Speaking of Hermenuetics

There's a great post on Sola Scriptura over at the Pilgrim People blog by Michael Brown (HT: R. Scott Clark). One of the struggles I've had is how to approach the Scriptures recognizing both that the Holy Spirit is my greatest teacher, but that there is a rich history of His having taught others. I think to divorce ourselves from 2000 years of Church history is a categorical mistake.

If we make this mistake, we will pay a steep price. Brown notes:

Oddly enough, this kind of dismissal of historic theology actually does violence to Christ’s promise to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn 16.13) and bring to their remembrance all things (Jn 14.26) in order that Scripture would be preserved for the instruction of the church until the end of the age (Mt 24.35; 28.20). The early-American biblicists seemed to give no credit at all to the Holy Spirit’s work in history of gifting Christ’s church with pastors and teachers; rather, the early-American biblicists see the Spirit’s true work in ministry being that of immediate revelation and privatized religion. Ironically, the biblicists’ seeking of direct revelation and a “tabula rasa” illumination compromises their claim of “no creed but the Bible,” as one's personal experience is inevitably elevated to the place of Scripture.

Tragically, however, things have not changed for the better. As Hatch chillingly points out, “Americans continue to maintain their right to shape their own faith and to submit to leaders they have chosen.” The result of eighteenth and nineteenth century biblicism has been a church that increasingly looks less like New Testament Christianity and more like the egalitarian culture in which she lives. Populist hermeneutics and privatized, experiential religion has continuously had wide appeal to the American individualistic ethos. The “chronological arrogance,” to borrow C.S. Lewis’ maxim, of disparaging tradition and centuries of theologizing persists with cavalier vigor.

Hebrews 11 reminds us that we stand in a long line of those who have walked with God. That line does not stop with the closing of the canon but continues on even today. The Bible makes it clear that none of these are without fault, and therefore are not the primary resource. But they are faithful men who have passed truth on to other faithful men, eventually down to us. So while the Bible is always the final authority, my interpretation is not. I must always check my own biases by testing my interpretation against those who have come before and are contemporary with me.

What say you?

How Conservative Is Your Hermenuetic?

This link was sent to me earlier in the week. It's a 20 question quiz to determine how you approach Scripture. For those curious, I scored a 44, but I'm not sure the numbers mean much. As much as the terminology pains me, I would want to have a conversation about why a particular choice was made before even attempting to label the choice.

Now, I love the little quizzes like this. Anyone taken the "What kind of sports car are you quiz?" (HT: Craver) But that is more of a fun thing. How we interpret Scripture is important, and I'm not sure a number based on 20 questions can determine if we are conservative, moderate, or progressive. Some of the questions, I think at least, are not conservative versus liberal, like the question of prophecy (number 7). It is a very interesting question in thinking about how we interpret Scripture, but I'm not convinced how we answer it says anything about whether that interpretation is conservative or progressive.

So thinking about our hermeneutic and discussing how we reach conclusions when reading Scripture is a great idea. I'm just not sure the ranking is helpful. But with that said, just what was your score? :)

Loving God with Our Mind

In the previous post, I started addressing some issues raised (in my mind at least) by the post Letter about Those Pesky Calvinists on Jesus Creed. One of the things I hear from some of the commentors to this post is the old idea of simply following Jesus and not debating. One of the more recent comments states something along the lines of "let's just follow Jesus' two important commands."

In one sense, I have to acknowledge agreement with this type of sentiment. I once heard Dr. S. Lewis Johnson state that just because you win an argument doesn't make you right. Also, I know from my own heart that arguments sometimes don't influence me except to make me more strident in my own views. But what is interesting about Jesus' two important commands is that one piece of the great commandment is to love God with our minds.

So we have a responsibility to be intellectually engaged in our faith. This does not necessarily mean debate or argument, but it does imply that we have reasoned discussions about the truth. It may also mean that at times we are strident. Paul indicates in Galatians that he wishes bodily harm to those who are teaching falsehood. Even worse, he pronounces divine judgment on those who teach a different gospel.

There are points that could be made about this from larger sections of Scripture, like Paul beginning most of his letters with extended doctrinal reflection (in the case of Romans chapters 1-11). But I'm going to provide some verses for reflection (I would encourage reflecting on them in context).

Acts 20:26-27
Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
ESV

Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
ESV

Hebrews 5:11-13
About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
ESV

1 Peter 3:14-16
But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
ESV

In all this, Peter's point about gentleness and respect should not be lost. But the Bible is clear that we are expected to grow in knowledge and understanding. In this regard Paul tells the Ephesian elders he shared "the whole counsel" of God, not just two basic commands. The author of Hebrews is clearly disappointed that his readers had not progressed to a place where he felt confident they would understand Jesus' relationship to Melchizedek.

