Luke 22:19-21 and Limited Atonement: Did Jesus die for Judas?

[SkillsMasters]

Hey guys, this is my first post on this forum, nice to meet all of you!

Anyways, I was reading Luke 22 today and came across Luke 22:20-21 where it says, "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.'"

Here, Jesus said that His blood is poured out for "you" (plural). In the next verse, we see that Judas was with Jesus. Does this seem to imply that Jesus poured out His blood for Judas as well and thus Jesus died for someone who was not one of His elect? Also in verse 19 where Jesus says, "This is my body, which is given for you."

How do we reconcile this with limited atonement?

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

An argument I've heard that's rather compelling is that Luke wasn't relating things in Gospel in a strictly chronological fashion. There's an argument to be had that Judas actually left the supper before the institution of the Lord's Supper, and was therefore not actually present at the time that Jesus said "This cup that is poured out for you" and "This is my body, which is given for you".

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Did Judas Partake of the Lord’s Supper?

Did Judas partake of the Lord’s Supper? The Gospel accounts seem contradictory. Luke seems to imply that he was there, but the others seem to imply that he had already left by the time the sa…

purelypresbyterian.com

 

[Grant]

Hey guys, this is my first post on this forum, nice to meet all of you!

Anyways, I was reading Luke 22 today and came across Luke 22:20-21 where it says, "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.'"

Here, Jesus said that His blood is poured out for "you" (plural). In the next verse, we see that Judas was with Jesus. Does this seem to imply that Jesus poured out His blood for Judas as well and thus Jesus died for someone who was not one of His elect? Also in verse 19 where Jesus says, "This is my body, which is given for you."

How do we reconcile this with limited atonement?

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers.

I believe Judas partook of the supper, just like when the ordained ministers today give the same words of institution, there are likely wolves present. The participation of Judas was unto judgment, a cup of wrath poured out. The blood of Christ is poured out for the elect alone; but this should not stop this truth being pronounced among the visible Church (the “poured out for you” phrase). The example of Christ should give ministers hope and peace for proper administration. Jesus was God/Man and He knew the traitor. Even with the most biblical fencing, a minister cannot truly know all the hearts of those whom he is addressing. This also helps us understand that partaking of the physical elements merely externally does not necessitate salvific benefits.

P.S. Matthew Henry, commenting on Luke 22:21, also states that scripture seem to place Judas as a participator in the Lord’s Supper:

I. He discoursed with them concerning him that should betray him, who was now present. 1. He signifies to them that the traitor was now among them, and one of them, v. 21. By placing this after the institution of the Lord's supper, though in Matthew and Mark it is placed before it, it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord's supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. There have been those that have eaten bread with Christ and yet have betrayed him. 2. He foretels that the treason would take effect (v. 22): Truly the Son of man goes as it was determined, goes to the place where he will be betrayed; for he is delivered up by the counsel and foreknowledge of God, else Judas could not have delivered him up. Christ was not driven to his sufferings, but cheerfully went to them. He said, Lo, I come. 3. He threatens the traitor: Woe to that man by whom he is betrayed. Note, Neither the patience of the saints under their sufferings, nor the counsel of God concerning their sufferings, will be any excuse for those that have any hand in their sufferings, or that persecute them. Though God has determined that Christ shall be betrayed and he himself has cheerfully submitted to it, yet Judas's sin or punishment is not at all the less. 4. He frightens the rest of the disciples into a suspicion of themselves, by saying that it was one of them, and not naming which (v. 23): They began to enquire among themselves, to interrogate themselves, to put the question to themselves, who it was that should do this thing,that could be so base to so good a Master. The enquiry was not, Is it you? or, Is it such a one?but, Is it I?

I believe Dr. Lightfoot & Gill also agreed.

 

[SkillsMasters]

I believe Judas partook of the supper, just like when the ordained ministers today give the same words of institution, there are likely wolves present. The participation of Judas was unto judgment, a cup of wrath poured out. The blood of Christ is poured out for the elect alone; but this should not stop this truth being pronounced among the visible Church. The example of Christ should give ministers hope and peace for poorer administration. Jesus was God/Man and He knew the traitor. Even with the most biblical fencing, a minister cannot truly know all the hearts of those whom he is addressing.

I see what you mean, that just as ministers today say those words there are likely non-believers present. I have to say, I think I might be more inclined to believe that Judas was not present. However, in verse 21, it does make it seem like Judas was with Jesus at that moment -- which is why He would say, "the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." What I'm thinking is whether or not Jesus said "this is my body which I have given up for you" to Judas as well. Did Jesus address that to Judas or only the other eleven disciples? What about you? Do you think Jesus was addressing Judas in that statement?

 

[timfost]

Judas, at that point, was "in good standing" and a disciple of Jesus. In instituting this sacrament, He left ministers afterward with a wonderful example, comforting them that they don't need to run an election litmus test (as if this were possible!) prior to distributing the elements. Ministers can distribute the elements with Christ's words "shed for you" while also acknowledging that people can eat and drink judgment on themselves (1 Cor. 11:29).

 

[Grant]

I see what you mean, that just as ministers today say those words there are likely non-believers present. I have to say, I think I might be more inclined to believe that Judas was not present. However, in verse 21, it does make it seem like Judas was with Jesus at that moment -- which is why He would say, "the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table." What I'm thinking is whether or not Jesus said "this is my body which I have given up for you" to Judas as well. Did Jesus address that to Judas or only the other eleven disciples? What about you? Do you think Jesus was addressing Judas in that statement?

