Lucas 22
William MacDonald · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 22
William MacDonald has an interesting devotional thought commenting that Jesus' "revealing words ("with desire I desire") invite all believers of every time and place to consider how passionately Jesus longs for communion with us at His table." (Borrow Believer's Bible Commentary)
Lucas 22
William MacDonald - The question is often raised whether we should use leavened or unleavened bread, fermented or unfermented wine for the Lord's Supper. There is little doubt that the Lord used unleavened bread and fermented wine (all wine in those days was fermented). Those who argue that leavened bread spoils the type (leaven is a picture of sin) should realize that the same is true of fermentation. It is a tragedy when we become so occupied with the elements that we fail to see the Lord Himself. Paul emphasized that it is the spiritual meaning of the bread, not the bread itself that counts. "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5:7, 8). It is not the leaven in the bread that matters, but the leaven in our lives! (Borrow Believer's Bible Commentary) Brian Bell - Do this in remembrance of me – Remember what? Remember the Lord Jesus – that you might follow Him. Remember His death, its fact, its meaning –so you don’t forget Him during His absence. Remember Him in sickness – that you might have patience. Remember Him in persecution – that you might have gentleness. Remember Him in your service – that you remember His burning zeal in His. Remember Him in times of solitude – as you remember His midnight prayers. Remember to share your faith – as He shared His lion-like declarations of the gospel. Remember Him so He becomes our pattern – that we might be the reproduction of Himself, & thus become the best memorial of Him! (Adapted from “The Best of Spurgeon”) Remembrance – Normally we celebrate someone’s Birthday not their Death-day! Death-days are often difficult days to remember. Remember what? – That He truly was a Good Man; a Great Savior; a Loving Friend; a Living Hope; & a Coming Lord. How does the Lord’s Supper help us to remember Him? It makes us come to a restful halt in our pilgrimage; It gives us come a graphic picture of salvation; It reminds us of the reassuring promise of His Grace; It remains clear prophecy of the future. Sacramentum (something sacred) Originally Sacramentum was used for a Roman Soldiers oath of faithfulness on enlistment. 1 Cor.11:27 “as often as you eat this bread & drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes”. By eating the bread & drinking the cup you are proclaiming, or giving your oath of faithfulness. Therefore, it is our confession of loyalty to Him! Broke it, gave it to them – Bread broken – Christ for us; Bread eaten – Christ in us; Bread partaken together – Christ among us. Who should partake?Intended for disciples only – Only disciples can “remember”; for remembrance implies knowledge; & it is only disciples who “know” their Master. Jn.17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Yet, each person must decide that for himself. We will not be excluding anyone from the Lord’s Table. It’s not the Episcopal Table, nor the Baptist Table; nor the Calvary Chapel Table, but the Lord’s Table! Examine yourself - This isn’t proper English but…“Can you be more-bad then God is good?” [I don’t think so!] You can only sin as a man, but God can forgive as a God! You sin as a finite creature but the Lord forgives as the infinite Creator! Confess your sin to Him! - “For I will forgive their iniquity, & their sin I will remember no more.” Jer.31:34 (Ref) Norman Geisler - LUKE 22:19—What did Jesus mean when He said “This is My body”? Should it be taken literally? PROBLEM: Orthodox Protestants believe in interpreting the Bible literally. But if Jesus’ statement here is taken literally, it seems to support the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, namely, that, when consecrated, the communion bread becomes the actual body of Christ. SOLUTION: Jesus no more meant that the statement “This is My body” should be taken literally than the statement “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (that the bread becomes the actual body of Christ) is without biblical or rational support for many reasons. First, the context is opposed to taking this literally. All agree that when Jesus made this statement, He was referring to the bread. Luke says “He took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it … saying, `This is My body’ ” (Luke 22:19). But it was obvious to all that Jesus’ actual body was holding the bread in His hands. So none of His disciples present could possibly have understood Him to mean the bread was