31. And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.

The Lord now speaks to Peter, calling him by his given name of Simon. (Remember that the Lord gave him the name of Peter.) He repeats his name twice. The Companion Bible calls this the figure Epizeuxis, or Duplication. The Lord seems to use it when gently but sternly offering warning or rebuke. That is certainly the case here.

The Lord reveals to Simon that Satan has made request for him. This recalls to our minds the story in the book of Job, wherein Satan comes to the LORD and requests of Him the ability to do certain things to Job. The Lord is revealing here that Satan has done the same thing in this case.

Now the way this reads in the New King James, we might imagine that Satan’s request was only for Peter himself, and that he was hoping to snare Peter especially along with Judas in the events that were to come. However, this impression is left by the current weakness of the English language, which does not specify between a singular and a plural “you.” In Greek here, the word “you” is plural, and it is masculine. We might make this, then, “Satan has asked for you men.” In other words, the Lord is not just telling Peter that Satan had asked Him to be able to sift him personally as wheat, but rather that Satan had asked to be able to do this to all the disciples.

32. “But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Christ does not say how much freedom Satan was given in response to his request. It would appear that he was granted to be allowed to sift the disciples, at least to a certain extent, yet the Lord acted to counteract this sifting. Christ reveals here that He prayed for Peter. The word “you” here is singular this time, and means that the Lord specifically prayed for him. What He prayed was that his faith would not fail, and we can be certain that no prayer of Christ’s would ever be denied. Thus we will see that, although his courage fails, Peter’s faith never waivers throughout the tremendous pressures that were ahead for him. Then, the Lord commands Simon Peter that when he has returned to Him, he must strengthen his brethren. This would help them to recover from their own sifting. And, indeed, later in the gospels and also in the book of Acts we see that Peter did indeed recover from his ordeal to encourage his brethren in their own faith in the Lord.

33. But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.”

Peter does not seem to take the threat that Satan’s request posed to him very seriously. Instead, he makes this bold claim, that he will go with the Lord both to prison and to death, if need be. How shallow this claim appears in the light of what we know really happened soon after Peter said this! How easy it is to make such bold claims when prison and death are not staring you in the face! Yet how much harder it is to back them up when the time comes. No doubt Peter fully believed his statements here when he said them, and fully intended to carry his boast out if the time came to do so at some vague, undefined time in the future. Yet when the time came that very evening, his courage proved him false. He was not nearly so strong nor so loyal as he thought he was!

34. Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”

The Lord corrects Peter. He will not be so faithful as he thought he would be. In fact, before the rooster crows, Peter will deny three times that he knows the Lord. The phrase “before the rooster crows” means before the sun rises, for that is when the rooster would crow. So by this Simon Peter would be sifted, and the true character of what was in his heart would come out. Peter would not be able to live up to his proud boast. Yet the Lord prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail, and the Lord’s prayer was answered. Peter may have denied his Lord, but he never lost his faith.

This prediction of Peter’s denials is one of four that Christ made that night as we have them recorded in Scripture. This one and the one in John were both made at the Passover supper, whereas the ones in Matthew and Mark were both made after they had left the house. This prediction in Luke is distinguished from the one in John by the statements of Christ and of Peter that led up to it. So we see that Peter had many warnings of what was ahead! Yet the warnings did nothing to change what actually took place. The only thing they changed, perhaps, was what came after.

35. And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

Now Christ speaks to all His disciples. He reminds them of when He sent them out without money bag, knapsack, or sandals. He asks them, did they lack anything when He did this? And they honestly answer that no, they did not. This was because Christ had sent them. As long as they were His disciples on His mission that He had sent them on, He watched over them through His power and supplied all their needs. He was in a very real way their “employer,” and He was responsible for caring for them as long as they were under His employ. As God, of course, He could take care of them no matter what, even when they were separated from Him physically. This He did the whole time they were on this mission.

Yet if people to whom Christ did not make this command think in some going out (such as to the mission field) that they themselves decide to do that they should qualify under this same promise, they will soon find that going out in this way is most foolish. Going on a mission without providing for yourself does not result in lacking for nothing, but usually will result in lacking for everything!

36. Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

Having reminded them of this former mission, Christ now gives them a new command in the light of it, this time the very reverse of what He commanded before. Now they will need to bring their own money bag. Now they will need to carry their own provisions. Now, when they are in danger, they will need to provide for their own protection.

Thus those who would seek to follow the Lord’s earlier command today are proved doubly wrong, both for taking the first command out of context, and then for ignoring this later command. Not only was the earlier command not made to them, but the Lord Himself reversed it, even to the men to whom He made it! How then can anyone imagine that it is a correct use of the Bible to claim the first promise for himself? But such handling of Scripture is common among those who are trying to wring benefits for themselves from It, rather than honestly reading It to find what God has said.

37. “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”

The Lord explains to them why it will now be necessary for them to provide these things for themselves. The reason is that what is written of Christ must soon be accomplished. Then, He quotes from Isaiah 53:12. He will be numbered among the criminals, this quotation says. Yes, this great prophecy about Christ was about to be fulfilled: not just this part of it, but the whole of Isaiah 53. These things written concerning Him will have an “end,” He tells them. The word “end” here means a fulfillment. Indeed, Isaiah 53 was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, as we know. And the many great prophecies that are also found in the Old Testament about His future acts will likewise have their own “end,” and will be fulfilled to the letter.

38. So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

The disciples find two swords near at hand. They are responding in faith to His word about swords, probably figuring from His words about the momentous events that are to take place this night, that He is commanding them to arm themselves. Yet in doing this they are taking Him quite literally. It is probable that He actually just meant they must provide their own protection, now that He will not be there to see that they are protected. Surely these swords served no purpose in the events that lay ahead, but rather only got Peter a rebuke from his Master when he attempted to use one. Yet whether or not He meant this command quite so literally, He responds to their finding the swords by assuring them that these two will be sufficient. Otis Q. Sellers suggests He was using irony in this response, and he may well be right.

39. Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

Now the Lord comes out of the city with His disciples and goes to the Mount of Olives. We see here that this journey was His custom. He had probably been doing this every evening after supper since He had arrived at Jerusalem for this feast some days before. Remember, if events had followed their previous course, after stopping at the garden they would have returned to their lodgings in Bethany. This was their usual course of action, and would have been well known to Judas. Thus he knew exactly the time when Christ would be most alone and vulnerable. Remember, this was why the chief priests were so delighted to have the help of a traitor…they desired to take Him at a time when the people who loved Him would not be around.

40. When He came to the place, He said to them, “Pray that you may not enter into temptation.”

The Lord knew the things that this night would hold, both for Him and for His disciples. He knew that they would be tried in many ways. Thus He commands them to pray. Truly prayer in reliance upon God is just what we need when facing the most difficult and trying circumstances of life. It would have been to the disciples’ benefit to follow this command, yet it seems that they had little success in doing so, as we will see, whether through their own fault or the almost supernatural sleepiness that seems to have come over all of them.

41. And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed,

The Lord withdraws from them about as far as one could throw a stone. At this distance, then, He kneels down and prays to the Father.

