Commentary on the Gospels

First Communion

John 13:18-35 and parallel passages
(Matt. 26:21-29: Mark 14:18-25; Luke 22:19-30)

Departure of Judas

After Jesus had completed the task of footwashing and resumed His place at the table, He explained the larger significance in what He had done. He had presented them with a vivid picture of their calling in life. Just as He was willing to wash their feet, so they should wash one another's feet (John 13:14). In other words, to meet the physical and spiritual needs of others, they too should be willing to assume the role of a lowly servant. Their reward would be to find true happiness (v. 17).

The time had come to initiate the next stage in the meal. Jesus and the disciples had already sipped wine from a cup passed around the table. Now it was time to begin partaking of food. For the first traditional course, they dipped sops made of bitter herbs into the sauce within a bowl that was also passed around the table (Matt. 26:23; Mark 14:20).¹

Probably soon after the bowl had completed the circuit, Jesus enlarged upon what He had said a few minutes earlier when He gave them the secret to true happiness. But now His words became very somber in tone. He warned that no prospect of happiness stood before one of His disciples because, unlike the other eleven, he was not a true child of God (John 13:18). The Scripture being fulfilled appeared among the words of David in Psalm 41. "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Ps. 41:9). The evil companion foreseen by David was Judas. That he would prove to be a hypocrite was perfectly understood by Jesus even when He originally added this man to the Twelve (John 6:70). Jesus had chosen him because, in order to accomplish the work of redemption in a way that would limit as much as possible the number of people responsible for His actual condemnation by a human tribunal, God had ordained that Jesus would be delivered to hostile authorities by a single person. That this fiend acted alone may also have served another divine purpose. It enabled God to lay upon him a punishment so horrific that it would serve forever as a deterrent to anyone else choosing to rebel against his Creator.

When quoting Psalm 41, Jesus was not suggesting that the bread mentioned by David referred specifically to a food at the Last Supper. Rather, He meant that the attacker would be someone with a background of eating his meals alongside Jesus. His hostile act would be comparable to kicking Jesus viciously with his feet.

As Jesus' true disciples listened to Him, they probably did not perceive at first that the wicked man pictured in Psalm 41 would be one of their fellows at the table. They may have assumed that Jesus was merely speaking about some Pharisee who had dined with Jesus for the purpose of building a case against Him (Luke 7:36–50; 11:37–54; etc.).

Jesus then explained why He was speaking such ominous words. "Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he" (John 13:19). When the eleven faithful disciples witnessed the lifting up of a heel against Jesus, they would now be able to recognize it as a twofold affirmation that He was the Christ: first, because it would display His supernatural, indeed His divine, ability to see the future, and second, because it would verify that His life and death were a central theme of Old Testament prophecy.

After giving a dark glimpse of His coming betrayal, Jesus added words of comfort. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (John 13:20). In essence, He told His faithful disciples that far from becoming His enemies someday, they would always stand in His place. They would be surrogates for Christ, just as Christ is a surrogate for the Father. Whoever receives a disciple of Christ would receive Christ Himself in the sense that through the gospel he would become a member of Christ's body. He who receives Christ would also receive the Father in the sense that the Father and the Son are one God.

These comforting words could not, however, relieve the sadness in Jesus' heart after He told His disciples about the treachery that would descend upon them a few hours later. He became deeply "troubled in spirit" (v. 21). Besides being deeply aggrieved by Judas's choice of damnation, no doubt He was also aggrieved simply by the necessity of bringing more gloom into His last time of precious fellowship with beloved disciples. But He proceeded to do what was necessary. Perhaps after a long pause, He suddenly made a shocking prediction. He told His disciples that He would be betrayed by one of the men in their midst. He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me" (John 13:21; cf. Matt. 26:21, Mark 14:18).

Here it becomes evident that Luke’s account is not strictly sequential, for he is the only Gospel writer who remembers the sharing of bread and wine after supper before he records Jesus’ warning of a traitor in their midst (Luke 22:19–21). The other Gospel writers imply that Judas left the company of disciples while supper was still in progress (Matt. 26:20–30; Mark 14:17–26; John 13:18–14:31). Resolving the discrepancy is possible if we understand that the sharing of bread and wine after supper was the first celebration of the rite known as communion, or the Eucharist. After Luke tells us about the wine that Jesus and His disciples drank during supper, he evidently does not want the reader to think that it was the wine representing Jesus’ blood. Therefore, as a parenthetical insertion in his narrative, he jumps forward in time and tells us about the bread and wine shared after supper—the true bread and wine of the first communion. Then he shifts backward in time to speak of Jesus’ interaction with Judas.

From a close study of all the Gospel accounts, we surmise that soon after Jesus foretold His betrayal, Judas left the room. As a result, he was missing from most of the Last Supper. Jesus sent him away early because he was a disturbing blemish on His final meal with beloved disciples. Moreover, he did not deserve to take the wine and bread of communion. Nor would Jesus' final words of encouragement and admonition to His true followers be a message relevant to His betrayer.