Yes, I believe Jesus was addressing everyone present just like a minister would address the visible church today. Luke plainly shows Judas was present and if we take the “Luke wasn’t Chronological” argument, this creates more exegetical problems than it attempts to solve, in my opinion.

 

[timfost]

Yes, I believe Jesus was addressing everyone present just like a minister would address the visible church today. Luke plainly shows Judas was present and if we take the “Luke wasn’t Chronological” argument, this creates more exegetical problems than it attempts to solve, in my opinion.

Agreed, Luke is the most chronological of the synoptic gospels. Arguing that this portion is not chronological is both exegetically difficult and leaves ministers an insufficient example.

 

[SkillsMasters]

Yes, I believe Jesus was addressing everyone present just like a minister would address the visible church today. Luke plainly shows Judas was present and if we take the “Luke wasn’t Chronological” argument, this creates more exegetical problems than it attempts to solve, in my opinion.

I see what you mean. I'm personally more inclined to believe that Judas was not present. The reason why is because ministers today have no way of knowing who is elect and who is reprobate, but Jesus did know the fate of Judas. If Jesus knew that Judas would not be saved and that His blood and body were not given for Judas, wouldn't Jesus be knowingly saying something that isn't true? I guess that's my main difficulty with accepting that interpretation. Although I do see some of the problems with the "Luke isn't chronological view" given that Luke 1:3 says that his gospel is an "orderly account."

 

[Grant]

I see what you mean. I'm personally more inclined to believe that Judas was not present. The reason why is because ministers today have no way of knowing who is elect and who is reprobate, but Jesus did know the fate of Judas. If Jesus knew that Judas would not be saved and that His blood and body were not given for Judas, wouldn't Jesus be knowingly saying something that isn't true? I guess that's my main difficulty with accepting that interpretation. Although I do see some of the problems with the "Luke isn't chronological view" given that Luke 1:3 says that his gospel is an "orderly account."

Christ gave this sacrament not to ministers who have x-ray soul vision, but to the ministers of a VISIBLE Church. Christ gives ministers an example. By your own reasoning, seeing a “problem” as Christ possibly lying, then would you also not have to say that faithful ministers around the world, giving the same words of institution, are also liars?
I don’t see your same problem. I believe the “you” is qualified in the same way we need to use scripture to interpret scriptures with phrases that on the surface seem to say that “Christ died for the sins of the world”.

Christ gives us an example of this qualification of “you” in John 13:17-18.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I see what you mean. I'm personally more inclined to believe that Judas was not present. The reason why is because ministers today have no way of knowing who is elect and who is reprobate, but Jesus did know the fate of Judas. If Jesus knew that Judas would not be saved and that His blood and body were not given for Judas, wouldn't Jesus be knowingly saying something that isn't true? I guess that's my main difficulty with accepting that interpretation. Although I do see some of the problems with the "Luke isn't chronological view" given that Luke 1:3 says that his gospel is an "orderly account."

there are different kinds of order than chronological

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Agreed, Luke is the most chronological of the synoptic gospels.

You sure about that???? Luke has John the Baptist arrested before baptizing Jesus, for example.

 

[timfost]

You sure about that???? Luke has John the Baptist arrested before baptizing Jesus, for example.

Do you disagree with my statement as stated? If so, which gospel do you think is the most chronological?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Do you disagree with my statement as stated? If so, which gospel do you think is the most chronological?

Luke is the most chronological of the four Gospels. But likely not perfectly so.
In Luke 1:3, we find the first of five occurrences of the word 'καθεξῆς,' which appears only in Luke/Acts. In the ESV, the word is translated as orderly, soon afterword, those who came after, order, and next. Here are the verses in order (pun intended) Luke 1:3 ESV; Lk 8:1 ESV; Acts 3:24 ESV; Acts 11:4 ESV; Acts 18:23 ESV.

When Luke tells about John's imprisonment In Luke 3:18-21, the context is not presenting a chronological order. Instead, Luke gives a precise date of the beginning of John's ministry (Luke 3:1), followed by a brief biography of John's entire ministry through his imprisonment. (Luke 3:1-20) It is easy to see that this passage is not a chronology.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I think Luke is largely arranged topically. Mark is frequently the most chronological, using a lot of time markers.

 

[jongsg01]

Dear friend,
I think it may be helpful to consider what the Belgic Confession teaches us in Article 35:

Further, though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified, nevertheless both are not received by all men: the ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he doth not receive the truth of the sacrament. As Judas, and Simon the sorcerer, both indeed received the sacrament, but not Christ, who was signified by it, of whom believers only are made partakers.

Furtermorer, consider the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 30, Q/A 81:

Q. 81. For whom is the Lord’s Supper instituted?
A. For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ, and that their remaining infirmities are covered by His passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Finally, the Word of God never contradicts itself. What may not be clear in one place, will be made plain in another, for instance in Matthew 1 vers 21:

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The Dutch Annotations tells us concerning 'his people':

That is, those who were given Him of the Father to redeem or to save them, Psalm 2:8; Isa. 8:18; John 6:37 and 17:24; Acts 18:10; Rom. 11:1, 2.

May we receive a teachable spirit. I am in constant need of it

 

[Eyedoc84]

For my part, I do not know whether Judas was present or not. From what I can tell none of the gospels are explicit. Sometimes “the twelve” is a designation of the apostolate, without the intent of being a precise head count. But it really has no bearing on my theology of the sacraments or atonement either way.