Some have difficulty with the Lord praying to the Father, since He also declares that He and His Father are one (John 10:30.) Yet I do not think we need to let this trouble us. We often times will sit down to confer with ourselves over a matter. That is really what we are doing when we are thinking deeply on a thing. Some of us might talk to ourselves when considering a matter as well. So we should not allow the fact that Christ would do such a thing to disturb us overly much.

42. Saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.”

Most assume that the “cup” is His sufferings and death upon the cross, and so what the Lord is asking His Father for here is to change His mind and not make Him die on the cross at all. Yet this was the very reason that the Lord came! He Himself declares this in Matthew 20:27-28.

27. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28. just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

So it was for the very reason of giving His life as a ransom for many that the Lord came. The triumphant words of Galatians 2:20 declare this same thing.

20. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Therefore we have the odd circumstance of the Lord pleading at the eleventh hour to His Father to allow Him to opt out on the sacrifice that was the very reason He came. Those who hold this view have various reasons for explaining why the Lord would do this. The usual explanation is that the suffering He was facing was to be so severe that He dreaded it, and asked to get out of it at the last minute. Some suggest that this was a sign of His complete humanity (fully God and fully man) that shrank from death as it was approaching. However, this view would make the Lord possessed of less bravery than many of His followers, who have gone rejoicing to their deaths, even the most brutal and tortuous of deaths, because they were able to die in His name. Can it be that the very Lord Who inspires such courage in those who love Him did not possess such courage Himself?

Others argue that His request was not just for His physical sufferings, however severe they might be, but rather for the horrors of the spiritual sufferings He was to endure in taking the sin of the world upon Himself. They would point out that He was to be rejected by His Father, a state never before experienced by the One Who was ever in the bosom of His Father, and that this was the dread task facing Him that caused Him to request relief from having to endure it. We would tend to agree with those who suggest this, that the Lord’s physical sufferings were not so severe that they overshadowed the magnitude of taking the sin of the world upon Himself, and being separated from His Father, but rather quite the opposite. The just, righteous, and holy One taking upon Himself our sin must have been a terrible thing indeed. Being separated from His Father, with Whom He had ever been in the closest possible communion, must have been far more horrible for Him to endure than the physical suffering He faced, be it ever so severe. Yet again, to do this was the very reason He came. Are we really to believe that He weakened in the face of this, and asked to be excused from it? Are we to believe that His wondrous plan, His righteous goal, and His very love for us were not enough to drive Him? That for the joy set before Him He was unable to reconcile Himself to endure the cross and despise the shame, at least for this brief time in the garden? The Scripture Itself would argue against this idea in Hebrews 12:2.

Not only does this idea present problems to us in the picture it would suggest to us of the Lord losing His courage, but it also presents to us the idea that the Lord would ask something of His Father, and His Father would not grant it. In John 11:41b-42, the Lord Himself declares:

“Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 And I know that You always hear Me, but because of the people who are standing by I said this, that they may believe that You sent Me.”

Yet in spite of this testimony, this view would have the Father not hearing the Son in this case, in that He did not grant His request. For most certainly, the Lord Jesus did go to the cross, did drink to the dregs the cup of suffering that was given Him, and was not relieved of it. Could it be, then, that the Lord’s words in John 11 were not true in this case, and that the Father failed to hear Christ’s request? How could it ever be that He would ask and God would not grant it to Him?

We cannot believe that this is so! If this could not be, then, we would ask, what was Christ asking for here? What cup did He ask to be taken away from Him? I think we have found a clue if we will take John 11:41b-42 to heart. Whatever the cup was, it must have been something that WAS indeed taken away from Him, for the Father always hears the requests of the Son. What cup, then, was it that He asked to be taken away?

I believe that a careful reading of the passage will reveal to us a cup that was taken away from the Lord, even as He requested, and as the Lord willed. That cup is found in verse 44, where we read that He was in agony, and “His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” This frightening picture suggests to us that the Lord was under such stress in the garden, some of it perhaps induced by an attack of Satan, that He was on the verge of His body giving out. In other words, I believe that Christ was here asking for deliverance from the more immediate cup that was threatening Him…that is, the cup of a violent death right there in the garden! This cup, if it had been allowed to kill Him, would have stopped Him short of the cross. This cup, if He had been forced to drink it, would have disrupted God’s plan, rather than fulfilling it. This cup needed to be taken away from Him, and so He asked His Father to take it away, and His Father granted His request. This, then, was a request that was worthy of the Lord. He did not almost chicken out. He did not ask to stop short of the cross. Indeed, He was asking to be granted NOT to be stopped short of the cross.

43. Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him.

The Lord asked for the cup to be removed from Him, and here we see that His prayer was immediately answered by an angel from God coming to strengthen Him. This was not a strengthening to help Him bolster His flagging spirits so that He would decide to die on the cross after all, but rather a strengthening to help Him face the agonizing physical ordeal that He was currently going through in the garden. In other words, His Father did hear Him, and did grant His request according to His will. His will and His Son’s will were the same here, as they ever are, and so He gave Him strength, removing the cup from Him that He was in danger of having forced upon Him at that very time in the garden.

44. And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Luke was a doctor, and he gives us a medical description of the Lord’s condition at this point. Various people who have analyzed this have suggested that this sort of sweating only occurs under extreme stress, and is a result of tremendously high blood pressure. The usual result would be that death would quickly follow. How much is accurate in this description I am not prepared to say, but I do believe that the Lord was in deadly danger here. Death would have been the Lord’s fate if He had not been strengthened. No doubt this was Satan’s last attempt to do away with Him before He could fulfill His mission on the cross.

It has been suggested that this event may have actually damaged the Lord’s heart. In John 19:34, we read that when His side was pierced, blood and water came out. This is odd, since there is nothing about crucifixion that should have caused water to come out of His body at that point. This has led some to suggest that this condition was caused by an actual heart rupture that took place at this time in the garden. Again, not being a doctor, we cannot comment on this. There is no doubt there was more here going on than we can guess. Yet what I do believe we can see from the text is that the Lord was in real danger at this time. Something was causing Him great agony, and making His sweat come out in an unusual and alarming manner. This physical stress could have killed Him, yet it did not, for He asked His Father, and His Father sent a messenger to give Him strength.

I believe that the strength the Lord received not only carried Him through this incident in the garden, but all that came after. Remember that ultimately, He did not die of the crucifixion, but rather dismissed His spirit on the cross (Luke 23:46). He had received such strength that none of the almost unbelievable physical sufferings He went through were able to bring about His death. Only when He dismissed His spirit did He die. It was not, then, from physical weakness, but by His Own word that His death came about. His words were most true, “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” John 10:17-18.

45. When He rose up from prayer, and had come to His disciples, He found them sleeping from sorrow.

When the Lord arises from this earnest prayer and comes to His disciples, He finds them sleeping. Here we have an interesting comment on the sleep of the disciples over what we find in the other gospels. We might get the idea from the other records that the disciples were most callous and unfeeling, seeing the agony their Lord was going through, and yet falling right off to sleep when He asked them to pray. Yet here we read that they slept not from a lack of concern for their Lord. It was rather through the exhaustion that came upon them due to their sorrow. They really had taken to heart the words the Lord had said to them. They may not have understood the calamity that was about to come upon them, but they did realize that the Lord was telling them that something terrible was coming, and they were empathizing with Him. Yet now their sorrow had worn them out, and they could no longer stay awake, try as they might.