How then did Jesus manage to dismiss Judas from the gathering? With a deeply troubled spirit, He started with the words quoted earlier, "One of you shall betray me" (John 13:21). After this warning, perhaps one or more disciples raised a protest, denying that any of them could contemplate, much less do, anything so terrible. Then Jesus became far more specific. He replied,

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!

Luke 22:21-22

Jesus was not expressing any preference to escape the cross. For our sakes, He was willing to suffer the penalty for our sins. But out of compassion He still warned Judas against continuing on the path he had chosen.

The reaction of the Twelve was exactly what we would have expected from men who were still rather immature in their spiritual growth. At first they looked suspiciously at each other (John 13:22). Then began a commotion of voices. They probably inquired of their partners at the table who the traitor might be (Luke 22:23). Then sorrow smote their hearts (Matt. 26:22; Mark 14:19) when they began to realize the scale of the tragedy that Jesus had just announced. Imagine—no less than one of Jesus' own disciples, one of their companions, would prove to be the devil's pawn. But then sorrow gave way to fear as each wondered whether he might be the one who would yield to inner weakness and betray Christ either to win some prize or to escape death. With agitated hearts they began with tremulous voices to ask Jesus, "Is it I?" (Matt. 26:22; Mark 14:19).

Jesus apparently declined to tell any individual whether he was the betrayer. Instead, He affirmed, "It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish" (Mark 14:20; see also Matt. 26:23). Notice that He now became even more specific in identifying the traitor. Yes, the traitor would be "one of you." Yes, he had laid his hand on the supper table. But Jesus' voice was probably being heard not only by the Twelve, but also by servants of the houseowner. They too belonged to the group that Jesus identified as "you," and as they brought food and drink, they too laid their hands on the table. Therefore, Jesus now made it clear that the traitor actually belonged to the Twelve.

Out of a merciful heart, Jesus added a warning specifically for Judas's benefit. He said, "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born" (Mark 14:21; see also Matt. 26:24). He was giving Judas a last chance to escape divine wrath. His fate would be so terrible that it would have been far better if he had never tasted life in this world.

While musing about the deeply disturbing turn of conversation at the table, Peter evidently decided that Jesus was not going to let everyone know who the betrayer was. Yet at the same time he wondered whether the Lord might disclose this information to a privileged few, including himself because he was leader of the Twelve. Although he was too far from Jesus to speak to him privately, the person next to Jesus was John, a third member of the inner circle besides Peter and James. Much in their past interaction with Jesus had made it obvious that by God's grace all three would remain faithful to their Master. For example, Peter, James, and John were the only disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration, and afterward Jesus instructed them, "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead" (Matt. 17:9). He clearly did not expect any of them to be His betrayer. Peter therefore decided that if Jesus was willing to tell him who the betrayer was, He would likely be willing to tell John as well, and for two reasons it would be easier to present a secret question to Jesus if he used John as his mouthpiece than if he tried to communicate with Him directly. First, because he and John were reclining at opposite ends of the triclinium in places directly across from each other. Second, because everyone's attention was focused on Jesus. It was therefore likely that if Peter sent John a quiet message from a shielded mouth, it would be missed by the others, especially if it was drowned out by other voices.

After beckoning to John, Peter told him to find out from Jesus who His betrayer was (John 13:24). The text says that John at this time was leaning on Jesus' bosom (v. 23). Evidently Jesus' body was angled to the right as He lay primarily on His left side while eating with His right hand. Thus, since four or five men were squeezed onto the same couch, John's head and shoulders must indeed have been close to Jesus' breast. Perhaps the only space between them was filled by one of the cushions that were commonly provided for diners at a triclinium. After hearing what Peter said, John immediately relayed Peter's question to Jesus (v. 25). He was not simply following directions. He was doubtless filled with his own deep longing to know the answer. Speaking confidentially to Jesus only inches away posed no difficulty.

In reply, Jesus did not choose to speak the betrayer's name. Instead, He told John that He would single out the betrayer by giving him a sop after dipping it in the common bowl, which was evidently sitting before the Master. He then proceeded without delay to show John which disciple was guilty of treason against God. He gave the sop to Judas, who, since he was easily within reach, must have been reclining immediately to the left of Jesus (v. 26). Now John knew, and probably Peter knew also, that Judas was the traitor.

This was likely the moment when Judas "answered and said, Master, is it I?" (Matt. 26:25). Earlier, fear of being exposed may have kept his mouth shut, but when Jesus looked directly at him with a penetrating gaze leaving no doubt that He knew what Judas intended to do, Judas reacted defensively. He must have thought that he could deflect suspicion by putting on the outward appearance of the other disciples when they asked the same question. Their manner made it obvious that they did not know the answer. When they said, "Is it I," fellow disciples could see that they were not hiding a sin already committed. Rather, the plain desire behind this question was to know whether they would fall into sin later in their journey down the road of life. Judas therefore tried to copy them.