His actual body. Second, common sense is opposed to taking this literally. God created the senses, and all of life depends on our trusting the information they give us about our world. But those who believe in transubstantiation admit that the consecrated bread (host) looks, smells, and tastes like real bread. Why then would God call on us to distrust the very senses that He created and asks us to trust continually for our very life. Third, parallel statements by Jesus are opposed to taking this literally. Jesus often spoke in figurative language. He said, “I am the Door” (John 10:9) and we should “eat the flesh of the Son of Man.” But neither Catholics nor Protestants take these literally (see comments on John 6:53–54). Why then should we take His statement (“This is My body”) about the communion bread literally THE PASSOVER SHADOWS IN EXODUS THEIR FULFILLMENT IN CHRIST EXODUS 12+ CHRIST Ex 12:1-2 The Passover marked a new year and a new beginning for Israel. Every believer is a new creation in Christ "Old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:17) Ex 12:5 A male lamb in its first year was taken into the home on the 10th of Nisan and was inspected for blemishes or defects before it was sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan. Christ was closely inspected by: The priests (Lk 20:1-26), Sadducees (Lk 20:27-38) and Scribes (Lk 20:39-21:4) Pilate (Mt 27:11-26; Lk 23:1-6, 13-25; Jn 18:28-19:16) Herod (Lk 23:8-12) Annas (Jn 18:12-13, 19-24) Caiaphas (Mt 26:57) They could find no fault for He was "a lamb unblemished and spotless" (1 Pe 1:19). Ex 12:6 The "whole community" of God's people was required to participate in the sacrifice. Receiving and believing in Christ's sacrifice is required for all who desire to participate in God's Kingdom (Ro 3:21-26). Ex 12:7, 23 The blood of the lamb was applied to "the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it" and "the LORD will pass over the door" marked with blood. Christ shed His blood to deliver sinners. One needs to be covered by the blood to be delivered from condemnation (Ro 3:25; Ro 5:9, Ro 8:1). The Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). Ex 12:14 The Passover was to be kept as a permanent memorial. The Lord's Supper is to be done frequently "in remembrance of" Christ (Lk 22:19). Ex 12:46 God commanded Israel not "to break any bone of" the lamb. Roman soldiers came to break Jesus' legs, but He was already dead, so no bones were broken (Jn 19:32-33). Adapted from Christ in the Passover - Benjamin Galan Luke 22:20 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. KJV Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. This cup which is poured out for you Exodus 24:8; Zechariah 9:11; 1 Cor 10:16-21; 11:25; Heb 8:6-13; 9:17; 12:24; Heb 13:20 Luke 22 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Alfred Edersheim - The Paschal Supper THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW COVENANT And in the same way - What way? Just as He had given thanks for the bread, He gives thanks for the wine (cf Mt 26:27). Bock - Jesus now takes what was probably the Passover’s third cup (OF FOUR)...and relates the cup to the new covenant." (See Luke : 2 Volumes (Baker Exegetical Commentary) He took the cup after they had eaten, saying - The phrase refers to the Passover Seder which was associated with eating and which could be a fairly substantial meal. So this is AFTER the Passover meal, and is when Jesus establishes the Lord's Supper or what we know as Communion or Eucharist. As we said, the Passover "passes over" to the Last Supper. Jesus' words signify the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant. When Jesus died on the Cross this came to fruition and was symbolized by the tearing of the veil in the Temple, which had restricted men's access to the Holy of holies, the presence of God. And so we read... And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit (Mk 15:37, Lk 23:46+). And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom (Mk 15:38, Lk 23:45+); and the earth shook and the rocks were split. (Mt 27:50-51+) The New Covenant brings about a new way of approaching God. The writer of Hebrews explains the benefits to believers now that the veil has been torn... Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence (boldness) to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near (HIS RETURN). (Heb 10:19-25+) Paul speaks of our new way to confidently approach our Father... Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through (THROUGH "THE VEIL") our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. (Ro 5:1-2+) Hendriksen on after they had eaten - It was while, toward the close of the Passover meal, the men were all eating freely that Jesus instituted the new sacrament that was to replace the old. This also explains why both Luke (Lk 22:20) and Paul (1 Cor 11:25) speak of "the cup after supper."