Mike’s Notes on Last Supper Texts from Great Texts of the New Testament Course
Taught by Professor William C. Strickland
(Supplemented by comments by Eduard Schweizer, Willi Marxsen, F. W. Beare, and others)
Texts:
1 Corinthians 11:23-26
Mark 14:22-25
Matthew 26:26-29
Luke 22:15-20
John 6:51-59
I. Problems:
A. Is the supper a Passover meal?
B. What is traditional and what is redactional in the accounts?
1. Can we trace the growth of the tradition?
2. What is the age of the material in the tradition?
3. What are the relationships between the various accounts?
C. Textual problems—especially in the account of Luke 22:15-20. See Eduard Schweizer, The Lord’s Supper in the NT.
D. The Johannine problem—is the account of John (Last Supper discourses, foot washing, crucifixion) more chronologically correct in certain aspects? (John has the Feeding of the Five Thousand in chapter 6 as a kind of Eucharistic/Passover setting).
E. What is the correct logical and theological interpretation of the “words of institution”?
F. How does the account of the Last Supper compare with the structure of the Passover Meal as it would have been observed in the first century CE?
G. What would have been the year of Jesus’ death? What would have been the date of the Passover in the year of Jesus Death? What would have been the date of Jesus’ death in that year—chronologies of Synoptics, John, Qumran ?
II. Major Themes:
Three theological motifs present in the Synoptic Gospels and in Paul: Eduard Schweizer (p. 1): “Four texts give an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper by Jesus: Mark 14:22 -25; Matthew 26:26-29; Luke 22:15-20, 27-30, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. In these four texts, one finds three theological motifs at work.”
A. Sacrificial Theme / Crucifixion / Remembrance—Past-time emphasis. Eduard Schweizer (pp. 1-2): “The Lord’s Supper looks back at that which has already happened. It is proclamation of the death of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 11:26 is probably to be understood in the indicative mood”: τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ton thanaton tou Kyriou katanggellete, “The death of the Lord you proclaim,’ indicates that “this death is proclaimed in the celebration itself, not just in the proclamation of the Word that accompanies and follows the celebration. It may well be that in Paul and Luke the wording of the command to repeat the supper was influenced by similar formulas used in Hellenistic meals held in memory of the dead. Yet it is out of the question to think that the Lord’s Supper was ever thought of as such a commemorative meal for the dead. The death of Jesus is proclaimed—in all four accounts, in fact—as a death that took place for the participants. That means, then, that the fruit of salvation wrought in this death is granted to those who participate in the celebration of the Supper. This death is imparted to them as a death actually suffered for them.”
1. Sin-offering/Expiation/Representative Sacrifice/Vicarious Sacrifice.
2. Memorial of Jesus’ sacrifice (Remembrance).
B. Covenant; Communion, Fellowship, Presence of Christ; the new confirmation of God’s covenant with His people (i.e., the Church): Present-time emphasis. Eduard Schweizer (p. 2): “The Lord’s Supper points to the present. Every celebration is a new confirmation of God’s covenant with His Church. In it, the Church enters into fellowship at table with the exalted Lord. In 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 Paul shows how realistically he conceives of this fellowship. However, the Synoptic Gospels are not to be understood any differently. Phrases taken from the account of the Lord’s Supper appear in the stories of the miraculous feedings. The fellowship that the Risen Lord has with His disciples in the post-resurrection meals is described in terms that strongly suggest the Lord’s Supper. And great emphasis is placed on the fact that Jesus ate in fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. This does not mean that all these other meals are to be interpreted ‘sacramentally,’ but it does mean that the Lord’s Supper may be thought of as a continuation of this fellowship of the Lord at table with His disciples. Even before Jesus came to Jerusalem 3:20 may also refer to such a fellowship of the exalted Lord with His Church in the Lord’s Supper . . . ”
1. Fellowship with the (Risen) Lord.
2. Fellowship within the Church as the Body of Christ.
3. New Covenant fellowship with God.
4. Continuation of the fellowship between Jesus and the disciples at ordinary meals and meals on special occasions as described in the Gospel accounts.
