Life Project Blog

Luke 22:7-23

Luke’s account of the Last Supper is interesting for its brevity. In such a brief account, two main themes seem to emerge; in this first part, the main theme is His sacrifice, in the balance of the narrative, it is their trails and roles in the Kingdom.

Luke begins with a brief account of the arrangements for the Passover meal (22:7-13) and then the hour came for them to sit down together. Notice that Luke refers to them as “apostles” for the first time in 22:14 as they sit down at the table; it was only a few verses earlier (22:11) that they were still called “disciples”.

Jesus opens with an interesting personal observation:

“I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” (22:15-16)

He was eager to eat the Passover meal with them one more time, for everything was about to change; there would be no more Passover dinners with Jesus. Some might suggest that this means we will have Passover in the Kingdom, but notice that He didn’t say that here; He said that the symbolic sacrifice of the Passover would be fulfilled.

That is something quite different.

Unlike other accounts of this event, Luke has Jesus taking the cup first and the bread second. Why he did this, I cannot say; I’ve read some scholarly essays on the question over the years, but I haven’t been convinced by any of them. I’ll only say here that I find it curious…

Notice that when Jesus takes the cup and divides it among them and tells them that He will not partake of the “fruit of the vine” again until the Kingdom of God comes. Then of course, He takes the bread and tells them that it represents His body which is to be given for them.

After the meal, He again takes the cup and tells them that it is His blood of the new covenant which is “poured out for you”. In these snippets we have the exact nature of the New Covent, which is the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham represented in the Passover sacrifice. To put little differently, in less than 24 hours from this moment, Jesus will perform the sacrifice that the Passover lamb put off and the need for any further sacrifice will be eliminated forever. Jesus’ sacrifice will indeed be the last and final sacrifice under the Old Covenant which will immediately be rendered obsolete by the New.

Amazingly, Jesus kept right on talking…

But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this. (22:21-23)

He’s just dropped the biggest theological bombshell of all time on the apostles, something they have never yet come close to comprehending, and then turns their attention to the fact that among their number is the man who will very shortly betray Him into the hands of those who will kill Him. This leaves a question: When the betrayal takes place, will the remaining apostles connect the dots?

Naturally, the guys being the guys, they begin to dispute among themselves who the traitor could possibly be… and which one of them is the greatest as we will see in the next part of Luke’s narrative.

Luke 21:5-36

In this section Jesus is speaking to the disciples about something that troubles many to this day; it all began innocently enough when they were noticing the amazing beauty of the Temple:

Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, ^“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” (21:5-6)

In the verses that follow, Jesus tells them that the Temple and the entire city of Jerusalem will soon be utterly destroyed. The context of the passage is easy enough to see in the two verses above, yet this is a controversy in certain quarters today. You can view this however you like; I’m not going to argue about it. For our purposes here, I will only give a few general observations, since I have written on the subject extensively in the past…

There is a much more detailed parallel passage in Matthew 24-25 and for those who are interested in further reading; I would suggest you check out my comments on those two chapters.

The disciples ask a reasonable question:

“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?” (21:7)

In Matthew’s account the question is slightly different:

“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3b)

I mention this difference because the answer Jesus gives in Luke’s account is easier to understand when compared with Matthew’s account of the question.

Jesus answers the question about the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21:5-24 and talks about His Second coming in 21:24-36.

Notice that in His reply about the destruction of Jerusalem, that there really isn’t a particular sign about when it will happen, other than the fact that things will be going along more or less as always. There will be rumors of His coming, rumors about wars and calamities, natural disasters and all the rest, just like always, indeed just like any day’s news in our time. The only sure sign would be when there is an army beginning to surround the city, and when that happens run!

Of course history tells us that Jerusalem was utter destroyed by Roman Armies in 70 AD.

Relating to the Second Coming, His primary message is that we be ready whenever He comes. If you look very carefully, the “signs” He mentions for the Second Coming you’ll see that they are things that seem to happen quite a lot through history. In fact, every generation from the First Century until the 21^st Century have believed His coming was right about at hand… but it still hasn’t taken place.

So what can do other than to be ready in case He comes today?