...A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody—for it required the slaying of the lamb—will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and the Lord's Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord's Supper points back to it. (Borrow Exposition of the Gospel of Luke) This cup which is poured out for you - For "who?" To whom is Jesus speaking? His Jewish disciples. And so the covenant is addressed to the Jew first but as Paul adds, to the Greek (Gentiles) also (cf Ro 1:16). The cup is meant to represent the blood of the Lamb (1 Peter 1:18-19+), that inaugurates and validates the New Covenant eternally (cf Hebrews 13:20+ = "the blood of the eternal covenant" Hebrews 9:12+ = "eternal redemption"). Fitzmeyer on poured out for you says this clause “is as vicarious and soteriological in its thrust as is Lk 22:19. Indeed, ‘poured out’ is even more connotative of death than ‘given.’ (in Lk 22:19)." For you - Again (see above) the phrase for you alludes to substitutionary atonement, in essence saying that Jesus died once for all time in our place, on our behalf, for our sake, so that we might live forever in Him and for Him! Poured out (1632)(ekcheo from ek = out + chéo = pour) means literally to flow out, to gush forth or to pour out. The inherent idea is to cause something to be emitted in quantity. Matthew adds And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Mt 26:27-28+) What is "new" about the "new covenant"? For those who enter the New Covenant by grace through faith, the Law is no longer written on tablets of stone but on their hearts (cf Ezekiel 36:26-27+) and the Holy Spirit has been poured out into their hearts (Ro 5:5+) and He supernaturally enables them to obey the Law written on their hearts (cf Ro 8:13+, Gal 3:3+). Kent
Lucas 22
William MacDonald writes that "His blood was sufficient to provide forgiveness for all. But here it was shed for many in that it was only effective in removing the sins of those who believe." (Borrow Believer's Bible Commentary) The new covenant in My blood - Again note the figurative language (See Guidelines for Figuring our Figurative Language). The cup of wine poured out symbolizes the His blood which is the basis for the establishment of the New Covenant. This covenant while "new" was actually promised to Israel in the Old Testament, at a time just before God's wrath fell on Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple, which were defeated and decimated by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. In this hopeless setting, God in His matchless grace, gave that nation of Israel a "blessed hope." This promises is given in the section of Jeremiah 30-33 which is often referred to as the "Book of Consolation." How good is our God, who in the midst of deserved wrath, remembers undeserved mercy! You've experienced this wondrous gift, have you not? Every sin we commit deserves eternal punishment, but in Christ God's mercies are new every morning! And so in in this section of Jeremiah, God gives the incredible promise... Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (NOTE WELL - THIS IS NOT GIVEN TO THE "CHURCH" - NOWHERE IS THE CHURCH EVER CALLED "THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH!), 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (OLD COVENANT - CONDITIONAL MOSAIC COVENANT), My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34+). Comment: The ESV Study Bible commenting on the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 asks "Do the terms in Jer. 31:27, 31, 36-37 focus the prophecy on ethnic Israel or on a redefined Israel (the Jewish-Gentile church)?" (Italics mine!) ED COMMENT -Who "redefined" Israel? Certainly not God! There are 77 uses of "Israel" in 75 verses in the NT and they all definitely refer to the nation of Israel, Gal 6:16+ being the passage some would say is the "exception"!) And I would also simply ask to whom is the prophecy in Jer 31:31 promised? Israel has not been "redefined" but is still the literal nation of Israel, a nation God miraculously restored to statehood in May, 1948 after almost 2000 years of "wandering" without a homeland (something never done in the history of the world)! Does that suggest that God is finished with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah"? That's a rhetorical question. It is this "genre" of comment in the respected ESV Study Bible (which I do hold in high regard) helps fuel the fire of those who teach a form of replacement theology or supersessionism. The best series I have ever