THE WINE-THE BREAD-AND LUKE 22

 

 

What were we taught about the way to salvation? Did the original Worldwide Church of God ever teach that a person would receive eternal life first, and then be forgiven for their sins? The answer is a resounding, No, No, No!  We were taught just the opposite, that forgiveness and reconciliation comes first, and then eternal life. I believe that this is the correct view, and there is plenty of evidence to support it.

 

First, we know that a person is called by the Father with an opening of the mind to spiritual matters.  This person begins the process of repentance which leads to forgiveness through baptism, and then finally receipt of the Holy Spirit, which is actually the seed of eternal life. This normal process is shadowed in the original Passover of Exodus 12. Ancient Israel placed the blood of a Passover lamb on their doorposts first, then went inside and ate the roasted flesh of the lamb. The whole reason that the blood caused the Angel to pass over, is because Leviticus 17:11 tells us that it is the blood of a sacrifice, not the flesh that makes atonement for the soul. This is carried over to the New Testament in Hebrews 9:22, which teaches there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood first! In fact, the book of Hebrews reminds us that the ancient High Priest could only enter the Holy of Holies if He carried the blood of a specific sacrifice with him. We are also reminded that we personally, can only approach the Holiest through Christ’s blood. For us today, Christ substituted His blood with wine.

 

Okay, so at the annual Passover service, Baptized members would partake of the symbols of Christ’s sacrifice in a definite order, that being the eating of the unleavened bread first, then drinking the small glass of wine. We did that primarily because three of the gospel writers seemed to agree on the order and it just never dawned on us to question the order. The problem is that we have a possible dissenter in Luke, who may actually describe a reversal of the order. The question is tough to solve since the Apostle John is silent on the subject.

 

It had become clear to this author that it was time to reconsider Luke’s account because of the abundance of evidence throughout scripture that the correct order is what Luke seemed to describe. If a person chooses to eat the bread first, then this is symbolic of receiving eternal life first, and afterward receiving reconciliation through the blood of Christ. This is contrary to everything we were ever taught, and violates the principal of Exodus 11, that it was the blood that caused the angel to ‘Pass-over’.

Any ancient Israelite who was caught outside his home on Passover evening was not passed over, but rather suffered the penalty of death, never having opportunity to eat of the lamb itself. On the other hand, those who were inside their homes behind the protection of the blood on their doors, were passed over, escaping physical death, and thus able to eat of the lamb’s flesh.

 

It is no different for those who are spiritual Israelites today. Drinking the Passover wine for us is like the blood on the doorposts of our ancestors.  It too offers reconciliation, or the blessing of being passed over for the death penalty, thus then being given opportunity to eat of the unleavened bread, the symbol of the ultimate sacrificial lamb and of eternal life.  Now let’s examine Luke’s account.

LUKE 22

If we enlist the tenants of basic Biblical research, without prejudice, the truth begins to emerge. Luke’s account of the Passover is found in Luke chapter 22. In verse 17 Luke describes the dissemination of a portion of wine to each Apostle, and verse 18 is instruction related to drinking it. Then in verse 19 Christ portions a piece of bread to each with instruction for its use and the reason for it.

 

What about verse 20 though? Is it possible that verse 20 is where Luke remembers to describe what Christ said the wine was symbolic of, since he forgot to say it in verse 18? He had remembered to say what the bread was a symbol of in verse 19, but did not say what the wine was for.  Some argue that verse 20 is actually a second cup, since this view conveniently makes the account appear to agree with Matthew and Mark. This is very clever, but there are major problems with this idea.

 

The first problem is this:  If verse 17 and verse 20 describe two different cups (and I stress the word if), it is only the cup of verse 17 that is blessed, in exactly the same way as the bread is blessed in verse 19. Please note carefully, there is no blessing in verse 20.

 

The second problem is that many ancient manuscripts do not even contain verse 20, as it may not have been in Luke’s original writing, thus eliminating the argument altogether. Even the popular Greek- English New Testament has a footnote that casts doubt on verse 20. Another very popular translation, the New English Bible entirely leaves out verse 20! On the contrary, there never seems to be any question that verse 17 is a valid scripture, and is in the correct place, before the dissemination of the bread.

 

Now, what about the actual event that we picture in the Passover service of today?  What do we know about the Messiah’s own blood and body as He became the ultimate sacrificial lamb? One of the first things that He faced was being beaten with a special whip that brought blood and bits of flesh with every lash. Later a painful bloody crown of thorns was smashed down upon his head.  His blood was poured out all over the ground, in His eyes, and on himself. Exactly like the original lamb of Exodus, Christ’s blood (now symbolized by wine) was poured out first, and then He gave his body on the stake (symbolized by the bread).  Why would anyone wish to memorialize that event in a reverse order?

 

And finally, common sense Bible study of line upon line and precept upon precept can lead to only one conclusion; that the extremely important symbols of the Passover service must be taken in the order that agrees with the preponderance of sound historical Biblical evidence, especially in the face of doubt and confusion among the various Gospel writers. I personally cannot take the symbol of eternal life before the symbol of reconciliation. Though we have two Gospel writers who appear to agree on a specific order of the New Testament symbols, it is the opinion of this writer that the Bible offers much more evidence that the order of the symbols ought to be just the opposite. After all, the symbols are just that, visual portrayals of the two Passover events, the physical one in Exodus, the other, its ultimate fulfillment in our Savoir.