46. Then He said to them, “Why do you sleep? Rise and pray, lest you enter into temptation.”

Christ had warned them to pray lest they enter into temptation when He left them. It seems they were unable to do that, however, for their sleepiness and sorrow. The Lord now reminds them of His command, yet this time His advice comes just in time to awaken them to see the invading multitude. It was too late to pray more than a quick thought-prayer against entering into temptation, for the crisis was already upon them!

I received the following question:

Is there any verse in the Bible which says anything about the concept of “forgiving yourself”?  Just a thought.

That is a good question. The concept of forgiveness and pardon in the Bible is largely an issue that relates to the interaction of the LORD with people. He is the one who forgives their iniquities and their sins.

Psalm 130:4:
But there is forgiveness with You,
That You may be feared.

Exodus 34:6-7:
6. And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7. keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

Psalm 25:18:
Look on my affliction and my pain,
And forgive all my sins.

When men are called upon to forgive, it is regarding each other, as in the following passages:

Matthew 6:14-15:
14. “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

Mark 11:25:
25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

Ephesians 4:32:
32. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

We know that the first two are for the past dispensation. In the last, the word for “forgive” is actually the word for “grace.” We are to show grace to each other.

The modern concept of self-forgiveness is not one that is found in Scripture. From the Bible’s standpoint, it seems that forgiving yourself is not something that God’s Word is concerned with. When one has done wrong, it is first of all with God, and second of all with the one wronged that forgiveness must be sought. When one is forgiven by God, he is forgiven indeed. The question of self-forgiveness largely ignores the truth that God is the One Who forgives. Those who do not believe in God cannot look to Him for the absolution of sins, so perhaps it makes sense in the environment we live in that men would speak of self-forgiveness.

The struggle some people have with “forgiving themselves” could perhaps more accurately from a believer’s perspective be categorized as failing to believe in the forgiveness offered by God. Once we realize that God forgives us freely and completely, then we can realize that we are forgiven, and do not need to continue to chastise ourselves for the things we have done wrong. Resting in the forgiveness of God is the answer to a failure to let go of guilt and self-condemnation.

In the final analysis, we have no power to forgive ourselves, for our sins are not against ourselves, though we may harm ourselves by them. Ultimately, our sins are against God, and for this reason, He alone is the One Who can forgive them.

I received the following questions:

What does meditation mean?  Especially as used in Psalm 1:2 and Psalm 104:34.  What is significant about meditation?

First of all, you can read my article on this at:

http://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/consider-my-meditation/

To meditate means to think extensively on a thing.

2. But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.

This psalmist thinks extensively on the Scriptures. He ponders them, whether books, passages, verses, or words. He considers them and what they say, running over them in his mind. He does this at all times of day, both day and night.

34. May my meditation be sweet to Him;
I will be glad in the LORD.

The psalmist desires that the things upon which he thinks and upon which his mind dwells will be sweet to God. He wants the LORD to be pleased with all that he ponders in his head. In other words, he wants his thoughts to be in conformity with God’s pleasure.

I received the following questions:

Do you know much about prayer?  I know some, but I still have problems with what to pray about.  What does/should prayer look like?  I am kind of stuck with the “A.C.T.S.” version of prayer.  But, I’m not sure if it is the best way to pray.  A=Praising God, C=Confessing sin, T=Thanksgiving, S=Supplication.

When, I pray, whether or not I use that structure, I get easily distracted within my thoughts and lose my focus. I think that if I really wanted to pray to God that I would be “vigilant” and persistent. Then I also feel like I don’t deserve to pray to God or that God does not hear my prayer.

I know not to necessarily expect an answer for my prayer, but rather the peace of God to guard my heart and mind in Christ Jesus.  But, I am a very anxious person who worries a lot. And, when I pray, I still worry about stuff.

I think that prayer should look like talking to God. That is really and truly what we are doing when we pray. Many get all caught up in making prayer into a religious act. They look for some “formula” that will bring forth the “power of prayer.” I do not believe that prayer is powerful, I believe that God is powerful. It is an amazing thing that we, as sinful and fallen human beings, can talk to Him. Yet He loves us, and hears us.

In the dispensation of grace, we have no right to expect that our requests in prayer will be granted. Many get caught up in passages where Christ promised His disciples certain things about their prayers. However, we are not the disciples, and we are not living in the Acts period. Our only promise is that God will hear us, and so we are told that we should not cease praying. Philippians 4:6-7 is our best pattern for prayer today. We are not promised that we will receive what we ask for, but we are promised that a true union with God will guard our hearts and minds.

Some suggest that God always answers prayer, just He answers “Yes,” “No,” or “Wait.” Since God does not speak audibly in this dispensation, this seems to me rather disingenuous. Christ did not always answer requests made to Him, even to say no, like in Matthew 15:22-23. He is under no obligation to say anything just because we asked. Many are asking things that are inappropriate for the dispensation of grace. I do not think that these get an answer.

Too often, prayer devolves into a laundry list of things we want. It is good to have other elements to our prayers than this. The “A.C.T.S.” prayer you mentioned is one way of attempting to do this.

Praise is certainly always appropriate.

I definitely do not try to work confession into my prayers. Usually, when I realize I have sinned and not done what I should have before God, I immediately speak to Him and apologize for it. Then I tend to figure the matter is done with, unless I need to plan ways to not give in to this weakness in the future. I certainly do not store up past sins to remember them the next time I pray so I have a “confession” section to my prayer. These things are best dispensed with immediately and then done with. If anything, discuss with Him ways to do better in the future. We are already forgiven, so an apology is all that is needed, no need to ask or beg for forgiveness.

Thanksgiving is always good and appropriate. God detests an attitude of unthankfulness.

Supplication has to do with asking for things. This is fine, although some ask for things that are not things God is doing in the dispensation of grace. As we learn more what God’s plan is, we can learn to ask more in line with His will. Yet I would not wait until I have it all figured out until I prayed. I will make my requests known to God. As I learn more, my prayers may be more appropriate, but that does not mean that God does not want to hear from me.

My requests should be largely for others, not just for myself. Often, I find myself asking for things for others that have more to do with the things of God than with physical blessings. This, I realize more and more, is the most important thing. Of course, if someone is desperately ill or in dire straits, that figures largely into what I will pray for that person.

As far as getting distracted or losing focus, I will often experience the same thing. I am talking to God about something that I really care about, and I find myself starting to mull over it instead of talking to God about it. There are several things you can try for this. You can try praying out loud. Even when you are alone and praying to yourself, there is no necessity to pray internally. You can also pray with your eyes open. There is no reason, other than liturgy, for having them closed. Some of my friends would sometimes go on “prayer walks,” where they would walk around campus and pray out loud as they went. I suppose people thought they were very strange, but they were mostly walking at a time and place where few people were. This allowed them to focus pretty well. At any rate, my point is that if you are having trouble focusing, you can try changing venues for your prayers. There is no “right formula,” and prayer walks is just one idea.

Sometimes you have to be persistent before you start to want to be persistent. Focus more on doing the right thing than testing the winds to try to decide if you really feel like you “want” to do the right thing.

As far as deserving to be able to pray to God, of course you don’t deserve it. Who could? If it was up to us deserving it, none of us could pray. The reason we can pray is because of God’s love for us, not because we deserve it. All we can do is take God at His word that He hears us. As you make God’s Book more and more a part of your life, such doubts will start to become less and less.

