to be poured out, was for Judas as well, being that he was at the table.

Anonymous said...


at all times, I see Jesus "only" doing what "He" sent Him to do.

He said Himself that He only did what He saw His Father do and spoke only what He heard His Father speak.

I have a question.

Who put the serpent in the Garden that got us all here to this debate?

I still come back to my very first response when I "jumped" into this debate.

I see two things.

one, a command to evangelize the whole world, preach this Gospel to "every" creature for a witness.

two, make disciples of all nations.

I come back to this question then:

How does a "dead" man bury himself and live?

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Not to split hairs here, I would say that those "in" Christ are the ones God raises from the dead.

Can we at least say this about everyone after Adam, all are dead to Life?

When you ask TF about the four cups and keeping the "Levitical" laws, I have this question come to mind: Wasn't Jesus of another Tribe? Judah, a tribe where there is no mention of the Levitical Priesthood? How is it that Christ is both the High Priest of an order of Priest who are not of Levi then?

So, I am not certain Christ had to fulfill those laws?

Was it necessary for Him to fulfill the practice of that Priesthood, a Priesthood of which He is not of that bloodline?

Was that clear?

Albeit, all bloodlines are of Him.

These mysteries swirl and swirl.

I do eagerly look forward to your presentation.

Magnus said...

Do we know from Luke when Judas left? It seems that my NASB notes tell me that Luke did not keep to a chronological order here and that from looking at the other Gospel accounts that Judas in all probability left already. No idea if that means anything, but I thought I would post it and see what you all think.

Turretinfan said...


(i) well, Magnus' point may be fully correct (but its difficult to be certain whether Judas was there or not) (also, it would be odd if Jesus fenced the table in a way that intentionally included an unregenerate man), nevertheless
(ii) the "but" is a negative conjunction, it distinguishes. So, it would seem that:
a) "This is my blood which is shed for all of you, even this betrayer"
would be inferior to
b) "This is my blood which is shed for you, but there is one exception, the betrayer." (cf. John 17:12)
(iii) Of course, we could also point out that a general remark to the disciples should not necessarily and automatically be taken exhaustively of everyone there, even though "you" is plural.

B) Jesus actually complained vocally against the rabbinic traditions as man-made accretions. Do you need me to give examples?

C) If Judas drank of the cup (a big if) then he did so with Christ's approval (clearly) and Christ knew Judas was unregenerate and unbelieving (also clearly). Why then would we Reformed fence the table, especially if the shed blood is for everyman? In other words, how could anyone be truly unworthy if the blood was shed for him? Yet Paul cautions against unworthy consumption. Do you see where I'm going there?


Seth McBee said...

Good thought.

I would say that this is Christ speaking and by him saying that,
"But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table", would seem to point that Judas is among them. Especially since the apostles are said to do the following: And they began to discuss among themselves which one of them it might be who was going to do this thing. Then look to John 13 that points to this same conversation that would point to Judas being at the meal. Jesus saying that one would betray, the apostles wondering who it would be, and then Judas going out.

Dominic Bnonn Tennant said...


In getting this matter straight in my own mind, I wonder if you could answer a question for me:

You affirm that God did not intend the cross for all men without exception—rather, he intended it only for the elect. Do you similarly affirm that God does not desire all men to be saved, without exception?

I'm not trying to trick you into anything; I'm just trying to establish your position clearly in my mind, and determine the correlation between God's desires and his intentions and his actions.


Turretinfan said...

"Do you similarly affirm that God does not desire all men to be saved, without exception?"

I think one would have to define "desire" in order for me to answer that question clearly. There is a sense in which he does "desire" such a thing (i.e. it is in accord with his revealed will) and there is a sense in which he does not "desire" such a thing (i.e. it is not in accord with his secret will).

It's simply a special case of theodicy.


Turretinfan said...


There is a slight problem with your response to Magnus:

a) Luke is often not chronological, and
b) the key word "is" (for your use here) does not seem to be based on an underlying Greek word (I could be mistaken about the Greek word claim: what word do you think it translates?).


Anonymous said...

I go away and look what is here when I come back! Great! I should leave more often!!

I want to post these verses in support of TF's remarks to Magnus:

(A) b) iii above.

Act 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
Act 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias.

It's clear to me that that raises the focus to it?

I personally have been to some very Royal gatherings, many, many guests. Also, some Presidential ones too and some other VIP gathered dinners and luncheons. There is always the "Head Table" and those "most" honored sitting at that one. You would be a nut to find yourself sitting there if you don't belong.

I am just now thinking that possibly many more souls were present that night. This little cluster of exchanges above brings me here.


Magnus said...