But Jesus tore down Judas's wall of defense by bluntly responding, "Thou hast said" (v. 25). It is virtually certain that this exchange of words between Judas and Jesus was strictly private. They were close enough at a table with a noisy background of voices to avoid being heard. Now Judas knew that his plot had been discovered. A flurry of thoughts about what he should do next must have flooded his mind. The clear intent of Jesus' words was to give him a last opportunity to choose the path of sorrow and repentance rather than the path of horrendous sin. But instead, he hardened his heart and, as fear mounted inside him, his thoughts became preoccupied with how he could safely escape from these religious extremists who were more interested in an imagined life to come than in life now. Long ago when he started pillaging from their purse, he may have justified himself by deciding that Jesus' power to do miracles came not from a holy God, but from the same mystical realm that seemed to empower many magicians in the ancient world. He may have assumed that Jesus was another version of Simon Magus, the sorcerer who had enthralled the people of Samaria, even convincing them that he was "the great power of God" (Acts 8:10). Apparently Simon was a central figure in that province even before the start of Jesus' ministry (Acts 8:11). Judas may have been patterning himself after Simon when he decided to use religion as a way to enrich himself.

Judas was not a saved man. Although he walked with Jesus, he never loved Him. From the beginning he was possessed by a devil (John 6:70). No doubt his plan to betray Jesus had been developed recently under the direct influence of the very prince of devils, Satan. This leader of fallen angels must have told Judas some lie that made betrayal look like a desirable option.

Some have imagined that Judas’s motivation was political. Supposedly, he decided to betray Jesus only because he was frustrated with Jesus’ failure to challenge Roman authority. He hoped that by this desperate ploy he could provoke Jesus to come forward and assume leadership of mass rebellion against the Romans. But such an explanation does not fit the facts. Any desire Judas had for Jesus to become the new king of Israel would have been merely the outgrowth of his own ambition to serve as one of the new king’s ministers. The other disciples had certainly quarreled among themselves about who should hold the highest political rank (Mark 9:33–34). But a man who hoped to enjoy Jesus’ favor after He rose to power would not have shown himself at the head of the mob that came to arrest Jesus. Yet it is very possible that Satanic whisperings had convinced Judas that his betrayal of Jesus would not lead to the Master's death.  Why?  Because the Master was so popular and so innocent of any actual wrongdoing that the authorities would be unable to punish Him severely.

The motive controlling Judas was greed. As treasurer of the Twelve, he had long robbed money from the group’s purse (John 12:6). Every time he stole he was betraying Jesus. He was turning a sacred trust into a criminal operation. For such a man, who had already betrayed Jesus for many coins of all sizes, thirty pieces of silver were enough reason to betray Him again.

Why then did Judas later regret his perfidy? Because Satan cast him aside as soon as he no longer needed this disciple as a tool to cause trouble. After Judas was released from Satan's direct influence, he realized that he had been deceived. Within hours after delivering Jesus to the authorities, he learned that Jesus was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death on a cross. Then, as he remembered all his friendly conversations with Jesus, an inescapable knowledge that Jesus did not deserve to die made waves of guilt pound upon his mind, and he went out and committed suicide (Matt 27:3–5). But although Judas had a conscience enabling him to feel remorse, he had no capacity for life-changing repentance. He was still an unbeliever in the God of heaven. He was still a thief at heart. If Jesus had escaped crucifixion and forgiven Judas for his act of betrayal, even restoring him to his former position as a member of the Twelve, he would have continued to steal.

Now in the upper room, Judas has just heard Jesus' words identifying him as the betrayer. But instead of turning aside from all his foolish scheming, he closed his heart's door to Jesus. The inevitable result was that his heart became easily accessible to Satan, who quickly entered and took control (John 13:27). When Jesus saw Judas's tragic decision to reject the man who had shown him the true face of God, He changed his voice and addressed the wayward disciple in words loud enough for all to hear. He said, "That thou doest, do quickly" (v. 27). What exactly did He mean (v. 28)? The disciples jumped to different conclusions. Some thought that Judas was being instructed to go out and give money to the poor (v. 29). In their spiritually zealous milieu, under the guidance of the man who taught, "Sell that ye have, and give alms" (Luke 12:33–34), giving to the poor was not a gesture now and then, but a way of life. It is probable that after a day of mingling with the festival crowds in Jerusalem, they tallied whatever contributions had come to them from sympathizers, set aside an amount sufficient to meet their own needs, and immediately distributed the rest to the poor. It was natural to assume that Judas left on a mission of charity simply because that was usually the reason he went away after supper. But some other disciples thought that Jesus was telling the man who carried their money bag to leave for the purpose of shopping for some items needed for their ministry. Going to the marketplace on the eve of the fourteenth was a good way to avoid the crowds that he would find there the next morning. At noon on the fourteenth, Judeans ceased work out of respect for the sacred festival of Passover.² So, during the preceding hours, the marketplace was thronged with people seeking adequate provisions until the shops and stalls were reopened on the sixteenth.

After hearing Jesus' gloom-enshrouded command to proceed quickly with his act of betrayal, Judas did not hesitate to obey (John 13: 30). Indeed, he probably fled from the upper room. But the other disciples saw nothing suspicious in his visible attitude or in his rapid departure. As he opened the door to leave, the others could perhaps see the darkness that now enveloped the world outside (v. 30), a fitting picture of Judas's true destination. His steps would carry him first into the darkness of evil and soon afterward into the darkness of damnation.

Once Judas stepped out of the room, Jesus said, evidently in words loud enough for at least John to hear,

31 . . . Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

John 13:31-32

Now that Judas was on his way to betray Jesus, the die was cast. As fully God, Jesus had perfect knowledge of all that would soon transpire. As fully man, He sensed what any normal man would sense at the prospect of a horrible death by crucifixion. He therefore spoke words of comfort to Himself. Yes, He would undergo immeasurable suffering, but at the same time He would glorify both Himself and the Father.

It would be a complex and subtle causal chain above full human comprehension. But some dimensions of meaning are visible to us. A literal translation is helpful.

1. "Now has been glorified the Son of man,
2. and God has been glorified in him.
3. If God has been glorified in him, also God shall glorify him in himself,
4. and immediately shall glorify him."³

The word "glorify" can also be rendered "honor" or "exalt" or "make resplendent."⁴ Each of these assertions reveals a foundation stone of divine reckoning.

1. Since Jesus had just taken a last, irreversible step toward the cross, He must have understood that by this step He made Himself deserving of honor and splendor. Why? Because His sole motivation was a love so unselfish for lost mankind that He was willing to die for them.
2. Why has the Father been glorified in the Son? Because the Father's acceptance of Jesus' sacrificial death as sufficient payment for the sins of mankind would demonstrate the overflowing love and mercy that the Father is willing to pour upon unworthy sinners.
3. As a result of seeing Himself glorified in the work of Christ, the Father would assure that Christ would be glorified in Himself. In other words, He would authorize and empower the worldwide evangelistic outreach of the church, which would proclaim Christ as worthy of every man's worship as Savior and Lord.
4. Moreover, this enterprise exalting Christ would begin immediately after Jesus underwent the ordeal of crucifixion. Just a few days later, the Holy Spirit would create the church, and the church would begin to preach the gospel.

First communion

The sacred rite known variously as Eucharist, communion, and the Lord's supper was initiated at the last meal that Jesus shared with His beloved disciples. Judas had departed from the scene. Any servants in attendance had probably retreated, since they had mostly finished their work of bringing in food and removing leftovers and containers. The ceremony that Jesus now introduced was exceedingly simple, consisting of only two stages.

The first was to distribute and eat pieces of bread (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). We may assume that this bread, in conformity with the ancient practice of Passover, was unleavened (Exod. 12:8). In Hebrew, such bread bears the name massoth.⁵ Among Jews today, its name has taken various forms in English, including matzah, matzoh, matzot, etc.⁶ The reference has always been to a crackerlike bread that comes in flat, thin sheets that, before eating, can be easily broken by hand into small pieces. It was a favorite food of wandering peoples in ancient times because it was light and easily prepared.⁷ All that was required was to place "flat layers of unleavened dough upon the glowing coals."⁸

Yet the Lord mandated unleavened bread for Passover not only because it was a convenient food on the night before Israel's flight from Egypt, but also because He wanted His people to see leaven as a symbol of sin. From this perspective, eating unleavened bread made the ceremony an excellent picture of some key spiritual principles.

1. The ritual represented fellowship with God for the purpose of gaining spiritual blessings. The most appropriate bread to be eaten was unleavened, because every blessing from God's hand is so remote from anything sinful that it is perfectly holy.
2. Before the people of Israel could participate in the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread, they were required to remove every trace of leaven from their houses (Exod. 12:15). Why? Because what they did was intended to teach them that before seeking fellowship with God, they should remove sin from their lives.
3. After Jesus instituted communion, the elements borrowed from the ancient celebration of Passover took on new meaning. Now the bread was Jesus Himself. Earlier in His ministry, He had said, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35). The lesson He was teaching is that we can obtain eternal life only by becoming joined to His immortal body (Eph. 5:29–30). Therefore, the bread used at communion should be unleavened to show Christ's moral perfection.