As far as still worrying when you pray, it is very hard to trust God, especially in this time, when we don’t have any guarantees that everything will work out right (short of the kingdom, that is.) Not worrying about anything is a very high standard, and one that it will take some time and work to attain. Perhaps we can never attain it completely. Yet it is good to keep Philippians 4:6-7 in mind, and be striving to attain to it.

6. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; 7. and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

17. Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves;

Here we come upon the next element of the Passover after the lamb, which was the Passover cup. The three essential elements of the Passover are outlined in Exodus 12:8.

8. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

Notice that the third element listed here is “bitter herbs,” yet the word “herbs” is in italics. This indicates that this word was not in the original Hebrew, but was supplied by the translators. The fact is that the “bitters” were not herbs, but a cup of bitter drink. This was probably either some kind of vinegar, or else wine steeped with wormwood to make it bitter. That might not sound very appetizing, but remember that this Passover was not meant to be a large meal to sit down to and enjoy eating. The point was not to enjoy some elaborate meal together with family and friends, as is the point with our holiday dinners. You did not expect to get up from the table with your stomach filled with good food. The point was to remember the bitterness and hardship of the slavery the Israelites endured in Egypt, as well as God’s miraculous deliverance of them from that slavery. The various elements were to remind them of the things they suffered there. Therefore, the cup that they drank was a cup of bitters.

In spite of the fact that what was in the cup was a bitter drink, the Lord gives thanks for it. Then, He encourages His disciples to divide it among themselves. They all were to drink of this bitter drink and remember the bitterness of Israel’s slavery in Egypt.

18. “For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

Christ again announces to them that this is the last time He will drink of this produce of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. Thus the “sour wine” that Christ drank on the cross (John 19:29) must not have been made from the same fruit of the vine as this cup. Either that, or by saying this He was referring specifically to what was in the Passover cup.

19. And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Christ took bread, gave thanks, and broke it. The reason it was broken is because this was unleavened bread, the very unleavened bread of the Passover. We are used to leavened bread in our societies, which can only be cut or torn, but never broken. Yet bread without leaven cannot be torn, and would crumble if you tried to cut it. It can only be broken.

The fact that the Passover bread was made without leaven had great significance. We can learn what that significance was from Exodus 12:39.

39. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they had brought out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared provisions for themselves.

The haste with which the children of Israel went out of Egypt meant they had no time to prepare leaven for their bread, so they had to make it without leaven. Thus this unleavened bread pointed out what was perhaps the greatest miracle in the book of Exodus: the speed with which the children of Israel were brought out of Egypt by the LORD. The number of the children of Israel was 600,000 men, and including women and children, the number must have been well over 2 million. They also went out with all their possessions and all their animals. Yet the LORD brought them all out in one night! This is an absolute logistical impossibility, and is one of the greatest miracles the LORD ever performed, though most do not realize it. This unleavened bread included in the Passover was a yearly reminder to them of the greatness of the LORD’s power towards them in bringing them out of Egypt.

Now, however, the Lord Jesus Christ gives a new significance to the unleavened Passover bread. This was not to erase its old significance, for of course it must retain that. Yet now for His disciples this bread will have a new significance. Now when they eat it during the yearly feast it will serve to remind them of the body of their Lord that was broken for them. What blessed new meaning this old ritual would have to these disciples!

To understand something of what the Lord was doing here, we could imagine a United States soldier heading overseas to fight in Iraq or some other place. He is gathered with his family to have Christmas dinner together, knowing that soon he is going to head off overseas. This soldier knows that he is not going to be with his family the next year at Christmas, and in fact for all he knows they might never all be together like this again. Therefore, he speaks up as they begin the meal. He tells them that from now on as they eat the dinner together at Christmas until he is able to rejoin them, that they should remember him and all he was willing to sacrifice to be a soldier. By saying this, he is giving a whole new meaning to their Christmas dinner. He is not removing the old meaning, of course, nor is he adding anything to the meaning of this dinner except for his own family. Yet for them from now on until he is with them again, this dinner will have the new meaning of reminding them of him and his sacrifice.

What that soldier did is similar to what Christ is doing here. Of course, the illustration is not perfect, for Christ was the One Who gave the Passover in the first place, and so was able to add new significance to it as He saw fit. At first, this would only add significance for the disciples, but I believe that when the kingdom comes and the Passover is reinstituted, that it will always bear this meaning as well, and in fact this meaning may well overtake the old one in importance.

So what Christ was doing here was adding new significance to the Passover bread. I can have little sympathy with those who take His words, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” and act like they can do whatever they want in remembrance of Him and it will be obeying this command, as long as it is traditional, done in a church, and done with the proper level of dignity and ceremony. The Lord was not throwing open the door for His disciples or the Christian church to make up any number of bread and cup rituals. He was only adding new significance to the well-defined ritual established by God in the Old Testament to be performed by His people of Israel. The things that people do today and claim to be doing them in obedience to this command usually have nothing to do with the Passover as God established it. As such, they are not obeying the command of Christ here, but are just appealing to the flesh. The flesh always desires a ceremony, but as the Lord tells us in Colossians 2:16-17,

16. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17. which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

We have been set free from shadows to come into the reality of Christ. Even the Israelites were set free from the festivals, Sabbaths, and dietary laws that God had given them under the law in the past! If even they were not to perform such things, what excuse do we have? We never had these things in the first place, and God has sent us only salvation, and not the law. Why then do we make up Passover-like rituals to perform? Let us let go of such empty things created by men to follow the reality of One Who died for us. As Colossians 2:20-23 states,

20. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21. “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22. which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23. These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Many subject themselves to rituals like this bread and wine ceremony in order to appear righteous. Yet the fact is that appearance is all that it is, for the attitudes that are supposed to be engendered by it either already exist in the one who performs the ritual, or else do not exist at all, but this ritual certainly does not generate them. The imposition of a ritual is of no more value than the imposition of ascetic rules. They do not truly aid us in fighting against the flesh, but rather give place to it.

We have nothing to do with a remembrance given by Christ to His disciples, every one of which was a descendant of the man Israel and so was authorized to perform the ritual of Passover. We who are not of that line and have no such authorization should not use His words to justify a bread and wine ritual of dubious origin made to satisfy the religious flesh of carnal men.

We can always impose religion upon ourselves to appear righteous. However, this ritual, called by nice, Biblical names by churches today like “the Lord’s supper” or “communion,” in fact bears little resemblance to what the Lord did. How then can anyone claim obedience when they perform it? The only thing obeyed in this case is blind tradition. The ordinance commonly performed is not the Passover, and therefore is not Biblical. Even if it were the Passover, we as Gentile believers have no such ordinance, for we are not the nation of Israel. We have died with Christ from all such things. Let us therefore live to Him, and not to the religion and rituals of unbiblical Christianity.

20. Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Now after the supper the Lord again takes up the cup. As before, this was the Passover cup containing the bitter drink. Now Christ takes this cup, which since Israel’s exodus from Egypt had reminded them of the bitterness of their slavery in that foreign land, and He gives it a new significance for His disciples. Now the cup symbolizes the blood of the new covenant that Christ was about to shed on their behalf.