seen on the truly miraculous rebirth of the nation of Israel is listed below and is free on youtube with fascinating narration by Abba Eban a man who played a role in the rebirth. If you love Israel and have never seen this series, it will bless your heart as you see God's hand of providence behind the scenes (watch Him move in the heart of President Truman for example - you will know that this could only have been the sovereign, omnipotent hand of a God Who remains faithful to ALL of His covenant promises)...note you will get a warning that this is considered inappropriate by some viewers! This is the story of Israel being reborn as a nation. There is nothing offensive. Israel: A Nation is Born - Part 1 Israel: A Nation is Born - Part 2 Israel: A Nation is Born - Part 3 Israel: A Nation is Born - Part 4 Related Resource: New Covenant in the Old Testament - Actual name "new covenant" is found only once in OT but many passages allude to this "new" covenant. New (2537)(kainos) is an adjective which refers to that which is new kind (unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of). It relates to being not previously present. The "new" is opposite the old (palaios) and describes what was not there before. While the Abrahamic Covenant was also an unconditional covenant entered into by grace through faith (Genesis 15:6+), it was not the identical to the "New Covenant" promised to the nation of Israel in Jeremiah (See Covenant: Abrahamic vs Old vs New and Abrahamic versus Mosaic). Note that since this covenant was promised first to the nation of Israel (Judah and Israel in Jer 31:31+), it will not be fully fulfilled until "all Israel is saved" as Paul described in Ro 11:26+, which will not happen until Messiah returns (see Zechariah 12:10-14+, Zech 13:1+, Zech 13:8-9+). Covenant (1242)(diatheke from diatithemi = set out in order, dispose in a certain order <> from dia = two + tithemi = to place pictures that which is placed between two. Thus, a covenant is something placed between two = thus an arrangement between two parties) literally conveys the idea of a testament, as in one's last will and testament. A covenant is an agreement between two parties that binds them together and conveys the associated ideas of very close fellowship (even oneness and identity as for example in the marriage covenant where two mystically become one flesh). Most of the NT uses of diatheke refer to God's declaration of His will concerning His self-commitment, promises, and conditions by which he entered into relationship with man. Covenant has profound implications and is the most solemn, binding, intimate contract known in the Bible. Covenant was considered a binding agreement among the ancients, and so was not entered into lightly. After pieces of the sacrificial animal were laid opposite one another, the individuals who were cutting covenant would walk between the flesh. This walk represented the so-called walk into death indicating their commitment to die to independent living and to ever after live for their covenant partner and to fulfill the stipulations of their covenant (See this practice in Jer 34:8ff, esp Jer 34:18-19). Furthermore, this walk into death was a testimony by each covenant partner that if either broke the covenant God would take their life, even as had been done to the sacrificial animal. In short, we see the gravity of entering into and then breaking covenant. Covenant was a pledge to death. A pledge cut in blood. In covenant the shedding of blood demonstrated as nothing else could the intensity of the commitment. By cutting covenant the two parties were bound for life. Thus the shedding of blood in the cutting of covenant established the gravity and binding nature of this transaction. Both the Old and the New Covenants were inaugurated with blood. The practice of cutting covenant is found throughout history with traces or remnants of covenant truth in every quarter of the globe. (See Introduction to Covenant and Summary of Major Biblical Covenants) Related Resources: Covenant: Why the New is Better Covenant: Abrahamic vs Old vs New IN MY BLOOD Paul wrote "In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (1 Cor 11:25+) Blood (see Lev 17:11+) was the element necessary to ratify both the Old and the New Covenant, the Old with blood of sacrificial animals, the New with blood of the Lamb of God. Moses describes the ratification of the Old Covenant So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, (berit/berith/beriyth) which the LORD has made ("cut" - karath) with you in accordance with all these words.” (Ex 24:8+) The writer of Hebrews adds.. Therefore even the first (OLD) covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.” (Heb 9:18-20+)