Beyond Wading

I'm not really an "art appreciation" kind of guy. Which is not to say I don't like paintings, and I even wish I could paint. I've watched the guy on PBS who can create a nature scene in 30 minutes and he makes it look easy. I still don't think I could do that.

Several years ago a group from the church I was attending in Dallas decided to spend a Saturday afternoon at the Dallas Museum of Art (the DMA). In the late '80s (referenced because I have not idea how the museums have changed in the last 20 years) I generally preferred the museum's in Fort Worth. They frequently had a more western theme. The DMA focused more on "modern" art and, I'm not looking for a lecture on art appreciation, I don't get it. For me, whether it is art, music, or literature, accessibility does not imply that the piece is less worthy, but that's a discussion for another time and place, perhaps.

Why I bring up the trip to the DMA is one painting had a significant impact on me. It was a large painting of a what I assumed to be the throne room for a great king. The room was in disarray, with the king slumped on his throne. At his feet on the stairs leading up to the throne was a woman with her head on his lap. Emotion radiated from the painting, and questions were raised.

What tragedy had befallen the king? Was it personal, or had the whole of the kingdom been affected? Was the woman the queen? I sympathized for the king and wanted to know more about what had occurred. Art, be it paintings, sculptures, stories, music, or otherwise, is at its best for me when it invokes a sense of wonder and stimulates a desire to know more.

At the end of Romans 9-11, after considering election, calling (both God calling us through the preached word and us responding by calling out to God for salvation by confession), and the relationship between Israel and Gentiles, Paul gets lost in doxology, expressing his sense of wonder at who God is. That doxology begins with:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

By saying God's judgments are unsearchable and that God's ways are inscrutable, I do not think Paul is telling us to not try to understand God. Yes, he is saying we will fail if our goal is to understand God fully. There are depths in those oceans that we will never plumb fully, even in eternity.

But that doesn't mean we should stay out of the water. In fact, I think Paul is encouraging us to get in the water and see just how magnificent our God is. Why spend more time talking about election? Because the Bible to me paints a wonder filled picture of who God is when the topic is discussed, and I want to know more. Election and the Trinity are both topics on which I dwell frequently because they are subjects that draw me into deeper waters and stir my soul to join Paul in doxology.

Doxology is fueled by theology and theology is made more potent by diving into the depths of revealed truth. In fact, I think to be all that we were made to be, we must grow in that revealed truth. A few passages I would encourage you to dwell on in this regard are Deuteronomy 29:29; Hosea 4:6; and Hebrews 5:11-6:2.

Paradoxical Teachers

Why, if as I proposed in the last post, if all real spiritual knowledge only comes from being taught by God, did I even bother posting the last post? In fact, doesn't the Bible tell us that there are those gifted by the Holy Spirit to be teachers, which would mean my previous post falls flat on its face?

I don't think so. I have to acknowledge that if pushed to an extreme, my last post would essentially lead one into a hyper-Calvinistic stance. Contrary to some popular opinion, a hyper-Calvinist is not simply someone who believes in predestination (that's ordinary Calvinism, and does not require that one deny the necessity of evangelism). A hyper-Calvinist believes so strongly that only God can "teach" us in a way that brings us to salvation, that man should not preach the gospel in a manner that calls the lost to be saved.

I want to affirm here the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which states (3.1):

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)

God's sovereignty over all things is exercised in such a way that the necessity of the actions of others is required. [Let me restate that with connections to the WCF: God's sovereignty over all things (whatsoever comes to pass) is exercised in such a way that the necessity (contingency) of the actions of others (second causes) is required (established).]

In relationship to the topic at hand of teachers, they are frequently the agents of God's act of revealing Himself to us. The primary tool that God uses to reveal Himself is the Scriptures, and we can learn from God by studying the Scriptures on our own. But God has gifted some to be teachers of the Scriptures so that through them we might learn more about Him.

God Draws

In a recent posts over at Craver's blog (see link on the right) he has been discussing T.U.L.I.P. and election. [TULIP is an acrostic for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. Otherwise commonly known as the five points of Calvinism.] In comments over there I made mention of John 6:44-45. I want to take a little time here to have a deeper look at John 6 and how it relates to a Reformed understanding of salvation.

