Brett A. Todd
We’ve already discussed how early Christians recalculated and reinterpreted many of the words and teachings of Jesus when they realized Jesus was not returning as soon as they had thought. One of those teachings is what modern Christians call Holy Communion, the Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper. This recalculating and reinterpreting should not surprise anyone since the Lord’s Supper is historically enshrined in the apocalyptic teachings of Jesus and God’s Kingdom here on earth. This is clearly seen in the words of Jesus following their last meal together, “I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:19).
As already mentioned in previous articles, Mark was the first written Gospel, and Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel to create their own gospels, by adding and subtracting from Mark's stories. We may ask then, what are the key differences between Mark’s story of the “Lord’s Supper” and that of Matthew and Luke?
Matthew seemed content to follow Mark’s storyline while Luke changed it up a bit by adding or adopting the words, “This cup which is poured out for you is the NEW covenant of my blood” [Emphasis added]. For Luke, it seemed important to let his Gentile readers know and understand that this Jewish Passover meal was now converted into a new Jesus meal (The Lord’s Supper) and a new covenant made specifically for the gentile people. However, for Matthew and Mark, this meal was simply a Jewish Passover meal in which Jesus had become the sacrificial lamb (Mark 14:12) and fulfilled the old covenant. Remember once again, Luke was writing to the Gentiles while Matthew was writing to the Jews. To be sure, it should not surprise anyone that Matthew would keep the Passover meal while Luke added or adopted a new twist by instituting a new meal for the Gentiles.
Perhaps most striking are Luke’s words “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Both Matthew and Mark simply say, “he broke the bread…” and “and he took the cup…”, but neither says anything about doing this in remembrance of Jesus. We might ask then, why would Luke add these words? It is clear both Matthew and Mark were content with the Passover theme story reinterpreted in light of Jesus' death and resurrection. Luke, on the other hand, decided to add or adopt something new. Instead of keeping the Passover theme, he added or adopted a new ritual celebration for the Gentiles, and he knew this. Basically for Luke, the Jews could keep their old Passover meal while he and his Gentile Christians would celebrate the new covenant and new Jesus meal (Lord’s Supper). In other words, Luke instituted in his gospel a new Jesus meal to replace the Jewish Passover meal. The Apostle Paul seems to have followed this same new method (1 Cor. 11:23-25).
One might be more accurate to follow Michelangelo in calling this Passover meal found in the gospels, “The Last Supper”. It was the last Passover meal Jesus celebrated with his disciples just before his crucifixion. Though it is true some Christians, early on, began celebrating the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46), it does not appear this was Matthew or Mark’s intention at all. For them, this was their last Passover meal with Jesus and possibly, “if the Lord should return”, their last Passover meal as well. In the words of Jesus, “I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”
We might ask how this affects our practice of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist)? Like so many of the teachings of the church, the Lord’s Supper developed into what it is today, over hundreds of years.
The church and what it believes is in a constant motion of beautiful change. The church is not a stagnant theological thesis, rather, it is a living spiritual organism in which the divine is present.
In our next study, we will see what the Bible teaches about the Trinity, once again, from a literary and historical perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment