It’s Good Friday, and one of the things that means is that you’ll be seeing the “Judas ate, too” memes.

Some have even gone so far as to have it tattooed on their bodies.

The implication is this: Jesus knew Judas was going to betray Him to His death, but He still gave him a place at His table.

And of course, this quickly turns into a Jesus juke: If Jesus—knowing full well that Judas was going to betray Him to His killers—ate with him; you should be willing to eat with the person who has harmed you.

Now, of course disciples of Christ want to be like our Lord. But consider the outcomes of following the logic here. These aren’t theoretical, by the way. These have happened.

You must be willing to eat with your rapist.

You must be willing to worship beside the child predator.

You must stay with your abusive spouse.

You must put up with the church bully.

Because it’s What Jesus Would Do.™️ After all, Judas ate, too.

Now, before we go voluntelling other Christians for physical, mental, and moral peril, should we not pause to ask: Wait, is that really the point? Is that even what happened?

Because—listen—a Jesus juke that’s not founded upon careful exegesis of the text and theological discernment is actually blasphemy and idolatry. It’s idolatry because you’re creating a false image of Christ. And it’s blasphemy because you’re putting a commandment in His mouth that He never gave.

So we really need to consider this claim from three angles. First—exegesis. Does the Bible support the claim? Second—theology. What are the doctrinal implications if this is so? And third—praxis. What would be the practical consequences of living out Judas ate, too, in real life?

Exegesis

Generally speaking, the notion that Judas ate, too is founded upon a couple of isolated passages. For example, John 15:26-27:

Jesus replied, “He’s the one I give the piece of bread to after I have dipped it.” When he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, Simon Iscariot’s son. After Judas ate the piece of bread, Satan entered him. So Jesus told him, “What you’re doing, do quickly.”

CSB

Just here, we need to note something incredibly important. Yes, Judas ate dinner with Jesus the night he betrayed Him.

But did he eat the Lord’s Supper, which Christ instituted that night, and which betokens intimate fellowship between Christ and among those who share in it: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians‬ ‭10‬:‭16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)?

That’s really the crucial question.

This is where some will turn to Luke, where it appears that Judas is not exposed as a traitor until after Jesus gives His disciples the Lord’s Supper.

In the same way he also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But look, the hand of the one betraying me is at the table with me. For the Son of Man will go away as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!”

Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬-‭22‬ ‭CSB‬‬

This seems like a slam dunk for the #JudasAteToo movement, until we remember that Luke sometimes departs from chronological order, but topical. For example, in Luke 3:19-20, he records John the Baptist’s imprisonment before John baptizes Jesus (Luke 3:21-22). He is likely doing something similar here. Luke is wanting to highlight the continuity and the discontinuity between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:15-19). His point is not that “Judas ate, too.” Rather, Luke seems to be foregrounding the Lord’s Supper, then moving on to Judas’ betrayal. Thus, he is describing the events of the Last Supper topically, not chronologically.

This is borne out when we compare Luke’s account to those of the other Gospels, so a chronology can be established. Matthew and Mark place the institution of the Lord’s Supper after Judas is exposed as the traitor (Matthew 26:21-26; Mark 14:18-22). And John’s Gospel, Judas departs as soon as he is revealed as the traitor (John 13:30). Thus, if we carefully observe the witness of all four Gospels, it is clarified that Judas was not present when the Lord established His Supper. When it came to sharing in the body and blood of forgiveness and reconciliation Judas does not eat, too.

This is further proven by the detail of how Judas is exposed. John 13:26 agrees with Matthew and Mark about how the betrayer is revealed: Jesus replied, “He’s the one I give the piece of bread to after I have dipped it.” When he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, Simon Iscariot’s son (John‬ ‭13‬:‭26‬ ‭CSB‬‬; cf. Matthew 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21). Now, this dipping of the bread happened while they were eating (Matthew 26:21; cf. Mark 14:18); that is, while they were eating the Passover. But Luke explicitly states that Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper after supper (Luke 22:20). This is confirmed outside the Gospels in 1 Corinthians 11:25.