As background, when I talk about salvation, while I think we are saved from many things by Jesus, I am primarily referring to being saved from the wrath of God. Some don't like to see salvation in terms of the wrath of God, but Paul says it is God's wrath that is coming on the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:6) and it is God's wrath from which he says Jesus delivers us (1 Thessalonians 1:10 - see also 2:16). I believe, therefore, that the Bible is clear that we all deserve the wrath of God. We do not deserve and we cannot earn salvation. God is obligated to save no one and would be perfectly just to condemn everyone to Hell. That He does save anyone is completely undeserved mercy. So if God chooses to save none, one, ten, a hundred, a great multitude, or all, He could do so and still be righteous.

Context

John 6 begins with John's account of the feeding of the 5000. The result of this is that the crowd wants to force Jesus to become king, so He slips away. The disciples enter a boat and begin to cross the Sea of Galilee, and Jesus walks across the water to meet them. The crowd therefor has to search to find Him the next day, and when they do Jesus rebukes them for seeking Him only for the food he provided (there's a message in this for many evangelical Christians, including me).

As part of this rebuke, Jesus tells the crowd that He is the bread from Heaven (the true manna). Then in v. 37 He makes the following pronouncement:

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Briefly, three of the five points in T.U.L.I.P. can be seen in this verse, if not completely established - (1) the Father gives is an expression of election; (2) that these will come is an expression of effectual calling (irresistible grace); and (3) that Jesus will never cast out is an expression of eternal security (perseverance of the saints). The last point receives additional support from the verses that follow.

Central Passage

The crowd is stirred up by what Jesus has said about being the bread of life. In response to the crowd's unrest, Jesus utters the following (John 6:43-45):

43Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

After commanding the crowd not to grumble at what He had said, Jesus then adds four things:

(1) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.
(2) And I will raise him up on the last day.
(3) It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’
(4) Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me

Let's consider each statement.

(1) Jesus tells the crowd that not only is it true that those that the Father gives come to Him (v. 37), but that no one comes apart from the drawing of the Father. This is the other boundary to v.37. All that the Father gives come, and none come that the Father does not give.

Some would disagree with that and interpret drawing here as the Father "wooing" us. They would claim that this is reference to a general call that goes out to everyone. In other words, the Father draws everyone, but not everyone comes. But the word draw here that John uses is the picture of water being drawn from a well. If you have never had the pleasure of drinking water drawn fresh from a well, fresh, cold water from a deep well is a great pleasure; but the water has no participation in being drawn and cannot refuse to be drawn. It is the work of the drawer which makes the water come.

Leon Morris in his commentary on John writes of the word "draw":

“There is not one example in the New Testament of the use of this verb where the resistance is successful. Always the drawing power is triumphant, as here.”

Those uses include John 18:10; 21:6-11; and Acts 16:19.

(2) Also, Jesus is clear that one who is drawn is saved. The evidence is in the assurance that they will be resurrected. So being drawn is not a momentary attraction to Jesus; it does not refer to those who may follow Him for a time and then leave - as many in this crowd and throughout the centuries have done (1 John 2:19) - but to those who are truly saved. None can come according to (1) apart from the Father's drawing, but those who do come are raised. Jesus is restating v. 37 to say that not only is it certain that all those given will come, but it is only the ones given who come.

(3) Jesus now turns to the Scriptures and quotes Isaiah. In the context of Isaiah this is a promise to the the Suffering Servant (Jesus) that every one of His children will be taught by God. Jesus is saying that Isaiah's prophecy is being fulfilled in Him, and therefore the Father teaches those who are truly disciples.

(4) And as all the children are taught by the Father according to (3), so, Jesus says, everyone who hears and learns comes to Him. James Boice says this about this verse in his commentary on John:

Why is it that you and I can present the gospel to some people and never seem to get anywhere, even when the circumstances seem entirely favorable? And why is it that others with maximum problems and limited understanding believe? The only answer is that God has taught the one person and has not taught the other. Moreover, all whom God has taught do come to Jesus.

Think about it this way. There are two boys who grow up together and have largely the same experiences. Both of them hear the gospel proclaimed and one responds and becomes a Christian while the other one rejects the gospel. Why? Why does one receive the good news when the other one rejects the good news?

You have two basic options. Either Jesus is saying here that only one is taught by God and therefore only one comes to faith, or He is saying that both are taught by God and only one hears and learns though God attempted to teach both. But if the latter is true, then there is something in the one that receives the gospel that allows him to be able to hear and makes him a better learner. So either salvation is all of God, or the one boy received the gospel because of something in himself - he contributed to his salvation.

Pulling It Together

Notice that in v. 37 and 44 the singular activity of people is coming to Jesus. All other activities are done (or not done) by Jesus or the Father. The Father gives, the Son does not cast out. The Father draws and the Son raises. The emphasis is on what God does. God is the primary actor in salvation.