In order to gain the full blessing available at communion, a believer should come to it with his own heart purged of sin. In other words, both the bread and the partaker should be unleavened. Paul says,

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8

God's choice of leaven to represent something evil that enters and corrupts the hearts of men proceeded from His wisdom as the Creator. Consider what leaven is. The chemical reactions that cause a lump of dough to rise are the work of minute vegetable organisms called yeast, a type of fungus. A distinctive property of all fungi is their lack of chlorophyll. As nongreen plants, they are incapable of making their own food. They must draw nourishment from other organisms, whether living or dead. Parasitic fungi—those that feed on living organisms—may cause death of the host. Saprophytic fungi—those that feed on dead organic matter, such as the wooden timbers of a house—produce decay. Yeast is a saprophytic fungus that converts bread sugars into alcohol (which disappears during baking) and carbon dioxide, a gas. Notice that the leavening effect of the yeast depends on its destruction of a nourishing and flavorful food substance. As an agent of destruction and decay, leaven is a fitting symbol for something evil.

We have said that the first stage of communion at the Last Supper was to distribute and eat pieces of bread. Jesus' exact procedure has been somewhat modified by liturgical churches, but still mostly prevails in churches that view Scripture as their guidebook.

1. Jesus began by saying words of blessing over the bread. Also in our day, the pastor or another member of the congregation prays before bread is served to participants.
2. After taking up a single sheet of bread, Jesus broke it into pieces, each doubtless of a size to be easily consumed as one mouthful. In modern observances of communion, small pieces of bread perhaps in the form of crackers are obtained beforehand so that the first element can be furnished more quickly to the whole congregation.
3. The pieces were distributed. Here the account omits some details that we must supply on the assumption that Jesus chose the most practical option. It seems likely that after He broke off each piece, He immediately sent it around the circle to the furthest disciple who was not yet served. Since an ordinary sheet of unleavened bread was fairly large, a single sheet was likely enough to meet the need.
4. Evidently after a piece of bread had come to every disciple, Jesus told them all to "take, eat" (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22). Then, to explain the significance in what they were doing, He said, "This is my body" (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) "which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Whereas Jesus had assigned no larger meaning to anything eaten previously at their Passover meal, He told them that the bread now being passed around the table represented His own body. We naturally wonder how many disciples comprehended what He was saying. If any did, they may also have grasped what should have been obvious—that anything eaten is ordinarily dead. In other words, the whole ceremony anticipated Jesus' death. Any doubt as to His meaning should have evaporated after His next words, commanding them to eat the bread "in remembrance of me." As they heard Him speak, Jesus stood in their midst. They did not need to remember a man that they could see. What He said was a veiled revelation that the meal they were sharing was intended as a precedent for His followers in the future, at a time after Jesus had died. Perhaps not immediately, but soon after Jesus' death, the disciples understood that in these words He was telling the church soon to be founded that it should never cease the occasional sharing of bread and wine as a memorial of His body and blood, given as a sacrifice for their sins.

The second stage of communion at the Last Supper was the drinking of wine. In our previous lesson we discussed the exact procedure that was followed when a first cup of wine was given to the disciples (Luke 22:17-18), and we will assume that the procedure for the second was no different. Yet when Jesus passed the second, He spoke new words with profound dimensions. After giving thanks for the cup and passing it around the table, He said,

27 . . . Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Matthew 26:27–29

As the disciples considered His ominous declaration, the meaning that likely made the first impact pointed to His imminent death. Indeed, His life would not even continue long enough for Him to share another meal with them where wine would be served. Wine was the drink normally chosen for a meal where a host was entertaining guests.

But what He said had even deeper significance. He told the disciples that the wine represented His own blood that would soon be shed. Now it became obvious why their meal together was a true Passover meal even though the food did not include a slain lamb. The lamb was the Lord Himself, who was serving them food depicting His own body and blood. Although He was still alive in their midst, He would soon give His life as payment for the sins of the nation and for the sins of men everywhere. Looming in the near future was His sacrificial death, which would cast all His true followers into the depths of grief.

The sequence of food served at the end of the Last Supper, when Jesus introduced the rite of communion, was no mere happenstance. In the courses that succeeded each other, we see elegant design just as we see it in every other detail of God's creation. Before the disciples were served the elements defined as the body and blood of Christ, they were probably eating sops dipped in a sauce of bitter herbs. As in the original celebration of Passover, eating bitter herbs was a figurative display of suffering. "Bitter" is merowr, which describes something vexing or grievous.⁹ For the Israelites, this course of the meal with a sour taste pointed to the suffering that they deserved as punishment for their sin. But afterward came the roasted lamb with a much more pleasant flavor. It pointed to their coming Savior. The sequence of courses near the end of the Last Supper offered the same illustration. Dining upon bitter herbs was interrupted first by eating a piece of bread, then by taking a sip of wine. In other words, while they faced the disastrous conclusion to a life of sin, they would be spared by the redemptive work of Christ. In that work His body would be broken, and from His broken body would spill out His precious blood.

