Judas and Last Supper

[Reformed1689]

It is insisted by some that the last supper proves Christ died for Judas. I have argued that John 13 dismisses the idea. However, I was told that the TR translation of after supper is correct and that during supper or before supper must be corrupt. So, I looked up every commentary I could find. And here is what I found.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I always thought what the bible says about the son of perdition was pretty straightforward. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Reformed1689]

I always thought what the bible says about the son of perdition was pretty straightforward. Guess I was wrong.

You would think so...

 

[atpollard]

It is insisted by some that the last supper proves Christ died for Judas. I have argued that John 13 dismisses the idea. However, I was told that the TR translation of after supper is correct and that during supper or before supper must be corrupt. So, I looked up every commentary I could find. And here is what I found.

So “after supper was served” and before supper was ended seems the consensus.

For those that missed the “first episode” (or are just slow on the uptake) … how does this prove/disprove Jesus died for Judas (the Son of Perdition)?

 

[Van]

Of course Jesus died for Judas, He died as a ransom for all. But does that mean Jesus paid for his specific sins, such as the false doctrine of PSA claims? Nope 2 Peter 2:1

 

[Reformed1689]

So “after supper was served” and before supper was ended seems the consensus.

For those that missed the “first episode” (or are just slow on the uptake) … how does this prove/disprove Jesus died for Judas (the Son of Perdition)?

The argument has been that Judas was present when Jesus said this is my body which is broken for you and that must mean he died for Judas as well. My point is that in John 13, which happened before that part of the supper, Jesus is on record as saying that he is not speaking to all of them even when he says "you".

 

[Reformed1689]

Of course Jesus died for Judas, He died as a ransom for all. But does that mean Jesus paid for his specific sins, such as the false doctrine of PSA claims? Nope 2 Peter 2:1

1. That is off topic for this thread, please start a different thread. 2. You need to look at some context.

 

[37818]

. . . and that must mean he died for Judas as well.

That mere fact does not prove any such thing. What supports the notion Christ died also for Judas is the teaching where the plural you is used. Luke 22:20, ". . . the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. . . ." Jesus was explicitly addressing those partaking of the remembrance He instituted. Also a use of a plural you is used to refer to others beyond the audiance spoken to.

That Judas was at and partook the institution of the remembrance is an important historical fact that is typically been denied in gospel harmonies. Also the fact that foot washing is a common practice, and is in some way ingnored in supposing Jesus' doing a foot washing was for that purpose before some eating. When their feet had already been washed unmentioned. It was just understood that foot washing was done.

 

[Reformed1689]

That mere fact does not prove any such thing. What supports the notion Christ died also for Judas is the teaching where the plural you is used. Luke 22:20, ". . . the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. . . ." Jesus was explicitly addressing those partaking of the remembrance He instituted. Also a use of a plural you is used to refer to others beyond the audiance spoken to.

That Judas was at and partook the institution of the remembrance is an important historical fact that is typically been denied in gospel harmonies. Also the fact that foot washing is a common practice, and is in some way ingnored in supposing Jesus' doing a foot washing was for that purpose before some eating. When their feet had already been washed unmentioned. It was just understood that foot washing was done.

You have completely missed the point.

 

[37818]

You have completely missed the point.

What point of argument did I miss?

 

[Reformed1689]

What point of argument did I miss?

I am not arguing that Judas was not present. I believe that can be debated as to how long he was present, but he was at least present for part of the supper. What I am saying is that in verse 18 Jesus has already demonstrated that the promises he is giving in that room is not for everyone present, namely Judas. So you then bank your position on Jesus saying this is my blood given for you. But he has already made clear he is not making his promises to everyone in that room.

 

[37818]

I am not arguing that Judas was not present. I believe that can be debated as to how long he was present, but he was at least present for part of the supper. What I am saying is that in verse 18 Jesus has already demonstrated that the promises he is giving in that room is not for everyone present, namely Judas. So you then bank your position on Jesus saying this is my blood given for you. But he has already made clear he is not making his promises to everyone in that room.

John 13:18, ". . . I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. . . ."
Jesus was refering in "not of you all" to Judas. ". . . He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."
Now it is understood, ". . . I know whom I have chosen: . . . ." excluded Judas. The subject of what Jesus was saying was "not of you all" was the fulfillment of Scripture refering to Judas.

So from that you suppose the "you" in Luke 22:20 exclued Judas? What am I missing here?

 

[Reformed1689]

John 13:18, ". . . I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. . . ."
Jesus was refering in "not of you all" to Judas. ". . . He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."
Now it is understood, ". . . I know whom I have chosen: . . . ." excluded Judas. The subject of what Jesus was saying was "not of you all" was the fulfillment of Scripture refering to Judas.

So from that you suppose the "you" in Luke 22:20 exclued Judas? What am I missing here?

Again, this is a part of an overall event. The promises of that evening are not to Judas. He had already been written off from the disciples as the betrayer. He was there but no longer a part of them.

 

[Reformed1689]

@37818 This thread is dealing with the fact that the footwashing did not take place AFTER the meal was over. The KJV has it wrong.

 

[37818]

Again, this is a part of an overall event. The promises of that evening are not to Judas. He had already been written off from the disciples as the betrayer. He was there but no longer a part of them.

Judas was never a believer. John 6:70. Luke 22:21-22, ". . . But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! . . ." Acts of the Apostles 1:16, ". . . Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. . . ."

 

[Reformed1689]

Judas was never a believer. John 6:70. Luke 22:21-22, ". . . But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! . . ." Acts of the Apostles 1:16, ". . . Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. . . ."

So then you agree he was not one of the sheep and Jesus did not say he laid his life down for everyone, he laid his life down for the sheep.

 

[37818]

@37818 This thread is dealing with the fact that the footwashing did not take place AFTER the meal was over. The KJV has it wrong.

The problem would be 99.5% of the copies of John handed down would be corrupt until the 19th century, for that one reading. That number of mss can call to question even the 100% the text of the New Testament, would it not? But then Luke would be wrong "after the supper" that Jesus instituted His remembrance too. As it is, interperters from the second century have a lot of things wrong. Baptist claims go out the window.

 

[37818]

So then you agree he was not one of the sheep and Jesus did not say he laid his life down for everyone, he laid his life down for the sheep.

I never made any such claim.

 

[Reformed1689]

I never made any such claim.

Which claim?

 

[Reformed1689]

The problem would be 99.5% of the copies of John handed down would be corrupt until the 19th century, for that one reading. That number of mss can call to question even the 100% the text of the New Testament, would it not? But then Luke would be wrong "after the supper" that Jesus instituted His remembrance too. As it is, interperters from the second century have a lot of things wrong. Baptist claims go out the window.

Did you read the commentaries I posted? The KJV got the TRANSLATION wrong