But are there not some that are drawn but do not come? Does not the Bible say that many are called, but few chosen? Sure, some hear the gospel call and do not respond. But Jesus is not talking about the call that is given in evangelism. That call is an activity of man. Jesus is speaking about the work of the Father.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Not some that the Father gives, but all that the Father gives come. And none can come apart from the Father drawing them to Jesus. How is this drawing done? The parallel in v.45 says that those who come are those who learn from the Father. What do we learn? Much, but especially that we are sinners under His wrath who only find safety by hiding in Jesus and His righteousness.

A Word of Application for Young (and Some Old) Calvinists

It is frequently charged that Reformed Christians are arrogant and prideful. Too often this has been true. I have seen it in myself and others. Once my eyes were open to see election in the Scriptures, I could not understand why others did not see it. I was sure with the enough time and preparation, I could teach them.

But if we grasp what Jesus says here (that salvation is all of God and election is marked by learning from God), then I have no grounds for any boasting. Let us assume for a moment that regardless of how well I have defended the doctrine of election, that it is the truth. Then what I know I know not because I'm smarter, more spiritual, or better in any way than any one else. I know whatever I truly know about Jesus and my salvation because the Father has chosen to teach me about Jesus and my salvation. In spiritual matters, we are all terrible students. But God is a great teacher, and can overcome even my learning disability.

This does not mean we are not to study and think (I have other posts around here that deal with that, I think). But it means our study should be saturated in prayer and it means our knowledge should be wrapped in humility. For apart from God revealing Himself to us, we could know nothing.

Praise be to Him who has shown the light of the gospel into our darkened hearts.

Filler Videos

I'm working on a post that isn't cooperating (which is perhaps the only way blogs are nicer than preaching and teaching - if it hasn't come together it can cook a while longer). In the meantime, take a look at these:



This is from the same message as the previous Piper video I shared.

I've been thinking about Scripture since the PCRT conference this year. The following from Alistair Begg speaks to this issue.



This is RC Sproul discussing the significance of the Bible to the Reformation. This is something of an ad for the Reformation Study Bible (ESV), but there is enough content here to make it worth viewing.

Sovereign Gospel

I've been taking this class along with three other people from Grace and Peace. In the final week's reading was this quote:

"'The gospel has a sovereignty of its own and is never an instrument in the hands of the evangelist.' The good news is not ours to feel superior about or to use as a tool or a weapon. It is not our story; it is God's story." (Bryant Myers in Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development quoting Lesslie Newbigin on p. 216)

There is a sense in which the gospel is our story. Luther said that the pronouns make all the difference in the gospel - e.g. Jesus died for me. Luther was getting at the fact that we must see and experience the gospel personally, as, in a sense, our story.

But the quote is concerned not with how we experience the gospel, but who has ownership of the gospel. I see two implications/applications from this idea that the gospel has its own sovereignty. First, in regard to the Gospel not being a tool in the hands of the evangelist, the sovereignty of the gospel has been increasingly lost in America since at least the Second Great Awakening. The preacher/evangelist became the focus of the activity and the power of the gospel was downplayed.

Charles Finney's focus on methodology has had a serious negative impact on our preaching and teaching. This is seen in those who do not preach the whole counsel of God out of concern that the message will not be received. Instead of the message the emphasis is put on methods. The sovereignty of the gospel is not recognized either in the fact that we do not have the right to change it nor does it need to be changed to have an transform lives.

This is not to say that preaching today must be of one particular style, a monotone without emotion. If God used men to write Scripture such that the writings are stamped with personalities and passions of the human authors, then we should expect that the personalities and passions of preachers will come through the preached word as well. But the content of the message must not change in favor of what is perceived as more palatable (attractive) content.

Second, whether we would verbalize it or not, we tend to think and act like we are the caretakers of the gospel. We are like John wanting Jesus to act because someone who is not part of our circle is casting out demons. We are the enlightened and the gospel becomes a tool in our hands to exalt ourselves above the "heathen" (and we get to define who the "heathen" are). This attitude is not only misguided, but dangerous. It is the attitude of the Pharisees.

So long as people are not deny core truths (e.g. the Galatian heresy adding Law to gospel, or denials of the resurrection as addressed in 1 Corinthians 15), we cannot sit in judgment over them. We can, and should, dialog on matters of disagreement and try to come to the unity of the faith. But the gospel is sovereign enough not only over itself, but also over the human heart, so that it can work despite my lack of understanding and my false ideas. Therefore, I have to believe it can do the same for others.