5. Incarnation of Christ; God in Christ living among believers.
C. Eschatological Themes—Future-time emphasis. Anticipation of the Messianic banquet that is to come. Also fellowship motif present here. Eduard Schweizer (p. 3): “The Lord’s Supper looks forward to the future. It is the anticipation of the messianic banquet that is to come and should therefore be celebrated in eschatological jubilation.·[Cf. Mark 14:25; Matthew 26:29; Luke 22:16, 18, 30; 1 Corinthians 11:26b] The use, in Acts 2:46, of the typical concept of eschatological ‘bliss’ ” [Greek: ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ ἀφελότητι καρδίας en agalliasei kai apheloteti kardias] “to describe the frame of mind of the early Church at the breaking of bread, makes clear how prominent this third motif was. It is unrestrained joy and songs of praise that characterize the Lord’s Supper, and not under any circumstances a funereal sobriety clothed in penitence and remorse.”
1. Eschatological joy.
2. Fellowship motif.
A. Mark (followed by Matthew):
1. Covenant: τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης to haima mou tes diathekes, “The blood of Me of the Covenant” Mark 14:24 ; Matthew 26:28 (cf. Exodus 24:8).
2. Eschatology: οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως ouketi ou me pio ek tou genematos tes ampelou heos . . . , “I shall not drink this cup again until . . . ” Mark 14:25 ; Matthew 26:29·
3. Sacrifice/sin-offering, τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν to enchunnomenon hyper pollon, “which is poured out for many”—and “for all” Mark 14:24 —for the Aramaism with inclusive idea, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν eis aphesin hamartion, “for forgiveness of sins” Matthew 26:28.
B. Paul (1 Corinthians):
1. Eschatology: Schweizer (p. 3, cf. p.18): “Paul retains only a suggestion of this motif (1 Corinthians 11:26 , ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ achri hou elthe, ‘until He comes,’ which perhaps even carries the idea, ‘in order that He may come.’ ”
2. Covenant: ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη . . . ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι he kaine diatheke . . . en to emo haimati, “New Covenant . . . in My blood” 1 Corinthians 11:25 (cf. Jeremiah 31:31). Schweizer (p. 4): “The Pauline interpretation of the tradition” . . . “is most clearly expressed in 1 Corinthians 10:17: “ . . . According to Paul, in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the Church is constituted as the one body of Christ. To Paul this is so essential that he is able to say that a celebration of the Lord’s Supper in which the community does not achieve true fellowship stands unmasked as an abuse of the Supper.”
3. Sacrifice/sin-offering: τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν touto mou estin to soma to hyper humon, “This of Me is the body, which is for you” 1 Corinthians 11:24 ; ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι en to emo haimati, “in My blood” and εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν eis ten emen anamnesin, “in remembrance of Me” 1 Corinthians 11:25 .
C. Luke:
1. Eschatology: οὐ μὴ πίω. . . ἕως. . . ou me pio . . . heos . . . , “I shall not drink it again until . . .” Luke. 22:18 ; οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως . . . ou me phago auto heos . . . , “I shall not eat it again until . . . ”; Luke 22:16 ; . . . ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου hina esthete kai pinete epi tes trapezes mou en te basilei mou, “ . . . so that you may eat and drink at My table in My Kingdom” Luke 22:30 .
2. Sacrifice/sin-offering: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον to hyper humon didomenon, “which for you is given” and εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν eis ten emen anamnesin, “in remembrance of Me” Luke 22:19 ; τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον to hyper humon enchunnomenon, “which for you is poured out” and ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου en to haimati mou, “in My blood” Luke 22:20 .
3. Covenant—the cup word ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου he kaine diatheke en to haimati mou, “The New Covenant in the blood of Me” Luke 22:20 ; cf. Jeremiah 31:31).