For further reading…

Matt. 24:1-3

Matt. 24:1-35

Matt. 24:36-50

Matt. 25:1-13

Matt. 25:14-30

Matt. 25:31-46

As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

Luke 21:1-4

It’s only been a moment or two since Jesus made His remark about the teachers of the law and their tendency to “devour widows’ houses” and then what should happen? Right there in front of them rich people are making a show of putting large sums into the collection box, followed by a poor widow putting in just a couple of copper coins. How’s that for timing?

As Jesus points out, the rich are putting in large sums they will never miss, and the poor widow is putting all she has and will likely go hungry as a result.

In strictly earthly terms, the rich with their large sums are buying influence and high honor with their contributions; no doubt the bystanders are quite impressed with the substantial sound of all that money clanging around in the collection box; how pious they must be!

Who would even notice the poor widow and her trivial contribution; get out of the way so someone can make a real contribution!

God, it would seem, isn’t all that impressed with the large contribution, for the rich person will not notice that it is gone. God takes note of the person who gives everything they have to His service, whether it is a great amount or a tiny amount, for they have given their all.

This provides a huge contrast with the false piety of those who would shortly have Jesus killed.

Then Jesus said to them, “Why is it said that the Messiah is the son of David?  David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:

“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”’

David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”

Luke 20:41-44

Jesus seizes the initiative with a thorny question of His own, and in so doing, not only are His opponents silenced, but He also has exposed the theological error that everyone seems to have about His Messianic mission in Jerusalem. Jewish teaching of the day emphasized that the Messiah, son of David, will come to the city to restore Israel as a great kingdom in the pantheon of Nations.

This, however is not to be the case, for Jesus has come to establish a Kingdom that is entirely apart from the pantheon of Nations, for it is not to be of this world at all. The Messiah would indeed be of the line of David, but the Messiah will be far greater than David. He might have the genetics of Davidic descent, but He will be the very Son of Almighty God.

Notice in the Psalm He quoted, David is speaking, and he uses the word “Lord” twice. The first refers to God the Father, the second to His Son. David calls the Son “my Lord” indicating that the paternity of Jesus vastly transcends genetics.

When you consider the actual wording of the Psalm, Jesus’ point is irrefutable and so His critics have nothing to say. Now, notice Jesus’ precise wording: He spoke of the Messiah in the third person… “he” and not “I”.

His time was now close at hand, but it hadn’t come quite yet.

Luke 20:27-40

Having failed to trap Jesus in two waves of attack, they try a third time. This time, the Sadducees move forward and pose a rather twisted hypothetical that is fraught with more political danger than it is with theological danger. The Sadducees and Pharisees had been at each others’ throats for a long time over the subject of resurrection from the dead; the Sadducees did not accept any sort of resurrection while the Pharisees did. Might they be able to get Jesus to push the Pharisees over the top with a hypothetical question involving resurrection and marriage?

Oh it was terribly clever, and it left the Sadducees with a great deal of plausible deniability in case the people were outraged, and every politician likes plausible deniability. Oh yes, if Jesus’ answer so angers the Pharisees that they kill Him right then and there, that’s a good outcome for the Sadducees. If that angers the people and they rise against the Pharisees that would be even better…

The hypothetical is based on the tradition that if a man is married and dies childless, his brother will marry the widow and produce children for the dead brother. The Sadducees run a crazy hypothetical in which seven brothers end up being married to the same woman, each in his turn, and they all die before a child is born. In the resurrection, whose wife would that woman be? You see, they could comprehend a man having more than one wife, but a woman with multiple husbands was beyond even imagining, so I’m sure they thought they had Jesus in a corner.

“Never underestimate your opponent.”

In His answer, Jesus smashes their idea about there being no resurrection without even addressing it directly. In the resurrection, there will be no need for marriage or children; we will be “like the angels” in this respect. When the Kingdom comes in its fullness, there will be no further need for bearing and raising children, for it is the full number of the redeemed who ultimately enter the Kingdom when Jesus returns.

Jesus went on to show that there had already been a resurrection of sorts, for God had long ago described Himself as “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” and our God is the God of the living, not of the dead.

There would be no further questions; they would need a new strategy.

However, Jesus wasn’t quite finished…