The first reference to the new covenant is in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

31. “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32. not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Notice that in promising this new covenant the LORD references an old covenant. This was the covenant He made with them when He took them out of Egypt. This covenant they broke a mere forty days after making it. Yet now Christ announces through His blood the ratification of a new covenant, the very covenant that Jeremiah spoke about.

A covenant, the Greek word diatheke, was a solemn agreement between two parties. We have made this word to have religious overtones, and yet really it was little different from what we call a contract today. We enter into contractual agreements by signing them, but the covenants of those days were entered into by the shedding of a blood sacrifice. We can see an example of this in the covenant mediated by Moses between God and the people of Israel in Exodus 24:7-8.

7. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” 8. And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.”

In this way, then, the old covenant was ratified by blood. In the same way, the new covenant is also ratified by blood, and Christ announces here that it is His blood that is the blood that will be shed to ratify this covenant. This cup, then, symbolizes the blood that will be shed to bring this new covenant into effect. Christ then becomes the Mediator of the new covenant, as Hebrews 9:15 declares.

15. And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Christ then by this new covenant brings an eternal inheritance to those who are called among His people. This is in accordance with His promise to Israel in Ezekiel 20:37.

37. “I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant;

In every contract, agreement, or covenant, there must be two parties involved. According to Jeremiah 31:31, the two parties involved in the new covenant are the LORD on the one hand and the house of Israel and house of Judah on the other. The LORD shed His blood by dying on the cross, thus setting up His part of the covenant. Now, all He needs to do is to bring Israel into the bond of the covenant as well. This is like one party preparing a contract for me to sign. I will not be under the bond of the contract until I put my signature upon it. Once I do, however, I am in the bond of that contract. So, Israel must be brought into the bond of the new covenant. They will be, and then the promises of Ezekiel 20:33-38 will be fulfilled to them.

Now Christ’s blood has great significance for us as well, as through it we have forgiveness of sins. However, it does not bring us into the new covenant, for that is only “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8.) Christ’s blood may have been shed to bring in the new covenant, but we must never forget that Christ accomplished many different things by His one death on the cross. Both we and Israel can benefit from Christ’s blood, although each may benefit in different ways. For example, Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6,) and He died for sinners (Romans 5:8.) Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (I Timothy 1:15.) In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7.) These things are true of us, though we are not Israelites. We too benefit from Christ’s blood. We do not have to attempt to weasel our way into Israel’s covenant in order to believe we have God’s blessings through Christ’s blood. Though we have nothing to do with the covenant God will make with His people, we can still say that just as surely the same blood that was shed for their covenant was also shed for us.

21. “But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table.

Christ switches quickly from these grand future realities to a grim present reality. He here reveals the presence of a traitor among them. We know that this was the man Judas, who was one of the twelve.

22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

This traitor Judas would not bring about His fate, the Lord reveals. What happens to Him is all according to what has been determined by God. As Peter said in Acts 3:18, “But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.” Christ’s death was all according to the plan laid out by God. Judas may have helped that plan come about, but he did not cause it. Let us never imagine that if Judas had not betrayed Him, the Lord would not have died on the cross!

Yet even though God worked through Judas’ betrayal to bring about His will, this does not mean that serving God’s plan was Judas’ will, for it was not. His desires were selfish, sinful, and ungodly, and he will pay the price for acting on them. The Lord’s statement “woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!” foreshadows the sad fate of Judas. But the woe to Judas is not over, for he will someday have to stand before God in judgment.

23. Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing.

As we might expect, the disciples were greatly disturbed by the thought that one of them would betray the Lord. Yet Luke does not record any of their argument here, and details none of the conversation concerning this. Nor does he mention the actual exit of Judas. These things are already recorded in other gospels. God apparently saw no need to repeat those things here.

As we might expect, the topic of most concern among the disciples is who it was of them who would do this thing. These men had been living and working in the closest possible fellowship for years now. The thought that one of them could turn traitor after all that must have been most disturbing to them. They must have had a great trust for each other, yet now these words of the Lord’s cause them to view each other with suspicion.

24. Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.

It seems that this revelation about the traitor soon transformed from the disciples rather piteously questioning the Lord as to whether or not each would be the traitor to the disciples using this opportunity to put each other down and vaunt themselves as the greatest! We can well imagine how this came about. No doubt each one started to point to all the great service he had done for the Lord or how much he had given up for the Lord in order to say that of course he could not be the traitor. From this boasting, things could quickly turn into an argument about whose boasting was more valid, and whose service the greatest. How sad that in the face of such meaningful events that Christ was going through, the disciples would allow themselves to degenerate into such self-focused arguing. Yet how often do we act in the same way!

25. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’

The Lord responds to their argument by pointing out to them the behavior of the kings among the nations. They exercise lordship over those under them who are of a lesser position. Those who exercise authority call themselves “benefactors,” for they claim to be doing the things they do for the benefit of those under them. Of course, often this is not truly the case.

26. “But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.

The disciples knew that by their relationship with the Lord, they were guaranteed high positions in the government of God to come. The Lord had told them this in places like Matthew 19:28, where He promised them they would “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Indeed, He will promise them this again in just a few verses. Yet their positions are to be according to Christ’s way of doing government, and not after the way of the governments of this world. In having this argument, they were acting like the godless nations around them, trying to lord it over each other and have the superiority. Yet their Lord reveals that among His followers there is a different way of doing things.

He says that the greatest among them should be as the younger. Importance generally came with age at that time, so the one who was “younger” would be the one in the subservient position. The one who governs should be as the one who serves. In other words, in God’s way of doing things, the one who truly is the most important is not the one who is able to exercise his authority to benefit himself, but rather the one who truly serves others the most.

27. “For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

Of course, the one sitting at the table is greater than the one who serves him, as the Lord points out here. Yet lo and behold, the Lord Jesus Christ, the greatest One to ever walk the face of the earth, came here as One Who serves! What greater example could Christ give for the greater serving the lesser than His Own humble service to these men who were His followers?

28. “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials.

The Lord acknowledges that these men are those who have been with Him in His trials. Someday He will take to Himself His great power and rule over this world. When He returns to earth, He will come here as its King. Yet these men threw in their lot with Him when He was here the first time, going through the many trials that His service required of Him. The Lord gives them this credit. They were giving themselves credit for many other things, but the Lord points to this as the most important service they have rendered.

It is interesting that the Lord acknowledges the truly meaningful thing they had done at this time. They were not really acting as they should have been at this point, and really were doing more to only add to His trials now. Nevertheless He prefers to give them the credit for their faithful continuance than to condemn them for their selfish attitudes. How loving and gracious our Lord ever is with His children!

29. “And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,

Now the Lord declares what He will bestow upon them for this faithful service. They will receive a kingdom. Again we need to remember that the word “kingdom” just means a government. This was the type of government in use when the King James was translated, and thus it has traditionally come down to us as this word. Yet the Greek word in truth merely means “government,” and Christ was here promising a governmental authority to His disciples. To give them a government meant to give them a right to rule. That is what they would receive in reward for continuing with Him in His trials.

30. “That you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Christ expands on what He said to further explain what He meant in the previous verse. They would eat and drink at His table. This indicates several things. First of all, this means quite literally that the Lord would feed them. They will be living at the government’s expense in God’s kingdom. Then, to eat at His table means to enjoy the blessings of His wonderful bounty. Finally, to eat at His table means they will be in close fellowship and communion with Him.