D. John
1. Incarnation—ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ho trogon mou ten sarka kai pinon mou to haima, “the person who eats My flesh, and who drinks My blood” John 6:54 . Schweizer [concerning John 6:51b-58] (pp. 7-9): “the evangelist probably takes up an older tradition which does not express his own view. He can accept it as the Church’s general belief and interpret it by 6:51a: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς ego eimi o artos ho zon ho ek tou ouranou katabas . . . , ‘I am the living bread that from Heaven came down.’ . . . John 6:51-58 cannot be understood apart from the entire Bread Discourse, which speaks of receiving Jesus in faith (John 6:35—and therefore there is no concept of the “medicine of immortality” idea here), and in the context of 6:63, which says, τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν, ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν to pneuma estin to zoopoioun, he sarx ouk ophelei ouden . . . , ‘It is the Spirit it is that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.’ . . . It follows, then, that according to John the Lord’s Supper witnesses to nothing other than the same offense of the full incarnation. . . . For John, however, the reference to blood and water [cf. John 13:10 ; 19:34 ] is unquestionably a reference to the Lord’s Supper and baptism. These are for him, then, the continuing signs of the reality of the incarnation.”
2. Fellowship—Feeding of Five Thousand setting in John 6.
IV. Meals of Jesus with His Disciples: Joachim Jeremias: “The meal . . . should not be isolated, but should rather be seen as one of a long series of daily meals they shared together.”
A. Marriage at Cana John 2.
B. Levi’s feast Matthew 9/Mark 2/Luke 5.
C. Feeding of 5000 Matthew 14/Mark 6/Luke 9/John 6.
D. Feeding of 4000 Matthew 15/Mark 8.
E. At Home of Zacchaeus Luke 19.
F. With Tax Collectors and Sinners Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34; 16:1.
G. At Home of Simon the Leper—Bethany Matthew 26.
H. At Home of Mary and Martha (Bethany ? Galilee ?) Luke 10.
I. At Home of Simon the Pharisee Luke 7.
J. Meals between disciples and the Risen Christ Luke 24; John 20 (upper room); John 21 (Sea of Galilee/Tiberias/Gennesaret).
K. Meals in Early Church in the Book of Acts (2:42 , 46; 20: 7; 27:35 f.; cf. Luke 24:30-31, 35).
V. Liturgical Form of the Accounts—Derived from Hellenistic concepts, as in the Mystery Religions?
A. Idea of memorial—a funeral meal, a departure meal
B. Idea of sacrifice—eating flesh, drinking blood of animals
C. Person celebrates his death before he dies (i.e., Socrates).
VI. Facts common to the accounts:
A. Jesus participated in a meal (character unknown).
B. The texts interpret the meaning of Jesus’ death [and resurrection].
C. The accounts are subjective (confessional) reports.
D. Three emphases—sacrifice/sin-offering, covenant/communion, eschatology—appear in all the reports.
A. Bultmann’s view—the original emphasis is neither covenant nor representative sin offering.
1. [MJW note: somehow I missed this point]
2. Justin Martyr: tou/to, evsti to. sw/ma, mou . . . tou/to, evsti to. ai-ma, mou touti esti to soma mou . . . touto esti to haima mou, “This is the body of Me; . . . this is the blood of Me” (Apology I:66:3).
B. Jeremias’ view—original emphasis is representative sin-offering (see Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus) because:
1. There are Aramaisms in Mark.
2. But Paul’s account is earlier than that of Mark.
C. Eduard Schweizer’s view—original emphasis is covenant;
1. No need for parallelisms, since a meal separated the bread and the cup words.
2. Bread—This is Myself—Jesus’ Presence.
3. Cup—This is the Covenant in My blood (which makes the Presence possible).
D. Lietzmann’s view: Earliest emphasis is eschatology.
VIII. The Development of the Words of Institution
A. The Bread Word (cf. Exodus 16:15b LXX οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος ὃν ἔδωκεν κύριος ὑμῖν φαγεῖν houtos ho artos hon edoken Kyrios humin phagein, It [is] the bread that [the] LORD gave you to eat):
1. Mark 14:22 : λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου labete, touto estin to soma mou, Take; this is the body of Me.
2. Matthew 26:26: λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου labete, phagete, touto estin to soma mouÅ Take, eat, this is the body of Me.
3. Paul 1 Corinthians 11:24: τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν touto mou estin to soma to hyper humon. Touto poieite eis ten emen anamnesin. This of Me is the body which is for you. This do for My remembrance.
4. Luke22:19: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον·τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν touto estin to soma mou to hyper humon didomenon. Toto poieite eis ten emen anamnesin, This is the body of Me which for you is given. This do for My remembrance.
