Here’s a question I had today…Did Judas participate in the Lord’s Supper. There seems to be some debate. Note:
1. Luke 22 has the Lord’s Supper before the statement about the betrayer.
2. John 13 has no timeline.
3. Mark 14 has Jesus talking with Judas, exposing the betrayal, then the bread and cup were passed, but the departure of Judas is not stated.
4. Matthew 26 mimics Mark 14.
If he did participate in the eucharist, what does this say about the eucharist? What does this say about closed communion or open communion? If he did participate, how and when did this get modified in the Pauline corpus?
I’m not implying anything, just asking some questions…
If you found this page useful, consider linking to it. Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site. It will look like this:
Judas and the Lord’s Supper
Related Posts:
Gospel of Judas foundWhat takes the place of foot-washing?
Can non christians do the work of God?
The Trail of Blood…
Emerging churches don’t read scripture, offer up public prayers, etc.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Good questions.
IMO, it seems that Judas did partake of the Last Supper with Jesus and the other apostles. If he did, does that say anything about (or in favor of) open and closed communion. I don’t think so. Both open and closed communionists believe that the Supper is only for believers, so on that count Judas comes up short for either position. Only in the mind of Christ was his true character known. The other disciples did not see or know it. No doubt many unbelievers today also partake of the Lord’s Supper (unknown to the church) without any initial intervention by the Lord. Is that what you are referring to in the Pauline corpus?
July 12th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
RL…good thoughts…I’m wondering the role of communion in Paul; it was part of the feasts that the Christ-followers would have. What was occurred for visitors at the meal? Were they allowed to participate?
What about Christ-followers from other cities? How were they determined to be proper for communion? Paul says we shouldn’t take communion in an unworthy manner, which many have recognized as having sin in our life, etc; so what does that say about Judas? Would Paul let Judas participate?
I’m just thinking out loud…
July 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Becoming aware of the practice of the house church movement with the agape meal in connection with the Lord’s supper has challenged some of my thinking. So I must say I’m in the thinking out loud mode, too.
I am from a tradition in which the church/churches took an active part in confining the communion to those to whom they thought is should be restricted (church members only or “like faith and order). This took various forms — church members stand, church members come to the front, or the preacher clearly defined immediately before the distribution of the elements for whom they were intended. Today, I lean more toward a lesson preceding the communion which includes information on for whom it is intended, but when the actual commeration takes place, “let a man examine himself” as to whether he fits those qualifications rather than the church trying to actively engage in keeping certain people from the elements.
That’s kind of confused, and doesn’t really answer your questions. On your last question, I guess one question I have is — are we speaking of Paul knowing what we know now (who Judas really was), or Paul knowing only what the apostles knew at the time of the Last Supper?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:05 am
R.L.,
It sounds like perhaps you and I are not all that far apart, after all, in our views on closed/open communion.
I am curious, though. What would you do if someone, whom you knew to not have been properly baptized, upon self-examination, considered themselves to be partaking worthily? Would you intervene to make sure they didn’t partake, or would you leave it between them and the Lord?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Brother David (Rogers), I’m not sure I can satisfactorily answer your questions, since that is the part about which I’m thinking out loud. My debate with myself is how much responsibility does the church have to make sure no “improper ” partake of communion.
Let me go backwards briefly and come back to it. I am firmly convinced that faith in Christ, baptism (believers’ immersion) and church membership are prerequisite to communion. I think a church should preach and teach that. I think that prior to communion this should be made clear. My question/debate then is, beyond that, how much responsibility do we have to see that is corresponded with? The first and most important element we cannot see or know infallibly. The second and third are more visible. I am at this point leaning to the possiblity that once the church has “preached” the truth, she has fulfilled her responsibility and the participant then becomes responsible for his/her action. We do this with preaching the gospel, don’t we? We are commanded to preach the gospel, but we are not enforcers of whether or not one believes it. But maybe that’s not even parallel.
If one followed this route, the practical results would probably not look any different from your own practice, though there would be a difference in whom we actually invite to participate. I guess this doesn’t directly answer your question. I suppose my answer is “I’m not sure.” In my past experience, if a person was actually known to be unbaptized, for example, the elements would not be offered to that person.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
R.L.,
I really appreciate this conversation, because it seems to me we are really making some progress at understanding each other, and not just pre-judging.