So, did #JudasEatToo? Not the eating and drinking that mattered. Not the bread of which Christ said: This is my body, which is given for you; and not the cup of which He said: This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you (Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬ ‭CSB‬‬). No, of Judas, Christ would say: I’m not speaking about all of you; I know those I have chosen. But the Scripture must be fulfilled: The one who eats my bread has raised his heel against me (John‬ ‭13‬:‭18‬ ‭CSB‬‬).

Careful exegesis reveals that #JudasAteToo just isn’t true. We must guard against overly sentimentalizing the love of Christ. We must not downgrade the robust love of the Lord for His people by flattening it out into a sort of bureaucratic “common grace” which welcomes sheep and wolves equally.

Theology

Scripture actually has a robust doctrine of who should and should not receive the Lord’s Supper. Jude, for instance, warns of those who are dangerous reefs at your love feasts, feasting without reverence (Jude‬ ‭1‬:‭12‬ ‭NET‬‬). That is, their very presence at the Lord’s Table threatens to shipwreck others.

Jesus wouldn’t even pray for Judas as He did for the other Apostles, and for the believers who would come after them: I guarded them and not one of them is lost, except the son of destruction … Now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy completed in them (John 17:12, 13 CSB). Now, would He then expect that His followers would commune with unrepentant abusers, predators, bullies, and evildoers at His table?! God forbid!

This is the point where I need to shout: The onus is not on the victim to sit at the table with their abuser! The onus is on the one administering the sacrament to fence off the table against bullies, abusers, and predators!

And, I go further: Those administering at the table must even be willing to physically put their own bodies between the perpetrator and the table. If they had hair one on their bannocks, they would. Because St. Paul doesn’t mince any words here: I wrote you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister and is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person (1 Corinthians‬ ‭5‬:‭11‬ ‭CSB,‬‬ emphasis added).

So far from #JudasAteToo, the entire witness of the New Testament is that victims are not only not expected to eat with their Judas; the Judases are to be removed from the table!

But someone will ask: Aren’t we all Judas? Haven’t we all betrayed Jesus with our sins and failures?

Short answer: Hard no. And we need to cast that sin-leveling far out of the church and out of our minds.

We may all be Peters—hot heads who in moments of weakness deny our Lord, but then repent. But we are not Judas, who never truly believed in Jesus (John 6:64); who was called a devil and the son of destruction (John 6:70-71; 17:12); and whose heart was Satan’s tabernacle and cockpit (John 13:2, 27).

Judas was calculating and manipulative. Peter’ spirit was regenerated and wanted to obey, but he was subject to the weakness of his flesh (Mark 14:37-38), as we all are. There’s a vast gulf between a believer in Christ who fails morally to live up to the standards of Christ; and a cold-blooded, calculating predator. If church leadership is too blind or ignorant to recognize that, get new leaders.

Praxis

Bottom line, Jesus had total control over the situation with Judas: I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep … This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father (John‬ ‭10‬:‭11‬, ‭17‬-‭18‬ ‭CSB‬‬). Again, He says: Didn’t I choose you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil (John‬ ‭6‬:‭70‬ ‭CSB‬‬). Furthermore, when the authorities came to arrest Jesus, with Judas leading them, He said: Do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and he will provide me here and now with more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew‬ ‭26‬:‭53‬ ‭CSB‬‬) Moreover, He tells Pilate, who sentenced Him to death: You would have no authority over me at all … if it hadn’t been given you from above. This is why the one who handed me over to you—i.e., Judas—has the greater sin (John‬ ‭19‬:‭11‬ ‭CSB‬‬).

There is an uncrossable gulf between Jesus—the Lord of Heaven and earth—voluntarily offering His life to redeem sinners, which had been planned from eternity and foretold in the Scriptures; and trying to guilt believers now into letting their “Judas”—those who have betrayed, preyed upon, and abused them—have a seat at their table.

There simply is no correspondence between these two scenarios. None. Nada. Not even a nanogram. Zero. Zilch.

And again, I will say this: If the leaders of our churches are too blind and ignorant of the Scriptures to see and understand this, we absolutely lead new leaders. If their praxis can be so conditioned by a syrupy hashtag Jesus Juke on social media, that they will ignore sound exegesis and theology, not to mention good sense and reason; they are disqualified.