B. The Cup word—Mark and Matthew (cf. Exodus 24:8 LXX ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς διέθετο κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς idou to haima tes diathekes hes dietheto Kyrios pros humas, Behold, the blood of the Covenant that (the) LORD made with you; Paul and Luke (cf. Jeremiah 31:31(38) ff. LXX ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν idou hemerai ercontai phesin Kyrios kai diathesomai to oiko Israel kai to oiko Iouda diatheken kainen) . . . , Behold (the) days are coming when (the) LORD will covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a Covenant, a New one. . . : ):
1. Mark 14:24 : τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν touto estin to haima mou tes diathekes to enchunnomenon hyper pollonÅ This is the blood of Me of the Covenant, which is poured out for [the] many [ = all]. Exodus 24:8.
2. Matthew 26:27b-28: πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν piete ex autou pantes, touto gar estin to peri pollon enchunnomenon eis aphesin hamartionÅ Drink from it all of you. For this indeed is the blood of Me of the Covenant, which is being poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Exodus 24:8.
3. Paul 1 Corinthians 11:25: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo haimati. Touto poieite, hosakis ean pinete, eis ten emen anamnesin. This cup the New Covenant is, in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it for My remembrance. Jeremiah 31:31.
4. Luke 22:20: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον touto to poterion he kaine diatheke en to haimati mou to hyper humon enchunnomenon. This cup (is) the New Covenant in the blood of Me, which for you is poured out. Jeremiah 31:31.
IX. The History of the transmission of the tradition and the development of the words of institution:
A. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) Sources: Exodus 16:15; Exodus 24:8; Jeremiah 31:31 ff.
B. The tradition was formed in the primitive Church.
C. The Last Supper meal was turned into a “Lord’s Supper” rather than a Passover meal; otherwise, it would have been observed annually, instead of weekly.
D. Analogy to contemporary meals at Qumran , or possibly to contemporary Jewish practices.
E. The Church attributed the words to Jesus because of what the words taught about Him.
F. The additions to Mark in Matthew’s text have resulted from the liturgical use of the text in the Church.
1. The change from narrative style in Mark: καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες kai epion ex autou pantes, “they drank from it, all of them” Mark 14:23 to a command of Jesus: πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες piete ex autou pantes( “Drink from it, all of you” Matthew 26:27.
2. The invitation/command φάγετε phagete( “eat” in Mattthew 26:26.
3. The additional phrase at the end, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν eis aphesin hamartion, “for the forgiveness of sins” Matthew 26:28.
G. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:24 , 25, adds a command to repeat the supper: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, . . . τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν touto poieite eis ten emen anamnesin . . . touto poieite, hosakis ean pinete, eis ten emen anamnesin, “This do for My remembrance . . . This do, as often as you drink it for My remembrance.”
H. Luke polishes the style of Paul’s bread saying by adding to τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν to hyper humon, “which is for you” the word διδόμενον didomenon, “given” Luke 22:19 . And he lengthens Paul’s cup saying with the grammatically incorrect (in Aramaic) phrase, ἐκχυννόμενον enchunnomenon, “which for you is being poured out” Luke 22:20 .
H. The Pauline phrase, τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν touto mou estin to soma to hyper humon, “the body of Me which is for you” cannot be expressed in Jesus’ native Aramaic language. and the Markan phrase τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης to haima mou tes diathekes, “the blood of Me of the covenant” is likewise impossible in Jesus’ native Aramaic. Therefore:
1. The original Aramaic form of the bread and cup saying must have contained:
(1) Only the concept of the covenant: τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, . . . τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι touto mou estin to soma, . . . touto to poterion he kaine diatheke estin en to emo haimati, This is My body . . . This cup the New Covenant is, in My blood (cf. Jeremiah 31:31); OR
(2) Only the concept of the atonement: λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου . . . τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν labete, touto estin to soma mou . . . touto estin to haima mou tes diathekes to enchunnomenon hyper pollon, Take, this is the body of Me. . . This is the blood of Me of the covenant which is being poured out for [the] many ( = all) (cf. Exodus 24:8); OR
(3) Neither of these concepts, as in Justin Martyr, tou/to, evsti to. sw/ma, mou . . . tou/to, evsti to. ai-ma, mou touto esti to soma mou . . . touto esti to haima mou, “This is the body of Me. . . This is the blood of Me.” (Apology I:66:3)
I. Strickland (following Schweizer) prefers the Pauline tradition, which retains the phrase, μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι meta to deipnesai, “after supper” (1 Corinthians 11:25 ) and thereby preserves a reminiscence of the earliest sequence of the supper.