He promises they will also “sit on thrones.” This does not mean that they will have fancy chairs in God’s government. A throne symbolizes an authority or a seat of government. The throne of the United States of America is in Washington, D.C., though we gave up titles like “thrones” when we broke away from the government of Britain. So the disciples will have authorities “judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” To “judge” here is to set in order. In other words, they will determine what is right, and then set things right, in God’s government. Their authority will be divided, with each of them ruling over one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Of course, Judas by his betrayal cut himself out of this. Yet Matthias quickly took his place, and so all will be ready and in order when the kingdom comes.

Notice, though, that this is true of Israel, but not the world. Some have the tendency to grant Israel too much in the kingdom. Israel may be a governmental center in the kingdom, yet still Israel does not govern the world during the Kingdom. If there is a center to the Divine government, it is in Heaven, not on earth. If Israel is the center of anything in the kingdom, it will be that they are the religious center of the world. The one and only temple of God will be in Israel in the kingdom, and anyone who wants to worship God at His temple must go and do so there.

1. Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover.

These two are not the same feast, but since the one led right into the other, they were often called by the same name, and one name was used to refer to both feasts. They were not very technical about this, just like we are not very technical about what we call “Christmas,” and sometimes seem to call the entire month of December after this name. Therefore, we have to carefully consider the context to know what is being spoken of.

According to Exodus 12, on the tenth day of the month, which was the month Abib (sometimes called Nisan), they were to choose a lamb for the Passover. Then on Abib 14th, they were to slay the lamb at twilight (the start of a new day according to their reckoning). This was the day of Passover. Then on Abib 15th through the 21st was the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The first and last days of this feast, Abib 15th and 21st, were special feast Sabbaths. We can see this in summary in Leviticus 23:4-8.

4. ‘These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. 5. On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the LORD’s Passover. 6. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread. 7. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it. 8. But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD for seven days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no customary work on it.’”

So this was the order of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Not being familiar with these feasts has caused much confusion in discovering the order of these events, and has even led some to suggest that Christ could not have been eating the real Passover with His disciples. Yet as we will see, the Lord was celebrating the Passover Feast on Passover day.

2. And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people.

The chief priests and scribes are driven to distraction by the actions and teachings of the Lord. They at last determine that their only recourse is to put Him to death. They must have figured that that was the only way to silence His message once and for all. So they sought how they might do this. It was not that they did not have the authority to put Him to death, for they did. Yet they feared the riot this would cause on the part of the people. They loved the Lord so much that they would not have stood for such a miscarriage of justice. There is no indication here that “Israel rejected their Messiah.”  Instead, the rejection is all on the part of these jealous leaders. The people, in contrast, are spoken of as having loved Him.

3. Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve.

Ultimately, it was not just the jealous religious leaders who wanted the Lord to be put to death. Satan at this time steps into the picture, and he enters one of the twelve, Judas surnamed Iscariot. The actions of Judas, although he was ultimately responsible for them, were also instigated by Satan himself.

We might ask why Satan chose Judas, and not one of the others? This is easily determined. Judas had already been betraying the Lord in a very real way, for he had been made the treasurer for Christ’s band of disciples, and was entrusted with the money bag. Yet we read in John 12:6 that “he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.” Therefore Judas was already acting contrary to the Lord, and so he left himself open to Satan’s attack. Satan could not just have decided instead to enter Peter or John or Thomas or one of the others. The reason he entered Judas is that Judas had left himself open to it.

4. So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them.

Inspired by Satan, Judas makes his way to the Lord’s enemies, the chief priests and captains, and confers with them. He is interested in a way that he may betray Him to them. How sad it is that one of the twelve would stoop to such a thing! Yet this was not a sudden thing. Judas’ attitude throughout his years of being a disciple had always been leading him on to this place.

Judas must have known that he could not continue to embezzle from the Lord’s funds forever. Eventually he would be discovered, and his thievery exposed. The only way out of this was for him to see to it that the band of the disciples be broken up and come to an end before that could happen. Apparently he comes to the conclusion that now is the time. He has stolen enough money, and things are heating up between the Lord and his enemies. If he waits, the showdown between the Lord and the religious leaders might come, and Judas himself might be swept away with it. Therefore, he must act, and bring about the end in a way so that he can not only escape from it, but also benefit from it.

Of course, Judas did not know that his wicked actions were already well-known to the Lord. He did not realize that his self-serving choice to betray Him was inspired by Satan. Nor did he realize that all this was taking place under the over-ruling will of God.

The “captains” mentioned here were the officers of the Levitical temple guards. These were the only troops Judah was allowed under Rome, and they were under the direct control of the religious leaders in Israel, particularly the chief priests. Now these officers, instituted by the LORD through David, become the chief priests’ own, private thugs in seeking to destroy the Lord Jesus Christ.

5. And they were glad, and agreed to give him money.

This circumstance is exactly what the chief priests were looking for. The knowledge of Judas would be helpful to them, giving them a chance to take Him when the eyes of the people were elsewhere. We do not know how public the Lord’s movements after His daily teaching in the temple were, or how much their spies had been able to figure out. Judas was aware of how the Lord operated, and so was able to tell them exactly where He would be and when. So they offer Judas just what he was looking for, which was money.  In Judas we see the proverb, “The love of money is the root of all evil” acted out for us.

Yet also this provided them with a traitor, someone who had been with Christ throughout His years of ministry, and who after all that time with Him could speak against Him. This is one they could point to and say, “See, Judas was with Him all that time, and He knew He wasn’t anyone special.” Whether or not Judas’ knowledge was something they didn’t have before, just this was enough to make them feel that an investment of money in a traitor like Judas would be well worth it.

6. So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude.

Judas accepted their agreement, and promised to seek an opportunity to betray Him to them when the multitude was absent. This is what the Lord’s enemies wanted. They knew how popular He was, and was afraid their agents would be torn to pieces by the people if they attempted to arrest Him in public. What they wanted was some quiet, out-of-the-way place where they could waylay the Lord and arrest Him without His devoted followers being aware of it. Again, we see no picture here of the Lord being rejected by the common people. The fact that they were on His side was the biggest obstacle His enemies had to overcome!
 
7. Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed.

Notice again how the words “Passover” and “Unleavened Bread” are not used always in their technical sense. In verse 1, we had “Passover” used to describe the entire feast of Unleavened Bread. Now, we have “Passover” used to describe the lamb or the kid that would be killed as the Passover sacrifice. The “Day of Unleavened Bread” here actually describes the day of Passover, even though technically the Feast of Unleavened Bread followed Passover. Therefore we can clearly see from this that the word “Passover” and the phrase “Unleavened Bread” are not always used in their technical sense.

Now I described the Passover as a lamb or a kid. This might bother some who are used to the familiar phrase “Passover lamb,” and who thus have assumed that it always was a young sheep that was to be killed on Passover. Yet these have not read their Scriptures carefully enough. For Exodus 12:5 declares:

5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats.

This statement might seem strange to us, for we do not think of lambs among goats. Yet what we are failing to realize is that the Hebrew word for “lamb,” seh, can mean either a young sheep or a young goat. In this case, the Lord makes it clear for us that either may be used. Thus “Passover kid” is just as accurate as “Passover lamb.”