I think I agree with you that, “If one followed this route, the practical results would probably not look any different from [my] own practice.”
Perhaps the main core difference would be a different understanding of what communion is really about. I think we would both be in agreement that it is about remembering and reflecting on the sacrifice of Jesus, and the blood He shed, and his body that was broken for us.
I also believe that it has do to with celebrating the unity we share as Christ’s Body here on earth. I am not sure or not if you would agree that it is important to celebrate and put into practice the essential unity of all those who belong to Christ through the new birth here on earth at this moment.
I do believe it is important to examine ourselves before partaking of the Lord’s Supper, and that, as individuals, before the Lord, we should not do so with known unconfessed sin. To do so would be eating and drinking judgment unto ourselves.
I also would agree with you regarding our responsibility as believers, who accept Baptist interpretation, of preaching the truth regarding believers baptism by immersion, and church membership. We should not compromise regarding this.
I also believe that, in cases where the church specifically disciplines someone, it is also the responsibility of that church to not open up participation in the Lord’s Supper to that person.
However, I am not sure that another persons bad interpretation of Scripture on baptism and church membership is a valid reason for effectively “disciplining” them. As I understand it, there are many similar level questions, regarding Scripture interpretation, on which not even classic Landmarkers would think to actually “discipline” someone. Or, maybe I don’t understand Landmark teaching on this point.
Don’t take this as arguing. I am really interested in how you would answer these points, because we really do seem to be making some good progress at understanding each other, that I have not been able to make with others holding views similar to your own before.
Blessings, and love in Christ,
David
July 14th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
David, I’m sure that we have some difference in the understanding of “what communion is really about.” Like you, I believe that it is “remembering and reflecting on the sacrifice of Jesus, and the blood He shed, and his body that was broken for us.” But we’ll part ways somewhat when discussing it as celebrating “the essential unity of all those who belong to Christ through the new birth here on earth at this moment.” It seems there is at least some element of unity intended. The one body/one bread (loaf) imagery of I Cor. 10:16-21 indicates that. But it seems to me that the unity of New Testament Christians is in some way expressed in the commonality of repentance, faith and baptism. With the exception of the extreme case of the thief on the cross, there seems to me to be no “baptism-less” Christianity in the New Testament.
Concerning cases where the church specifically disciplines someone, it certainly seems proper that the church bar that person from communion. This may call in question the possible practice I floated in the first two posts, in which the church ultimately bars none after describing who should and should not partake.
Also concerning discipline, I have often heard this used as a reason why (at least some) non-members should be barred from communion. Expressed something like this: “If a person believes such-and-such, he/she would be excluded and barred from participating in communion. So if a person is a member of a church that believes such-and-such, that person should also be barred from communion. Something less would be hypocritical.”
I hope this helps in your understanding what I’m thinking and what I believe. Please understand that my view is probably not very representative of others who hold a restricted communion view. I can enjoy “debating”, but discussions such as this are more profitable, IMO.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
David, this part should say:
“If our church member believed such-and-such, he/she would be excluded and barred from participating in communion. So if a person is a member of another church that believes such-and-such, that person should also be barred from communion. Something less would be hypocritical.”
October 12th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I found your discussion interesting but I would like to ask “Was not the Lord’s Support an ordnance given to the local new testament church just like baptism?” As I see it, the local church has a duty and responsibility to not change the methods they follow as they observe/keep the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. (ie, immersion by a scriptural authority following salvation and a public profession of faith and in the case of the Lord’s Supper not changing the elements as examples) In 1 Cor 5:12, Paul make the point that they (the church at Corinth) judge those that are within and goes on to say “what have you to do to judge them also that are without?”.
It appears to me that:
1. The Lord’s Supper was given to the local church and to be kept as an ordnance.
2. The Lord’s Supper was only to be taken by church member known to be in good standing.
3. The determination as to whether or not a person was in good standing was two fold. First the church had to determine fitness and secondly the candidate had to exam him self prior to partaking.
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
D. Lennie