Jesus' concluding words at the first communion did not set a precedent for the Church Age because they were strictly about Himself. "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:29). A modern reader might assume that Jesus was looking forward to a banquet that He will share with all His saints after He has assumed authority over this world—that He was anticipating an event early in the Millennium, when He will reign as king over all the earth. But He did not place the event in His own kingdom, but in His Father's kingdom. From prophecy we learn that in heaven, before Christ's descent to this world at the Battle of Armageddon to wreak defeat and destruction on the Antichrist and his armies (Rev. 16:16), He will call together all raptured and resurrected saints so that they might join Him in celebrating "the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:9). Sometimes during His earthly ministry, He alluded to this future wedding (Matt. 22:2–14; Luke 14:16–24). Will wine be served then? Reference to the occasion as a supper leaves little doubt that everyone will be served food and drink. And since the purpose will be to celebrate the completed work of building the church, it will be the consummation of all those communion ceremonies during the Church Age when saints gathered to celebrate the same work in progress. So, there can be little doubt that the principal food and drink will be bread and wine. All participants will partake of these elements not in Christ's kingdom yet to be established, but in the Father's eternal kingdom centered at His heavenly throne.

Ranking in the Kingdom of God

Jesus' reference to the Father's kingdom evidently caused the disciples to project themselves forward in time and to imagine themselves as its citizens. Ever since they belonged to the Twelve, the thought of attaining the Father's kingdom as close, loyal followers of His Son had often stirred up the hope that the Father would reward them with high-ranking positions (Matt. 18:1; 20:20–21; Mark 9:33–34; Luke 9:46). So it was hardly surprising that at the Last Supper, the Lord's mere mention of the Father's kingdom stirred up "a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke 22:24).

As in the past when Jesus found them fantasizing a day when they would be the greatest among men, so also on this occasion He responded by teaching them the nature of true greatness (Luke 22:25–27). With so little time remaining in their fellowship together, He reduced His instruction to a few penetrating words, saying that to be great is not to behave like the master of all, but like the servant of all. He enjoined them that in relation to other people, they should not model themselves after gentile kings, who pose as benefactors but who lord it over others by issuing commands that must be obeyed. Rather, they should model themselves after mere children and servants who willingly devote themselves to helping other people. He pointed to Himself as their chief example. Who was serving the food at their meal together? Were they serving Him, or was He serving them? The greater was demonstrating His true greatness by serving the lesser. He did not bother to draw a full picture of the difference between them, but it should have been obvious. The actual Son of God was serving food to a handful of very immature young men with no social prestige or power; indeed, with no prospect of accomplishing anything that would give the world reason to call them great, and, apart from divine grace, with no prospect of accomplishing anything that would make them truly great.

Sometimes in the past when His disciples had showed signs of dangerous ambition, Jesus had given them a much fuller lesson on servanthood. Perhaps the fullest was given shortly after one of their journeys. Their destination was Capernaum, and after arrival, they went directly to someone's house, perhaps Peter’s (Mark 9:33–34). There Jesus asked them what they had been discussing along the road, perhaps under the delusion that He could not hear them. The only answer they gave was silence, for they were embarrassed to tell the truth. They knew Jesus would not approve. They had let themselves get embroiled in a foolish disagreement over who would be greatest in Christ’s kingdom. Each one had vented selfish ambition, the exact opposite of the meekness that Jesus had taught them to cultivate.

Jesus responded to their silence by articulating the general principle that He intended to discuss. He was, in essence, announcing His subject. Or we might say that He was giving the title of the lesson. He said, "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). He meant that the greatness of those who are first in power or wealth or beauty or achievement is not true greatness. Rather, true greatness requires self-denial for the sake of others.

To make this pivotal truth more concrete, Jesus told a child to come forward, and He set the little one in their midst so that everyone could look at him. Then He took the child in His arms (Mark 9:36). Why?

In the disciples’ dispute over who would be greatest in the Kingdom, they had fallen into bad thinking, and Jesus decided that the best way to correct them was to teach a new idea (Matt. 18:3). He said that the disciples did not even meet the first prerequisite for admission to the Kingdom. Just to get in, a person had to stoop low and remake himself as a child. Jesus was telling them to seek humility, a virtue diametrically opposed to all the pride on display when they staked out claims to high positions in the Kingdom. The application was obvious. They should stop worrying about who would be first and start worrying about whether they would get in.

Then Jesus went on to explain that childlike humility is important for another reason. It is required not only for salvation, but also for a proper relationship with our fellowman (Matt. 18:4). What sort of humility does a child have? A little child lives in a world where he is surrounded by smarter people who are always correcting his faults. The thought that he is better than others never crosses his mind. So it should be with us. We should never fool ourselves that we are better than others and deserve a higher place (Phil. 2:3).