Some have stated that the Passover lamb or Passover kid was killed on the day before the actual Passover feast in the yearly festival, even though in the first Passover it was actually killed on the same day it was eaten. The truth of this I have been unable to discover, but I have found no Biblical reason to think it was so. The argument is that there would not have been enough priests to kill everyone’s Passover in the hour or so before they would sit down to the Passover meal. Yet those who argue this do not realize that it never was the priests’ job to kill the Passover. According to Exodus 12, “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.” This made it the job of all the people to kill the Passover, and not the job of the priests. In fact, the Passover was instituted before either the Levites or the family of Aaron were chosen. At this time, every firstborn male was the priest for his family, and thus had the right to kill a sacrifice to the Lord.

Yet one might wonder if this changed once the Aaronic and Levitical priests were instituted? We can see that this is not so actually from an exception to it. This we find in II Chronicles 30:15-17, where the great Passover of Josiah is described.

15. Then they slaughtered the Passover lambs on the fourteenth day of the second month. The priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought the burnt offerings to the house of the LORD. 16. They stood in their place according to their custom, according to the Law of Moses the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood received from the hand of the Levites. 17. For there were many in the assembly who had not sanctified themselves; therefore the Levites had charge of the slaughter of the Passover lambs for everyone who was not clean, to sanctify them to the LORD.

Here we see that the Passover is sacrificed by the Levites for those among the assembly who had not sanctified themselves, and so could not sacrifice the Passover for themselves. This tells us first of all that those who DID sanctify themselves WERE able to sacrifice the Passover for themselves, and indeed that this was the USUAL procedure. It was not the job of the Levites or Aaronic priests to sacrifice the Passover for them. All the Passover animals could be sacrificed in a very short time for all the households in Israel because every leader of every household could sacrifice the Passover for his own family, as long as he had cleansed himself properly in the days leading up to the Passover.

By the way, this leads us to the very interesting conclusion that Christ Himself, as the leader among His disciples, doubtless was the One Who sacrificed the Passover for Himself and His disciples on the very evening before He Himself would become the Passover sacrifice by dying on the cross. And remember that the Jewish day started at sundown.  Thus, although they ate the Passover that evening and Christ died the next day, according to the Jewish reckoning method this was all the same day.  But we are getting ahead of ourselves, for in this verse it is still the day before the Passover when the lamb was to be killed for the yearly sacrifice.

8. And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.”

The Lord intends to celebrate the Passover, so He sends Peter and John to make preparations for the meal. They are to find a place for them to celebrate the meal, see to it that the necessary unleavened bread and bitters are provided, see to it that there are preparations for slaying the Passover lamb or kid, and so forth. No doubt Christ often entrusted His disciples with commissions such as this.

The word “sent” here is a form of the Greek word apostello, which we have seen has to do with commissioning with authority. The Lord had authority over Peter and John as His disciples, and so He could send them like this with His authority to make preparations on His behalf.

9. So they said to Him, “Where do You want us to prepare?”

Like good servants they seek to understand His wishes more fully. They want to know where He wants them to prepare for them to have the supper? Does He have a place in mind, or are they just to enquire around for available space?

10. And He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him into the house which he enters.

When they enter the city, they will meet a man carrying a pitcher of water. In our society, we might think that this would not have been unusual, but we should realize that this would have been very unusual at that time. Fetching and carrying the water was traditionally a woman’s job. If a man’s wife was dead, his sister or daughter would be likely to carry it. A niece or a cousin or any other female relation would do. Yet for a man to do it himself would be most unusual, and practically an admission that the man was completely alone, and had no woman who would carry the water for him. Therefore, to see a man carrying a pitcher of water would be a strange sight indeed at that time.

Moreover, to carry water in the middle of the day would have been foolish in the hot climate of Israel, as with the sun beating down evaporating the water, you would lose half of it before you got it back to your house. This is why water was almost always fetched in the cool of the early morning or evening. Therefore Peter and John must have had no trouble in spotting this man doing this unusual thing. Once they see this man, they are to follow him into the house which he enters.

11. “Then you shall say to the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’

They are to speak to the master of this house, who apparently is a different man from the one they will meet carrying the pitcher of water. They are to speak to this master of the house in the name of their Teacher. It appears that this man knew the Lord Jesus, and so would willingly give a room in answer to His request. Therefore, they are to ask where the guest room is where the Lord may eat the Passover with His disciples. Again, notice that the Lord will be the One presiding over this Passover, which leads us to believe that He would have been the One to slay the sacrifice.

12. “Then he will show you a large, furnished upper room; there make ready.”

The master of the house will then show them a large upper room, already furnished for what they need. There they are to make ready.

How was Christ able to inform His disciples of all these things? Christ may have already known this man and his room, yet certainly He could not have known about the man carrying the pitcher in any natural way. Yet we know that the Lord Jesus was far more than a man. He was utilizing Divine power to have this knowledge. This is available to Him, for He is God in human form. There is no knowledge hid from His eyes.

13. So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover.

The disciples go into the city, and Christ’s words come to pass exactly as He spoke them, as they always do. Thus they find this upper room, and make everything ready so that all is prepared for the Passover.

14. When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him.

Now the hour comes. From the Old Testament, we know that the hour for celebrating the Passover was after sunset at the beginning of Abib 14th. Once the lamb or kid was slain and its meat prepared, they had all night before sunrise to eat the Passover. Yet it did not take them all that long to get ready, with everything all prepared. So when they were ready, the Lord Jesus sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. This does not necessarily mean that only Christ and His twelve apostles were present at this event, though it does seem to be implied. Later in the evening there were others with them, however, so it is hard to say if these were really the only ones present at this time.

The twelve are called “apostles” here rather than “disciples.” Of course, this is the noun form of the verb apostello, and means these were men whom Christ had commissioned with His authority. Here, they are not exercising that authority, but merely sitting down to the Passover celebration with Him.

15. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;

Notice again that this is the Passover they were eating. We have had that made plain to us, for the Passover was mentioned in verse 1, verse 7, verse 8, verse 11, verse 13, and here in verse 15. Thus six times we have it emphasized to us that what the Lord and His disciples were doing was keeping the ancient feast God gave Israel called the Passover. Those who try to claim that this was not the Passover have to outright deny Christ’s words in this verse.

Notice how fervently Christ desired to eat that Passover with them before His suffering. If we ever might tend to think that this Passover was a “mere ritual” that God gave to Israel, we should rethink it when we read this passage. To God, these commemorations were not just an empty thing to be practiced by rote, but something that was dear to His heart. We can see that by His attitude towards eating it with His disciples here.

16. “For I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

Not only was this feast meaningful to Christ, but He tells them here that this is the last time He will eat of it until it finds its fulfillment in the kingdom of God. Thus Christ WILL eat of the Passover again in the Kingdom. Even though it might be fulfilled then, this does not mean that it will come to an end. Nor did things like the Passover end at the cross or with the “Christian era,” as many tend to think. The cross did not bring the Divine religion God gave to Israel to an end, and though it is not being practiced now, it will one day be restored. In fact, this will be Israel’s place in the Kingdom…to be the religious center of the world.