Since it seems that it is a slow day today perhaps you all would not mind if I ramble a bit and try to make sense of this. What Jesus was doing in the Last Supper is instituting the new covenant, now what is the new covenant? It seems it is the cleansing us from all sin that comes about by an inner transformation. Jeremiah tells us that in this new covenant that God himself will write His law in our hearts and minds, so I ask did Judas partake of this new covenant? Obviously not, maybe that is why Luke wrote ”This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table…”It does seem like that one three letter word BUT means something/rather has some significance. Being Methodist I thought that maybe Wesley could shed some light on this and this is what he wrote about Luke 22:21

21. The hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table - It is evident Christ spake these
words before he instituted the Lord's Supper: for all the other evangelists mention the sop,
immediately after receiving which he went out: John xiii, 30. Nor did he return any more, till he
came into the garden to betray his Master. Now this could not be dipped or given, but while the
meat was on the table. But this was all removed before that bread and cup were brought.

Now it seems that maybe we are wrangling over something that we have no definitive proof on. Anyways, it seems that if it can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the blood of Jesus was poured out for Judas that the debate would be over. Of course it does not seem so clear and it seems that a case can be made that Judas was not present and we are back where we were before this post was posted. I look forward to seeing where you guys go from here.


Anonymous said...

Magnus, I just opened this blog site and it's 12:24 p.m. where I am so I don't know if you are going to see this come up soon or not??

Wouldn't you say in light of that that you present that the "cup" is only a symbol of a future "event"?

I believe it is.

Also, the Blood, though real and actually flowed through Emanuel's veins and was shed and dripped onto the earth, it's still the "Life" in the Blood that actually washes us, yes?

And, isn't it true that nothing has life in itself except God so that it can rightly be said of "baptism" that it is the "Word" of God in the event that makes it have force and effect?

And, when is the New Covenant the New Covenant historically, In the Mind of our Eternal Trinity, when it was first uttered and recorded in History or only at the "time" in History the curse came on Him hanging on the cursed tree or when one believes?

thanks for all your insights too!

Magnus said...


I live in the Central time zone if that helps and it is 2:40 p.m. now here. As for your questions,

It seems that I agree with your answers to the first 3 questions, but it is your last question that has caused me to think:) While that is a scary thought in and of itself I would like to see what you think about it some more.

I take your question to mean something along the lines of when does the New Covenant come to be in effect? It seems that first it would be in the Mind of God, but what about the physical world. I guess it matters by how we define the New Covenant? It seems that the Old Covenant was for all of God’s chosen people, meaning that the “whole” world was not under the Old Covenant just God’s chosen people. So how would we see the New Covenant apply to the “whole” world? It seems that the new covenant is where God distinguishes between His people even more than in the old covenant in that now He will give us a new heart and will write His laws on our heart. That all being said then we can say that the New Covenant was first in the mind of God, then in order to ratify/sanctify it Jesus had to hang on the cursed tree and a believer actualizes the New Covenant when he/she comes to believe.

No idea if this answers anything or if this is anywhere near to what you asked, but thanks for your asking and for your encouragements.


Anonymous said...


Your points are very good and I follow them.

You would believe the Scripture?

Paul says that the "Gospel" came before the "Law".

Abram "received" righteousness when? Was it before or after circumcision? He received righteousness when he believed. I don't know if he knew he was a believer until God "tested" him. God knew he was a believer. God knows "all" who are believers.

And further, I like the way it comes across, what you said, so I will just quote it now repeating it, to touch the next item:

Magnus:[[It seems that the Old Covenant was for all of God’s chosen people, meaning that the “whole” world was not under the Old Covenant just God’s chosen people. So how would we see the New Covenant apply to the “whole” world? It seems that the new covenant is where God distinguishes between His people even more than in the old covenant in that now He will give us a new heart and will write His laws on our heart.]]


This debate centers around two words. 1. unlimited. 2. limited.

Might I change those words for effect?

1. undistinguished. 2. distinguished.

Who is doing what? According to your quote that I just used, either God is the one doing it or I am.

I cannot make the distinction who should be and should not be "Elected". I cannot change the heart as you point out.

So, I am, right now in the PST, a True Believer. How? God did it. God put the Faith of Christ in me and by it, through the Spirit, I hope for the righteousness to come. I am one of those Elect we are debating about now these many days. Gal 5:5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.

I can "test" the spirits to see if they are of God or not. We have been given the "prescribed test" so we can administer it to the "whole" world. That does not mean that Christ died for all the whole world who are administered the test. It means, I believe, that we are to administer the test to all the world and those for Whom Christ Died, will, as Abram, come to believe and it will be counted to them also, equally, as righteousness. These are the Elect of God. Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

At the end of the day, I can feed multitudes and all they will be is fed/ dead/fed mind you unless God Elects them to Eternal Life by giving to them His Righteousness, His Grace, by His Faith in His Word and Person. Act 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, "'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region.
Act 13:50 But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.
Act 13:51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium.
Act 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

I believe you have captured what I am looking for in making the "cut away" from and to, in this debate.

You see, I keep going back and forth in this debate. But days like today and insights like that above I quoted of yours, helps me find a clear sense of where this one is going to end up at the end of it.


keep contributing!!!

Magnus said...

Will we ever move on or is it over?

Turretinfan said...


My understanding is that we will be moving on, but that Seth is busy at the moment.


Related Posts with Thumbnails