If we want to fully participate in what Jesus is doing in these last days, then like John we are going to have to learn that He will use those not like us. Sometimes he will even use those that we may think should be stopped. Paul was even willing to rejoice in the proclamation of the gospel by those who were motivated out of a desire to see him afflicted.

Because the gospel is sovereign, and we are to be subject.

PCRT 2007 Grand Rapids

I'm not done with thoughts about Romans 12:18 (I want to deal with questions like - "why does Jesus say He came not to bring peace but a sword?") but while it is still fresh in my mind I want to reflect a bit on some items from the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (PCRT) this past weekend in Grand Rapids. This is not even intended to be something akin to Tim Challies live-blogging of a conference, just overall reflections.

First, I was a little surprised to learn that this was the first year the PCRT (this was the 34th year for the PCRT) had dealt with the subject of the Scriptures. Given Dr. Boice's long history of involvement in defending the inerrancy of the Scriptures, this seemed odd. But it was noted that there were other conferences in which Dr. Boice was involved that covered this topic. One interesting note is that Dr. Boice had commented that while evangelicals had won the battle over inerrancy, we are losing the war on the Scriptures. This was a statement about the general decline in the belief in the sufficiency of Scripture and a corollary decline in Bible knowledge.

Second, from a personal standpoint, I realized at one point that I was not as excited about this conference as I was the Desiring God conference last fall. In large part this was due to the speakers at the two conferences. Not because one group was more knowledgeable, or godly, than the other. Not because I feel one group is more able to represent Christ. But I was putting too much emphasis on the speaker, not enough on the Word itself. It is the Word that transforms life (and lives). God has promised to bless His word. Dr. Duncan's final address in the pre-conference seminar ("How to Listen to a Bad Sermon") in particular addressed this.

Which leads me to: third, in counterpoint to the second, this is not to say that the speakers are unimportant. There was an emphasis, particularly in the pre-conference seminar, on the need for preachers to be prepared and as engaging as possible. Much of Dr. Duncan's last session in the pre-conference seminar came from Richard Baxter's "A Christian Directory" Chapter 19, which provides much good information about how to listen well. But even Baxter, early in the chapter, writes:

"Live under the clearest, distinct, convincing teaching that possibly you can procure. There is an unspeakable difference as to the edification of the hearers between a judicious, clear, distinct, and skillful preacher, and one that is ignorant, confused, general, dry, and only scrapeth together a cento or mingle-mangle of some undigested sayings to fill up the hour with. [This was good for a laugh from the crowd.] . . . Ignorant teachers, that understand not what they say themselves, are unlike to make you men of understanding; as erroneous teachers are unlike to make you orthodox and sound."

I would like to reflect a bit on Dr. Carson's break-out session on recent underminings of the Scriptures, but I'll save that for later.

Just More Randomness

Tomorrow (okay, today now, if you want to be technical) I'm off to Grand Rapids. The long winter is (seems to be) over. I'm not sure if people who have always lived south of Tennessee can really understand cabin fever, but it will be nice to travel a bit and hear the Word proclaimed.

While reading this, one of the early lines:

I sometimes - not often enough - grieve at how little the Scriptures actually touch my heart.

reminded me of a song (most things do, I just don't usually talk about it, because, well, many of the songs from my youth might be better if I forgot them). It was off topic there, so I didn't post it as a comment, but thought I would bring it up here.

There was (still is, I think) a CCM group called Glad that was most popular in the '80s. One of their songs was "Most of the Time" which had lines like:

"And sometimes I hear You with Your gentle soothing voice;
Your words are always truthful, and they cause me to rejoice.

But most of the time I'm still not understanding,
the smallest part of what Your trying to say.
And most of the time I find that I'm pretending,
And the things that You desire get in my way."

The song struck me when compared to most Christian music of the time because it was not about how great everything was if you were a Christian. The song found hope and joy not in blessings in this life, but in total dependence on Jesus and the trustworthiness of the Scriptures:

"All of the time You say that You're perfecting me;
And everything You've said I know it's true.
And some of the time I'm close to understanding,
That it isn't up to me it's up to You."

That is the hope, that my sanctification, like my salvation, is in His hands, not mine. Not that I don't "press on" but that I know that "He who began a good work in me will be faithful to complete it." It is the message of Colossians 3:1-4 - focus on Jesus, on the Kingdom that is not fully here yet, not on this world which is passing away.

Which reminds me of a Bob Benson story . . .

Have a blessed weekend!

A Maundy Thursday Reminder

Luke 22:14-22

14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” (ESV)