But after urging them to pursue servanthood, Jesus' words took a surprising turn. He first commended them for their loyalty to their Master (Luke 22:28). They had stood firmly at His side during three difficult years of ministry, often provoking dangerous opposition. During these years He had contended with "temptations." He evidently meant that He had been engaged in a continual battle with Satan. This fallen angel, after failing to draw Jesus into sin during the forty days that Jesus spent in the wilderness at the outset of His ministry, by no means resigned any further effort to corrupt the Savior. We know, for example, that he again tempted Jesus soon after the Lord's announcement to Peter and the disciples that upon "this rock" He would build the church (Matt. 16:17–19). When Jesus revealed further that His own suffering and death was an essential step in reaching this goal (Matt. 16:21), Peter strongly objected, saying, "Be it far from thee, Lord" (Matt. 16:22). Jesus responded with words of rebuke. "Get thee behind me, Satan" (Matt. 16:23). It is evident that Satan was using Peter as his mouthpiece to hurl temptation at Jesus. Yet Peter was teachable. He allowed his thoughts to be reshaped by Jesus' instruction. Instead of forsaking Jesus at this time, he accepted God's plan even though it required Jesus' death. Thus, Jesus could say of Peter and the other disciples that they "continued with me in my temptations."

But His commendation was not limited in meaning to the present moment. He was also foreseeing that the same group of followers would remain faithful to Him in the future, even throughout their whole lives. Unlike Judas, who had departed, they would never seek reward by joining the enemies of Jesus. And to escape persecution they would never renounce support for His teaching hated by the Jewish leaders or for His claim to be the Christ. Instead, they would stand firmly at His side in the future, especially after He had risen from the dead. Their loyalty would eventually take them all to a martyr's death.

As a result, they would receive a huge reward when they entered Christ's own kingdom, the very kingdom that He would receive from the Father (Luke 22:29–30). Now Jesus' foresight had evidently shifted forward beyond the Wedding Supper of the Lamb to the time when His Father would authorize inauguration of His Son's Millennial kingdom upon the earth. As an early exercise of His new authority, Jesus would give a kingdom to His disciples. The vagueness and brevity of Jesus' wording leave many unanswered questions, but a very plausible interpretation is that Jesus is referring to the new kingdom of Israel that will be established at the beginning of the Millennium. Its citizens will include all descendants of Jacob who have survived the Tribulation.

That kingdom is envisioned in great detail by Ezekiel in the closing chapters of his prophetic book. Besides describing the new temple that will be built and all the duties of the priests who then will lead the nation in worshipping the Lord (Ezek. 40–44), the prophet also gives information about the secular government that the Lord will set over the nation. The ruler will be no less than David himself after he has been raised in an immortal body (Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25; called "the prince" in Ezek. 44–48), and the whole nation will again be divided into twelve distinct tribes inhabiting assigned portions of the land (Ezek. 48).

But nowhere in Old Testament prophecy do we learn the identity of the men who will serve as leaders of these tribes. This uncertainty was resolved only after the men whom God intended for such prominence had appeared on the earth and proved themselves worthy. Their identities were revealed near the close of Jesus' ministry. Probably just a few weeks before His death, He said to His disciples, "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" (Matt. 19:28). At the Last Supper He repeated the same promise, affirming, "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22: 30). The word "judging" in both statements is κρινω,¹⁰ which, according to one authoritative lexicon, could in the present context "have the broader sense rule."¹¹ The comparable Hebrew word can also refer not only to rendering a verdict, but also more broadly to acting as a leader of government (Judg. 3:10).¹² That the twelve disciples will in fact exercise authority over the twelve tribes of Israel after they reemerge during the Millennium appears an inescapable interpretation of Jesus' promise.

Yet why did Jesus first make this promise while Judas was still standing among the Twelve? Notice Jesus' exact words. He extended the promise to twelve faithful followers who were listening to Him. The twelfth that He intended was surely not Judas. Likely He was addressing Matthias, the follower later chosen to succeed the betrayer (Acts 1:26). He must have been present on this occasion. The promise was slightly reworded at the Last Supper. He no longer counted the thrones as twelve, but spoke of them as an indefinite number. The likely reason is that Matthias was absent, so that the number of thrones to be occupied by His hearers was only eleven.

We may surmise another reason why Jesus allowed Judas to hear His promise to the faithful twelve. Probably out of mercy for this perverted follower, He was showing him his true options. If he chose to turn against Jesus in return for a handful of coins, he would be giving up the immense privileges of a ruler over a redeemed and renewed state of Israel.