For Schweizer the decisive question is: How could the neat parallelism of the Marcan sayings have later been upset in favor of the non-parallel structure of Paul. The rule is that, in the course of liturgical practice, parallelism becomes more pronounced, not less. It was only after the sayings were placed side-by-side at the end of a meal, or apart from a meal, strictly as a liturgical act, that the lack of parallelism became apparent, thereby giving rise to the parallel form in Mark.
The change of the original word διαθήκη diatheke, “Covenant” for the cup to the word αἷμά haima,, “blood” for the contents of the cup might also indicate:
1. The change was made in Hellenistic Christian circles; OR,
2. It was changed in a Jewish community, hostile to Christianity, to make Christianity, with its emphasis on drinking blood, to appear horrible:
3. The Christian emphasis was that the shedding of blood was necessary to Jesus’ sacrifice—this is a sacramental interpretation. Cf. John 6:51b-58.
X. Chronological references in the texts of the Passion:
A. Mark 15:42
B. John 19:12 f., 14
C. Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18
D. Exodus 12:6
XI. Was the Lord’s Supper a Passover Meal?
A. Yes, according to Jeremias and others, because:
1. The arrest and trial during Passover season were in fact allowed in certain special cases under Jewish law.
2. Luke eliminates all inconsistencies with a Passover interpretation.
3. Mark 14:26 —the hymn of praise at the end of the meal—was a part of the Passover celebration.
4. Luke 22:15— ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν·epithumia epethumesa touto to pascha phagein meth’ humon pro tou me pathein . . . should be interpreted: “I have earnestly desired this Passover to eat with you before My suffering . . . ” and will now do so.
5. Jesus stayed in the city limits of Jerusalem
6. The meal was held at night (i .e., after sunset), as required for Passover meals, not in the late afternoon, as was customary for ordinary meals.
B. No, according to Schweizer and others, because:
1. No text in Mark or Matthew except the construction in Mark 14:12 16 (see 2 below) suggests the Passover meal was being observed. Luke 22:15 ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν· epithumia epethumesa touto to pascha phagein meth’ humon pro tou me pathein . . . simply means that (although) “I have earnestly desired this Passover to eat with you before My suffering. . . ,” I will not do so. Mark 14:22-25 and parallels contain no explicit reference to the Passover ritual.
2. Strickland: “The preparation scene (Aland, section 308; Gospel Parallels, Section 234: Matthew 27:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-11, 13) appears to have been created by Mark in order to introduce the next scene. It may be the later (Greek) source of at least two sources Mark uses in the Passion Narrative.” (?) [MJW note: not sure I quoted Strickland accurately here. Is he saying something similar to Beare below? Perhaps he was.]
3. Beare: “The time-note is inexact, in that the day on which they sacrificed the Paschal lamb was not the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, but the day preceding. Matthew has omitted the Marcan phrase, ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον hote to pascha ethuon( ‘when the Paschal lamb they sacrificed,’ probably because he found the juxtaposition of the two phrases intolerable; but he still retains the notion that a Passover supper was being prepared. This involves a conflict in chronology with that which is presupposed in Mark 14:2 (Matthew 26:5) and reflects the transition to a different source at this point; it will be noted that in place of (εἷς τῶν) δώδεκα (eis ton) dodeka, ‘(one of) the Twelve’ of the preceding passage (Mark 14:10), we now have, οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ·hoi mathetai autou, ‘the disciples of Him’ (Mark 14:12). This is one of the clues that have led W. L. Knox (after E. Meyer) to distinguish the ‘Disciples-source’ from the ‘Twelve-source.’ But the story itself is legendary. Apart from this one section, nothing in Mark or Matthew would lead us to think that the Last Supper was a Passover meal; and in the Fourth Gospel it is explicitly laid on the evening before the Passover. Luke alone among the Gospel writers has consistently eliminated all that would be inconsistent with the Passover rite.”