When I say that the Passover is not being practiced now, some tend to imagine that I am wrong, and that it is being practiced by those whose religion is “Judaism.” However, the Jews do not and cannot practice the religion God gave Israel today, for that religion cannot function without a working temple and priesthood. The religion called Judaism today was apparently developed by the rabbis after the destruction of the temple in order to keep the Jews together and to help them remember their traditions even when they could not practice their religion. It involves many things that are commemorations of the religion that God gave Israel, but that actual religion cannot and is not being practiced today. That certainly includes the keeping of Passover, which can only be kept in Jerusalem and with a lamb or kid as a sacrifice. The ritual the Jews do today that we might call “Passover” is in fact called “Seder,” and is actually a remembrance of the Passover, not the Passover itself. The Seder has many human traditions and rituals added to it until it little resembles the simple observance outlined in the Scriptures.

I received the following question:

Where does the next occurrence of Elijah fit in?  Jesus says in Matt 17:11 [NASB].

And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things;

And Malachi says in Mal 4:5-6 [NASB].

“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

So we know these things:
1) Elijah will restore all things (i.e. he is a principle actor in the restoration)
2) He will come prior to the return of Christ
3) The restoration he will bring will prevent the wrath of God

So where does he fit in?

He can’t come right after the Second Coming of the Spirit – for all things will already be restored. He can’t come during the Revolt against the kingdom – for the Revolt is a time of rebellion not of renewal He can’t come during or after the Second Coming of Christ – for it clearly says he must come before that time.

So will he be coming just prior to the Great Ingathering?  Or are we missing something.  I have some ideas as found in the book of Joel. I’ll talk more on this later.

I do not think you are correct that he cannot come after the Second Coming of the Spirit. When the Spirit is poured out on all flesh, one of the great results of that is that all men turn toward God and rightly consider what He is doing. Yet this does not cause all things to be restored. Israel is led back to their land, but that does not make all the things that make up Israel automatically reappear. There are many, many things in Israel that need to be restored. The lineages need to be restored so every Israelite can trace his line back to one of the twelve sons of Israel. The twelve tribes and their leadership councils need to be restored. The Levitical and Aaronic priesthood need to be restored, and the sons of Zadok identified. The temple needs to be rebuilt, and the proper worship that needs to go on there must be restored. The house and line of David need to be restored and set back up. The judges need to be restored as at the first. The city of Jerusalem needs to be restored as the place where God places His name. The feasts need to be restored, both as to their time and their proper observance. The Jewish calendar needs to be restored to God’s standards. And so on and so on.

The pouring out of the Spirit and the return to the land is just the beginning. Getting Israel out of their graves and back into their land is simply a start. The work of restoration that will have to go on at that point is tremendous. But God will easily be able to accomplish this. And He will do it through the ministration of Elijah, whom He will send back from heaven to accomplish this purpose.

I received the following question:

What is the ‘this’ referred to in Joel 2:28?  The Hebrew word for this is ken.  What is this?

It is difficult to say for certain. “This” could be the prophet’s own days, and he is saying it will come to pass once these evil days are ended. In Acts 2:17, this is explained as meaning “in the last (eschatos) days.” If this is explanatory rather than supplemental, it could tell us that this is what the prophet meant.

It could also refer to the days immediately mentioned in verses 18-27. This would mean that Israel will be restored before the Spirit is poured out on all flesh. One would have to examine to see if this fits other passages. My understanding has been that the Spirit is poured out on all first, and this is one of the things (actually, the major thing) that causes Israel to be restored.

Verses 28-32 could be a restatement of verses 18-27, and be giving further light as to how all these things came about.

Good catch on the “after this.” We will have to consider what exactly this means, and how it fits into the order of events.

I received the following comment:

I was reading some Sellers yesterday and something he said gave me a thought.  He was talking about the symmetry of man starting as dirt, receiving the breath of life, then when dying giving up the breath of life and returning to dirt.  I thought about how men have tried to fight this reality.  They don’t want to return to dirt.  So our dead bodies become placed in coffins, which we are told keeps us hermetically sealed from the soil around us.  Intrinsically we know that our bodies will be dirt, for that is why we bury at all. Understandably the modern reason we use sealed coffins is that we don’t want Aunt Louise to enter our drinking water.  But it does seem like we could use a bit of composting.  I guess that would be one way to facilitate new life

When it rains I am mud.

You are right in that we do tend to seal bodies up to not allow them to return to the dirt. I do not think that the Bible indicates that this is a requirement. Burial customs are mentioned in the Bible. I do not know that they are ever condemned by it. Some have pointed out that people are always buried/entombed in Scripture, never cremated or some such thing. Yet cremation is never condemned (or even mentioned that I recall,) nor is burial commanded. These were just customs of the day. Mummification is mentioned, and not condemned.

It seems that God has no commandment on how dead bodies are to be treated. Perhaps this is to emphasize to us the fact that they are dead, and what happens to dead bodies is not all that important. Yet there was some importance placed by the patriarchs on their bodies being returned to the land God promised to them for burial. Yet this was to express faith in God’s promises, not because they really needed to be there.

Ultimately, I do not think that burial customs are a big deal Biblically either way.

I received the following comment:

I read Zechariah today.  As a part of reading it I thought about how the tech in the Kingdom is shown as low tech.  The fact that they are using old-style weapons can be explained by the fact that at the start of the Kingdom all things weapon-like are destroyed.  But there is another explanation for the other things.  1) With the outpouring of the Spirit people would have less reason to need higher technology. 2) It is likely that by the will of God oil would be tapped out.

What thoughts do you have on this?

There does seem to be some indication that things will be more low-tech in the kingdom. There could be several reasons for this.

One you have hit on, is that all weapons are put to peaceful uses at the start of the kingdom, and so actual knowledge of the making and fashioning of high-tech weaponry is lost. There seems to be some indication that the weapons used in the last battle will be wooden, since they are used as fuel for fires after the battle is over.

However, there could be another explanation for this. Many of the words used to describe new technology are crafted at the time when the new technology is introduced. Either they did not exist in the past, or they were used to mean something else. It seems unlikely that God would introduce words that were either going to be misunderstood by His original readers, or else were not considered words at the time and so would throw them into confusion. In other words, it could be words like “swords” and “spears” are used to indicate weapons of warfare. Those may not be the weapons actually in use at that time, but we have our equivalents today, and so this fits with whatever technology might apply at the time.

This could also apply to other things besides weapons. For example, horses used to be their means of rapid travel. Now, we have automobiles. Automobiles are our “horses.” Thus, could “horses” be used to describe our replacement for them in the Bible? I do not see why this could not be.

You also make a good point that there might be less need for some of our technology in that day. For example, hospitals and healing devices will be unnecessary when God controls all sickness and health. Many of our devices are intended to make things faster. Yet it could be that such speed will not be necessary in a day when we are not living our lives on a collision course with death.

I do not know why God would tap out oil. I do not think oil is necessarily evil, though it is a product of many animals and plants dying. There are things that I think would definitely be ended very quickly, like pornography. What God will say about oil I do not know.

Ultimately, I do not know what technology will be like in the kingdom. Some things might be farther ahead of us than we can possibly imagine, other things might have regressed a long ways from where we have taken them today, and maybe shouldn’t have. In the final analysis, I suppose we will just have to wait and see.