In Jesus' words pointing to a glorious future for the eleven disciples still beside Him at the Last Supper, He barely touched the true magnitude of their reward. When John later had a vision of events in heaven during the future consummation of earth's history, he saw twenty-four elders before God's throne (Rev. 4:10–11; 5:5–14). Commentators have not even been able to agree whether they were men or angels. It is therefore not surprising that when seeking to identify them, very few students of prophecy have come to what seems the most reasonable solution, based on loud resonance with another passage in Revelation.¹³ Their number—exactly twenty-four—and their exalted position surely suggest that they are the very men who will be memorialized by inscriptions in the gates and wall of New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12, 14): namely, the twelve forefathers of the ancient Israeli tribes and the twelve apostles of the church. The word for "elder" is πρεσβυτερος, which bears the literal meaning "older one."¹⁴ Indeed, among all the saints of Israel, those most entitled to the name "older one" will be their twelve forefathers, and among all Christians, those most entitled to the same name will be the twelve apostles. John sees all twenty-four before the throne at a time preceding any resurrection of saints that Scripture plainly reveals, yet we may not discount the possibility that God's program for history is a bit more complex than He has chosen to make obvious to His children.

If the apostles among the elders will later be sent to this world and given authority over Israel, we may speculate that the patriarchs will be also be transferred here and given authority over the gentile nations. Not putting descendants under their ancestors might be an arrangement designed to make impartiality of judgment easier to achieve. Whatever position the apostles might enjoy during the Millennium, they will afterward, during the Father's eternal kingdom, surely regain their former position before the throne.

A believer's priority in this world

Having lifted the eyes of His disciples to see their wonderful future if they stayed firm in their loyalty to their Savior and Master, Jesus now emphasized the single principle that should govern all their decisions if they wished to persevere on the road to God's full blessing. He said,

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 13:34-35

His intent was that the church would be a showcase of love. He wanted the love that worldlings see in the church to be so distinctive and superior that they will recognize it as coming from God. Yet there are non-Christians who are friendly and courteous, who entertain freely in their homes, who perform good deeds, and who have caring and sympathetic hearts. How then is Christian love special? In four respects Christian love can excel the best found anywhere outside the body of Christ.

1. Impartiality. Wherever people assemble outside the church, they form special interest groups and cliques. It is sad that cliques may also spring up in the church. But God intends the church to be a place where all manner of people can mix together and yet no one becomes marginal, much less a misfit or an outcast; where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female (Gal. 3:28); where any random selection of people is as happy in each other's company as any other random selection. With the help of the Holy Spirit, many churches have fulfilled God's plan, thereby showing the world that Christian love is supernatural.
   It is certainly appropriate for a church to offer activities designed especially for the young or for seniors, but the different age groups should not be so segregated that they never mingle and talk to each other. The worst specimen of a church is one divided along lines of social class, with the rich hanging out together and ignoring everybody else. Paul cautions us not to hobnob with the wealthy and important, but to give as much attention to people of low estate (Rom. 12:16). James declares that it is a serious breach of love to offer a more enthusiastic welcome to the rich than to the poor (Jas. 2:1-9). Our model of impartiality is God, who is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).
   We must see the infinite potential of everyone who walks through the front door of the church. It does not matter what they look like now. We must imagine what they will look like as God’s children in eternity, when they will have all the beauty and breathtaking power and radiant holiness of an immortal being. No man or woman alive has any less potential.
2. Fervency. When fully realized, Christian love is unique in its intensity of feeling (1 Pet. 1:22; 4:8). It emulates the boundless love that God has for His children (Jer. 31:3). Love between lovers or between close relatives or friends may reach such a high pitch of intensity that we would call it fervent. But to love someone fervently who just happens to come to the same church would be humanly impossible. Nothing approaching fervent love ordinarily appears within a club, a team, or any other social group similar to a church. It appears within a church by a miracle of God, showing the world that believers are His authorized representatives on the earth.
3. Forgiveness. There are many nice people outside the church. But if you step on their toes hard enough, they will not easily forgive you. They will likely carry a grudge. The ability to forgive is one of the distinctive marks of a true Christian and sets Christian love apart from any natural love. Our example is Christ, who prayed that God would forgive the men crucifying Him (Luke 23:34). As the saying goes, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."
4. Self-sacrifice. Many natural loves are sacrificial. A mother will risk her own life to save her children. A lover will go through dark peril to save his beloved. But Christian love is greater than all others, because it accepts pain and loss to help those who give no love in return. A missionary takes the gospel to a foreign land, knowing that he may meet rejection, persecution, and death. Yet he goes because he loves the lost and wants to save them from hell. Paul declared that he was willing to "spend and be spent" for the Corinthians, even though the more he loved them, the less they loved him (2 Cor. 12:15). Love of this kind, after the pattern of God's sacrificial love for our unworthy race, exists only in the hearts of those who know God. Because its existence would be impossible without a divine craftsman molding their hearts, it is a powerful testimony to the truth of Christianity.