4. The last supper’s description is inconsistent with the Passover ritual:
(a) There is no reference to the lamb and the bitter herbs.
(b) Normally the bread is broken, then blessed at Passover; here we have the reverse.
(c) No women were present [at least, none mentioned], as would usually have been the case at a Passover meal.
(d) A guest, not the host, usually blesses the cup at Passover observances.
(e) The words of interpretation for Passover are not the same ones used here; the lamb and the bitter herbs are supposed to be interpreted at Passover, but are not interpreted here. Here Jesus announces His impending death by speaking “words of interpretation” over the bread and wine. Why? Because interpretation of the elements is a fixed part of the Passover meal. And structurally (the form of His words) He modeled his sayings on the ritual of interpreting the Passover. The difference is that a Passover interpretation is based on salvation events in the past; but Jesus’ words concern salvation events in the future.
5. Testimony of John’s Gospel that the meal took place the night before the Passover. The Sanhedrin were hoping to arrest Jesus, μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ me en te heorte, “but not during the feast” (Mark 14:2; Matthew 26:5). In John the Jews at the trial are still planning to eat the Passover (John 18:18 ) that same evening. The day of crucifixion was not only the day of παρασκευὴ paraskeue, “Preparation” for the Sabbath, but also for the Passover (John 19:14 ), and this is further emphasized by saying, ἦν γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου en gar megale he hemera ekeinou tou sabbatou, “Indeed, a great day was that Sabbath” (John 19:31 ). John’s dating makes the crucifixion take place at the time the lambs were being slaughtered, because in John’s view Jesus was ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου ho amnos tou theou ho airon ten hamartian tou kosmou, “the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
John’s version of the Lord’s Supper (John 6) with its Bread of Life discourse, which suggests the Bread word at the last supper, took place at Passover time (John 6:4).
6. The dating follows the Roman calendar. [MJW Note: Not sure at this time why this is important. Perhaps the reference was to the possibility that one or more of the evangelists was using a different calendar. A. Jaubert had suggested John might have been following the calendar of Qumran , but that suggestion has not gained much scholarly support].
[Schweizer, Gospel of Mark, p. 294: “Furthermore, the statement τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων te prote hemera ton azumon, ‘on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread’ (cf. 14:1) would be correct for Greeks and Romans, for whom the day began in the morning, but the day began at sunset for the Jews. This applied also in the case of the Passover and the Week of Unleavened Bread, so that one would have to say, ‘on the day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread.’ It may be nothing more than an inaccurate statement, since this calculation is found occasionally in Jewish writings.”]
7. Paul’s hint in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that Jesus was actually crucified and died on Passover as the Passover lamb, while the lambs were being slaughtered (in agreement with John); John’s Gospel also suggests this interpretation. [MJW Note: But is the original chronology altered by John to promote this interpretation, or do these texts reflect an accurate tradition about the chronology that was altered by Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, in the interest of a different theology?]
Many events reported could not occur during the Passover and the morning following, because, as the first day of the feast, it had the character of a Sabbath:
(a) Bearing of arms by the Temple
(b) Arrest was possible during the Passover, but a trial at that time would not be likely. Meeting of the Sanhedrin and the condemnation of Jesus would be unlawful, as would the participation of Jews in a Roman court session.
(c) The description of Simon of Cyrene as ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ/ erchomenon ap’ agrou, “coming in from the fields” on the morning of the Crucifixion (as an observant Jew he should have been saying in Jerusalem ) (Mark 15:21 ).
(d) Execution of Jesus on a Feast day.
(e) Purchase and preparation of burial materials on a Sabbath.
8. Repeated celebrations (weekly) rather than annual celebrations of the supper became common in the Church.
C. “Theologically,” according to Schweizer (pp. 31-32), “the question appears to be unimportant [?!] since a meal held on the eve of the Passover could have taken up all the ideas of the impending celebration, and conversely, a Passover meal could have received a completely new character from Jesus. An inherent relationship between the Last Supper and the Passover tradition may be possible, but it is by no means obvious. . . . ” Regardless of chronology, “the identification of Jesus with the Paschal lamb was implied as soon as His death was interpreted as a sacrificial one, whether the last meal occurred on the Passover or on the Day of Preparation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment